Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Maples (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 1 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on Legislative Process.


Legislative Process

It would be inappropriate to share with the House any discussions that I have had with the Speaker, but it had occurred to me that that was my first port of call before my right hon. Friend suggested it. I made representations to the Procedure Committee when it was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. In fact, we discussed the issue, and he explained the reasons for the Committee’s conclusions. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Perhaps the proposal will work, and Members will not experience problems, but at least the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and I have been able to share with the House the fact that we have run into problems with the sub judice rule. That should not be the case—we cannot do our job properly as Members of Parliament if we encounter a rule that is subject to wide interpretation. If that interpretation continues, and the Speaker believes that it is not in his discretion to allow us to pursue such matters, the House must return to the sub judice resolution and amend it to restrict its scope and allow Members to do their job properly.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
451 c367 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Debates Legislative process House of Commons Public bills Members Parliamentary procedure Parliamentary scrutiny Public participation Modernisation Reform Select committees Allocation of time motions European standing committees Standing committees Sub judice rule Standing orders Time limits on speeches
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk