Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Jack Straw (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 1 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on Legislative Process.


Legislative Process

I understand that that is the crux of the matter, and it is why I strongly supported September sittings when they were first proposed. However, they did not work out as intended. Other factors have intervened, including the party conferences. Furthermore, I was determined that the House should decide the matter on a free vote and that it should not be imposed by the Government, so I hope that my hon. Friend will concede that point. It is important to establish that principle. I promise that before the end of this Parliament the Modernisation Committee will review progress and the further experience of not sitting in September and will make any further recommendations that it deems fit. Two matters gave rise to rather more debate than I thought they would. The first was in respect of coroners proceedings and the sub judice rule. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) for their remarks and to the Procedure Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). These matters are tricky, because we do not want to pre-empt or prejudice court proceedings, but I accept what the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said: there is a real difference between civil and criminal proceedings. I also accept the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North that delays can sometimes be unconscionable and mean that a Member who is desperate properly to represent the concerns of his or her constituent is unable to do so in the very place designed for that purpose—the House of Commons. My hon. Friend asked how the new rules will work. They will be a matter for the Chair, operating under the new Standing Orders and the guidance proposed by the Table Office. However, as I said in the explanatory memorandum,"““delay in inquest proceedings should be a factor for the Speaker in deciding whether to exercise his discretion””." I know that Mr. Speaker was listening with care to my hon. Friend, as was I, and I shall certainly pursue the matter on her behalf.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
451 c402-3 
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