Proceeding contribution from Jack Straw (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 15 May 2007. It occurred during Opposition day on Armed Conflict (Parliamentary Approval).
Armed Conflict (Parliamentary Approval)
Indeed. It seems as though the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee are moving in that direction. We are certainly proposing to change the title ““Adjournment debate””; it is ludicrous and outdated and even in the House no one can understand why we move to go home and then spend six hours discussing not whether we are going home but issues of major importance. The Government have tried to make better use of substantive motions for subject debates as well as for debates on specific issues. Of course, judgments have to be made; for example sometimes—as I have done myself—in foreign policy areas it is better for there to be open debate without a specific resolution, as sometimes there may be, too, in respect of reviewing the progress of military action. Finally, it is always open to the Opposition to table a substantive motion, although neither Opposition has tried to do so in respect of military action during my 28 years in this place.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 460 c501
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Accountability Armed forces Armed conflict Parliamentary procedure Parliamentary scrutiny Ministers Royal prerogative
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:30:49 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_396833
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_396833
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_396833