header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 March 2020 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7879 / Categories: Features , Public , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Maiden speeches: an unnecessary distraction?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
17921
Neil Parpworth believes maiden speeches in the House of Commons in their current form are an extravagance which ought to come to an end

As a result of the 12 December 2019 General Election, 140 new MPs were elected to the House of Commons. This was rather more than in 2017 (87 new MPs), but less than in 2015 (177 new MPs). Provided that a new MP takes the oath or affirmation, they are able to participate in parliamentary proceedings and will have the opportunity in due course to deliver a ‘maiden speech’. In the House of Commons briefing note ‘Maiden Speeches: guidance for new Members’ (December 2019), it is stated that this “will be an important personal moment and a significant event in your parliamentary career”, such that a specially printed copy of the speech can be obtained from Hansard. It is open to question, however, whether this long-established tradition ought to be allowed to continue in the 21st century House of Commons.

Making a maiden speech

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Read All
‘Lost years’ precedent overturned
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
NLJ this week: Short lets & sharp covenants
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
NLJ this week: Justice at the algorithm’s edge
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
NLJ this week: Neutral counsel in a polarised age
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
NLJ this week: When ‘milk’ really means milk
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll