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
Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll