header-logo header-logo

09 August 2024 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 8083 / Categories: Opinion , Public , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Point of order

185057
Neil Parpworth on why maiden speeches in the House of Commons are a continuing unnecessary distraction

The principal point to note about the 4 July 2024 general election result was, of course, the scale of the Labour Party’s victory at the polls, in terms of the number of seats won. Few would have predicted back in mid-December 2019, when the last general election was held, that the political pendulum would swing so far from right to left in such a short space of time.

A further point, which has also received media attention, is that more than half of the 650 members of the House of Commons are new to Parliament. While some change was inevitable, given that more than 100 sitting MPs chose not to stand in the election, the scale of the change is far greater than in 2015, for example, when 177 new MPs were elected. This influx of new faces has meant that already, maiden speeches are consuming a precious commodity: parliamentary time.

The opportunity

Erskine May is

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll