Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.

Donate to our crowdfunder

Results 141–160 of 1477 for speaker:Lord Maples

Written Answers — Defence: Armed Forces: Horses (21 Feb 2007)

John Maples: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many horses the Royal Navy owns; and what the total estimated cost is of keeping them; (2) how many horses are stabled at the Royal Navy's expense but not owned by them; and what the total annual cost was in 2005-06.

Deferred Divisions: Legislative Process (1 Nov 2006)

John Maples: I think that those who discussed the sub judice question during the debate agreed that we would like to see how the system works from now on and whether it will be necessary to revisit it. Can the Leader of the House devise a way for him to be kept informed when questions or issues in Select Committees or elsewhere are ruled out of order as sub judice? Perhaps in a year's time we could look...

Business of the House: Legislative Process (1 Nov 2006)

John Maples: That is the most extraordinary speech that I have heard in the House. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) protests far too much. What appears to be the wholesale abuse of the postage allowance by some Members is wrong. I have been here for some time, and my understanding—perhaps it is incorrect—has always been that we are not allowed to use the franked postage system to send out...

Business of the House: Legislative Process (1 Nov 2006)

John Maples: Well, the hon. Gentleman worked out that people who were spending £25,000 a year on postage were sending out 600 letters a day. I cannot believe that all those letters were individually signed, and if they were not, they were circulars. It is expenses more than anything else that brings us into public disrepute, which is a reason why the communications allowance should be stopped quickly....

Business of the House: Legislative Process (1 Nov 2006)

John Maples: I expect that the hon. Member for Hendon will deduce from that that he ought to be sending out 2,600 letters a day.

Business of the House: Legislative Process (1 Nov 2006)

John Maples: The hon. Gentleman tempts me again. He said earlier that he thought that the amount that people spent depended on their generation in Parliament and that those who were elected relatively recently, such as him, spent more than those who came in a long time ago, such as me. I suspect that the correlation is with the marginality of people's seats and that it has nothing to do with how long they...

Business of the House: Legislative Process (1 Nov 2006)

John Maples: I appreciate that point, which was why I said that the limit should be 20 minutes, plus interventions. However, there must be some self-denying ordinance on Front-Bench spokesmen. They make speeches about how Back Benchers should have more time, but then occupy the time themselves. If Back Benchers are to be restricted to three, five, or eight minutes, Front-Bench spokesmen should also be...

Business of the House: Legislative Process (1 Nov 2006)

John Maples: No, I want to move on—[Hon. Members: "Give way!"] The hon. Gentleman will get to make his own speech.

Business of the House: Legislative Process (1 Nov 2006)

John Maples: I will check the record. I was present, and I seem to remember the speech going on for much longer than that. I wanted to speak about the sub judice rule, which is a highly technical piece of parliamentary procedure that I had not come across until I ran into it about two years ago. The case is no longer sub judice so I can mention it. The Foreign Affairs Committee heard evidence from two...

Business of the House: Legislative Process (1 Nov 2006)

John Maples: I shall give way in a moment, as I know that the hon. Lady has been involved in the matter as well. If we had sought in our report to say that the people who had brought the action against Saudi Arabia were right, I can see that that would be treading on the judiciary's turf. We do not want the judiciary on our turf, so in general we should stay off its turf. But that must be done around the...

Business of the House: Legislative Process (1 Nov 2006)

John Maples: The case in which the hon. Lady was involved has been mentioned in the debate and she may wish to check what was said. I am grateful for her support. I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has left. I have discovered that the sub judice rule does not apply to cases once they have been taken to the European Court of Human Rights or the European Court of Justice. I am sure...

Business of the House: Legislative Process (1 Nov 2006)

John Maples: I thought that I had already said that I can see two reasons for the sub judice rule. First, it avoids us appearing to prejudice a court's decision, and, secondly, it prevents us from getting on to the courts' turf at all. The comity point—the obligation not to comment on things that are rightfully the business of a court while proceedings are under way—should be more narrowly defined,...

Business of the House: Legislative Process (1 Nov 2006)

John Maples: It would be inappropriate to share with the House any discussions that I have had with the Speaker, but it had occurred to me that that was my first port of call before my right hon. Friend suggested it. I made representations to the Procedure Committee when it was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. In fact, we discussed the issue, and he explained the reasons for the...

Business of the House: Legislative Process (1 Nov 2006)

John Maples: On discretion, the Order of the House regarding sub judice restricts Mr. Speaker's discretion to a case that "concerns issues of national importance such as the economy, public order or the essential services". In the recommendations of my right hon. Friend's Committee, it is simply said that the phrase "national importance" in the resolution should be interpreted reasonably. Why, in view of...

Business of the House: Legislative Process (1 Nov 2006)

John Maples: rose—

Business of the House: Legislative Process (1 Nov 2006)

John Maples: It would help us considerably if we had some idea of what sort of figure the right hon. Gentleman envisages. Are we talking about £5,000 or £20,000? The total amount of our allowances is a matter of great public concern, and there is a wide disparity in the total amounts spent by different hon. Members. What amount are we talking about?

Opposition Day: [Un-allotted Half-Day] — Iraq (31 Oct 2006)

John Maples: The Foreign Secretary prayed in aid the Select Committee's report. I was a member of that Committee, and I have to say to her that her predecessor and the Government obstructed the Committee's proceedings at every stage possible, refusing to produce witnesses and documents.

Oral Answers to Questions — Defence: Climate Change (30 Oct 2006)

John Maples: I think that we are all agreed on the seriousness of the problem, and the debate is shifting to some difficult questions about what one does about it. The Secretary of State has acknowledged that the problem is global, which means that nothing we do in this country—although it may make us feel good—will actually solve the problem if others do not act. That leads to many conclusions, but...

Written Answers — Deputy Prime Minister: Overseas Visits (30 Oct 2006)

John Maples: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister who is accompanying him at public expense on his forthcoming trip to the Far East; how he will travel on each part of the journey; what the estimated cost is to public funds of the trip for all those travelling; whether he will be entertained at any stage by an (a) private individual and (b) organisation in connection with his official duties; and what the...

Written Answers — Defence: Body Armour (2 Oct 2006)

John Maples: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether all serving military personnel in (a) Iraq and (b) Afghanistan are provided with body armour which protects vital organs in addition to the heart; and whether soldiers being sent to each country will be issued with the old body armour which protects the heart only.


<< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>

Create an alert

Did you find what you were looking for?

Advanced search

Find this exact word or phrase

You can also do this from the main search box by putting exact words in quotes: like "cycling" or "hutton report"

By default, we show words related to your search term, like “cycle” and “cycles” in a search for cycling. Putting the word in quotes, like "cycling", will stop this.

Excluding these words

You can also do this from the main search box by putting a minus sign before words you don’t want: like hunting -fox

We also support a bunch of boolean search modifiers, like AND and NEAR, for precise searching.

Date range

to

You can give a start date, an end date, or both to restrict results to a particular date range. A missing end date implies the current date, and a missing start date implies the oldest date we have in the system. Dates can be entered in any format you wish, e.g. 3rd March 2007 or 17/10/1989

Person

Enter a name here to restrict results to contributions only by that person.

Section

Restrict results to a particular parliament or assembly that we cover (e.g. the Scottish Parliament), or a particular type of data within an institution, such as Commons Written Answers.

Column

If you know the actual Hansard column number of the information you are interested in (perhaps you’re looking up a paper reference), you can restrict results to that; you can also use column:123 in the main search box.