This year’s general election saw 335 new MPs elected to the House of Commons. Parliament has thus seen a large number of so-called ‘maiden speeches’, with many more still to come. In this post, Tom Fleming discusses maiden speeches’ potential benefits and downsides, and whether parliament could use its limited time more effectively. 

As parliament returns for its September sitting, we can expect to hear plenty more ‘maiden speeches’: the first speech by each newly-elected MP. These were very prominent in the short July sitting after the general election, given that over half of all MPs are new to the House. This blogpost explores the benefits and downsides of these speeches, and asks whether – and how – limited parliamentary time could be used more effectively. 

What are maiden speeches? 

An MP’s first speech in the House of Commons after they are elected is generally known as a maiden speech. As set out in the MPs’ Guide to Procedure, such speeches are supposed to be relatively brief and uncontroversial, and relevant to the subject under debate. It is also conventional for MPs to talk about their constituency, and to pay tribute to its previous MP. These speeches are usually given some priority in debates, and other MPs may not intervene during them. MPs have traditionally not spoken in the Commons chamber in any way (such as asking questions) until after their maiden speech, but – as with the content of the speech – they are free to disregard this convention. 

The maiden speeches given so far in this parliament have thus typically followed a fairly standard pattern, with MPs combining praise for their predecessor(s) and a tour of their constituency’s key features and history (with references stretching from William Gladstone to Paul Gascoigne). Many MPs have also discussed their own background and political priorities, highlighting the issues they hope to address in their new role. 

According to the House of Commons Library, 139 MPs gave their maiden speeches before the summer recess. This includes a number of new Labour MPs who have already been appointed as junior ministers or government whips, but who chose to still make a maiden speech from the backbenches. Given that there are 335 new MPs in total, of whom three are Sinn Féin MPs who will not take their seats, there could be as many as 193 further maiden speeches to come.  

Benefits of maiden speeches 

The conventional approach to maiden speeches has a number of potential benefits for new MPs and for the wider political system. 

• First, the maiden speech may provide new MPs with a gentle introduction to speaking in the chamber. For many of them, debating in the House of Commons will be unlike anything they have done in their prior professional lives. The conventions around maiden speeches might help to ease them into their new role by encouraging them to avoid controversy and allowing them to be heard without any interruptions or interventions. 

• Second, new MPs clearly value the opportunity to lavish praise on their constituency, with speeches often naming local schools, universities, sports teams, and other organisations. They can also use their speech to highlight an issue that is particularly salient in their constituency. For a newly-minted parliamentarian keen to boost their profile, this kind of maiden speech provides a reliable route to some local press coverage. 

• Third, encouraging MPs to pay tribute to their predecessor may contribute to the civility of our political discourse. Some will have taken over from a retiring colleague in the same party, but many will be replacing an MP from a different party, and – if their predecessor stood for re-election – will have been campaigning against them for weeks, months, or even years. Maiden speeches therefore offer an opportunity for MPs to show respect for their political opponents, in a similar manner to victory and concession speeches on election night. 

Could parliamentary time be used more effectively? 

Despite these potential benefits, we might reasonably ask whether these speeches are the best use of parliament’s limited time. 

This is a pertinent concern for two reasons. First, the very large number of new MPs at this election has meant a correspondingly large number of maiden speeches, with them being a prominent feature of Commons debates since the election. Second, many of these speeches seem to have interpreted the expectation that they ‘relate in some way to the subject of the debate’ fairly loosely, often including only passing references to the motion that MPs are actually discussing.  

This raises the risk that maiden speeches – particularly after a high turnover election – reduce the time available for genuine discussion of the serious matters before parliament. This might not be an issue if the Commons were only debating fairly general motions which do not lead to a particular policy decision. But while this has been true for some debates since the election, MPs have also already been asked to debate and approve various substantive propositions.  

Table 1 illustrates this by showing how the 139 maiden speeches in the July sitting were spread across different kinds of business. This shows that many of them were in broad debates which were not deciding on a particular detailed proposal: 68 came across five days of debate on the King’s Speech,  while 32 others came in two ‘general debates’ on education and on energy.  

Table 1. Maiden speeches in the July sitting
Debate type (number)	Speeches
King’s Speech (5)	68
General debates (2)	32
Second reading debates (2)	26
House business (1)	12
Secondary legislation (1)	1
Total	139

However, 26 maiden speeches were made in the second reading debates on two major pieces of government legislation: the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, and the Budget Responsibility Bill. Moreover, taking the first of these as an example, there are signs that maiden speeches did crowd out genuine discussion of an important piece of legislation. Beyond the opening and winding-up speeches from the three largest parties’ front benches, there were 24 other speeches (excluding interventions). Of those, 13 were maiden speeches, most of which contained at best only incidental mentions of the legislation being considered by the House. 

This pattern was even starker in an earlier debate on proposals to curb MPs’ outside employment, and to establish a new ‘Modernisation Committee’ investigating Commons procedures, standards, and working practices. Aside from the three main parties’ opening and closing speeches, this debate consisted of 18 other speeches, of which 12 were maiden speeches. Again, most of these made only passing reference to the motion before MPs. Moreover, midway through the debate, the Deputy Speaker imposed a six-minute time limit on any remaining speeches, but explained that maiden speeches would be exempt. In other words, relevant speeches were curtailed while largely irrelevant speeches were not. There was thus relatively little genuine discussion of the motions on which the Commons would be voting, and some important aspects of the government’s proposals went almost entirely undebated. 

This tension between making time for maiden speeches and ensuring thorough discussion of business may become more acute in the autumn, as the government seeks to make progress on its large legislative programme. In their first week back after the summer recess, MPs will have a general debate today, but the main business on the following three days will be consideration of three different bills. The costs of spending time on maiden speeches at the expense of detailed scrutiny and debate may then become more serious, and more apparent. 

Potential reforms 

Parliamentary time is a finite resource. It should be allocated carefully to ensure that MPs have adequate time to hold ministers accountable through questions and statements, scrutinise proposed legislation, and debate issues of importance to the opposition and backbenchers. But in their current form, maiden speeches reduce the time available for the Commons to perform these important functions. This could be addressed in a number of different ways. 

1. The most radical option would be to simply dispense with any expectation that MPs make a distinct ‘maiden’ speech. Instead, MPs could be encouraged to just start their first speech with very brief thanks to their predecessor and their voters, before addressing the substance of whatever motion the House is meant to be debating.  

2. As a smaller change, the Commons might keep its existing conventions, but with a stricter expectation that maiden speeches should – while still containing the usual elements – be relevant to the topic under debate. This might also mean relaxing the expectation that they should be uncontroversial, to ensure MPs can offer a genuine view on the issue under debate. 

3. Alternatively, the House could make no alteration to the expected content of maiden speeches, but could create bespoke time for them to be made in. This could be done by scheduling more general debates that do not relate to a substantive policy or procedural proposals. These could even be explicitly assigned to maiden speeches, rather than any particular topic. This would still use up the same amount of parliamentary time. But it would draw a clearer separation between occasions for new MPs to introduce themselves, and occasions for the Commons to debate and decide substantive questions with real consequences. 

Realistically, it is too late for the House to adopt a change of approach for the remaining maiden speeches of the 2024 intake. But MPs might still look ahead to future maiden speeches and ask whether the current conventions make the most effective use of parliament’s scarce time. 

About the author 

Tom Fleming is a Lecturer in British and Comparative Politics at UCL. He is currently leading the Constitution Unit’s ESRC-funded project ‘The Politics of Parliamentary Procedure’.  

Featured image: Carla Denyer MP (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK Parliament.