Speeches (Time Limit) (Hansard, 15 May 1978)

§ 26. Mr. David Price
asked the Lord President of the Council if he will consider proposing to the House that for an experimental period a time limit should be imposed on speeches in the Chamber.

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot)
No, Sir.

§ Mr. Price
Does the Leader of the House recall the old wisdom—that there is no need for a speech to be eternal to be immortal? As voluntary efforts to shorten the length of speeches in this House have not been very successful, especially among Front Bench speakers and Back Bench Privy Councillors, has not the time come to try compulsion?

§ Mr. Foot
Hon. Members on both sides of the House may have their own different views on this subject. I think that few things could interfere more with the essential rights of Back-Bench Members than the introduction of a time limit.

§ Mr. Michael Stewart
Will my right hon. Friend consider a system whereby each Member at the beginning of the Session is given an allocation of time based on an estimate of the total time available and that any time he uses in the House, whether in speeches. Questions or points of order, should come out of his allocation? Would not that result in shorter speeches and fewer bogus points of order and other vexations?

§ Mr. Foot
I am not sure. What my right hon. Friend suggests might result in taciturnity at the beginning of the Session and garrulity at the end. I am not sure that that would be a good system.

§ Mr. Onslow
Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that Back-Bench Members get more help from you in this matter than we seem to get from the Leader of the House? You give great encouragement to short Back-Bench speeches. Therefore, we look to the Leader of the House for shorter Front-Bench speeches.

§ Mr. Foot
I am in favour of shorter Front-Bench speeches. But I should point out that if the hon. Gentleman goes back over the history of the House of Commons for a number of years he will see that many of our most distinguished Back-Bench Members, whether Winston Churchill in the 1930s or Aneurin Bevan in the 1950s, would not have been able to make the contributions that they made if a rigid timetable had been enforced on Back-Bench Members.