§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham)I beg to move,
That—
> (1) Mr. Speaker may announce at the commencement of public business that, because of the number of Members wishing to speak in a debate on one of the matters specified in paragraph (2) of this Order, he will call Members either between six o'clock and ten minutes before eight o'clock or between seven o'clock and ten minutes before nine o'clock on Monday to Thursday sittings, and between half-past eleven o'clock and one o'clock on Friday sittings, to speak for not more than ten minutes; and whenever Mr. Speaker has made such an announcement he may, between those hours, direct any Member who has spoken for ten minutes in such a debate to resume his seat forthwith.(2) This Order shall apply to debates on:That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
- (a) the second reading of public bills;
- (b) matters selected under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) for consideration on allotted Opposition days;
- (c) Motions in the name of a Minister of the Crown; and
- (d) Motions for an Address in answer to Her Majesty's Speech.
§ Mr. SpeakerI announce to the House that I have selected amendments (a), (b), (c) and (e). I suggest that we have a general debate on the motion in the name of the Leader of the House. I will ask the hon. Members concerned to move their amendments at the end. Is that agreed'?
§ Mr. WakehamI will set an example and be brief.
Before commenting on the amendments called it might be of help to the House if I were to give a sketch of the background to the motion, and what I believe to be its advantages.
Following a report by the Procedure Committee in 1978, an experiment was held in the 1979–80 Session, whereby during the Second Reading of Bills, Mr. Speaker was able to apply a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm. However, no assessment was ever made of the experiment, and it duly lapsed.
A second experiment was carried out during the 1984–85 Session. This experiment went slightly wider than the previous one: the debates in which speeches could be limited to 10 minutes were extended to include Opposition days and Government motions, as well as Second Readings; and the hours during which you, Mr. Speaker, could implement the rule were between 6 pm and 8 pm or between 7 pm and 9 pm on Mondays to Thursdays, and between 11.30 am and 1 pm on Fridays. During the Session the temporary Standing Order was applied 24 times, after which the Procedure Committee subsequently reported that the experiment had been a useful and successful one, and recommended the continuation of the temporary Standing Order for a further Session.
The House did not agree to this until February 1986, and the Order came into force for the rest of the 1985–86 Session, during which it was applied six times. Again, the Procedure Committee monitored the experiment and this time recommended that the temporary Order be made permanent. Today's motion seeks to give effect to that recommendation and in moving it, I should like to thank the Committee and its chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), for their work.
I propose just one alteration. Previous experiments did not include the debate on the Address in the list of those occasions when you, Mr. Speaker, might decide to restrict speeches. This was because the experiments, being 510 sessional orders, were not usually approved until after the debate on the Address had taken place. I have added this debate to the list. As a major debate on the Floor, it is similar to Government motions and Opposition days in nature, and it would seem odd if it were not covered by the Standing Order I propose.
The pros and cons of a short speech rule were well explained in the Procedure Committee reports after each of the two experiments in the last Parliament, and are generally known in the House. I do not need to rehearse them fully now. The advantages are not revolutionary—not every Member who wishes can be called in a debate when the rule is in operation, but from the Chair's point of view, the rule does guarantee scope to call at least 12 Members between 6 pm and 8 pm or 7 pm and 9 pm
§ Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)Am I correct in saying that this is the first time that this Order is being made permanent rather than experimental, and that it will be incorporated, as it is on the Order Paper, in the Standing Orders?
§ Mr. WakehamMy hon. Friend is right. It is the first time. The previous two occasions were experimental and were considered afterwards by the Select Committee on Procedure, whose recommendation we are seeking to implement tonight.
Moreover, judging from the experiment, the rule seems to have had a salutary effect on those speaking both before and after the two-hour period. They also have tended to keep their speeches shorter. On the debit side, there was perhaps a greater reluctance by some Members to give way when making a short speech, but interventions nevertheless continued to occur and the character of debate was not greatly affected. In any case, I do not think it practical to implement the kind of complicated stopwatch approach that the amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) would necessitate.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we are not talking so much about the stopwatch approach as about allowing you, Mr. Speaker, some discretion on the subject of interventions?
§ Mr. WakehamThe wording of the motion gives you, Mr. Speaker, some discretion in deciding when to bring in the rule. The motion states that Mr. Speaker
may, between those hours, direct any Member who has spoken for ten minutes in such a debate to resume his seat forthwith.It does not state that he has to do so.Mr. Speaker, I presume that you would be reasonable and would allow a Member making an important speech to finish his sentence, but that is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and not for me.
This is an essentially modest proposal, for a rule to be applied by you, Mr. Speaker, at your discretion, when you consider that the number of Members wishing to speak in a debate warrants it, and to be applied for a period of two hours only. If it were to extend to all Back-Bench speeches, along the lines of the amendment being proposed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I would not be proposing it. I consider it essential that Back Benchers should continue to be able to speak for longer than 10 minutes, if they wish to do so, perhaps because they are spokesmen of other parties, regions or committees, or because they have a particular constituency or personal interest, or a distinctive and complicated case to put forward.
I understand the reasons behind the amendment in the name of the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Southport (Mr. Fearn), but, if we are to preserve flexibility, I believe that it is necessary for you, Mr. Speaker, to have the option of calling for short speeches during either of the two-hour periods proposed. I have no doubt that you will take into account, where you feel it to be necessary, the desire of the spokesmen of parties other than the official Opposition to speak before the rule comes into operation.
I recognise that the proposal will not find favour with those who argue against any restriction on the length of time a Member may address the House. Equally, others, as is evidenced by one of the amendments tabled to the motion, are pressing for the ten minutes rule to be extended to almost all speeches. Both my predecessor and myself have tried long and hard to find a solution that is generally acceptable and I believe that the motion before us is the nearest we can come to it. It is now for the House to decide.
Mr. Speaker, the House has now had three experiments on short speeches, the latter two being the subject of careful assessment and reporting by the Procedure Committee. The experiments were generally felt by the House to be a success and I believe that the time has now come to make this modest proposal into a Standing Order of the House.
§ Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)I shall begin on a sour note by saying that, if anything shows that some of our procedures need to be changed, it is the fact that we are here at 1.23 am, when the nation sleeps, still rabbiting on about various matters. In many respects, our procedures are utterly bewildering to people outside. They do little to ensure democratic control of the Government and I look forward to other changes than the modest ones that we are considering tonight. I am in favour of short speeches and of the motion and, in making a speech on short speeches, I shall ensure that my remarks are short.
512 I am a sceptic about excessive complications in our Standing Orders. It is important that not only hon. Members should understand them but the public too, particularly if we are to allow the cameras into this place. Therefore, I do not want to see excessive rigidity in the way in which we conduct our debates.
The merit of the proposal is that it is restricted. It has been tested twice in this form in recent years and it has not drastically altered the character of debate in the House. The anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that any restriction on speeches would limit interventions is legitimate, but in practice such restrictions have not altered the character of debates that much. The third report of the Select Committee makes the point that it is important for everyone to bear in mind that we should try to preserve the character of debate, which involves exchanges which enliven a debate which could otherwise be rather dull.
The experiment has shown that the proposal has the clear advantage of enabling more hon. Members to speak in important debates. The increase is not dramatic—three or four, or perhaps more, in a Second Reading debate. We all know the great frustration of not being able to speak. We also know the frustration of having to explain to bewildered constituents why we have not spoken on, say, the Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill, in vain pointing out the simple arithmetic that there are 650 hon. Members and, with luck, about 20 will be able to speak. We are an unusually large Parliament—I think that we are the largest in the Western world—so pressure on time is severe.
The proposal is limited and it has been tested. It may well be desirable to extend it in future. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is seeking an extension of the 10-minute rule and there may be good grounds for that at a future date. However, at this stage the right thing would be to do as the Select Committee on Procedure has suggested.
Some hon. Members suggest that 10 minutes is a rather severe restriction. I have spent some time in an industry where 20 seconds is considered a generous allotment of time—scriptwriting for television—and working at the scripting rate of three words a second and 20 seconds per promotion, as hon. Members who are familiar with the Finance Bill will know, means 60 words, and 60 words in prime time is worth most other forms of communication available to any of us.
Anyone who can do the arithmetic will know that a 10-minute speech at three words a second is about 1,800 words. I tend to think that any hon. Member who cannot put his case in 1,800 words probably does not have a precisely thought-out case. I hope that I have managed to contain my speech to 1,800 words and have not badly overrun. That is about the number of words on the front page of most newspapers, give or take a little. It is a lot of words and it is important —
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)There are about six on the front page of The Sun.
§ Mr. GrocottMy hon. Friend makes a valid point, but I was talking about newspapers.
The advantage of the proposal is that it may well lead to sharper, more precise, contributions. It may make our debates more interesting to the outside world. Ten minutes is a long time, and I am in favour of the proposal.
§ Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)I welcome the proposed Standing Order at long last. It has been on the Order Paper for nearly 18 months. I hope that some of the recommendations in future reports from the Procedure Committee will come before the House a little more quickly, particularly if we can debate them shortly and precisely.
The Procedure Committee has gone to a great deal of trouble especially to ensure that the character of debates is not altered. The former right hon. Member for South Down and for Wolverhampton, South-West, Mr. Powell, believed that the experiment would affect the complete character of debates and he urged people to vote against the proposal when it came before the House some time ago. However, the proposal has not altered the debates. There is flexibility open to Mr. Speaker as he can allow an hon. Member to speak for a moment or two longer than the 10 minutes—even though the rule is there—if the hon. Member has allowed interventions or if it is obvious that something needs to be said. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House stressed that point.
I believe that the proposal offers a major benefit to the Chair. While the Chair is in a difficult position because it cannot speak for itself, the Committee took advice from occupants of the Chair who told us that the proposal was a useful method to ensure that a few more hon. Members —only a few more, as this is not a revolutionary proposal —perhaps two, three or four more, could speak.
§ Mr. Dalyell:With regard to the character of the House, the hon. Gentleman's memory and mine go back 25 years to when he was the hon. Member for Reading. Why were the debates in the House massively more attended then than now? Is the hon. Gentleman sure that the character of the House has not been altered?
§ Sir Peter EmeryThe Committee studied that point. If we look back long enough we discover that the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were thought to be quite inadequate unless they ran for five or six hours. I do not believe that we have lost anything in relation to the Budget speech. I remember when I was the hon. Member for Reading that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would speak for about two hours. He would wait until the market had finished. He would rise at 3.30 pm and not finish until 5.15 pm. Sensibly, the Chancellor's speech now runs only for about an hour. I do not believe that that has altered the character of the House; I think that it has improved it.
I urge the House to accept the recommendation from the Procedure Committee without the amendments. The most important amendment—with no disrespect to the others—is that in name of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I understand that the minor parties might be concerned if they believed that their spokesmen might be limited in a major debate in which they wanted to make specific points because a statement had been made which delayed the start of debate until 5 pm. Half an hour might be allowed to the two Front Benches and at 6 pm Mr. Speaker might remind the House that he had announced earlier that the short speeches rule would apply. The minor parties would then discover that their spokesmen would be limited to only 10 minutes. I do not know when that situation arose during the experiment.
I believe that in many instances the House works on the good will of all sides working with the Chair. I believe that 514 in the situation that I have described, the Chair is likely to be entirely sympathetic if a major point had to be made. The minor parties' worry, which the Committee considered fully, exists more in theory than reality. If it was found that that was not the case and there was a major objection, I am certain that the Procedure Committee would be willing to look at the matter again. On the whole, I believe that that circumstance would not arise.
§ Mr. Tony BanksThe hon. Gentleman is saying that the matter is at the discretion of the Chair. He does not agree with my amendments, but they come within the discretion of the Chair. They do not pose any dangers for minority parties.
§ Sir Peter EmeryI understand what the hon. Gentleman says.
The Committee accepted that there are several occasions on which it is necessary for an hon. Member to have more than 10 minutes to make a speech. I have implied that. We do not wish to leave the decision on which speech shall or shall not be of a certain length purely to the discretion of the Chair. We are trying to give guidance to the Chair and suggest that exceptions will be limited and should not worry the House. The Select Committee considered that there will be times when an hon. Member who has a specific or constituency point to make and who needs longer than 10 minutes should not be given prime time—in other words, before 8 o'clock. If the ten-minute rule can apply from 6 o'clock until 7.50 pm, an hon. Member who must make a lengthy constituency point will have a chance to do so between 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock, which is not prime time.
We do not see why an hon. Member who wishes to make a long speech must always be called before the ten-minute rule applies from 7 o'clock until 9 o'clock. It is perhaps a convoluted point, but it is a real one. That is why we considered that the Chair should have the discretion to call an hon. Member from 6 o'clock until 8 o'clock, rather than only from 7 o'clock until 9 o'clock.
This matter will be particularly important when the televising experiment occurs. Many more hon. Members will want to be called to speak. Therefore, it is even more important for the Chair to have the discretion to use the rule sensibly and sparingly. I hope that the House will support the Procedure Committee's recommendations and adopt the measure as a Standing Order from now on.
§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)As the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said, the amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) is directed to the difficulty that those of us in a so-called minority party—not the major Opposition party—fear might arise if the Standing Order were to come into being, with the possibility of there being short speeches between the hours of 6 pm and 8 pm. As has been said, there may be days on which there will be statements, points of order, Standing Order No. 20 applications, and ten-minute Bills. It has been argued that my party's contributions could possibly be limited, if the ten-minute rule came into effect at 6 pm. It was well recognised in the Procedure Committee's report that there is often a more general argument to deploy, and that 515 should not be restricted. The hon. Member for Honiton rightly said that he could not recall an occasion during the experiment when that had happened.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, one occasion when the rule was to apply from 6 pm, in the days when I perhaps had a greater community of interest with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). On that occasion, it appeared that there was an attempt by a previous speaker to carry his speech over into the 6 o'clock to 8 o'clock period. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) persuaded you, Mr. Speaker, to resume the Chair. You announced that, rather than running from 6 pm till 8 pm, the period would be from 7 pm to 9 pm.
From what I have heard tonight, I think that there is a recognition in the House that the minority parties have a general case to deploy, and it has been useful to get that on the record. Although we cannot ask you to give any undertakings, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you have heard what has been said by other hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) argued that his amendment would not stop the Chair exercising its discretion to allow some flexibility to a minority party spokesman, someone with a particular constituency interest or, for that matter, a Select Committee member. When there is great pressure on the Chair from hon. Members wishing to speak, there are always many who are disappointed at the end of the day. The Chair would be put in an invidious position if it had to decide who should and who should not have a longer time in which to speak within the 10-minute period. For that reason, I do not particularly agree with the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
Nevertheless, I do not propose to push my amendment to a vote, as I feel that it has achieved its purpose of focusing attention on the position of minority parties. I am encouraged by what has been said, and I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will have taken note of it.
§ Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding)I am very sympathetic to the purposes behind the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support it. However, I find it more difficult to follow his logic when he says that he believes that the introduction of ten-minute speeches would have no material effect on the willingness of hon. Members to accept interventions.
It is obviously desirable for more hon. Members to be able to take part in debates, and it is equally desirable that we should all have an inducement to be as precise and succinct as possible. I shall try to do that this evening, even without a ten-minute limitation.
But it is, I feel, of major importance that nothing should be done to damage what I believe—if I can say so without pretentiousness, having sat in the House for only a year —is one of the great qualities that distinguishes this place from so many other parliamentary assemblies throughout the world. Many amount merely to ceremonial auditoria, with an endless succession of set speeches delivered in set times and in a set form. One of the great qualities of this House is the spontaneity—and hence, often the unpredictability—of our debates. There can be cut and 516 thrust; there can be unrehearsed interventions and unprepared replies; there can be clashes of ideas and hon. Members can think on their feet.
I find it difficult to believe that hon. Members would still be prepared to give way to interventions, and that debates could remain as spontaneous, if speeches were limited to 10 minutes. I would be extremely wary of taking interventions if I had planned a speech that I expected to last for eight or nine minutes, because there would be a good chance that I would not be able to finish it in the way that I had intended. In extreme cases, unless an amendment were accepted along the lines that I propose, hon. Members might find that they were never able to rise to their feet again and complete their speeches at all.
There are two arguments against an amendment such as mine. One is that it is technically not feasible to extend the time to take account of interventions. I have not heard tha argument developed very credibly as yet, although I remain open to persuasion. It seems to me that it would be possible for the Clerk to advise you, Mr. Speaker, or your Deputies, of the time taken by interventions. Perhaps you or one of your Deputies could give an hon. Member a warning one minute before his time was up. If there had been interventions, he might find it difficult to know where he stood simply by watching the clock. That is not infeasible.
The second alleged problem is one that I too have some difficulty in understanding. It is said that if an amendment along the lines of the one that I have suggested were put into effect, there would be a danger of filibusters. It is argued that hon. Members could avoid a ten-minute rule by persuading their colleagues deliberately to intervene to prolong the debate. The House has lived with the danger of filibuster, and indeed its existence, for a long time. I have no doubt that some of the experts, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), could tell us for how many centuries the danger has existed. It is one that could only be lessened if there were a ten-minute speech rule. I believe that the change would be only for the better.
§ Mr. DalyellThe hon. Gentleman should be careful about the use of "danger". Parliamentary time is the only weapon that an Opposition has under our system. If ever the hon. Gentleman goes into opposition and he has a cause, he will be grateful for parliamentary time. The use of that time is not necessarily filibustering.
§ Mr. DaviesI take the hon. Gentleman's point, which reinforces my argument. The risk or possibility of debates being extended by speeches being extended unpredictably is not necessarily undesirable.
Before the House takes a decision on this issue, I hope that it will consider carefully whether there is not a means —perhaps along the lines that I have suggested, or along different lines—whereby we can get the best of both worlds, which is to say shorter speeches and all the benefits that they will bring along with retaining the essential quality of spontaneity of the House.
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)There is a good attendance in the Chamber, given that it is nearly 1.50 am. There has been much criticism in the newspapers about our sparsely attended debates, and usually the criticism comes from journalists whose only grasp of 517 history is the knowledge of who bought the previous round of drinks. The criticism tends to reveal a lack of appreciation of the nature of the modern Parliament. We do not sit in the Chamber as independent Members listening to the ebb and flow of the debate, making up our minds when the Division Bells ring how we shall vote. A good speech might give us pleasure but it will rarely change anything in this place. We know that we are here because of our party labels. Once we are here, either because of the whipping system that operates within the parties, or because of our own ideological reference points, voting patterns are highly predictable. There is the occasional exception, but it is the exception that proves the rule.
There is not a political need for long speeches to attempt to influence the outcome of a vote. There might be good reasons, however, for long speeches in circumstances and on occasions other than those specified in the motion, but these will not be affected by the proposed change in the Standing Orders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said in an intervention, the filibuster—the use of time—is the only weapon that the Opposition have.
I have in mind some highly controversial private Bills that have been before the House. Members have used their right to make long speeches to try to thwart such Bills. It is a legitimate tactic. It might not be liked by those who are sponsoring such a Bill, but it is a legitimate use of parliamentary procedure. That is not affected in any way by the motion. This morning, we are talking about debates in which there is a great deal of pressure from hon. Members to speak. In such circumstances it becomes extremely frustrating to sit there like Cicero or Demosthenes, burning to speak while some boring old fartbag goes on for hours and hours and rambles on endlessly.
There is no one as selfish as a Member of Parliament with a very long speech whose time has come. We have all had to suffer that. There are times when I believe that nothing is too horrid to happen to such a miscreant. I would want you, Mr. Speaker, to have much greater powers, perhaps a series of levers and trap doors which would send the individual plunging into the cellar, or perhaps they should be forced to learn by heart the collected works of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). He is not here, and it is always good to be rude about someone who is not here.
There is general agreement that ten minutes is long enough for most speeches. Most people would say that that is nine and a half minutes too long. As George Eliot wrote, "Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving us wordy evidence of the fact." If Abraham Lincoln knocked off the Gettysburg address in three minutes, quite frankly, hon. Members with three times longer to make a point have ample time indeed.
My amendments seek to give the Chair maximum flexibility in announcing the ten-minutes rule. It is a matter of discretion for the Chair. It is nothing to be worried about. Under the amendments the Chair can exercise discretion and announce that there will be a ten-minutes rule at any particular time. Of course, that will enable the Chair to structure and order our debates. Not everyone who wishes to speak in a debate actually writes in to the Speaker's Office and gives notice of a desire to speak. It might well be only when the debate starts that the occupant of the Chair realises how many hon. Members wish to speak, or during a debate a large number of hon. 518 Members are suddenly moved to speak. That would allow the occupant of the Chair to say, "In view of the number of hon. Members now wishing to speak, I intend to operate a ten-minutes rule."
We are not laying ourselves open to any danger whatsoever; we are saying that we elect a Chair and the Chair is there to exercise discretion on our behalf and allow as many hon. Members as possible to speak.
I see no reason to restrict the ten-minutes rule to certain time bands. Clearly, we are here to get what we are saying heard and detected outside. In terms of securing media coverage, that oftens means that the more points we can get in before 6 pm, the more likely we are to find the odd sober journalist capable of writing.
In my second amendment, I have accepted the need to allow Front Benchers winding up longer than the ten minutes. However, having listened to some recent winding-up speeches, quite frankly I believe that they do not all deserve such generous treatment. It is still at the discretion of the Chair. Both my amendments give discretion to the Chair. That means that Mr. Speaker, or whoever occupies the Chair, may direct an hon. Member to cease a speech. I hope that the amendments, which I have tried to move in a short and sincere fashion—which is a reasonably good description of myself—commend themselves to the House.
§ Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)First, I congratulate the Chairman and the Procedure Committee on their work now and over the years, as this measure has taken a very long time. In 1966, the order was debated, but not moved. I and my colleagues then tabled early-day motions entitled "Opportunities for Back Benchers" from 1971 to 1984 when the experiment was introduced. It was unfortunate that it was only an experiment, as I believe that it has proved a great success. It is particularly important because the number of parties and, of course, the number of Conservative Members have increased.
As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has said, it is important that your discretion, Mr. Speaker, should still exist and that you can use it within the prohibited hours. It is almost impossible for people not to say what they want to within 10 minutes. I am sure that may have exceeded that sometimes because of interventions. I can see that adding injury time for interventions is difficult. However, it would be up to you, Mr. Speaker, to allow the hon. Member extra time for interventions. I am told by the Clerks that it would be difficult to time the interventions and add injury time, and I accept that.
When I first came to the House in 1959 there were few Back-Bench Privy Councillors. Now, almost every other Member is a Privy Councillor. I once said to a Privy Councillor, "You are lucky now because you will be able to speak when you like." He said, "That would be an abuse of my power." It annoys many Back Benchers who have sat here for hours that a Privy Councillor can walk into the Chamber and without warning, within two or three speakers, he is able to address the House. That will have to be looked at.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that you have been giving a little less privilege to Privy Councillors. "Erskine May" lays down the rights of a Privy Councillor but that is out of date because of the number of Privy Councillors on the Back Benches.
519 After all these years we have at last reached the point where the House has to decide whether to adopt the order permanently. This is the first chance that the House has had to do that, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has confirmed. Since 1987, a successful experiment has not been able to be operated simply because we have been unable to find time to debate the measure. I am sure that the experiment was a success. The ten minutes rule will give more hon. Members a chance to speak. I do not think that television has anything to do with the matter. There is simply more pressure on you, Mr. Speaker, because more hon. Members wish to speak and express their opinions. If they cannot do that in 10 minutes, they should not do it at all.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)It is sad that we are now proposing to put the experiment into the Standing Orders permanently without having tried one or two other variations to see whether we could have done better than what I believe is a somewhat cumbersome order.
I think that everyone agrees that what would be most effective would be if every hon. Member showed self-restraint. We all know from experience that that does not happen. Every time, somebody—often more than one person—abuses the request to keep speeches to a reasonable length so that more hon. Members can take part.
If we are to have restraint, we should try to organise it in as flexible a fashion as possible. The most effective way is to confer greater powers on the Chair. I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
Let me remind the House of the greatest abuse. At around 8 o'clock, calculations are done; the Whips move from side to side and it is worked out that perhaps six or seven more hon. Members can be allowed to speak. They will probably have been present throughout the debate. Instead of keeping to the time allocated, one of those hon. Members may go on at length so that one or two of the others who have sat through the whole debate get squeezed out.
The great advantage in the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West would be that the Chair could announce at any time that speeches were to be kept to 10 minutes. That would make it easier to formalise what the Whips try to do at the moment, which is to allow a given number of hon. Members to speak at the end of the debate.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)My hon. Friend is using terms that were never used years ago. The term used then was probably to the effect that it was for the convenience of all that the arrangements were made. Does he remember how Mr. Speaker Lloyd used to remind us that the Chair had a memory? Would not that memory help to reinforce the informal arrangements, which often work quite well?
§ Mr. BennettA possible alternative might be a blacklist or a memory of those who abuse the system.
We should be introducing a greater flexibility into the system, and we should have tried several other 520 experiments. For example, we could have allowed the Chair to introduce a ten-minute limit at any time during a debate, as it became clear how many hon. Members wished to speak. I would also argue that a time limit other than 10 minutes may be appropriate on occasions—especially towards the end of the debate when we may be trying to enable several hon. Members to speak.
The members of the Procedure Committee may not be the best people to judge whether the experiment was of the best. By that Committee's very nature, those who serve on it tend to be hon. Members with considerable experience of the House. They therefore tend not to be called late in a debate. I suspect that not many hon. Members who serve on the Procedure Committee spent much time sitting in the Chamber during the experiment.
Although it was a very big plus that more hon. Members were called in debates during the experiment, there were at least two distinct disadvantages. First, many more hon. Members went to the Chair pleading to be called before the point at which the time limit came into operation. That does not seem to me to have been particularly helpful, and on at least one or two occasions hon. Members made pressing scenes in an attempt to be called early in the debate. It would have been far better had the Chair been able to make it clear that the ten-minute limit would apply as soon as the opening speeches from the Front Benches, and perhaps from one of the minority parties, had been made.
The second major disadvantage was that the experiment cut down interventions. Hon. Members felt that they would get their 10 minutes without being granted injury time for interventions and they therefore did not give way. It has been emphasised that the proposal before us provides flexibility. However, I think that it would be far better if the amendment in my name was accepted, to make it clear that injury time would be given. If it is possible for us to time the two minutes for Tellers to be named and the eight minutes for the doors to be locked, it should be fairly easy to time a 30-second intervention in a speech and to allow for that. If we want to have real debate, it would be better to encourage interventions, and that should be done.
There is also a negative reason why we should not make it too difficult for hon. Members to intevene. That is simply that if an intervention is not accepted, hon. Members tend to shout their remarks from a sedentary position. That is not a particularly desirable development.
The practice has been creeping into the House that when an hon. Member refuses to give way, a spurious point of order is raised into which the intervention is worked, sometimes with ingenuity but sometimes with little ingenuity. They waste even more time because you, Mr. Speaker, have to point out that it is not a point of order for the Chair. For both those reasons it is important to make it clear in any permanent change that we do not wish to discourage interventions.
There is the question whether interventions from both sides or only the opposite side should qualify for injury time. My amendment (d) seeks to allocate injury time only for interventions from the opposite side of the House because that encourages debate and interchange. On occasions an intervention from one's own side is simply a device for three hon. Members to get their view on the record rather than one. Sometimes when two or three hon. Members are waiting to speak the first agrees to accept an 521 intervention from the others. Therefore, it would be worth while to make it clear that injury time should be given for genuine debate, which is usually across the Chamber.
I hope that the House will question whether we should put the proposal in our Standing Orders rather than continue experimenting with one or two imaginative options. If such provision is to be made permanent in our Standing Orders, I hope that we shall spell out that 10 minutes should not discourage interventions.
§ 2.6 am
§ Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)It cannot have escaped your notice, Mr. Speaker, in the long time that you have been here that Members of Parliament are extremely generous at least in one respect: in giving others our views. As you said to us when you first welcomed us to the House, with 650 of us that tends to make a few problems for you.
I welcome the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I am sorry that I was a little late and did not hear all the earlier arguments, but it seems that there are only two arguments against it. The first is that it would diminish the rights of the Opposition, but Opposition Members who have spoken in favour of the motion made it clear that that is not the overwhelming view on their side. The second is that, because newer Members inevitably see themselves getting a smaller slice of the cake than senior Members, such as Privy Councillors, it is felt that as Members become more senior they will favour arrangements which benefit them increasingly.
There is a difference between a new Member now and a new Member as little as 10 years ago. Fifteen years ago only three parties were in Parliament, excluding one or two individual Members, whereas now there are 10. Fifteen years ago there were only three or four Committees, whereas now we have a whole structure of Select Committees and the Chairman of the relevant one is nearly always called after the Front-Bench speakers. The result is that Back Benchers' slot of the total time has got progressively less.
At the same time, for several reasons, some relating to constituency pressures and some to parliamentary pressures, hon. Members are having to spend more and more time in the Palace, which means inevitably that they are that much more anxious to speak in debates. Therefore, there is less time available, with more hon. Members trying to speak.
I have been fortunate, Mr. Speaker, in catching your eye 15 times—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—which I would not admit to if we were not so close to the end of the Session. That has been mainly because I sought to speak in debates on subjects that were not particularly popular. However, on three or four consecutive occasions some of my hon. Friends, having put a lot of work into their speeches, have tried without success to speak in debates on popular subjects in which many hon. Members wanted to speak. That is why I strongly support the motion.
I also support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). An allowance for injury time will keep up the spirit of cut and thrust. I also support amendments (a) and (b). Giving you that extra flexibility, Mr. Speaker, in no way forces you to use it; it merely means that you can 522 extend the rule over a longer period if you choose to do so. I urge the House to support the motion and the three amendments that I have mentioned.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) pointed out that a speech does not often change a vote. However, there are many occasions—this debate is one—when hon. Members just contribute ideas that throw light on issues. Such speeches may not change a vote, but they may change the situation. That is an aspect of debate in this place that is sometimes forgotten. On occasions, we try to persuade. It would be a great pity if we departed too far from the idea of trying to persuade, even if unsuccessfully.
Tonight I shall not oppose the entrenchment of what has hitherto been an experiment. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was right to say that there may be other ways in which to develop this idea. I shall not oppose the motion, but it is important to ensure that we are not creating a rod for our own backs that may turn out to be longer than we had imagined. It has been said that great benefits will flow, but we know from the table that the Select Committee on Procedure has provided us with—HOC 592 of Session 1985–86—that this rule will be used on the big occasions. When there is an international crisis, for instance, views on the matter have to be ventilated—not arguments made. Hon. Members have said that two or three more hon. Members might have a chance to speak. That may be so, but is that worth the complications that may arise? Some of those complications were outlined well by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, although I do not agree with his conclusions. Television may be one.
When we talk about getting into a debate, we often mean being able to send off a paragraph to show that we said something in the House. That will become a greater temptation with television. We must be absolutely sure that this problem will not become greater.
I understand the purpose of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, who is a living example of how easy it is for a person of ingenuity and talent to speak in this place. He shows up the false claims of hon. Members on both sides who often say they have no chance to speak. They may not be able to speak on the big occasions, but if they are as assiduous, and develop their parliamentary talents in the same way as my hon. Friend, there are all sorts of ways in which they can contribute—as he has shown. While I will not oppose the amendments, I believe that the House should be very careful, because the claimed benefits will be rather less than people suppose.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)I am uncomfortable for the sort of reason that has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), with whom I shared an amendment that, rightly or wrongly, was not selected.
I concede that, of course, selfishness is intolerable. It was salutary for me within a few months of coming here to be told rather witheringly by that nice man, Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster, that I would be punished for having 523 spoken too long and kept someone else out of the debate. Speakers should be able to deliver such punishments, which is partly why we elect Speakers.
The problem is that that could spill over into something else. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South I cannot vote against the Standing Order as it stands, but what happens if people try to extend it, especially to the Committee Stage of Bills?
I say from the Back Benches, that the trouble does not only come from the Back Benches, but a lot of it comes from the Front Benches. I say quite frankly "Front Benches"—I am not just getting at Ministers. A very close personal friend of mine spoke for far too long on sport yesterday. Consequently, at 1.30 in the morning a number of us were kept out. I make no personal complaint because I had more than my share, but my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who really knows about chlorofluorocarbons, was kept out, along with other of my hon. Friends, because of unnecessarily long Front-Bench speeches. The sooner the parties tackle the Front-Bench speeches as well as the Back-Bench speeches, the better it will be for all of us.
I will be forgiven for being personal, but there are examples of occasions when those of us who had a cause—let us not dwell too much on the justice or otherwise of it—have been snuffed out at an early stage. In 1980, by keeping the House up for most of the night, I was successful in changing the policy on retrospective sanctions towards Iran. I am not saying whether it was justified or not, but I do not think that I could have done that under the present arrangements, because a Minister would have made a decision in that case. That is partly why my hon. Friend and I tabled that amendment.
I do not want to provoke unnecessary speeches from Members of the Scottish National party who are keeping a close eye on me, but at 2.15 in the morning one can be candid. The hon. Members know very well that George Cunningham, Enoch Powell and I would have found it very difficult to keep the House going for 47 days on the Scotland and Wales Bills under this dispensation, but it would certainly have been impossible if this had been allowed to spill over. Apart from the merits or demerits, this was a legitimate political act and, if we are changing a political act, we had better be clear about what we are doing.
§ Mr. Andrew BennettDoes my hon. Friend accept that in all those examples there was not an end time limit laid down, so, in effect, anyone who wanted to speak could get in? Therefore, there would be no justification for the Chair limiting speeches. The proposals contain nothing that would do that. Those opportunities existed because there was no end time limit. No one is suggesting that it should be brought in in those circumstances.
§ Mr. DalyellMy hon. Friend is right. However, he said that no one is suggesting at the moment that speeches in Committee should be limited. I started by saying that if this spills over into Committees, we are in a different ball game.
§ Sir Peter EmeryThe Select Committee on Procedure looked at, and rejected, the concept that this rule could be 524 extended to Committees. It is important that this should be put on record, because such an extension would be wrong.
§ Mr. DalyellThat is accepted. I wish that the hon. Gentleman were right. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is right.
I think of the late 1960s when, from the position in which the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is sitting, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), and, behind him, the late Jack Mendelson, used the House of Commons to make long speeches on Vietnam. Others may not agree, but I think that it was those speeches from those Benches that prevented Harold Wilson, who was then Prime Minister, from acceding to Lyndon Johnson's request to send what the President called a "battalion of bagpipers"—his words, not mine—to Vietnam. This was of major political importance, and an action of the House of Commons.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent has said that he is against short speeches, and if we had sat at an earlier hour he would have been here. I wish that he could have spoken for himself. He could not have done what he did, which was of crucial international importance, in the major debate to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South referred, unless he had the time to develop the argument.
§ Mr. BrazierOn an earlier occasion, the hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to finish his speech early to allow in the last hon. Member who wished to speak—that happened to be me. Therefore, I am surprised that he of all people should suggest that the efficacy of a speech should lie in its length. That is an amazing proposition. As we have already heard, the Gettysburg address lasted two rather than three minutes.
§ Mr. DalyellThe Vietnam argument was complicated, and if one were to argue on equal terms with Michael Stewart, the then Foreign Secretary, who was an eloquent man, one had to have equal time to do so. It would have been impossible to hold the attention of the House otherwise. In those days, many people came in to hear what Jack Mendelson or a number of others were saying, because the argument was very much among members of the Government party. I do not want to be personal about this and what I say is meant in a flattering way, but I remember occasions when we debated other subjects, and Quintin Hogg, as he was then, could not, in 10 minutes, have made an argument that would sway the House of Commons and alter attitudes on penal affairs and other vital matters. To be eloquent, he had to have at least 25 minutes, and possibly longer.
Is it more important that major speeches should be made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent, Quintin Hogg, or whoever, or that three or four extra people should get in at the tail end of a debate to get their names in their local paper? I happen to think that the House of Commons is the place where people should be persuaded. We have to achieve an important balance. Those who are determined enough to get in at all costs should recognise that sometimes, on major occasions, the point of view put forward by an orator is more important than the fact that they are called to speak.
Often it is difficult to compress speeches. I give a current example. It so happens that in this morning's Daily Mail the banner headline is: 525
Brittan back in favour—Exclusive—Maggie offers top job".That raises all sorts of questions about the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) becoming a European Commissioner. People such as me might want to make a speech on this. We might want to ask how it is that the great job of European Commissioner should go to a man who in January 1986 for 14 days—[Interruption.] This is an example. For 14 days the right hon. and learned Gentleman supposedly—I repeat, supposedly—misled his senior civil servants, his Cabinet colleagues and his Prime Minister. This may be an unpopular view and I may be told quite nicely by Conservative Members not to do it, but I am afraid that it is an example. When we get to complex, sensitive matters like Westland, we need time to expose the case.Next week, or some time soon, we shall be discussing the legislation on official secrets. I know that many Conservative Members think that what Clive Ponting did was wrong. I could never have made the case that led to all this if I had not had time. Parliamentary time is necessary to make a serious case. I do not want to draw on the patience of the House, but in a case such as—
§ Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)Is not the hon. Gentleman making a case for 10-minute speeches in that he has now spoken for 12 minutes?
§ Mr. DalyellYes, and I must give way. I leave it like this. If one wanted to make a serious case about the appointment of one of our number as a European Commissioner, one would need more than 10 minutes to do it. On that I will sit down.
§ Mr. Tim Janman (Thurrock)I intend to be brief, but I want to offer support from this side of the House to the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on the direction in which they have pursued their comments. I came into the debate very sceptical indeed about the motion. I have listened intently to the debate. On reflection, we may have before us a motion which gets the balance right. Certainly I could not support any amendment which sought to increase the area covered by the motion. If we did so, we would be in danger of pursuing a negative, egalitarian policy on how hon. Members speak in the Chamber.
Although I have been a Member for only a short time, it has not taken me long to notice that hon. Members vary enormously in their experience, knowledge and amount of intimate detail which they can bring to bear on a topic. Often if we are talking about a complex matter, I agree with the hon. Members for Linlithgow and for Newham, South that hon. Members who have much experience of a subject can take a considerable time to build a well-structured argument and to portray to the House the cogent case that they wish to present.
In the short time that I have been here and in the debates that I have attended I can think of only one example where I have heard a speech which, if the debate had taken place under the rules which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) would like to see, might have been lost. I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow that we do not need to measure subjectively the rights and wrongs of the contribution at hand, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), in the debate on the seamen's dispute, could not possibly have made his 526 speech in 10 minutes, although he might have been able to tailor it down by five minutes or so. However, with his intimate knowledge of the dispute, being the constituency Member, if he had had to work within that constraint, both the argument and the House would have lost out, as he would not have been able to make that 20 or 30-minute contribution to a debate on which he was extremely well qualified to speak.
I do not intend to speak for 10 minutes myself. We may have the balance right on the motion, but I do not think that the proposal should be extended. I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (M r. Davies) on the intervention issue. Perhaps it is true to say that, if colleagues like myself, who are new to the House, sometimes feel a little put out when more senior Members have an opportunity to speak, then our turn will come. We should not therefore be too impatient, but should be reasonably relaxed about the way in which the House works in that respect.
§ Mr. WakehamI agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that there are too many long speeches from the Front Benches. In my previous incarnation, I did everything I could to curb them and my right hon. and learned Friend the Patronage Secretary is doing his best now.
I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in the debate. It has been a good debate and I am grateful for the support for the motion, although it has been given with varying degrees of enthusiasm. The House should heed those hon. Members who issued words of caution about going too far and I agree with virtually everything that has been said.
It would not be right to go any further than the Procedure Committee has recommended. It has considered the matter more than once. If hon. Members who have tabled amendments wish to press them, that is their right, but, if they do so, I shall certainly ask the I-louse to reject them. To dissuade them from pressing their amendments, I should say that, if problems occur after a reasonable time, I am sure that it will be possible for the Procedure Committee to reconsider the matter. The fact that the Standing Order was there would not necessarily mean that it was there for ever and a day. I believe that it is the right proposal and that it is right to bring it into the Standing Orders, but, if there are difficulties, we shall face up to them and see what has to be done.
§ Mr. DalyellWe should be clear about one point. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) were expressing a point of view about the 1960s and Vietnam, could you, Mr. Speaker, make a judgment that my right hon. Friend should be heard further? Would that be within your power, Mr. Speaker?
§ Mr. WakehamObviously, it is for you, Mr. Speaker, to interpret the Standing Orders, but—if I may express a personal view—it appears clear from my motion that Mr. Speaker may direct a Member who has spoken for 10 minutes to resume his seat forthwith. The fact that the motion states that you, Mr. Speaker, may do so implies that you do not have to do so. Therefore, if you believe that it is right for an hon. Member to exceed the 10 minutes, the wording of my motion would allow you to do so.
§ Mr. DalyellAre we clear, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that you have discretion in the matter?
§ Mr. WakehamWe are absolutely clear about that. As it is a matter for Mr. Speaker's discretion, the final judgment on how that is to be exercised is for Mr. Speaker, not me, but my reading of it is that in the circumstances outlined by the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker would have the discretion to allow the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) to speak for more than 10 minutes.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettIs it the view of the Leader of the House that that discretion should extend to time being added on for interventions? It would help me in deciding whether to push my amendment to a vote to have it clearly on the record whether that is the will of the House. Certainly during the experiment many hon. Members felt that if they gave way they would lose some of the time allocated to them.
§ Mr. WakehamLooking back to the experiment, interventions still occurred and hon. Members managed to make their speeches within 10 minutes. The character of the debate was not severely altered in any way that would deter us from making the arrangement permanent.
My view is that the matter must be left to Mr. Speaker. I believe that he would be acting according to the will of the House if he allowed an hon. Member more time because he had seriously failed to put over his point of view in the 10 minutes or wanted a bit longer because of interventions. I should have thought that that would be perfectly acceptable to the House and I would not wish to quarrel with that.
§ Mr. DalyellPart of the reason why I push this point is that some of us think that it is desperately important that Mr. Speaker should have the power to protect the unpopular view. The difficulty is that the unpopular view often takes some time to explain. As soon as one expresses an unpopular view, be it about Westland or anything else, it needs time. That is why Mr. Speaker must have it in mind that part of his job is, on occasions, to protect the hon. Member who wishes to express an unpopular view.
§ Mr. WakehamWe elect Mr. Speaker because we believe that he can exercise judgment and discretion in such matters. The motion allows him to exercise that discretion in the right cases.
§ Sir Peter EmeryThe Procedure Committee understands the argument that has been put forward by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). That is why, where there is a need for, say, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), to make a long point, Mr. Speaker has a period during which he can call somebody without the ten minutes rule applying. That is why the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is not applicable. The Select Committee has realised that there are times when hon. Members need to make longer speeches. Mr. Speaker can allow such a speech to be made at the appropriate time.
§ Mr. WakehamThere is no doubt that the essence of the motion would allow Mr. Speaker discretion.
§ Mr. GrocottIt is clearly the spirit of the Select Committee's recommendation that interventions enliven debate. It draws attention to that. It is my understanding of the debate that it is a near-unanimous view that, if 528 interventions were lost, that would be to the detriment of the quality of debate. If that is understood on both sides of the House, I am sure that Mr. Speaker appreciates and understands that all hon. Members hope that the discretion given to him in the proposal will be exercised in favour of allowing interventions.
§ Mr. WakehamFine. I think that that should have cleared up most of the points that have been worrying people. If anyone is in any doubt, I remind the House that the rule will apply to Privy Councillors and everyone else.
§ Mr. SpearingAlthough I am aware that the hour is late, I must make this point because I cannot make it at another time. Is the Leader of the House aware that we are not simply talking about Mr. Speaker, but about the occupant of the Chair? I did not blame the previous occupant of the Chair at the time of the experiment for using his power of intervention to the second. The motion gives a discretion of "may". The House appears to feel that an intervention should not be made to the second, but that the occupant of the Chair should take account of the end of a sentence or, conceivably, of interventions. That raises difficulties for the occupant of the Chair that we have not discussed, although they are illustrated by some of the points that we have made. Although the feeling of the House is clear, I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that the occupant of the Chair has a little more flexibility than was exercised during the experiment.
§ Mr. WakehamMr. Speaker will have heard the debate. He must decide how to exercise his discretion. I should think that he would exercise it to the general satisfaction of the House.
§
Amendment (a) proposed to the Question, in line 2, after `business', insert—
'or at any time after the opening speeches in a debate.'.—[Mr. Tony Banks.]
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 16, Noes 32.
| Division No. 413] | [2.41 am |
| AYES | |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Michael, Alun |
| Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) | Redwood, John |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) |
| Bowis, John | Stevens, Lewis |
| Brazier, Julian | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Welsh, Andrew (Angus E) |
| Dalyell, Tam | |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Gill, Christopher | Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. John Watts. |
| Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| NOES | |
| Baldry, Tony | McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Maclean, David |
| Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) | Neubert, Michael |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Durant, Tony | Ryder, Richard |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Skinner, Dennis |
| Foster, Derek | Spearing, Nigel |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Thurnham, Peter |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Grocott, Bruce | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Wallace, James |
| Harris, David | Waller, Gary |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) | Wilshire, David |
| Hunt, David (Wirral W) | |
| Janman, Tim | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Mr. Peter Lloyd and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle. |
| Lightbown, David |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ It being more than one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order of 20 May, to put forthwith the Question on another amendment selected by him.
§
Amendment (e) proposed to the Question, in line 10, after 'forthwith', insert
'except that in the calculation of this period no account shall be taken of the time taken up by interventions from other Members.'.—[Mr. Quentin Davies.]
§ Question put forthwith, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 8, Noes 39.
| Division No. 414] | [2.52 am |
| AYES | |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Wallace, James |
| Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) | Welsh, Andrew (Angus E) |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) | |
| Janman, Tim | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) | Miss Ann Widdecombe and Mr. Julian Brazier. |
| Spearing, Nigel |
| NOES | |
| Baldry, Tony | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) | McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Maclean, David |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Neubert, Michael |
| Bowis, John | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Redwood, John |
| Dalyell, Tam | Ryder, Richard |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Skinner, Dennis |
| Durant, Tony | Stevens, Lewis |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Foster, Derek | Thurnham, Peter |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Gill, Christopher | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Waller, Gary |
| Grocott, Bruce | Watts, John |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Wilshire, David |
| Harris, David | |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) | Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle. |
| Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) | |
| Hunt, David (Wirral W) |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ MR. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the order of 20 May, to put forthwith the main Question.
§ Question agreed to.
§
Ordered,
That—
(1) Mr. Speaker may announce at the commencement of public business that, because of the number of Members wishing to speak in a debate on one of the matters specified in paragraph (2) of this Order, he will call Members either between six o'clock and ten minutes before eight o'clock or between seven o'clock and ten minutes before nine o'clock on Monday to Thursday sittings, and between half-past eleven o'clock and one o'clock on Friday sittings, to speak for not more than ten minutes; and whenever Mr. Speaker has made such an announcement he may, between those hours, direct any Member who has spoken for ten minutes in such a debate to resume his seat forthwith.
(2) This Order shall apply to debates on:
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.