§ The Earl of KIMBERLEYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Leader of the House whether the speech clocks in the Chamber could display green figures for 5 minutes, yellow for 6 to 10 minutes, red for 11 to 15 minutes, and thereafter flash.
§ Lord DENHAMMy Lords, while I support the Resolution of the House that
speeches in this House should be shorterand agree with the Companion to the Standing Orders thatlong speeches engender tedium and tend to kill debate",I do not think the House would take kindly to the somewhat inflexible proposal put forward by my noble friend.
§ The Earl of KIMBERLEYMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer, but is he aware that he has just answered my first supplementary? May I therefore ask a second one: if the clocks cannot be altered, has he any other suggestion whereby these long, tedious speeches can be made more brief?
§ Lord DENHAMMy Lords, I have not taken technical advice as to whether the noble Earl's proposals would be practicable or whether they would cost too much; but, given the money, I would have thought that perhaps something on those lines could be done. The proposal I have always favoured is that every noble Lord in this House should have, as of right, 15 minutes and at the end of that time a particular speech could be counted out if there were less than 30 Peers present—but perhaps that, too, would be 1790 thought to be too inflexible for this somewhat flexible House!
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, may I ask the Minister: is it not a fact that this is a matter which really ought to be looked at? We are having, and have had for some considerable time, Unstarred Questions which have been longer than some of the short debates. It really is not, and never was, the intention of the House that an Unstarred Question should have so many speakers. I really do feel that we need to look at some of our procedures. I ask the Minister whether he feels this could be done by the appropriate Committee of the House.
§ Lord DENHAMMy Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is absolutely right. Yesterday, of course, was an example of this, when we had a main debate of the day with, I think, about six or seven speakers, which was followed by an Unstarred Question with a great many more speakers. However, the difficulty is that the Business is put down in whatever form it is put down in, and it is up to those of your Lordships who wish to speak to decide on which occasion you wish to do so. I feel there is very little that could be done about this, but if the noble Lord would like to draw this to the attention of the Procedure Committee, perhaps with any suggestions as to how the position could be alleviated, I am sure that committee would consider it.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, does the Minister not think it would be very much better for the Government to do this? The Minister has some idea, as is shown by the answers he has given, of the feeling of the House. Only a few years ago—ten years ago—an Unstarred Question was not limited as such but there were seldom more than six or seven speakers. I think that really, as this is a matter of great concern to the House, it would perhaps come better if the Government Chief Whip drew the attention of the appropriate committee to it.
§ Lord DENHAMMy Lords, I will certainly consider that suggestion and possibly discuss it through the usual channels. My own belief is that an individual speech in an Unstarred Question 1791 should be even shorter than the desirable speech for a major debate. But I do not think it is a bad idea sometimes, if speeches are short enough, to have a great many of them. It makes for a very interesting debate. However, I will certainly consider the noble Lord's suggestion.
The Lord Bishop of NORWICHMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the noble Lords on the temporal side of the House are setting us an example of brevity in song in that they are now launched, I gather, upon a liturgical revision of their hymn book. I understand this will be shorter, more terse and more "Series 3". This may shorten the whole of our debates and so we should be losing some of the longer and lovelier cadences of earlier songs.
§ Lord DENHAMMy Lords, I must tell the right reverend Prelate that I am against liturgical revision on principle!
Lord WINSTANLEYMy Lords, in considering this matter further, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would bear in mind that the clocks have a ready ability to tell us how long a noble Lord has actually been speaking but they cannot possibly tell us how long he seems to have been speaking?—which is often a rather more important consideration.
§ Lord DENHAMMy Lords, I quite agree that if the noble Earl's suggestion were to be taken up it might be desirable for the clocks to flash a little earlier in some cases than in others.
§ Lord DAVIES of LEEKMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us who have listened over the years to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, have enjoyed his brilliant ideas?—but that those of us who sit opposite this infernal machine would like to impress upon the House the possibility of Murphy's law, which means:
It can all go wrong because fools are so blooming well ingenious!Therefore I hope that we shall depend on the common sense of speakers: even those of us who are solid from ear to ear know when we are boring the House.
§ Lord DENHAMMy Lords, we have been trying to depend on the common sense of speakers for the last 30 years, to my certain knowledge.
Baroness EMMETT of AMBERLEYMy Lords, may I ask: would it not be quite simple for Unstarred Questions to have a time limit, like the short debates?
§ Lord DENHAMMy Lords, I think that is an extremely useful suggestion that could well be considered by the Procedure Committee.
§ Lord ELWYN-JONESMy Lords, may I, as a matter of law, venture to correct my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek? Murphy's law is:
If anything can go wrong, it will".
§ Lord DRUMALBYNMy Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that the time limit procedure does not work altogether in another place? It depends on a fixed time for the rising of the House or a fixed time after the Business of the Government ends: and if the Business of the Government ends before 10 o'clock there is no time limit. Here again, we need some flexibility.
§ Lord DENHAMMy Lords, of course we have our own limited time debates—the balloted ones that we have once a month—and that could well be a precedent for a time limit for an Unstarred Question. But of course the time limit is very much dependent on Peers who speak early in such debates using only the time allotted to them. Otherwise, they take up time that should belong to later speakers.
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the wise words of the late Lord Brabazon, that if you cannot say what you want to say in 15 minutes you should go away and write a book about it?
§ Lord DENHAMMy Lords, I think that your Lordships' Library would be even more overcrowded than it is, if that happened.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONBut, my Lords, is not the fact that a number of Members put their names down to a particular Unstarred Question 1793 evidence that the matter raised is one of general importance, on which a large number of Members have views, and surely they should not be suppressed?
§ Lord DENHAMNo, my Lords. I think it would be very wrong to limit the number of Peers who wish to speak. But I would, as clocks have been mentioned, draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that mine opposite, which is not flashing yet and is still green, shows eight minutes.
§ Lord DE FREYNEMy Lords, would the noble Lord ever consider an alarm system?
§ Lord DENHAMMy Lords, I should be prepared to consider anything if it would make speeches shorter.