HL Deb 18 November 1982 vol 436 cc635-6
Baroness Young

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That Standing Order 34 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates set out in Appendix D to the Companion to the Standing Orders apply to the Motions in the names of the Lord Orr-Ewing and the Viscount Rochdale set down for debate on Tuesday the 23rd of November.—(Baroness-Young.)

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

My Lords, I wonder whether, in moving this Motion, the noble Baroness is satisfied that sufficient time will be given to the very important debate on the Hunt Report on cable television. I note that already 16 Lords have put down their names to speak in that debate, and I am sure that by Tuesday morning the number will be considerably greater than that.

Lord Shinwell

My Lords, may I ask, as. I have never noted my name included in any committee that has been appointed by your Lordships' House, although I have been here for 13 years or so, whether I would be in order in moving that any of those names mentioned here—

Several noble Lords

Next one!

Lord Shinwell

I beg your Lordships' pardon.

Baroness Young

My Lords, I quite understand the point that is being made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. It might be helpful if I explain that, although the Business Motion stands in my name in the normal way, the Business for next Tuesday is not, in fact, Government Business. My noble friends on the Benches behind me have chosen to hold two short debates next Tuesday, and I certainly hope very much that the debate on cable television, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, will be a successful one. If, however, the list of speakers grows substantially before next Tuesday, I am sure that my noble friends and the usual channels will consider the matter. In the meantime, in the light of what I have said, I suggest that it would be sensible to agree to this Motion.

On Question, Motion agreed to.