HL Deb 13 January 1988 vol 491 c1238
Lord Belstead

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

Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Skelmersdale set down for 15th January shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "21½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Lord Belstead.)

Lord Diamond

My Lords, I appreciate many of the reasons that have led whoever made this proposal to come to this conclusion. I am in no way hostile to it. As this is not an example to which the Leader of the House has just referred of the decision being at the disposal of two ordinary Members of the House but one in the control of government, may I ask what steps he took before reaching the conclusion to put down the Motion?

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, before my noble friend answers that question perhaps he will also answer this. This is a government Motion, not a Motion in the name of a Back-Bench Peer. Can he tell noble Lords whether this is the first occasion on which the time limited debate procedure has been applied to a government Motion and whether this is intended to set a precedent?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is that this is a matter which has been agreed through the usual channels.

I do not know the answer to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It was felt by the Government, and agreed through the usual channels, that there was a strong case on a Friday to take this debate, highly important though it is, within the five-hour limit. It was thought, as perhaps the main reason, that the House would not wish to sit beyond 4.30 in the afternoon.

On Question, Motion agreed to.