§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington)My Lords, your Lordships will remember that yesterday a Motion was agreed applying a five-hour time limit to tomorrow's debate on the Maastricht Summit. The speakers' list has grown considerably since then. In the light of that, further discussions have taken place through the usual channels, and what I would now suggest to your Lordships is that we should have a six-hour rather than a five-hour debate. That would mean that each speaker would be allocated about seven minutes. I further propose that in order to have the vote at about eight o'clock, which was the time expected by your Lordships, the House should meet at 1.30 p.m.
I shall be tabling a Motion tonight to change the time limit on the debate from five hours to six hours. That Motion will be taken in the House tomorrow immediately after Starred Questions and before the debate. I shall ensure that all noble Lords who have Starred Questions tabled for tomorrow and who have put their names down for the debate are informed of that change in case they are not in the Chamber today.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, does that not confirm what I said yesterday? It is premature to have the debate at this time and it is restricted to six hours only, whereas in another place they are having two days, one of which will run on till 2 a.m. Even at this late stage, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House 1192 reconsider his position and propose that we should have a two-day debate—there are 47 noble Lords wishing to speak in the debate—after the Recess when the arguments can be adduced after proper and mature consideration of the issues involved?
§ Lord WaddingtonMy Lords, it would be very rash indeed to assume that postponing the debate would cause fewer people to speak. The chances are that considerably more would wish to speak. In those circumstances, the business management problems might grow. All noble Lords know the constraints on time. It has been agreed through the usual channels that there should be a one-day rather than two-day debate. In those circumstances I cannot offer to your Lordships the hope that we could give a second day.
Of course, I am in your Lordships' hands as concerns the timing and length of the debate tomorrow. However, it has been discussed through the usual channels. We only arrived at the time of six hours because it seemed to be for the convenience of most people. Obviously, we shall never get it perfectly right but I repeat that it has been carefully discussed. That is the conclusion to which the usual channels have come.
§ Lord Peyton of YeovilMy Lords, while I readily agree with what my noble friend has just said, there seems to be one exception. He said that noble Lords are well aware of the constraints of time. That seems to fly in the face of experience.
§ Lord WaddingtonMy Lords, I am tempted to agree with my noble friend, but as Christmas is coming I shall be restrained.
§ Lord Mackie of BenshieMy Lords, will the Leader of the House tell us what objection there is to holding the vote at nine o'clock?
§ Lord WaddingtonMy Lords, the difficulty is that for a number of days noble Lords have become used to the idea that if there is a Division it will be at eight o'clock. We have to bear in mind what noble Lords had been given to expect. That is why we believe that it would be inconvenient rather than convenient to change the time of the ending of the debate.