§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington)My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead set down for Wednesday the Ilth of March shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Baroness Robson of Kiddington set down for the same day to two hours.—(Lord Waddington.)
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us very much regret the application of time limited rules to the first of the Motions with which we are dealing; that is, the one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead? Is my noble friend aware that experience shows that when one is dealing with highly controversial issues of great importance on which strong political feelings are aroused, time limits inhibit and sterilise debate? That is so, if only because it is impossible for someone who is limited to five or six minutes to follow the good custom of the House in giving way to an intervention and then doing his or her best to deal with it.
I appreciate that this Motion on timing is moved, no doubt, at the request of the party which put down the original Motion. However, I hope that my noble friend will, in the longer term at any rate, give consideration to the weakening of the debating standards of the House as a result of applying time limits in cases where there is strong feeling, a large number of speakers and real and genuine controversy. The strength of this House in debate comes particularly where one speaker can give way and there can be a proper give-and-take.
§ Lord WaddingtonMy Lords, your Lordships will no doubt take the view that the point raised by my noble friend is important. Tomorrow the subjects for debate have been picked by the Liberal Democrat Party in the usual way. It would perhaps be odd if the House were not to accept the wishes of that party that the debates tomorrow should be time limited. 1222 Obviously these matters are entirely for the House to decide. Your Lordships can do precisely what you think is right. However, up to now it has been left to the party whose debates are on the Order Paper to decide whether it will be to the convenience of all to apply to the debates the normal rules regarding time limits on debates.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has just said, that this is a matter for the House to decide, if the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, feels that he would be inhibited by a three-hour debate, would it not be in order for him to move that the first debate should last for five hours and the second debate for two hours as an amendment to the proposal that is before us?
§ Lord WaddingtonMy Lords, I have not the slightest doubt that it is open to any noble Lord to raise any point he wishes and to oppose the Motion I am now proposing. However, I have already pointed out what has been the practice in this House. I believe noble Lords would think it odd if the party whose right it is to choose the debates for tomorrow was overruled on the question of whether they should be time limited. I am advised that this point will be considered by the Procedure Committee in due course. It is perhaps best for us to wait to discover the conclusions of that committee's deliberations.
§ Lord Jenkins of HillheadMy Lords, the last thing I want to do is to inhibit the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in deploying his arguments fully, or anyone else for that matter. However, I did not understand that we had an option under the conventions which apply to this House to go above five hours. We decided to have the two Motions and we did not know how many speakers would add their names to the speakers' list. When a number of speakers tabled their names for the first Motion, we took the initiative in changing the time limits for the debates from two debates of two-and-a-half hours length to one debate lasting three hours and the other lasting two hours. On the spur of the moment it is a little difficult to move further than that at the present time.
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, as regards that intervention, is my noble friend aware that as far as I know the total limit of five hours is simply imposed by these Motions? On a day when a party has a choice of subject, the time can be unlimited if that party so wishes.
§ Lord WaddingtonMy Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. These debates do not have to be time limited. It is just that in recent times the parties who have chosen the debates have usually found that time limiting the debates is to their convenience and to the convenience of the House. After all, if a debate is time limited it has the advantage of allowing those who may wish to take part in it to know when the debate will draw to a conclusion. They can then make their own arrangements and be present for the winding-up speeches. However, I repeat that this matter will be 1223 considered by the Procedure Committee and perhaps we can leave it there and return to it when we have read the conclusions of the committee.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, before we leave the matter, is it not nevertheless right and fair to make the point that the five-hour rule has been a success throughout the past few years? Is it not further the case that there are occasions when subjects have been chosen and five hours has passed when there have not been enough speakers to fill the time allocated?
§ Lord WaddingtonMy Lords, the noble Lord has made an important point. Again that is one of those matters which can be taken into consideration by the Procedure Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.