House of Lords Procedure: Statements (Hansard, 25 May 1994)

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham)
No, my Lords. The committee considered this matter only last February at my request, and I would not wish to ask the committee to look at the matter yet again so soon afterwards.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that Statements on behalf of the Government are often of great importance? I do not think that he would be prepared to dispute that. Whereas the two spokesmen of the opposition parties have unlimited time, the whole of the rest of the House has only 20 minutes, including the time taken by Ministers to reply. Is my noble friend aware that on a great many recent occasions noble Lords have risen to try to put questions when the 20 minutes are up? The fact that the Procedure Committee does not favour a change is not conclusive.

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, this matter has been looked at by the Procedure Committee on a number of occasions over the years. It has done so at least four times since 1988. The trouble is that every Statement is important and particularly important to those noble Lords with a special interest in the subject. However, 756 Statements also interrupt and delay the business which has been arranged for the day. It is only fair to those concerned that the delay should not be indefinite. I believe that in practice we get by reasonably well on most occasions. It is fairly rare for the allotted 20 minutes to be fully used up. If noble Lords were to ask relatively shorter questions and Ministers were encouraged to give shorter replies, we would probably be able to fit in more questions.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, is the Minister aware that most of us believe that he is right in saying that the present arrangements are adequate? Noble Lords who want to be involved in Statements tend not to be the Peers who, like some of us, work fairly late into the evening or night. Is he also aware that the Opposition always have a choice as to whether a government Statement should be repeated in this House and often opt for that not to happen? Does the noble Lord agree that the present arrangements seem to work satisfactorily for the overwhelming majority of us?

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, I am always grateful for support, from wherever it comes, in your Lordships' House. The rules we operate are those which are most convenient to the House. I have no special knowledge in that regard. However, while what the noble Lord says is mostly correct, he is not quite accurate in one respect. The position is that Statements are usually arranged through the usual channels but it is possible for the Government to insist on making a Statement. However the matter is usually agreed through the usual channels.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that no one takes more delight than I do in the wisdom that falls so unfailingly from all Front Benches? At the same time, if brevity is the aim, would it not be appropriate for there to be a measure of self-denial even in those august circles?

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, the purpose of repeating a Statement in your Lordships' House is not actually brevity; it is to give information to your Lordships. That is what we seek to do. However, consistent with that, I think that brevity is a good motto to follow.

§ Viscount Hanworth
My Lords, does the Minister agree that many Questions put down ask for genuine information. They should not be ignored in one way or another by Ministers and advisers. I simply remark that one of my Questions has been dealt with in that way.

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, the noble Lord asks a supplementary question about Questions. This is a Question about Statements. Of course it is always possible for noble Lords who wish to have factual information to put down a Written Question. A Written Answer can be given when factual information is required.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, when 20 minutes is allowed, if the Statement does not warrant such a time limit it does not mean that those 20 minutes need be taken? However, at present the two Front Benches dominate questions 757 which flow from a Statement. That is not always helpful. Should the clock be the arbiter of the importance of a Statement? Should not the Leader of the House step in, as he can, and decide, according to the importance of the Statement, when questions shall be concluded?

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, I am the servant of the House in these matters. I do not believe that I can step in and stop debate whenever I wish, although that sometimes might be convenient. The position is that there is no time limit on the Front Benches. I have the lengths of time that have been taken since 13th December 1993. The limit on Back-Bench contributions is 20 minutes. The full time allotted was used on fewer than half the occasions when Statements were made.

§ Lord Hughes
My Lords, following upon what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Peyton, would it be possible to take note in future of how much of the 20 minutes is used up by Ministers in sometimes over-lengthy replies?

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, I am sure that some replies are over-lengthy and not necessarily to the liking of some of your Lordships. We endeavour to do the best we can; but, like everyone, we are human in these matters.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House will recall occasions when the House has been left in a state of exasperation with many people asking questions. The noble Lord is a man of great wisdom. Is it possible for him to judge the mood of the House and to ask whether the House wishes to continue questions for another five minutes?

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, I am sure that it would be possible. However, I do not think that it would happen until the Procedure Committee recommended to the House a different procedure from the one we have and the House approved that procedure. I am not in favour of seeking a change at present, but if there were a genuine feeling on the issue in the House then the matter could be considered again.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, one of the problems is that when we have an important Statement, there is a natural tendency for some noble Lords to make speeches rather than to ask questions.

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, absolutely. Our Companion to the Standing Orders seeks to deal with the matter. It states: Ministerial statements are made for the information of the House, and although brief comments and questions for clarification from all quarters of the House are allowed, such statements should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate". Having drawn that to your Lordships' attention, perhaps we may move on.