HL Deb 31 January 1995 vol 560 cc1335-6

3.10 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne)

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 Northbourne set down for tomorrow shall be limited to 2 hours and that in the name of the Lord Allen of Abbeydale set down for the same day to 3 hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, I am all in support of the Motion on the Order Paper which relates to the Business of the House. However, I should be glad if the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would explain to us the specific authority claimed by the Government in respect of the Unstarred Question this evening which is tabled in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich by which the debate is limited to one hour. Where is the specific authority for that step to be taken? I have in mind the very great importance of the matters that are the subject of the Unstarred Question for the whole issue of the preservation of historic buildings in this country and the ecclesiastical and general culture that is associated with them.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, in view of the fact that there are 21 speakers for the first of tomorrow's debates and only 15 for the second, will my noble friend have further discussions through the usual channels to see whether he can revise the time limit for the short debate which has the greater number of speakers?

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I can readily understand the motives of both my noble friend and the noble Lord for intervening in the Motion. Perhaps I may, first, address the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. As I am sure the noble Lord will know, a recent amendment was made to the Companion to the Standing Orders at page 83, which reads: On an experimental basis, Unstarred Questions, time-limited to one hour, may be asked during dinner adjournments. These should be limited in scope. The questioner is allocated 10 minutes and the Minister replying 12 minutes". Noble Lords will be aware that recently, following the Third Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of the House for the year 1993–94, that experiment was made permanent with the agreement of your Lordships. I should add that the right reverend Prelate was very clear in his desire to introduce such a debate—on a question which, quite rightly, exercises the minds of many noble Lords—that a firm date should be secured well in advance of the time.

Therefore, although the right reverend Prelate was well aware of the risks attendant on securing such a fixed date—namely, that many people would want to speak in a very short debate—he preferred to do so, as I understand it, rather than take the risks attendant upon going for a balloted Motion.

I must tell my noble friend Lord Gisborough that we are discussing a Motion which was put forward by the Cross-Benches. I believe that it has been made clear by the representatives of the Cross-Benches, through the usual channels, that that is the balance of time that they would prefer. I am sure noble Lords would agree with me when I say that it would be discourteous of the rest of the House to interfere with the preferences of Members of the Cross-Benches, who form such a substantial part of the Chamber, when they have expressed such a desire for the management of the time which has been allocated to them. I hope that my noble friend will accept that that is something to which I believe the House should adhere.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for his response. Is the noble Viscount aware that I was merely seeking to be helpful to Her Majesty's Government to enable them to get out of their difficulties in the matter? However, I should stress that my services will be available on another occasion when I hope to be helpful to the noble Viscount.

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I am always extremely grateful to any offers that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, makes when he wishes to be of help to the Government. I particularly note the fact that, unlike many consultants who are employed by Her Majesty's Government, the services of the noble Lord come free.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, can the noble Viscount comment on the fact that, while the Order Paper suggests that speakers in this evening's Unstarred Question will be allocated two minutes so as to fit in to the one-hour schedule, when an Unstarred Question was scheduled on a previous occasion to take place during the dinner hour, the rest of the Business of the House was completed before that time, thus leaving the Unstarred Question, effectively, without a time limit? Will the House take note of the latter as a possible precedent which might be used this evening?

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. My understanding—and I am open to correction in such matters—is that, under the circumstances that the noble Lord predicates, the hour is extended to an hour-and-a-half. Although in this particular instance I believe that noble Lords would not find themselves with very much more time at their disposal, it may be worth underlining to your Lordships that the risks associated with the procedure have always been made clear. In particular, the Select Committee recommended that noble Lords should, perhaps, consider carefully before adding their names to a list of speakers, the length of which already indicates that speech times will be short. If the procedure is to work, it is, to a degree, in your Lordships' hands; as, indeed, is the case with all things in this House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.