Procedure of the House (Proposal 3) Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Lord Higgins

Main Page: Lord Higgins (Conservative - Life peer)

Procedure of the House (Proposal 3)

Lord Higgins Excerpts
Tuesday 8th November 2011

(12 years, 6 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Earl of Erroll Portrait The Earl of Erroll
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord and I confirm that that is the purpose. As everything is now televised, people must understand what is going on. We could get the time back by saying that the Minister may stand up when someone has been speaking and trying to ask a supplementary for 30 seconds and start the reply at that point. Quite simply, if one cannot get the question out in 30 seconds it is just bad luck.

Lord Higgins Portrait Lord Higgins
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I believe that the present arrangement works extremely well. As far as I can see, this will actually slow down the proceedings, and, to try to get some of the time back, imposes a limit on the length of Questions to 25 words. One can see a number of Questions on the Order Paper now which are over 25 words and are by no means excessively long. I see no reason whatever to change the existing arrangement.

Lord Cormack Portrait Lord Cormack
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I agree very much with my noble friend, but there is one thing that we could do—and I hesitate to mention this. There is one practice in the Commons that speeds it up: that the Member asking a Question gets up and says “Number One”, “Number Two” or “Number Three” or whatever. As the Question is printed on the Order Paper; as you can put texts on the television that viewers can read; and as every Member of your Lordships’ House can read and has an Order Paper, that is the way one could speed things up. However, in my view there is absolutely no justification for this particular suggestion.

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Higgins Portrait Lord Higgins
- Hansard - -

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, as I understand it, the limit is on the length of the Question on the Order Paper. It is not on the length of supplementary questions.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Portrait Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I understand that, but I was trying to draw a comparison by saying that it is not so much that we need a limit on the original Question, but that we need to be more self-regulatory in putting a limit on the length of supplementaries.