We Crossbenchers talked today about the problem of debates where they are of a fixed length, say 2-3 hours but so popular perhaps 30 or more speakers has put their name down. With time taken off for introducers and front bench ‘winders-up’, it is quite possible to end up with a time of 3-4minutes for each speaker. We have very good examples tomorrow where Lord Luce’s debate on the future of higher education has attracted 27 speakers and Lord Ramsbottom’s on prisons an equally impressive 24. Guessing that the HE one would be popular I’ve tried to confine myself to one or two key points about my area of interest, that is in health sciences education and I guessed we would only get 4 minutes each. But one very distinguished eduactionalist on our benches feels very aggrieved that he will not be able to cover anything in depth and to be honest I would rather hear 20 minutes of him than 4 minutes of a lot of others. One brave soul suggested he should collar all those who ‘won’t say anything important’ and tell them not to speak! I think he was joking but maybe not. It does however remind one to be self denying about speaking in debate unless a) one has something to say which one is pretty sure no-one else will say and b) that one knows something about.
My own view is that debates are there to highlight key issues, to press the Minister to look further at particular issues and make known strength of feeling about a topic. It should be possible to say something important about an issue in 3-4 minutes and very rarely is it productive to let people go on for longer than 10minutes. Coming from an academic background where one feels short-changed if asked to speak for less than 30 minutes on a conference platform, and where students expect lectures to go on for 40 minutes minimum, this does require a change of style and an ability to precis. I guess we are far more entertaining to listen to when there is a frequent change of speaker. And let’s face it some people can make 4 minutes seem like 20!
I think you make an excellent point. In my opinion – although this applies more so to the Commons – there are far too many politicians who stand up to ‘contribute’ nothing which is worthwhile.
Sadly, i feel much of this is to do with websites, such as theyworkforyou.com, which measure MPs on how many debates they have spoken in, questions asked etc.
As you mention in your post, i think the difficulty comes in trying to regulate the issue in either the Lords of the Commons.
On another note, there seems to be many Members in the Commons who simply don’t pay any attention to what is being said in debates. Rarely, do i ever see MPs or Ministers actually listeniing to the points which are being made. I wonder if this occurs, at least to the same extent, in the Lords?