The prolixity of Members of Parliament is going a measurable
distance towards destroying the virtue of debates. The discussion on the National Health Service Bill on Monday was a particularly flagrant example of that. The subject was of wide interest. I arge numbers of Members were anxious to speak. Yet such was the length of the orations delivered that in the whole 61 hours between 3.30 and so no more than 18 speakers got their chance. The twol front bench speakers who opened consumed between them 93 minutes ; the two front bench speakers who closed consumed 65. That left for a potential 635 back-benchers 232 minutes. Of the aforesaid back-benchers four consecutive speakers were on their feet for 24, 266 25 and 33 minutes respectively. If the quality of the speeches had been equal to thetr volume there might be some mitigation ; actually for the most part inverse proportion ruled. Opening speakers must, of course, develop their argument at length. Later participants can, and emphatically should, get all that is essential into fifteen minutes or little more. When they do the debate is alive ; when they do not it commonly goes dead. The Speaker has no power tp check a Member who maunders on (except for repetition or irrelevance) and the House has never been willing that he should have.
Previous page
