The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)

My Lords, I understand both contributions and the feeling of the House that has been made known by the noble and learned Baroness. Clearly, the procedure committee, if referred to, can look at these things, but the business of the House is obviously conducted within usual channels for the planning of debates. This is the way we have always conducted our affairs. I am sure the usual channels, who are present, understand some of the points that have been made. If I may refer back to the report, it is one of the reasons why we reflected that we needed to have QSDs that could be managed in that time. Candidly, we thought it inappropriate to have a QSD where the subject of the debate invited so many noble Lords, because it was such a broad or big issue. Therefore, our suggestion is that we want to have QSDs that are manageable, so that the proposer can articulate properly in the time allocated, so that Back-Benchers have time and so that the Minister in turn is properly questioned. One thing I will say on this, because it is a dilemma, is that my experience is that the House generally likes brevity if the points are well made. I have heard some brilliant speeches of three or four minutes. I have heard some of 10 minutes where I thought we could have had six minutes less. I think it is about the subject, and I well understand the noble Lord when he said that, last Friday—and tomorrow—there were deeply held opinions. But what I picked up a bit—because I am not allowed to speak—is that everyone thought those debates were conducted, even within that short time, with enormous courtesy and mutual respect. As someone said to me, in a way it was an example of the House of Lords at its best—dealing with issues of this intensity thoroughly and well, and often in a short time. But I take away what the noble Lord and the noble and learned Baroness have said.