Assembly takes two hours to back 15-minute speech limit

Committee presidents presenting policy letters would be among the few exceptions and still able to speak for as long as they wished.

And the Bailiff would be given complete flexibility to allow longer speeches or impose a shorter time limit.

The change, proposed in an amendment led by Steve Falla, was agreed by 23 votes to 15, but will face a final vote in February when debate resumes on a wide-ranging policy letter about the States’ rules of procedure.

‘What this amendment seeks to do is impose some discipline on debates that can sometimes meander on for days with speakers on occasions simply repeating what others have said without introducing any new points to the debate,’ said Deputy Falla.

‘Research shows that opinion on the optimum human attention span when listening to someone speaking is anything from 10-20 minutes.

‘In my opinion, the States generally has a tendency to over-think, over-write and over-speak and this does not serve clarity of communication, the quality of debate or good decision-making.’

Yvonne Burford, leading the case against the amendment, described it as ‘very bad and ill-thought through’.

She feared that a 15-minute limit would soon be seen as an allocation, and could even extend the overall length of debates.

She recalled leading a minority report some years ago which ran to more than 100 pages and took six months to compile, and did not believe that a 15-minute speech would have been adequate to present it to the Assembly.

‘During my time in this Assembly, I have heard compelling, absorbing speeches of half an hour, but equally I have heard 10-minute speeches which in my view added precisely nothing,’ said Deputy Burford.

‘I agree that on the vast majority of occasions 15 minutes is way more than enough. In most cases, 10 minutes is more than enough. But not always.’

The 15-minute limit proposed by Deputy Falla excluded points of order, give ways and legal advice provided during a member’s speech.

Deputy Burford criticised that as ‘utterly impracticable’ and Policy & Resources president Lyndon Trott warned that it could incur the costs of an additional member of staff being required in the States chamber.

Deputy Andrea Dudley-Owen believed the public was demanding ‘an effective parliament’ and that lengthy speeches ‘called that into question’, but Deputy Sam Haskins feared that a time limit could prevent more complex issues from being ‘fully explored’ and in some circumstances lead to ‘a lack of well-informed decision making’.

Some members were particularly concerned about imposing a 15-minute limit on proposers of far-reaching amendments, but Deputy Falla emphasised the Bailiff’s wide discretion to set aside the limit and allow some speeches to last longer.

Several opponents of the amendment argued that the Bailiff’s additional powers risked drawing him too far into politics.

Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez claimed the Bailiff would be left with ‘an unfair burden’ of deciding who could and could not make longer speeches.

Deputies Aidan Matthews and Tina Bury shared similar concerns and said they would be more sympathetic to a time limit on all speeches.

Some members, including Peter Ferbrache, wondered if a time limit should be set of fewer than 15 minutes.

‘I’d have liked to see a 10-minute limit. We have got to show more discipline. You condense your arguments. I don’t see the difficulty of this at all,’ said Deputy Ferbrache.

Deputy Mark Helyar regretted the need for a new rule but saw no other way to prevent lengthy speeches because members making them had proved they could not show self-discipline.