Better use of existing Rules of the House of Assembly could help prevent Friday debates from stretching into Saturday morning, says Speaker of the House Ernest DeCouto.

Meanwhile, Government Whip Richard Spurling said the Government and Opposition should agree to allocate specific amounts of time to most motions debated in the House of Assembly while also limiting how long MPs could speak.

But Opposition Leader Frederick Wade said he would oppose any move to curtail free speech. "Parliament is the one place where freedom of speech must reign without limitation and without fettering,'' Mr. Wade said.

All the comments came in the wake of Friday's sitting in the House of Assembly, which stretched until 6.30 a.m. on Saturday.

The last stretch was spent debating an Opposition "take note'' motion on Commissioner Colin Coxall's Police Service Strategy.

It was far from a record. Two years ago, a Friday sitting lasted until after 2 p.m. on Saturday.

Asked whether he thought the Rules of the House needed to be changed to limit how long MPs could speak, Mr. DeCouto told The Royal Gazette existing rules could prevent a recurrence of what happened last week.

Specifically, he cited Rule 14(e), which says notice is not required to move a motion "allocating time for the consideration of any order of the day.'' The rule could be used to allocate three hours, for example, to consider a bill or motion. "It's there,'' but "I've never heard it used,'' Mr. DeCouto said.

He did not want to restrict freedom of speech, but felt the two party Whips could get together and agree on how much time a given matter should be allocated.

Another rule which prohibits repetition could also be more sternly enforced by chairmen, he said.

Mr. Spurling said he agreed with Mr. DeCouto. But allocating time for a motion would only work if individual MPs were also limited in how long they could speak, Mr. Spurling said.

"I would certainly agree that the effectiveness of a debate that goes from 12 o'clock until seven in the morning is questionable,'' the St. George's South MP said. "People are so tired that no one is really listening.'' If Rule 14(e) was used to limit a given debate to three hours, the House would also need to allocate about one hour to each of the Minister and the Shadow Minister and about 20 minutes to other MPs, he said.

"If you don't limit people to time, someone will take the whole time, and that will make it worse,'' he said.

Limiting speeches to 20 minutes would require preparation and improve the debate, he said. The only exceptions to time allocation could be special debates like the Budget Debate and the Throne Speech Debate, he said.

"I would be in favour of agreeing with the Opposition, as opposed to shoving it down their throats,'' he said.

Mr. Wade said the Progressive Labour Party could never agree to having MPs limited to a specific time for speeches.

"The answer to what happened on Friday is for the Government to better organise its business,'' he said.

"To have six meetings of Parliament and expect to cover some 20 something items, it's just errant nonsense.

"The answer is not to curtail freedom of speech.''