No doubt some representatives of all the parties at City Hall will have a degree of sympathy with the proposal from the three Green councillors for a cut in the length of speeches at the full council meeting next week. No-one appreciates having to sit there while proposals are put forward and seconded in an unnecessarily long-winded way, often to score party-political points.

However, halving the time allocated to proposing a motion to five minutes and allowing seconders a mere two-and-a-half minutes to explain their position is too blunt an instrument.

Councillors Robert Nicholls, Martin Love and David Ford say they want to end "political posturing" in these pre-ambles and believe the time should instead be spent in debating the issues. They claim that too much time is taken up with the two major parties taking swipes at each other.

It is regrettable that this does indeed sometimes seem to happen. Councillors should exercise more self-restraint and stop playing to the gallery.

However, a formal guillotine obliging them to sum up sometimes complex proposals in very little time could do more harm than good. If the Council is to do justice to the issues which come before it, the members putting forward proposals need to be able to present them fully. Only if that is allowed to happen can other councillors debate them in an informed way,

Council decisions can have far-reaching effects on many people's lives. They are too important to be rushed for the sake of a few minutes saved. The present limits should stay.