Business of the House (Hansard, 25 March 1988)

§ Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)
My understanding is that the motion permits one and a half hours' debate on Tuesday on the important issue of televising proceedings of the House of Commons. I and many other hon. Members of all parties fully support the principle of televising the House and, since the decision in principle was made, many who opposed the idea have begun to see some of the advantages and many who were in favour are perhaps more aware of the disadvantages. One and a half hours is insufficient time to consider such issues.
I have in mind two points. The first concerns Select Committees. Perhaps the majority of hon. Members feel that the hard work of Parliament goes on there as opposed to the glamorous air of the Chamber. Some of us may feel that a built-in percentage of television time should be allocated to coverage of Select Committees. The Public Accounts Committee is dear to my heart, but no doubt other hon. Members feel that other Committees merit coverage.
Secondly, control has been mentioned. One proposal was for the equivalent of a Hansard office to control the pictures that are given to the various channels, at least until hon. Members are reassured about the future.
One and a half hours is one and a half hours more than nothing, but is it within the remit of the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) to extend the time available so that more Back Benchers can be called to speak?
The House may remember that, during the debate on the principle, one hon. Member took about 40 minutes, others took a long time, and some, such as me, were involved in important Committees and were unable to participate. I fear that if only one and a half hours is granted, we may find that only five or, at best, six or seven hon. Members are called to speak on an issue about which genuine differences of opinion must be aired. For once, moreover, many hon. Members would be listening to the arguments.

§ Mr. David Hunt (Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household)
I understand that the motion has been agreed through the usual channels. If the motion is not passed, it will not be possible for any debate to take place on this business unless it is reached before 10 pm — it is not exempt business.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has raised two matters which I shall ensure are passed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House at the earliest possible opportunity. I remind him that the debate will take place on a motion on the setting up of the Select Committee and on its composition. I believe that it is in the interests of all concerned that the Committee be set up as quickly as possible.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
I had not intended to involve myself in this debate, but there are two aspects of the reply of the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) which require some comment.
When, no doubt, the history of the televising of Parliament is written, those involved will examine what was said in our previous debate and that which is to take place next week. Conceivably, they will consider this brief procedural exchange. It is on matters of procedure that greater matters grow.
The hon. Gentleman says that informal agreement has been reached on the motion. I have no objection to such agreements being reached for the convenience of the House, but it is questionable whether such an agreement should be prayed in aid. I may be wrong—if I am, no doubt I shall be corrected— but my understanding is that the motion is about the membership of the Committee, about which there has been some controversy, and the Committee's terms of reference. That is open to amendment. I suspect that those are separate but important issues. There has been some discussion about membership, but I think that terms of reference relating to how the Committee goes about its work—apart from the principle—are also important.

§ Mr. David Hunt
It may assist the House if, while recognising the hon. Gentleman's concern, I direct his attention to motion 23 in the Remaining Orders of the Day. He will then realise, if he has not already done so, that the terms of reference for the Committee are not contained in the motion, but were contained in the resolution on 9 February.

§ Mr. Spearing
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I should have been a little more circumspect. The formal terms of reference are, of course, there, but—I shall modify what I said—expressions of view on how the Committee goes about its business, and some of the ideas and suggestions that it might bear in mind, need some formal expression. The debate would enable that to take place.
I entirely understand that if this motion does not go through the matter cannot be debated at all, as it is not 696 exempt business. I have no doubt that, if it had been tabled for debate late at night, an amendment might have been put down to increase the one and a half hours to two or two and a half, but that did not happen. We have what is before us now, and it may in effect have already been arranged. Probably, when we reach the end of the debate on Tuesday, some hon. Members will be creating that there was not sufficient time for what will be quite a significant and important debate in an important series of debates leading to important innovations.