§ 41. Mr. AllenTo ask the Lord President of the Council what changes in procedure he is bringing forward in order to make the proceedings of the House more understandable (a) to hon. and right hon. Members and (b) to the television viewer.
§ Sir Geoffrey HoweI have no plans at present, but I am always ready to consider such changes.
§ Mr. AllenWill the Lord President consider improving the level of debates in this House by supporting the extension of a 10-minute limit on speeches and allowing Mr. Speaker to have discretion to operate that limit—excluding Front-Bench spokesmen—whenever he feels that that is appropriate in a debate? Will he also consider, as a way of improving debates, that as well as a 10-minute limit, time should be set aside—perhaps three or five minutes—for interventions when the clock would stop and hon. Members would not lose that time from their 10 minutes? At the moment many hon. Members simply read 664 their speeches into the record. Would not my two proposals improve debates not simply for the television viewer, but for Back Benchers as well? Will the Lord President now add his weight to the proposals?
§ Sir Geoffrey HoweI can find more sympathy in the House for the relative simplicity of the hon. Gentleman's proposal than for the more complex arrangements that he visualises in his second proposal. It is open to the Procedure Committee to look again at the possibility of extending the scope for the 10-minute limitation. It is essentially a matter on which the views of the House as a whole must be taken into account. However, I can see the case for considering it.
§ Mr. Teddy TaylorCan the Leader of the House explain to right hon. and hon. Members and to the television viewer why our only opportunity to discuss the EEC budget will be from midnight tonight for about an hour and a half? Does he not believe that with the advance of television, many people will gain the impression that the attention that we give to EEC matters is a bit of a sick joke?
§ Sir Geoffrey HoweMy hon. Friend will know that there is a question about that later on the Order Paper from which it will become clear that during the 1988–89 Session, the total amount of time devoted to European Community matters was some 90 hours. That is a very substantial allocation of time.
§ Dr. CunninghamWhen the Leader of the House is considering ways in which to improve understanding of television broadcasts of our proceedings, will he bear the interests of deaf people very much in mind? I know that he is aware of the considerable pressure exerted not only by deaf people and the organisations that represent them but by Members of Parliament for subtitles to be included to make it easier for the deaf members of our communities to understand—and, we hope, enjoy—those television broadcasts. Will he consider how that might be achieved, and report back to us?
§ Sir Geoffrey HoweI can certainly give an affirmative answer to that question. The whole House will sympathise with the wishes of deaf people who would like to gain a better appreciation of what takes place here. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House is currently giving the matter active consideration. We are looking at evidence from both sides—that is, from both those who represent the deaf and those who represent the broadcasters—and we are taking the problem very seriously.
§ Mr. TebbitMay I ask my right hon. and learned Friend not to underestimate the difficulty of persuading the broadcasting authorities to use subtitling for the deaf in any broadcasts? When I was chairman of the Conservative party and sought to persuade the BBC to allow subtitling for the deaf in party political broadcasts, the BBC opposed my suggestion bitterly, on the ground that the Labour party had made it first.
§ Sir Geoffrey HoweI cannot undertake to achieve an arbitral conclusion to this important question that is compatible with the legitimate aspirations of my right hon. Friend, but we are discussing it with broadcasting 665 organisations of both kinds. Both are showing an active interest, while at the same time drawing attention to legitimate difficulties.