House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 May 1991

Column 326

members of the Committee were very impressed by the prototype, but we shall await the reactions of more hon. Members before decisions are reached.

I now turn to a matter on which we were not able to secure a final decision before agreeing our report. As I said earlier, in the context of future capital expenditure on televising, a crucial feature of the permanent arrangements is the need for a new central control room from which the entire integrated operation will be managed. The existing control room in the Commonwealth Press Writing Room is simply not large enough for that purpose, and is in any case becoming increasingly unsuitable even for its present more limited role. The Select Committee has therefore asked the Parliamentary Works Office to carry out a series of feasibility studies and examinations of various possible sites for a new integrated control room.

After considerable analysis and discussion, the realistic options have now been reduced to three : inside the House, the cylindrical void in the tower above the Central Lobby dome ; and outside the House, Nos. 4 and 7 Millbank. The former is a privately owned building, part of which the BBC has recently occupied as the base for its parliamentary operations, while the latter is under consideration by the PWO for renting as part of the scheme to rehouse staff who will be displaced from St. Stephen's house when it is demolished as a result of the Jubilee line extension. The case for and against each of the three options is set out in detail in the Committee's report, so there is no need for me to rehearse the arguments now. On balance, the Broadcasting Committee takes the view that the Central Lobby tower represents an imaginative and structurally feasible solution, which, in the absence of any other suitable accommodation inside the House, ought to be pursued. Let me quote the reasoning set out in our report :

"this proposal represents our preferred way of maintaining the broadcasting unit both psychologically and physically as an integral part of the service of the House. It cannot be emphasised too strongly"

--this important point is sometimes misunderstood--

"that the control room is the House's own facility and that its occupants, although not employed directly by the House, feel a loyalty to it rather than to what is usually described as the broadcasters'. Thus, a location within the building, although not absolutely essential, is strongly to be preferred on grounds of operational reliability, staff morale and administrative efficiency."

Naturally, cost has been an important factor in our consideration of the alternatives. Meaningful comparisons are complicated by the fact that, while the Central Lobby tower option would involve a rather larger initial capital outlay than either of the two Millbank sites, they in turn would entail substantial annual rental and other charges, in addition to the costs of refurbishment.

In the Committee's judgment, the £2 million estimated cost of the Central Lobby tower option should be viewed as a long-term investment in the permanent televising of the House's proceedings, and can be justified on that basis.

The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee, fulfilling its duty under Standing Order No. 125 to "advise Mr. Speaker on the control of the accommodation and services in that part of the Palace occupied by or on behalf of the House of Commons",

has considered the possibility of siting the control room in the Central Lobby Tower and, at its meeting on 4 March 1991, rejected the idea for practical, financial and other

Column 327

reasons set out in a letter to me from its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), which is published as appendix 11 with our report.

This difference between the two Committees, each rightly looking at the issue from its own point of view, has still to be resolved. I have already mentioned the question of cost. This is one of the factors which still has to be properly evaluated, since the estimates have been fluctuating as both Committees have been meeting. We hope to have a new paper before us shortly on the costings of the different options.

As this matter has yet to be considered by the full Services Committee, which I also chair, it would not be appropriate for me to say any more at this stage, except that an urgent resolution of the problem is essential if the new control room is to be operational by the summer of 1992. The House is not asked to take a view on this today.

Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be unfortunate for the House if the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee were to take an entrenched position on this matter? Although we all respect that Committee's work, we very much hope that it will listen to the considerable work and thought that has been put into the recommendation that my right hon. Friend has advanced. The Committee would arouse great respect in the House if it felt flexible enough to change its position to accommodate those recommendations.

Mr. MacGregor : I agree with my hon. Friend that a great deal of thought and work has already gone into the proposition, as those of us on the Broadcasting Committee know well. As my hon. Friend knows, I have gone along with the view of the Broadcasting Committee on this matter, although, as I have said, the matter will also come before the Services Committee, which I also chair. So far, I have taken the view that my hon. Friend has outlined. I am sure that the members of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee who, perhaps understandably, are not here in force, unlike the members of the Broadcasting Committee, will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

The House will expect me to say a few words about the parliamentary archives. The Select Committee did not examine in detail, as part of its consideration of the permanent arrangements, the future organisation, staffing, and funding of the archive, since a working party had already been established by the Clerks of the two Houses with precisely that remit. The Committee confined itself, therefore, to reaffirming the principle that the archive should continue to maintain complete tapes of all proceedings in the Chamber, as well as of any Committee proceedings covered by the broadcasters. But we also thought it right to draw attention to the anomaly which has arisen with regard to the archive, whereby its staff are employed by the other place, even though the vast majority of its work stems from the proceedings of this House.

To complicate matters further, the archive's accommodation is provided by the Commons, while its capital equipment needs have been met until recently by the Parliamentary Works Office, although this expenditure has now been switched, with effect from the current

Column 328

Session, to the vote for House of Commons (Administration). The Committee expressed the hope that these issues would be addressed by the working party, which I understand has now submitted its report to the Clerks of the two Houses. The question of receipts from sales of archive material was not part of the working party's remit, but is being addressed separately by the Supervisor of Broadcasting. However, I believe that the receipts of sales from archives material is very small at present.

One other aspect of the archive which I ought to mention is the question of the uses to which archive material should be put--that is, other than for broadcasting purposes, to which specific guidelines already apply. The Committee has devoted considerable time and effort to the task of drawing up a set of guidelines for the

non-broadcasting uses of archive material, which will prevent obvious abuses without being unduly restrictive in their effect. We believe that the guidelines contained in paragraphs 99 and 100 of the report should prove workable, although, of course, we will keep them under review.

There is, however, one aspect of the possible usage of archive material which we were not able to tackle as part of our report, and that is the area of party political or electoral campaigning. The Committee considered this matter at its meeting yesterday and decided that no further guidelines were needed for this purpose for the time being, but that the matter should be kept under review.

An issue which in previous debates many hon. Members considered to be important was the prospects for establishing a dedicated parliamentary television channel. The obstacles to the achievement of that objective have never been technical : they are financial. In the absence of public money-- we are talking about an annual cost of several million pounds--any decision to initiate a dedicated channel has been dependent on the commercial judgments of those with a potential interest in such a project.

Mr. Grocott rose--

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) rose--

Mr. MacGregor : It might be better if I made progress on this issue. Then I shall happily give way.

I am delighted to be able to tell the House that, as the report itself describes, real progress has been made since the last debate on televising some nine months ago. The Select Committee received three different proposals--from Commons Committee Television, the company which is currently responsible for providing coverage of Committees, Thames Television, and United Artists. The Committee welcomed all three schemes, details of which are set out in the report, as representing

"a serious and commendable attempt to bring the goal of a dedicated channel nearer to realisation."

Having carefully considered the proposals and taken evidence from their promoters, the Committee concluded that the United Artists scheme was

"the most thoroughly worked out and immediately practicable of the three".

This proposal involves live continuous coverage of the House of Commons, supplemented by extended coverage of the other place and of Committees. Later, material from overseas legislatures might be added. The service will be distributed initially by low-power satellite to cable heads

Column 329

and will thus be available to any cable subscriber at no additional charge. The cost of the service will be borne entirely by the cable operators.

It is true that the potential reach of the service will be fairly small initially, at some 260,000 households by the end of this year, but on the latest available estimates from the cable industry, that figure is expected to rise to some 4.6 million households by the end of the decade. We should not lose sight in this context of the example of C-Span in the USA, which also started from small beginnings and has now developed into a full dedicated channel providing comprehensive coverage of Congress and its committees. The Committee also hopes that it may be possible, subject to discussions involving the Independent Television Commission, for the service to be transmitted via one of the transponders on the Marco Polo satellite, which, as the House may know, is used for the moment by BSkyB. This would have the great advantage of removing any geographical limitation on the availability of the service, as anyone possessing, or willing to purchase, a so-called squarial' would have access to the channel.

Mr. Tony Banks : The Leader of the House does not seem to appreciate how important televising the proceedings of this place is to the democratic process. We ought to consider television as a televised Hansard. The idea of the televised proceedings being available through United Artists to 260,000 cable recipients, perhaps increasing to a certain number, is pathetic. We should fund the service here, as our major contribution to the democratic process. Cannot the Leader of the House grasp that point?

Mr. MacGregor : That point was much discussed throughout the deliberations of the Committee. I make three points to the hon. Gentleman. First, the dedicated channel is in addition to the other televising of Parliament that we have been discussing, which is available to everyone through the medium of broadcasting generally. Secondly, a substantial cost is involved in dedicated channels, and we have had proposals under which the cost will be met by the operators. Thirdly, as I have said, exactly as has happened in the United States, the number of people who will be able to see a dedicated channel through the cable system if they wish to do so will be fairly small in the initial stages. There will be considerable scope for expansion.

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North) : Will my right hon. Friend comment on two points? First, he said that the Committee had come down in favour of the United Artists proposal. He should recognise that, although a majority of the Committee were in favour, it was a fairly narrow majority. It was by no means a unanimous decision. Secondly, my right hon. Friend must concede that at no time in its latter deliberations did the Committee make any effort whatever to solicit interest in the whole franchise. For that reason, if for no other, it is clear that many commercial interests which might have wished to put in a bid were denied the opportunity to do so.

Mr. MacGregor : Throughout its proceedings, the Committee took its view. Some of its conclusions were reached on the basis of majority vote. Throughout, it was able to hear views such as the one that my hon. Friend has just expressed. As my hon. Friend knows, when he made

Column 330

his point in the Committee it did not command majority support. However, what I am about to say should help to deal with what he has said.

The Select Committee has urged United Artists to begin immediate negotiations with HOCBUL--and, of course, its successor, PARBUL--about its participation as a full member of the company. The United Artists proposal was one of three in front of the Committee, and was generally regarded as the best. We have made it clear that, while that proposal deserves every encouragement, it should not be regarded as the last word, and that others should feel free to come forward with schemes if they wish. That offer stands.

I note from the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) that he wishes to see a dedicated satellite channel "under the direct auspices of the House".

I cannot see what purpose this would serve, when United Artists is perfectly willing, through the cable industry, to fund its own proposal, which, I stress, will be subject to the same parliamentary control in all essential areas as the main televising operation. Nor do I share the hon. Gentleman's faith in the ability of the House to manage an undertaking such as a dedicated channel. The arrangements that we advocate are not only a very considerable advance on the situation to date but the most effective way of going forward. Incidentally, the Select Committee has not, contrary to the hon. Gentleman's amendment, opened the door to commercial exploitation of the signal through the United Artists scheme. All that the Committee has done--as is clear from the published minutes of proceedings, which are included in the report--is to refuse to rule out in advance the principle of sponsorship for a dedicated channel. But I emphasise that any specific proposal of this sort--we have had one already from Thames Television--would require the Committee's express authority. I hope that the House will agree that the United Artists service, which will begin in the autumn, represents a major step forward. I believe that it is very close, in spirit at any rate, to the sort of proposal canvassed during earlier debates by a number of hon. Members.

The other place has already agreed to its own Broadcasting Committee's report, which sets out permanent arrangements for televising similar to those contained in the report of the Committee in this House, which we are discussing today. I am sure that many hon. Members will have read the report of the debate in the other place, in which, the corresponding report received a very general welcome. If this House approves the motion now before it, the next step will be for a public tender to be held, leading to the selection of an operator responsible for providing the integrated coverage. It is hoped that the name of the operator will be known by the end of June. Subsequently, new licences will need to be granted to PARBUL by both Houses, assigning copyright in the signals to PARBUL, subject to certain conditions. The new arrangements will then be in place by the time the House returns in October from the summer recess. The Select Committee has recommended in its report what I believe are sensible, practical arrangements for the future of parliamentary broadcasting. They are sensible because they provide Parliament with full and final control over the form of the signals ; they will ensure an efficient and economical management of the television operation on an integrated basis, with clearly defined lines of

Column 331

responsibility ; and they give the broadcasters the assurance that their own legitimate interests are protected and, in particular, that their money is used cost-effectively and that the signals are of a technically acceptable standard.

Above all, the proposed arrangements carry forward the essential features of a system with which we are already familiar, and which we know works. Finally, as a bonus, there is at last a genuine prospect that a channel dedicated to live, continuous coverage of our proceedings will be in operation by the autumn.

I commend the Select Committee's report to the House.

4.29 pm

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof : "takes note of the First Report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting, &c. (House of Commons Paper No. 11) but declines to approve a Report which fails to establish a Broadcasting Unit as a Department of the House as recommended in paragraph 106 of the First Report of the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House (House of Commons Paper No. 141, Session 1988- 89), fails to provide a continuous satellite feed of House of Commons proceedings under the direct auspices of the House, and fails to prohibit the possible exploitation of the House of Commons' signal through commercial sponsorship.".

This is the third report on televising the Chamber since the House decided in principle, three years ago, that we should conduct an experiment. I have been a member of the Select Committee on Broadcasting, &c. throughout, as have a fair number of the other Members who serve on it. I had no hesitation in supporting the first two reports. The first was about how we should set up the experiment and the second was to assess how well the experiment had gone. The third report contains a recommendation for permanent arrangements for televising the House, and I am afraid that I cannot put my name to it.

I take that decision with some regret, because I have certainly enjoyed serving on the Select Committee and helping in the substantial extension of democracy that televising our proceedings has brought about. However, the report is flawed in two fundamental respects, which are referred to in the amendment.

I shall deal with those flaws shortly, but before the bad news that the Committee has not been able to agree on permanent arrangements, I should like to take the opportunity of referring to the good news about the experiment. Its result has been, as we all hoped, that unprecedented numbers of our fellow citizens can regularly watch the proceedings of the House and follow its debates. They see how well, or how badly, we react to the issues of the day.

Before I came to the House today I looked at some of the viewing figures of the principal programmes that use parliamentary material. I should never have expected those figures to be as good as they are--although they are not big in television terms. For example, the Channel 4 programme, "A Week in Politics", which has an unearthly transmission hour on Thursday night and is repeated on Sunday morning, has an audience of 200,000 to 300,000 on Thursday night and 100,000 to 200,000 for the Sunday morning repeat.

Column 332

"Westminster Live", which carries Prime Minister's Question Time on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and also goes out on Wednesdays, regularly has viewing figures of between 600,000 and 700,000. The programme planners had great confidence--they had more nerve than I should have had--and decided to have a programme over-run last week which took some time from the world snooker championship coverage. "The Parliament Programme" on Channel 4 had a steadily increasing audience, despite having another bad transmission time--12 noon daily. About a quarter of a million people now regularly watch that programme. It is a great achievement that so many people watch our proceedings and that we have an archive of those proceedings. For example, we now have on film the speech by the former Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), towards the end of last year, and the final speech as Prime Minister of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). We have those speeches on tape, and we can all play them and, certainly in my case, thoroughly enjoy them. That is an enrichment of our democracy.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Does my hon. Friend agree that, although one or two individuals may still resist, the opposition to televising our proceedings has virtually collapsed in the House? The voices that warned of all that might happen as a result of the experiment-- exhibitionism and a change in the character of the House--have been proved wrong. Televising the House now seems as natural as televising our party conferences, and as the reporting of our proceedings by Hansard and the newspapers. Television has come and it is never likely to go away.

Mr. Grocott : My hon. Friend is right. Televising the House will probably continue to improve our procedures as we try to make them more relevant to the people watching and the people whom we represent.

It must be admitted, too, that television has meant that many, if not all, of us are seen more frequently by our constituents, although whether that will make us more or less likely to be re-elected remains to be seen. We all look forward to testing that theory as soon as possible.

Those viewing figures have been achieved despite the appalling slots that programme-planners have given to parliamentary coverage. I understand why the programmes have been given such slots--they will never achieve huge viewing figures--but I should have thought that it was worth trying to encourage the programme-makers to improve some of those slots and to move them from the twilight hours or the middle of the day.

I welcome much of the report. The Leader of the House spelt out several of the matters that I consider important. I welcome the improvements in Committee coverage and the use of remote cameras in Committee. I also welcome the idea of a central control room above Central Lobby. That makes use of space that would not otherwise be used and is an ideal location for a central control room. I welcome some of the relaxation measures in the rules of coverage, although I believe that they do not go far enough. I have always believed that the job of trying to reflect what goes on in the Chamber should be left to television directors. It is their job to interpret the proceedings as they are seen from the Public Gallery. We restricted them greatly to begin with, but have become

Column 333

increasingly relaxed and I do not believe that anyone has suffered. We should give the directors even greater freedom. Whichever side of the House disrupts our proceedings, the disruption should be intelligible to television viewers. For example, in the poll tax debate on 13 March, Conservative Members made a determined attempt to disrupt the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). I do not blame them for doing so, as long as it is within the rules. However, such scenes should not be cut away from what can be seen from the Public Gallery.

Our rules on "undue disorder" are also unduly restrictive. It is ridiculous to require a locked picture of you, Mr. Speaker, when disruptions take place in the House. Television viewers simply see you looking worried. If the disruption is intelligible to those in the Press or Public Galleries, the television director should be enabled to make it intelligible to television viewers.

Those are the parts of the report with which, broadly speaking, I am pleased. However, two fundamental areas in which the report sadly fails caused me to table the amendment. The first relates to the absence of a recommendation to establish a Department of the House to control and supervise television coverage. I should emphasise to those who were not members of the Select Committee that the arrangements that we established for the experimental period were designed for just that purpose--they were experimental arrangements for an experimental period. The Leader of the House had difficulty explaining exactly what PARBUL or HOCBUL mean. We made a meal of the arrangements and they were unnecessarily uncomplicated. If the report goes through unamended, it will recommend an unnecessarily complicated managerial structure for a simple operation.

The Leader of the House admitted in his speech that there is a ludicrous lack of proper financial control and management. I am surprised that a former Conservative Chief Secretary should have such weak managerial and financial control.

I would happily give way to the Leader of the House if he could tell me what the television operation is now costing. I have asked that question many times in the Select Committee, but it is extremely difficult to get an answer because the costs and responsibilities are divided among many people. There is no clear answer about the receipts from the television operation. Appendix 9 contains some complicated information, but anyone in any doubt should simply read paragraph 29 of the Select Committee report which encapsulates the financial shambles that it recommends. It is not good enough for the permanent arrangements to be run on such a basis.

Mr. MacGregor : If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at pages 38 and 39 of the report, he will see that the costs are set out clearly and simply. As a former Chief Secretary I can say that the information contained in those pages is far simpler to read than that offered in most costing operations of most companies in the public sector. The information is straightforward, clear and all there.

Mr. Grocott : I shall not betray in too much detail the look of bewilderment that crossed the right hon. Gentleman's face yesterday in the Select Committee when I asked him about receipts.

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the responsibility for televising is divided between various

Column 334

sections of the House, the broadcasters and others. Those broadcasters represent a fluctuating group. New broadcasters will be employed during the recommended franchise period, which is not satisfactory.

It is also important to consider the Committee's recommendations on personnel management--the people whose job it will be to deliver the signal. Paragraph 16 of the Select Committee report talks of "bright young people" doing "short stints as operators".

Is that really the way in which we want to provide for the permanent televising of the House, particularly if we are to have a control room above Central Lobby? Imagine people coming here for three or four months, then going on to do "Emu's World" or "The Price is Right" and then coming back here for another three or four months. That is a poor way in which to operate the permanent televising arrangements.

I believe that the permanent televising arrangements should be the responsibility of a Department of the House. That was the clear preference in the first report produced by the Select Committee. The Leader of the House has admitted that. The right hon. Gentleman was not then a member of the Select Committee and it is significant that it is those people who have come on to the Committee since the publication of that report who have managed, with the right hon. Gentleman's casting vote, to vote down the recommendation for a Department of the House to be responsible for the televising arrangements.

Paragraph 106 of the Select Committee's first report states : "We wish to make clear that the reasons, mainly contractual, which persuaded us not to recommend a fully-fledged House Broadcasting Unit for the experiment would not apply if permanent broadcasting were introduced and that such a Unit remains our preferred solution for the longer term."

It remains my preferred solution. There are overseas precedents as almost every other country that televises its Parliament has established the equivalent of a Department of the House to do that job. The management of the House also offers such a precedent as Hansard is a Department of the House. Given that we continually refer to the televising operation as an electronic Hansard, we should establish a Department of the House to do the job.

Mr. Nelson : The hon. Gentleman knows that I greatly respect his views and contributions to the Select Committee. I, too, have spoken in favour of a House of Commons fully fledged Department, which would be responsible for the televising arrangements, but I support the main recommendations of the Select Committee report.

The report has considered the proposals for a parliamentary broadcasting unit. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House, because of its majority membership on the board of directors, will continue, effectively, to call the shots? We will therefore have all the advantages of a fully fledged House of Commons broadcasting unit, but we shall have none of the disadvantages associated with having to bear all the costs as others will chip in. Although that arrangement may be different from that adopted in other countries, does the hon. Gentleman accept that it serves to our considerable advantage?

Mr. Grocott : We already cover a substantial proportion of the costs, but, under the present arrangements, we get none of the receipts. Surely there is nothing simpler than

Column 335

to have a Select Committee responsible to the House and a Department of the House responsible to that Select Committee. Why are we making such a meal out of what is a simple operation?

Mr. Tony Banks : I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. Since we are getting close to a general election and are likely to have a Labour Government, what would the Labour Government do? I hope that my hon. Friend does not consider that a trick question--it is not meant as such.

Mr. Grocott : I strongly believe that we should establish a Department of the House. There is ample precedent for so doing and it should be our preferred option.

A Department of the House would mean that the televising operation would be subject to better financial control, but, above all, I believe that that Department would do the job more effectively than what has been proposed.

The directors of the unit would be employed by the House and would be here permanently. They would be as familiar with the House and its operations as are all the other staff. It is all very well to say that bright young directors would be the ideal people to call the shots in the control room, but it would be far better to anticipate those shots than to react to them quickly.

When a Minister makes a statement, which is followed by questions, we know that that routine follows acknowledged rules. We all know who is likely to be called I am sure most of us would say that it is rarely us. I had eight years away from this place and it took me at least two years to reacquaint myself with that routine.

Mr. Andy Stewart (Sherwood) : Two years or longer?

Mr. Grocott : I am prepared to accept that I am still learning. It is only when one has a feel for the place and knows those who have a particular interest in a particular subject that one can anticipate what might happen. If directors were full-time members of staff they would be familiar with the House. We would know them and we could talk and complain to them ; just as we can to the Hansard writers. Surely that would be a far more effective way in which to operate the permanent broadcasting arrangements than to employ people on short-term contracts under a sub- contractor.

Paragraph 16 of the report claims that we would not be able to recruit people to do the job--that is a fatuous suggestion. We have managed to recruit an outstanding permanent controller of broadcasting and an outstanding permanent technical adviser. The Canadian legislature does not have the slightest problem recruiting people for such full-time jobs.

The report also asks how the employees of the broadcasting unit would cope with the problems posed by the recesses. It is as though people who work for television companies are fundamentally different from everyone else. Every other servant of the House manages to cope with the recesses. There is a balance between the excessive hours worked during a Session and the long recesses. I regret to say that Members do not enjoy such long recesses. Surely that balance could equally apply to those working in the broadcasting unit as it does to anyone else working in the

Column 336

House. There is an overwhelming case in favour of establishing a Department of the House to be responsible for the permanent televising arrangements. The present proposals will not stand the test of time.

The other crucial issue on which my hon. Friends and I disagree with the Select Committee report's recommendations relates to the dedicated channel. The clear wish of most hon. Members--we repeated it in the Select Committee report--is that there should be some facility for a continuous, unedited signal from the Chamber which should be available for people. They can then decide which bits they want to watch, just as people can come in and out of the Public Gallery or read the relevant sections of Hansard in which they are interested. Let me make it crystal clear that if the House wants that to happen we cannot will the end without willing the means. It is fatuous to pretend that it will ever be a wildly attractive commercial proposition, even when one is talking about audience figures of those that I mentioned for package programmes--about 250,000.

If an unedited signal went out all the time, the viewing figures would be much lower than that for most of the time. One has to compare those viewing figures, as a commercial proposition, with the viewing figures of some of the more popular television programmes. The 1990 record was taken by "Coronation Street" with 19.2 million. "Only Fools and Horses" had 17.9 million viewers and the World Cup had 16.6 million. Some of our most outstanding speakers would have difficulty attracting audiences such as that. It will never be an attractive commercial proposition to deliver an unedited signal to our constituents. I cannot say that I blame them. I should not want to sit endlessly watching such a programme. The question, however, is whether the facility should be there for people to use, if they want to do so.

That part of the report which deals with our pretty pathetic efforts to sort out a continuous dedicated channel is to be found in paragraphs 103 to 124. It is littered with hopes and expectations and is completely dependent on other people's commercial judgment. The fundamental choice that has to be made relates to whether our constituents should receive an unedited signal on the basis of the commercial judgment of individual entrepreneurs, or whether they should receive it as of right because the House wills that they should receive it as of right. I do not have the slightest doubt that the second choice should prevail. We should not say that the signal, via satellite, should be a loss leader for some company, or that it should be something nice for that company to put on its letter headings. Furthermore, it should not be possible for a conglomerate, based abroad, to decide that this would be a nice little and relatively inexpensive, from its point of view, function for it to perform.

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) : I do not see any disadvantage in a loss leader. Such a loss leader is provided by C-Span in the United States. It is high-calibre, public affairs coverage that is interspersed with other material. That makes it a very good package. There is no harm in that. The problem is that in this country it could not go out on cable ; it would have to go out on satellite to reach the population. That would result in a commercial cost that should be met by the House.

Mr. Grocott : I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The Leader of the House was pretty woolly on the question of

Column 337

this resulting in an exorbitant cost. If he has different figures, I hope that he will let me know. According to the report, the Independent Television Commission has said that we can obtain access to the Marco Polo satellite for a nominal rental. The only direct cost to this House would be the uplink cost of about £500,000. That is a lot of money. However, as a proportion of expenditure in other areas of our public life, it is fairly trivial. The Central Office of Information budget, for example, amounts to £180 million. Moreover, the Government's departmental advertising budget, as the National Audit Office has spelt out, amounts to about £200 million, £100 million of which is spent on media--largely television--advertising. If we are to believe the constitutional rule books, the fundamental job of this House is to supervise the Executive and to see that Government Departments do their job properly. For the House, therefore, to say that it is outrageous to spend £500,000 on ensuring that all our constituents have access to the signal is absolutely ridiculous.

Mr. Nelson : I apologise for intervening again, but the hon. Gentleman appears to be trying to give the impression--I understand that he speaks for the Labour Opposition--that he, like I, wants all his constituents to have the option of tuning into a dedicated televising of Parliament programme, but he is not offering that. Does he agree that the only way in which we could offer it to all our constituents would be by buying Channel 5 at enormous cost? We could make that decision, but that is not the hon. Gentleman's proposal. If instead he proposes simply to cover the cost, at public expense, of tuning in to a particular satellite, still only a very small minority of people will want to watch the programme. What, therefore, is he proposing on behalf of the Opposition? How will his proposals reach all the people who want to tune in to Parliament?

Mr. Grocott : I made it perfectly clear in our debate on the Select Committee's second report that for the foreseeable future the bulk of the people of this country will have to depend on getting any information about the proceedings in this House from the established main network channels and the packages that they provide. There is not the slightest doubt about that. However, I suggest that, via the Marco Polo satellite, which means via a squarial--

Mr. Nelson : It is minute.

Mr. Grocott : I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman--it is minute. If the hon. Gentleman is recommending that one of the main terrestrial channels should be taken over, I should find it very difficult to justify that to any of my constituents. It would be hard to convince them that BBC1, BBC2, ITV1, ITV2, or Channel 4 should be wiped out and given over to parliamentary coverage. It would not be too popular a proposal. Under my satellite proposals, initially, schools, universities and libraries would want access to it. However, every individual would have access to the signal by means of satellite coverage.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives) : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if United Artists were to say that that proposal should go ahead, the only difference would be that there

Column 338

would be no cost to public funds? It would do precisely what the hon. Gentleman proposes. It would use the Marco Polo satellite.

Mr. Grocott : I find this appeal amusing--"Please, is there a commercial operation out there, somewhere, to do the job for us? We don't think that it's important enough for us to ensure that our constituents get the signal, if they want it, so we just hope that some company will think that it is in its financial interests to deliver the signal." That is not good enough for me. What guarantee is there that six months from now such a company might decide that it was not in its commercial interests to continue the service? That happened with a cable operation not so long ago. We do not operate Hansard on that basis. We do not say, "We shall operate Hansard if we can, but we won't if we can't." It is a fundamental operation that should be available to all our constituents.

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) : The hon. Gentleman knows that I am also interested in a dedicated channel, but he must make his proposition clear to the House and to others who take an interest in the subject. The fact is that the Marco Polo satellite is on its way out. I understand that it is being used by United Artists very much as a temporary measure. It will need to look for an alternative for its cable service. What does the hon. Gentleman suggest, once the Marco Polo satellite disappears? Has he encouraged his constituents to believe that they could receive a satellite service in that way? What will follow it? Does he suggest that the House should then opt for Astra, or some other satellite?

Mr. Grocott : The hon. Gentleman makes all sorts of speculations about what might happen in the satellite and cable industry. I am much less clear about the future than he is. However, I know that the Marco Polo system--the MAC system--is far better technically. Therefore, it is highly desirable that such a system should be preserved. However, that is not the question that we must address. We need to ask whether the House should provide the means for continuous coverage, to which our constituents can have access. The answer to that question should be emphatically yes.

As for sponsorship, we debated that subject in Committee and considered how to finance the operation without forking out the £500, 000 which I guess it would cost to do it ourselves. One possibility which I emphatically wanted ruled out but which the Committee would not rule out was of the Commons signal being sponsored. That proposal is horrendous. There is nothing quite so amusing as the Tory party finding itself in conflict on two of its professed deepest principles. One is a great respect for our traditions, of which the House is one ; the other is a great respect for the pound sterling and anything that might make a few bob. Sponsorship brings those two values into a horrendous collision.

The ITC has made it clear that news programmes cannot be sponsored, for the most obvious reasons. I do not like the idea of sponsorship for any programme for reasons which it would be lengthy and irrelevant to go into now, but the possibility of seeing on the television screen the message, "This signal is brought to you live via Arthur Daley Enterprises," is horrendous.

If Conservative Members even contemplate the idea, let them be consistent. If the electronic Hansard were to be sponsored, why not Hansard itself? Why could we not have

Next Section

Home Page