VI. TELEVISING THE HOUSE—A CRITIQUE
67. It may be appropriate at this point in the Report
to consider the success, or otherwise, of the televising of Parliament.
68. In moving the Motion to approve in principal
the holding of a televising experiment, Mr Anthony Nelson MP expressed
the rationale for letting the television cameras in:
"The respect, awareness and support of
the public who elected us to this place are essential ingredients
of the activities of the House. Their understanding, respect and
awareness of what goes on here cannot be complete without seeing
as well as hearing and reading what we do. Is it not at least
absurd and anachronistic—at worst patronising—that
one can read reports of this place, listen to proceedings on the
radio and come to the Public Gallery and see them and that they
are reported vicariously, but that one is not allowed to see them
on television? The time has come to take this modest but historic
step."[21]
69. He continued
".... If the public live in ignorance because
they are unable to see what happens here, that will ferment and
breed suspicion and mis-understanding of our proceedings".[22]
70. Mr Frank Dobson MP continued this theme when
he said:
"Technological change makes it possible
for people to see and hear their elected representatives at work
.... Television makes it possible for all people and not just
a privileged few to see and hear what we are doing .... If Members
of Parliament do not trust the television authorities or will
not trust one another if the television cameras are allowed in,
they should remember that democracy is based upon a deeper and
wider trust".[23]
71. Indeed, "democracy" was the fundamental
theme that ran throughout the debate in February 1988, that launched
the experiment that was to lead to the televising of the House
of Commons.
72. Mr Peter Shore MP expanded on this, when he said:
"Ever since democracy was born in Athens
and the city state, the problem has always been that it cannot
be direct .... It has had to be representative democracy. As such
there has been a problem of communication—of the gap that
lies between those who represent and those who are represented.
Our technology and ingenuity have presented us in the second half
of the 20th Century with a most marvellous and remarkable
way of closing that gap".[24]
73. At the dawn of the 21st Century, despite
all the digital advances in television technology that have been
made since 1988, it remains a sad fact that most of the people
of the United Kingdom are denied the full and proper access to
the workings of Parliament, its debates in the Chamber, in Select
and Standing Committees which was so clearly envisaged by those
who supported the televising of the House when the experimental
period was first introduced.
74. Insofar as comprehensive television coverage
is available, through BBC Parliament, access is limited to those
with satellite or cable services. Even then, although BBC Parliament
transmits between 5.30 a.m. and midnight (or later as required)
it was stated during the Committee's visit to the Offices of BBC
Parliament that some cable companies have a cut-off point at midnight
in any case.
75. Analogue television does not offer sufficient
spectrum to accommodate dedicated, terrestrial, free-to-air coverage
and, to date, no digital spectrum has been made available to allow
for the future development of the kind of universally available
access that would provide the cornerstone for "televised
democracy".
76. Furthermore, coverage of select committee hearings
and standing committee proceedings is based upon "news values"
and left to the editorial judgement of broadcasters to determine
whether or not a hearing, however important, is sufficiently "sexy"
in news terms to warrant camera coverage. As many Members who
have served on Standing Committees will no doubt confirm, their
proceedings can be dull or arcane. While that may influence broadcasters
to adopt what is, for them, a sound news-gathering procedure it
has much less to do with democratic access to the proceedings
of Parliament. Line by line scrutiny of Bills is at the very heart
of Parliamentary procedure.
77. We therefore conclude that, in the terms that
the televising of the House was originally conceived, the availability
of coverage has failed, and continues to fail, the people of the
United Kingdom by broadcasters cherry-picking the sound-bite and
the confrontational. As far as televising Parliament is concerned,
the broadcasters' duty is to educate and inform, not simply entertain.
(a) A dedicated channel?
78. During the debate on 12 June 1989, which considered
the way in which the experiment should be conducted, the question
of a dedicated channel was raised. Mr Frank Dobson MP stated:
"I am reasonably convinced that Members
on both sides of the Committee want a dedicated channel as soon
as it is technically possible .... A dedicated channel would provide
the protection of ensuring that everything is shown .... I am
in favour of a dedicated channel providing full coverage as soon
as that is possible".[25]
79. A predecessor Committee had itself stated:
"We re-iterate our belief in the need for
a dedicated channel providing continuous, unedited coverage of
the House's proceedings and we recommend that this should be provided
at the earliest opportunity as an adjunct to the permanent televising
of the House".[26]
80. During the debate on 19 July 1990, which made
the experiment permanent, the then Leader of the House, Sir Geoffrey
Howe MP, was unequivocal:
"The case for a dedicated channel is accepted
...."[27]
81. In a report produced in 1990 by Mallory Wober
of the IBA and Moira Bovill of the BBC, Members' views on televising
were analysed. The report found that:
"There is firm agreement that television
should show the work of Select and Standing Committees ...."[28]
82. It found also that:
".... Members were keen to see a dedicated
Parliamentary Channel. Overall, they considered it should then
provide material, as required, for other Channels".[29]
83. Finally, another predecessor Committee recognised:
"... that many Members will wish to be
reassured that any proposal for a dedicated channel endorsed by
the House will be seriously pursued and that any undertakings
given regarding its scope, timing and viability are adhered to
.... We intend to keep under review the number of viewers with
access to a dedicated channel, regarding potential especially
in the context of the availability of additional Channels on the
Astra 1c satellite in two or three years' time".[30]
21 Official Report,
9 February 1988, Col. 195. Back
22
Ibid., Col. 200. Back
23
Ibid., Col. 215. Back
24
Ibid., Cols 234-235. Back
25
Official Report, 12 June 1989, Cols. 621-622. Back
26
First Report from the Select Committee on the Televising of Proceedings
of the House, Session 1989-90, Review of the Experiment in
Televising the Proceedings of the House, HC (1989-90) 265-I,
p. xliii. Back
27
Official Report, 19 July 1990, Col. 1273. Back
28
Television in the Commons-Members Experience and Attitudes
concerning the experiment, May 1990, p.21. Back
29
Ibid., p. 34. Back
30
First Report from the Select Committee on Broadcasting, &c,
Session 1990-91, The arrangements for the permanent televising
of the proceedings of the House, HC (1990-91) 11, p. xxxiii. Back
| 
