House of Commons - Broadcasting

Select Committee on Broadcasting First Report

2. Rules of Coverage

Historical background to the rules of coverage

6. The Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House first introduced rules of coverage in 1989.[13] The rules were initially framed in a fairly restrictive way, mainly because it would be easier to relax them than to tighten them. Changes since then have allowed the television director greater flexibility in the selection of shots. In its First Report, Session 1989-90, the Select Committee on the Televising of Proceedings of the House noted that broadcasters were broadly happy with the rules of coverage, save for some minor reservations about the prohibition on reaction shots.[14] The rules were amended shortly after the experiment to televise proceedings began and several minor changes have been made since.

7. In 1990, the arrangements for televising the House's proceedings were put on a permanent footing. The First Report from the Select Committee on Broadcasting, &c, Session 1990-91, examined what changes were needed to the experimental arrangements. The Committee made a number of recommendations on the administrative and financial arrangements but said that:

We make no recommendation at this stage for further modifications to the rules of coverage, though we remain ready to consider any reasonable representations on the subject from broadcasters and others.[15]

8. The Select Committee on Broadcasting, &c produced a consolidated version of the rules of coverage, incorporating the modifications they had agreed in 1990.[16] A guide was drawn up at the same time by the Supervisor of Broadcasting, as the post was then called, to assist in the interpretation and application of the rules.

9. The small changes that have been made to the rules over several years have made little difference on their own but collectively have had a significant impact on how the House is portrayed. We now believe that there is a case for some further minor changes in the rules. We see this as part of an evolutionary and incremental process of change that has continued since the House was first televised and rules of coverage were first introduced. We do not, however, believe that there needs to be wholesale change in the rules or any lessening of the control that the House has over the way it is portrayed.

The case for change

10. In November 1999, Anne Sloman, the BBC's Chief Political Adviser, argued that the rules of coverage were out of date and that there was sufficient trust and confidence between the broadcasters and Parliament for the rules to be relaxed.[17] She noted that the Scottish Parliament was developing the "gallery surrogate model";[18] this was something we discussed with MSPs, broadcasters and officials when we visited the Scottish Parliament earlier this year. Anne Sloman argued that the rules of coverage in Westminster made the parliamentary material static compared to other serious outside broadcast events, such as the party conferences. She said that Parliament should be televised in a similar manner to the televising of other serious events. She stressed that the BBC was not asking for any relaxation of the rules governing the use of parliamentary material.

11. In 1999, David Lloyd, Head of News and Current Affairs, Channel 4, said that the rules on close-ups and use of cut-aways should be relaxed.[19] He argued that the coverage was distant and unexciting and lacked the dynamic a visitor to the public gallery would feel. He said that the need for the rules had passed and that relaxing the rules would allow a more accurate and full portrayal of the House. David Lloyd noted that there was no role for zoom shots, as these would be out of keeping with the occasion. In response to these concerns, our predecessor Committee recommended, in its First Report, Session 1999-2000, that the restriction on the use of reaction shots of named or identifiable Members during Question Time, Ministerial Statements and Private Notice Questions be relaxed.[20]

12. In updating the evidence she gave in 1999, Anne Sloman argued that the shot-by-shot rule book should be abandoned and that the spirit of trust between broadcasters and Parliament should allow directors to reflect the mood of the House without artificial restrictions. In particular she asked that:

· the rule on filming someone the Speaker was addressing be relaxed;

· more use be allowed of panning shots to reflect the back benches on either side of the House;

· a greater number of shots during divisions be allowed;

· the entry of the Speaker and prayers be used to make sense of the day's proceedings;

· appropriate use of close-ups be allowed; and,

· in certain limited circumstances, such as in and out of divisions or at the close of business, mixes be allowed.[21]

She reiterated that broadcasters were not asking to show the public gallery and were not asking for the rules on use of parliamentary material to be relaxed.

13. We cannot accept all of these suggestions. A single set of cameras provides a clean feed, which is used for a number of purposes, and it would be inappropriate for that feed to contain mixes. We see no barrier to broadcasters mixing between the clean feed and any context material they are providing. We also believe that there is nothing to be gained from a greater variety of shots during divisions—people milling around waiting to vote will look much the same from any angle. In fact, the introduction of additional shots during divisions would mean that the television director would be forced to make editorial decisions about who was shown. The entry of the Speaker and prayers have always been, and should remain, private proceedings. A head and shoulders shot is already permitted and we do not feel that introducing close-ups would add sufficient value to justify a change.

14. We do not think that the surrogate gallery model is attainable. The experience for television viewers can never be the same as for visitors in the public gallery, because viewers can see only what the director allows them to see; they will not have the visitors' freedom to choose. The director could offer a more varied visual experience than at present but this would not approach being in the public gallery. Comparisons with other parliaments show that even where there are significant differences in the rules of coverage the actual coverage does not vary much. This is a function of the nature of the work that parliaments and parliamentarians perform and not of the rules of coverage. We do not believe that Parliament needs to be covered in a similar manner to other large scale political events; party conferences cannot be compared with the daily work of the House.

15. The major domestic television channels pay an equal share of the cost of parliamentary broadcasting regardless of how much use they make of the material provided and as a consequence have equal status. The clean feed provided by the House must satisfy those channels who wish to use extended coverage, such as BBC Parliament, and those who want a short clip of a particular speech, such as the television news channels. A channel carrying extended live coverage might welcome a more relaxed style of coverage. However, a news outlet would be very unhappy if the only clip they wanted was unavailable because a cut-away had been used to add variety to the live feed. The television director has to make split second decisions about which shots to use. The rules of coverage help to ensure that the shots they choose to use provide a reasonable balance between the competing demands of the various channels.

16. There is indeed much more to do to make the work of the House understandable and accessible; this applies not only to the television viewer but also the visitor in the gallery, someone looking at a webcast, and those reading Hansard or following the proceedings through newspaper reports. There are many other factors that affect accessibility other than the rules of coverage. We think that it is right that the House of Commons Commission has made improving access and understanding a priority in the House Administration's strategic plan.[22] We note that the Group on Information for the Public (GIP) has been working for some time to improve the public understanding and knowledge of the work of the House in support of the Commission's objectives.

17. In considering changes to the rules of coverage, we are conscious that the rules need to be clear and unambiguous if they are to be of use to the television director and enforceable by the Director of Broadcasting. Decisions have to be made quickly by the television director about the shots offered by the camera operators. Vague rules do not help. All of the recommendations on the rules of coverage made in this Report are shown in a consolidated list of the rules of coverage as an annex to this Report.[23] Under the authority the Committee has from the Speaker, we have agreed that these minor changes will be made with immediate effect. For convenience, guidelines on the use of signals and guidelines for the use of archive material for non-broadcast purposes are reproduced as separate annexes.[24]

Rules for the chamber

Shots of reaction in the Chamber

18. Currently, reaction shots are limited to named or identifiable Members. General reaction shots are not permitted. A balance must be struck between the need to maintain an uninterrupted record of the proceedings and the need to make the coverage visually appealing by showing reaction to what is happening. The maintenance of a proper record of proceedings remains a primary objective of parliamentary broadcasting and, as the rules of coverage clearly state, "the camera should normally remain on the Member speaking until he or she has finished". It is also vital to protect the right of backbenchers to be seen on television when they are speaking and to have their contribution recorded in full in the archive without cut-aways to ministerial or backbench reaction. We believe there is a danger that broadcasts would tend to focus on a few individuals and that this in turn might reward exaggeration. Our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, where a greater range of reaction shot is permitted, suggested that this was inevitable. However, they drew a distinction between general debate, where greater coverage seemed to moderate behaviour, and set pieces where Members were more likely to play to the cameras. Officials and broadcasters in Edinburgh told us that reaction shots added atmosphere and quality to the broadcasts. However, they did acknowledge that there was a risk that a vital statement might be missed; for significant events they recorded, on tape, entire statements uninterrupted by cut-aways, while providing a clean feed to broadcasters with cut-aways.

19. In the event of disorder in the Chamber the rules of coverage state that the television director should normally focus on the Chair. We feel that this should remain the case and that the reaction of the Member being reprimanded or that of other Members present should not be shown. If the television director were to cut away from the Speaker, there is a risk that statements with procedural significance could be missed.

The public gallery

20. In certain circumstances, reaction shots of the visitors' gallery are permitted in the Scottish Parliament. The broadcasting arrangements in Scotland are to some degree an accident of the speed with which arrangements there were made and the geography of their chamber. Given the size of the gallery and the shape of the Chamber, it would have been impossible not to have the gallery in shot. While in Scotland, we had a lengthy discussion with MSPs and officials about the treatment of disorder in the public gallery. They argued that showing the public gallery had not led to a great number of incidents of disorder. However, we do not feel that there is any case for relaxing the restrictions placed on showing the public galleries at Westminster.

Providing a context

21. Some of the suggestions Anne Sloman made seek to provide a better context for parliamentary broadcasts.[25] We agree that viewers need a context, but we feel that the broadcasters themselves could do more to provide it. The rules of coverage must provide a single feed to the broadcasters that satisfies a variety of different needs. Within a single feed, there is a risk that context material provided at the request of one channel would be at the expense of the requirements of another. This conflict does not arise where broadcasters provide their own context. We believe that the excellent coverage of the first debate on the crisis in Iraq on 18 March 2003, when broadcasters supported their coverage of events in the chamber with live interviews and studio discussions, shows that this can be done and that it can work extremely well. This clearly demonstrated that the demand for coverage that focused on the proceedings and the Member speaking was not incompatible with the demand for televisually interesting pictures.

Rules for Westminster Hall

22. There are no rules of coverage specifically for Westminster Hall; the rules of coverage for the Chamber are applied. Now that the arrangements in Westminster Hall have been put on a permanent footing, we believe that the rules of coverage should be amended to make clear that the rules of coverage for the Chamber apply. However, we recognise that given the layout of the room there will be circumstances in which the public gallery will unavoidably be in shot.

Rules for Committees

23. There are no rules specifically for Select Committees. We believe reaction shots in Committee should be restricted to Members to whom a clear reference had been made or who had asked a question of a witness. Wider reaction shots should not be permitted as, given the nature of the rooms, they will be impractical and televisually unappealing. There are no circumstances in which the reaction of the public gallery should be shown. Reaction shots of witnesses are permitted in Select Committees. Ideally, committee staff, the press, and shorthand writers should not be shown. There should be no close-up shots of Members' or officials' papers. In Standing Committees, the rules of coverage for the Chamber should be applied. Officials attending ministers should not be shown.

Guidelines for use of signals

24. The nature of broadcasting has changed dramatically since the guidelines on the use of signals were drafted. New programme formats are being introduced and styles of presentation have changed. We are aware that news departments and light entertainment departments are collaborating on programmes. We are also conscious that great efforts are being made to re-engage the general public in politics, to tackle voter apathy and in particular to interest young people in politics. We recall that improving accessibility and public understanding are core objectives for the House Administration.[26] The Modernisation Committee has also stressed the importance of making the House more accessible and said in its Second Report, Session 2001-02:

It is … important that the House makes maximum use of the TV media to convey a sense of the Commons as a working environment and a forum of serious and challenging debate.[27]

25. We believe that there is a case for re-examining the rules on the use of signals. There are strong links here with the modernisation agenda and we feel that there is scope for the Broadcasting Committee and the Modernisation Committee jointly to look at how programming has changed. The Committees may wish to discuss with programme makers the kinds of issues they face and the types of programmes they would like to make. Such a discussion could help to formulate guidance for the Director of Broadcasting, who has increasingly to apply her discretion in dealing with applications from programme makers who wish to use parliamentary material.

The impact of new developments

Webcasting

26. Webcasting is an exciting development. We believe that webcasting has an important part to play in the modernisation agenda and in helping to reconnect with the public. Webcasting will make the work of the House, and particularly of Standing and Select Committees, much more accessible than has so far been possible through traditional media. We believe webcasting should become a core part of an integrated, interactive Parliamentary information system providing information to Members and the public, alongside the redesigned Internet site and the Parliamentary Information Management Service that is being developed. Webcasting offers a real opportunity to extend coverage of the work of Committees. A permanent webcasting service will begin later this year. This will include audio coverage of all Committees meeting in public and there are plans to install webcams in a number of Committee Rooms at a later stage. The webcams are likely to be capable of giving only an unchanging overview of a Committee Room. The fixed nature of webcams means that most of the rules of coverage will not apply. However, the direction of the shot for a webcam might need to be defined in the rules of coverage and there should be further discussion on whether the public gallery should be shown in webcasts. Any shot of witnesses would be likely to include part and possibly the entire public gallery. Any shot of the Chairman and the Committee will show only the back of the witnesses' heads. Given the constraints of the cameras, a balance will need to be struck between the risks associated with showing the public gallery, which in some cases might encourage disorder, and the need to show the witnesses. On balance, we feel the cameras should be positioned so as to give an overview of the room, showing the witnesses, but should limit, as far as is possible, how much of the public gallery is shown.

Live inject points

27. We welcome the current experiment to allow broadcasters access to six live "inject points" around the Parliamentary Estate for interviews or short pieces to camera that introduce a proceeding in the House. We believe that this has done much to improve the image of the House. The Administration Committee has already defined some rules for the use of these access points, limiting use to interviews and introductions to parliamentary issues rather than political issues. We believe that, once the trial is over and experience reviewed, rules should be devised for any permanent arrangement.

Other innovations

28. Innovation is important in generating and maintaining interest and we welcome two other innovations that have proved to be popular with broadcasters:

· the introduction of a question session on cross-cutting issues in Westminster Hall

· the Liaison Committee's evidence sessions with the Prime Minister.

13 Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House, First Report, Session 1988-89, Televising of Proceedings of the House, HC 141-1 Back

14 Select Committee on the Televising of Proceedings of the House, First Report, Session 1989-90, Review of the Experiment in Televising the Proceedings of the House, HC 265-I, paragraphs 80-81 Back

15 Select Committee on Broadcasting, &c, First Report, Session 1990-1991, The Arrangements for the Permanent Televising of the Proceedings of the House, HC 11 Back