Television: Rules of Coverage

Written evidence submitted by ITV News (TV 01)

ITV welcomes the committee’s decision to conduct a light-touch review of the rules to "consider the current rules of coverage for the Chamber, Westminster Hall and Committees, and whether any change is required."

First we would like to put on the record our appreciation of how the coverage of the Chamber has evolved under the present rules to provide a more imaginative and attractive range of shots for broadcasters to use. It is in that spirit of evolutionary change that we make this submission.

We suggest the committee considers possible changes under two headings: 1). Positioning of cameras in the Chamber and 2). A less prescriptive approach in the Specific Guidelines for Picture Direction in section 2 of the Rules of Coverage.

1. Positioning of Cameras in the Chamber: The existing cameras in the Commons Chamber provide a shot looking down on to the Chamber from above. This mitigates against being able to convey the intimacy of the Chamber, and in particular disadvantages those speaking from the front bench. Far too much of the coverage of front bench speakers is of the tops of their heads as they look down at their notes or straight across the Chamber at the benches opposite. The viewer is unable to look the member speaking in the eye which could lead to material from the Chamber not being used. For instance when Health Secretary Andrew Lansley made a statement to the Commons about breast implants this year both ITV and BBC national news programmes used an interview clip with him recorded outside the Chamber. Viewers watching the interview clip were able to see the minister’s eyes and face whereas the shot from the proceedings in the Chamber was not as clear, although similar points were being made. The "top of the head problem" gets worse the nearer to the front bench you get because of the V-shaped floor of the Chamber. Cameras positioned lower down and able to look across rather than down on to the floor of the Chamber would help to resolve this issue. They would also help to portray more faithfully the intimacy of the Chamber so more accurately meeting the Statement of Objectives set out in point 1 of the Statement of Objectives – "to give a full, balanced, fair and accurate account of proceedings, with the aim of informing viewers about the work of the House."

2. A less prescriptive approach in the specific guidelines: The Statement of Objectives (quoted above) provides the director and the Director of Broadcasting with straightforward, commonsense guidance on televising the House. We consider that wherever possible they should be left to work within the parameters of those guidelines without detailed instructions about what kind of shot they can, or cannot, use. For instance in Section 2 (b) we would suggest that sub-sections (i), (iii), (v), (vi) and (vii) should be scrapped and (ii) shortened to "The camera should normally remain on the Member speaking." This would provide the director with the opportunity to vary the shots of the Member speaking, to use close-up or head and shoulders shots as appropriate and to allow more general reaction shots. As broadcasters we want the camera focussed on the Member speaking as much as possible so that when we want to use a clip in our news bulletins we can be confident we will see the Member speaking, but more imaginative reaction shots would be very welcome. Similarly, given that the Statement of Objectives sets the tone of the coverage, we feel that the whole of 2(c) Special Camera Techniques, that is (i), (ii) and (iii), could be scrapped as well. We also ask the committee to consider two further changes. Point 2 (a) (iii) of the guidelines lays down very strict rules for televising divisions, which seriously limit our ability to convey, using pictures rather than a commentary, the drama and tension surrounding big votes. First we would like to have sound during divisions, second to allow the director to use a variety of shots rather than being limited to a wide shot and third to investigate the possibility of using cameras outside either end of the Chamber to show Members entering and leaving the Division Lobbies. Perhaps this last proposal could be done as a trial with the committee viewing footage before deciding whether or not to proceed either for all Divisions or for occasional ones on crucial knife-edge or especially significant, votes. The second change we would ask the committee to consider is whether the restrictions on filming the public galleries in 2(a)(i) could be relaxed when people are mentioned on the Floor of the House – for instance the retirement of Drill Sergeant Eddie Mackay in December last year or Mr and Mrs Clough when their campaign was raised at Prime Minister’s Questions in January.

Thank you for the opportunity to make our case to the committee for what we feel are measured and appropriate changes which will allow televising of the proceedings of the House to meet the Statement of Objectives in the existing rules of coverage more fully than they do at present.

February 2012