Television: Rules of Coverage

Written evidence submitted by Director of Parliamentary Broadcasting (TV 03)

Introduction

The Committee will be aware there has been a significant change in the televising arrangements over the past year with the ending of PARBUL agreement. It might be helpful therefore to reflect on these changes before moving on to other aspects of Parliamentary coverage.

In August 2011 Parliament assumed the costs of the televising operation as well as maintaining its existing commitment to equipment costs. This was as a result of a decision by UK broadcasters to cease funding the service.

Under the new arrangements media organisations in the UK and abroad are able to obtain a licence from the Parliament rather than PARBUL which grants them access to a televised feed from the Commons and Lords chambers as well as Westminster Hall. Over the past 6 months the number of licenses issued has risen from 25 to more than 100 and includes Al Jazeera, Agence France Presse, the Hansard Society, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, Spectator, Independent, Times and Daily Mail.

We continue to charge for televised committee coverage based on requests from media organisations. Since August the wider range of licence holders has seen requests for Chamber and Committee coverage from British Forces Broadcasting Service, Bloomberg TV and Liverpool FC Television (Hillsborough disaster debate October 2011).

Televising of the Commons

The key requirement for the television director is to provide a full, balanced and accurate account of proceedings in the chamber with the aim of informing viewers about the work of the House.

The television director is guided by the rules of coverage. These rules have been updated in consultation with broadcasters over the past two decades. The most recent change to these rules came in December 2006 when the Speaker agreed to a recommendation from the Administration Committee:

"...a greater variety of shots of proceedings in the Chamber will be allowed than is the case at present, including a greater use of reaction shots in order to illustrate the mood of the House, and the provision of a low-level atmospheric sound-feed during divisions rather than the current complete silence."

This change, welcomed by the broadcasters, has helped the TV directors in providing viewers with a visual narrative of Commons procedure as well as providing engaging, authoritative and appropriate coverage of proceedings for both continuous coverage and for the provision of sound bites for news coverage. Feedback to the Director of Broadcasting from the public and from broadcasters has confirmed that these developments have been widely appreciated and have helped to aid effective public understanding.

The Committee will be aware of a more recent request from the broadcasters for an "eye-level" shot of speakers at the dispatch box which, it is argued, would provide a more natural angle for viewers.

In order to establish if such a shot was achievable filming took place during the recent recess. Some illustrations of the types of shots which can be achieved have been recorded.

A copy is available for committee members to review. There are a number of issues which the committee may wish to consider:

i. Is it practical or desirable for cameras to be positioned at floor level in the chamber for either members or staff working in the chamber?

ii. Would a new camera angle assist viewers in providing a "full, balanced and accurate" account of proceedings? And by making more of other Members being in the background would this have an unintended effect on Members behaviour in the Chamber (eg ‘doughnutting’ behind Members speaking), and during debates with fewer Members being present would it make the Chamber appear even emptier?

iii. If there is interest in exploring this approach, further filming (not for broadcast) would be required during a number of sittings to fully understand what impact new cameras would have in a working environment and to more clearly assess the editorial proposition.

iv. How would such a change be funded?

The Rules of Coverage also provide instructions for what should happen in the event of disruption. It is worth noting that these rules were put to the test and adhered to by the television director in July 2011 when a member of the public disrupted proceedings during evidence to the Culture Media and Sport select committee in July 2011 – coverage ended as soon as the Chairman adjourned the session.

Online

Viewing figures on the Parliamentary website have seen significant growth over the past year. Views of Commons Chamber coverage increased from 287,000 in 2010 to 659,000 in 2011. Committee views rose from 195,000 in 2010 to 604,000 last year.

The number of requests for archive footage from members and the public continues to rise, however requests from the education sector is disappointingly low. We recommend that this issue of access to Parliamentary video, including the 20 years of archive, is further explored by the Broadcast Unit in conjunction with other departments and that a strategy is developed which would facilitate greater access to the archive.

The potential for wider distribution of Parliamentary content via the internet has been commented on in previous reviews of the Rules of Coverage. A number of factors have mitigated against this development including the PARBUL licensing arrangements and associated fees as well as the absence of a digital solution for storage distribution and archive which would aid access for the public as well as MPs and Parliamentary staff. These are now areas of focus for the Broadcasting Unit.

At the end of 2011 the Broadcasting Unit was approached by a number of national newspapers, and separately by the Press Association and by Downing Street. All are keen to take advantage of the new licensing arrangements and provide greater coverage of Parliamentary proceedings. They have requested an encoded video feed at multiple bit rates for distribution across their digital properties. The national newspapers involved have indicated that they are willing, for their part, to bear the costs of the set-up.

The attraction of establishing a new approach to distribution for online outlets is that it holds out the possibility that all video coverage of procedural content, which is currently restricted to Parliament’s website, is made available to national and local media and other interested parties including Government departments. This method of delivery will be particularly critical to local news media across the UK.

Our recommendation to the committee is that a one year trial of this service is initiated. Over this period we would invite feedback from participants to establish take-up and future requirements.

Licensing

The current internet licence reflects many of the conditions attached to the broadcast licence, including the need for publishers to observe the Rules of Coverage and Usage. It also specifies a number of areas specific to online such as embedding of video material. A number of news organisations have indicated that the terminology of some of the terms and conditions, such as those relating to advertising and watermarking are ambiguous.

Our recommendation to the committee is that there is a review of the internet licensing arrangements to clarify any outstanding areas of concern.

The current licenses are silent on organisations taking stills from the footage. The Parliamentary Recording Unit treats stills as extracts from recordings and this works well. However it would be useful to make this explicit in the license arrangements and to make it clear that a license is required to take and use a still.

January 2012