Written evidence submitted by William Turrell (TV 05)

Introduction:

My name is William Turrell. I’m an individual with no past/present connection with any broadcaster, though I've always had a keen interest in technology, broadcasting and politics.

Executive Summary:

Having watched your oral evidence session today:

·(paragraph 1) I'm in favour of showing selected individuals in the public gallery and relaxing restrictions on 'listening' shots, at no extra cost

·(7) I think adjusting the camera angles to better show front bench speakers probably is value for money

·(9) I think divisions should be filmed in some way, even if only occasionally for educational purposes

·(10) I believe the allowable camera shots in the chamber during a division could be varied, at no extra cost

·(13) Taking the public tour gave me greater respect for the Commons voting procedure; I think more flexible TV coverage would do the same for others

·(17) I think technical improvements could be made to live/archived web streaming on www.parliament.uk encouraging wider viewing

·(18) I believe the current ban on the use of parliamentary footage on satirical programmes is counter-productive and could, with safeguards, be lifted, perhaps generating some revenue.

Strangers Gallery

1.In oral evidence, the broadcasters expressed a desire to feature shots of specific individuals sitting in the public gallery who might be named or alluded to during debates. I draw your attention to C-SPAN's coverage of The State of the Union address, where relevant, selective shots of the President's invited guests are allowed like this, in a controlled, uncontroversial manner.

2.I think this approach would enhance parliamentary coverage; as a subtle but powerful reminder that it is the people’s parliament which anyone can attend in person, also showing the chamber in a refreshingly different, more positive light than normally afforded by the "raucous" atmosphere of PMQs and prevalent (though highly misleading) shots of half-empty benches during many debates. I think it highly likely such new sequences would regularly feature as cutaways on evening news bulletins.

3.To mitigate against accusations of bias, there could be a simple agreed procedure before people can be shown. e.g. the broadcasters might informally agree desirable shots with the director at 7 Millbank. This list could be approved by the speaker. My understanding is that, for obvious security reasons, anyone sitting in the 'open' areas of the Strangers Gallery (i.e. not behind glass) must be approved by the Sergeant at Arms or her staff in advance and provide a reason for attending, so presumably there are lists of expected attendees which you (parliament) could pre-approve for TV use.

4.The committee expressed concern about interruptions and protests - my understanding is that when you're taken to the Strangers Gallery you're told in no uncertain terms you must sit still and not cause any sort of disturbance so firstly, it's abundantly clear to anyone that they'll be thrown out (or worse) if they misbehave. Secondly, as Peter Knowles said, it would still be you who had full control of output, not the broadcasters. The director has the ability to preview the image of the gallery before putting it to air, or to decide not to do so at all if s/he thinks it is too risky. I'd add that when there have been disturbances from the public gallery in the past, they've tended not to be terribly audible on the live feed - all the microphones in the chamber are highly directional and the control room staff are pretty swift to cut the sound in the event of an incident. Finally only a small portion of the gallery would be visible.

5.I'd argue it's at least worth trialling this; perhaps for a high profile set-piece event like the Queen's Speech debate or budget - with that you'd be able to get an idea of any impact on public opinion or use in national or international coverage. Alternatively you could do more modest experiments with adjournment debates or similar.

6.Listening shots. I favour making these more lenient and agree with the broadcasters that if you were watching in person you'd naturally look around the chamber a lot more than present rules allow.

7.Camera angles of front bench. Whilst I agree with some on the committee on public priorities, I would say this. Firstly, when any other interior or exterior location is seen through the same fixed set of camera positions with the same filming 'style' for many years, as a viewer I think you become somewhat accepting of the limitations in individual shots; i.e. you don't appreciate how much better things could look if subtle adjustments were made. I'm sure if you asked the public they wouldn't say it was worth £50,000 but might appreciate the improvements it afterwards. (If that was indeed the cost of moving cameras - I think the committee may have become confused by this. Regardless, it’s negligible compared to the control room upgrade.)

8.I've also noticed that when watching PMQs and ministerial statements on television, it's really easy to be distracted by whoever is sitting to the left or the right of the dispatch box, because the angle of the camera means their heads are closer to the centre of the frame than the member speaking.

9.Camera positions during Divisions

Firstly, I support the idea that even if not introduced permanently or as a trial, a one-off recording should be made for educational purposes. As was stated in oral evidence, during a division the actual process is taking place 'off stage'. Apart from the speaker announcing the tellers and later ordering the doors be locked, all we're allowed is a fixed wide angle view of the chamber.

10.I'd like to propose the director is given more creative freedom during this time, so they could show shots from the other end of the chamber looking towards the members' lobby (given there is a lot of traffic this way), and also be allowed to use shots from the cameras at the side of the chamber showing members filing out into either lobby through the four side doors. As the way all MPs vote is made public anyway, this wouldn’t create a privacy issue.

11.I also think the broadcasters (at their own expense with their own equipment) should be permitted to show a locked-off shot of Central Lobby as part of their own coverage during a vote (i.e. not in the parliamentary feed) - it might be nice to be able to see MPs who weren't in the chamber arriving to vote following important debates, so their constituents can see they're still involved - you won't notice them voting otherwise as they don't pass through the chamber itself before they reach either lobby. It would also add an element of drama to see the Prime Minister or senior ministers arriving. I'm unclear if broadcasters are currently allowed to do this - we occasionally see reporters doing pieces-to-camera during a division, are they permitted to broadcast the general comings and goings in Central Lobby as well? (clearly the Members' Lobby is out of bounds.)

12.The ban on chamber sound during a division no longer seems to be in place (or wasn't tonight) - I welcome this.

13.I attended the Houses of Parliament for the first time just this weekend to go on the visitors tour (incidentally, as it's in your remit, I'd like to commend the efficiency and friendliness of your staff and Blue Badge guides, it was informative and very good value for money. Even the security screening wasn't as bad as I expected. It's great you're running tours on Saturdays now - it was extremely busy.)

14.We were told how although the voting system is old-fashioned, MPs are keen to keep it because it's pretty infallible (no danger of pressing a wrong button), that it allows them to rub shoulders with ministers and how even the Prime Minister must say his name when voting, like everyone else. Prior to the tour, I'd never realised the division bells actually rang in nearby bars and restaurants, and until I read some of your recent discussions on visitor access, I wasn't aware that the police used to stop traffic for MPs to cross the road from Portcullis House to vote.

15.Why does any of this matter? Well, if you only see the speaker announcing "Division" and must then wait 15 minutes for the "Ayes" and "Noes", the process seems needlessly slow, people assume the only MPs voting are those already in the chamber, and the parliamentary language suggests the system is antiquated.

16.Now I have seen for myself the geography of the parliamentary estate, the ‘equality’ of the actual vote and opportunity for MPs to speak to one another, and the effort they have to go to race to the lobbies in time before the doors are locked, my respect of the system has risen dramatically. I think that maybe if those not traditionally interested in politics or cynical about it get to see the process from a new perspective, they might just think "Wow, they take this really seriously. Parliament really matters after all."

17.I agree with the Director of Broadcasting it's important to make footage more widely available. My profession is making websites and I'd like to see parliament.uk move to a platform neutral web feed (i.e. a video format - known as HTML5 - that would work on all devices, including phones and tablets.) It would encourage more people to embed your live or archived footage on their own websites. I recently wrote to the Parliamentary Recording Unit suggesting how they might add a live audio-only feed - something currently not provided by any broadcaster and which would be reliable enough for use by anyone (including MPs and staff) when out and about with a modern 3G mobile phone.

18.Finally I'd like to raise the issue of the use of parliamentary footage on satirical or entertainment programmes. You may remember a recent episode of Comedy Central's The Daily Show was shown in America but not broadcast by Channel 4 (specifically More4) because it included some relatively innocuous footage of PMQs. The irony was the initial package was praising how the British Prime Minister is held accountable to parliament on a weekly basis, but once Comedy Central became aware it had been censured in the UK, they ran a second feature essentially mocking us.

19.It's also inconsistent that a show like "This Week" (BBC1, Thursdays after Question Time) can get away with using parliamentary footage despite being (self-styled) "punchy, irreverent and satirical", because it's produced by the BBC's current affairs department.

20.As a voter and strong supporter of the creative industries (and a believer in the positive contribution political satire can make to political debate) I think footage should be permitted for use on any UK television (or radio) show provided very strong conditions on editing, cutaways and dubbing are attached (broadcasters shouldn't be allowed to alter the audio in any way or apply any visual effects that change the context) and they could be required to caption or verbally state the date the recording was made. In the light of your remarks on austerity, you might well decide to charge a royalty fee for any non-news use and it would seems reasonable that Ofcom should have the ability to impose a hefty fine on any broadcaster who abused the privilege or brought parliament into disrepute.

February 2012