Conclusions and recommendations
1. The maintenance
of a proper record of proceedings is a primary objective of parliamentary
broadcasting. The central principle guiding parliamentary broadcast
must remain that the Member speaking is wholly or largely the
focus of any broadcast. (Paragraph 9)
2. We recommend that
a small-scale trial using a camera mounted on the Table of the
House be conducted on a non-sitting day, involving a mock debate
among volunteers from the House's staff or during the next sitting
of the UK Youth Parliament, or both. There should be no cost to
the public purse of such a trial, beyond staff time; it should
be conducted only if the broadcasters are willing to fund the
technical costs. (Paragraph 16)
3. Pictures obtained
from such trials should not be broadcast, but should be used to
consult political parties, the Government and the Opposition on
whether such a camera would be a useful and desirable addition
to what is already available. (Paragraph 17)
4. If a trial proved
successful and the House approved introduction of a table-mounted
camera, the initial capital costs of the necessary infrastructure
should also be borne by the broadcasters rather than the public
purse. Future replacement and revenue costs could fall within
the House's own broadcasting budget. (Paragraph 18)
5. The rules of coverage
justify tighter shots of Members making speeches than is standard
practice at present, and we support the Director of Parliamentary
Broadcasting in encouraging our TV directors to provide head and
shoulders shots rather than the waist-upwards shots currently
preferred. (Paragraph 22)
6. We are not convinced
that more cutaway shots should be provided: the purpose of the
broadcasts is to provide coverage of speeches, not varied pictures.
(Paragraph 23)
7. We see no reason
to relax restrictions on filming in the public galleries of the
House. Parliamentary proceedings occur in the Chamber, Westminster
Hall or Committee Rooms, not the galleries. (Paragraph 27)
8. We see no reason
to enable routine filming within the division lobbies during divisions
of the House. To do so would add nothing to the record of proceedings
provided by parliamentary broadcasting. (Paragraph 32)
9. We do, however,
see the merit in the idea that filming a division in progress
might have some educational and explanatory value, and would support
in principle the idea of filming a mocked-up division should the
Parliament's Education Service seek to do so. (Paragraph 33)
10. Our proposals
would make small, practical changes to the way in which Parliament
is broadcast on television but which could, we believe, make coverage
of the work done by the House and its committees a little more
relaxed, a little more modern in look and a little more appealing
to the average viewer while retaining the central and essential
principle that the broadcasts accurately portray our proceedings
fully and transparently for public information and for the record.
(Paragraph 48)
11. We recommend that
the House be invited to approve the amended rules of coverage
for television broadcast set out in annex 2 to this Report. (Paragraph
49)
| 
