Memorandum by ITV Regions
1. Any change in the rules on broadcasting
proceedings of the House to make coverage more interesting and
varied is to be welcomed—but that is not the main driver
of whether we choose to cover a debate or an issue. Decisions
are made on editorial grounds. Is the story of interest to our
viewers, does it involve peers who come from our region and most
important of all, will it make a difference to the lives of our
viewers? If a story meets those criteria it has a reasonable chance
of being covered. Once that hurdle has been surmounted then the
less rigid the guidelines for coverage of proceedings in the House
are, the more likely we are to use footage from the House rather
than interview a peer or minister after the event.
2. Political correspondents at Westminster
cover the activities of both the executive and the legislature,
and the large majorities enjoyed by governments in recent years
have—rightly or wrongly—shifted a lot of the media
focus away the legislative chambers. Broadcasters, like other
sections of the media, tend to concentrate their coverage on where
power lies, or is perceived to lie. Where there have been serious
rebellions in either House that have looked like defeating the
Government coverage has followed. Should there be a hung parliament
or small majority after the next election then there is likely
to be an increased focus on activity in the two chambers.
3. A prime example recently of where the
activities of the House of Lords are perceived to have a direct
impact on the lives of our viewers is the impact of the credit
crunch on the motor industry. Several regions have carried footage
from the Chamber when Lord Mandelson has made statements giving
details of the Government's assistance for the automotive industry.
Further back when Lord Young was President of the Board of Trade
in the 80s there was considerable interest in and coverage of
the latest twists in the saga of the future of Rover—particularly
as statements to parliament took place first in the Lords and
later in the Commons.
4. In recent years regional campaigns and
issues have also led to coverage—such as a recent question
on the East Coast mainline from Baroness Harris which was covered
by Tyne Tees.
5. The easing of the rules on filming within
the precincts of parliament have made coverage easier—such
as being allowed to film in MPs' offices or to conduct interviews
or pieces to camera within Central Lobby or at two locations in
Portcullis House. However there still appears to be a presumption
against filming in many parts of the Palace which is inhibiting
coverage and there is no obvious comprehensive list of rules which
is easily available for broadcast journalists on the parliamentary
website. A search of the site for "broadcasting rules"
throws up links to evidence from 1999, but no easily discernable
codified set of what can, or can't, be filmed. Some details are
available on the parliament intranet—but journalists cannot
access that site.
6. The document "Photography and Filming
in the Palace of Westminster" dated Summer 2008 in the
Parliamentary Information Leaflets series does provide a set of
guidelines, but is aimed at parliamentarians rather than journalists.
The tone is set early on "No one should photograph, film
or sketch or have their voice recorded anywhere with the Parliamentary
Estate without permission." It also mentions facility fees
which may be payable before a permit to film is issued.
7. The present rules—such as a prohibition
on covering press conferences in committee rooms in the Palace
unless they are held by select committees—are frustrating
to journalists and confusing to parliamentarians. Further confusion
surrounds exactly which kinds of meeting rooms allow filming and
which don't and under what conditions.
8. We suggest that there should be a presumption
in favour of filming throughout the parliamentary estate except
where it is specifically banned. That would make the rules clearer
and easier to understand for everyone and would improve coverage
especially if there were a wider range of interview points (in
addition to Central Lobby and Portcullis House) available throughout
the Palace. There should be no facility fees for news or current
affairs filming. The present system of booking 15-minute slots
for interview points on a first-come, first-served basis through
the Admission Order Office is widely understood by journalists,
works well and should be retained.
9. Parliament offers many opportunities
to provide colourful coverage of the pageantry and ceremony surrounding
official events. ITV Central requested, and obtained, permission
to film Lord Bilston behind the scenes robing up as he took his
seat in the House of Lords. It made compelling viewing and increased
awareness of the House of Lords. But it took determination to
obtain permission to film and judging by comments made during
filming the crew got the impression they were there on sufferance
and their presence was resented by some.
10. Instead of resenting the presence of
cameras why not welcome them? Imagine how much more compelling
the coverage of close votes would be if we could actually show
the process of voting from within the Division Lobbies rather
than just the declaration of the result. You do not need to have
every division filmed, but the ability to film important divisions
would make coverage more accessible and engaging.
11. In recent years the House has taken
a number of initiatives which have been important steps in the
right direction. The pro-active role of a press officer such as
Owen Williams for the House of Lords committees is greatly appreciated.
He actively solicits coverage of committee hearings and reports
both through emails and face-to-face meetings in the Press Gallery
offices, often highlighting to regional journalists the important
local issues in reports or hearings.
12. The appointment of Julian Dee as a press
officer for the Cross Bench peers has also been a welcome step
in the right direction. He has highlighted the important regional
aspects of debates in the House as well as managing to get experts,
such as Lord Best on housing, featured on ITV regional political
programmes.
13. These appointments point the way forward.
Greater engagement by the House with broadcast journalists to
highlight debates, issues and peers that are relevant to the regions
they cover should be developed. In addition barriers to coverage
such as restrictive rules about where and when filming can take
place should be eased and simplified, the rule saying peers need
to give at least 48 hours notice for filming in the House
of Lords should go and facility fees should be scrapped.
14. The call for evidence also asks what
broadcasters need from the House to support the goal of fuller
coverage of its work. To support the points we made in paragraph
one about what is most likely to secure coverage we suggest the
House should consider the way it manages its business to remove
language and procedures that act as a barrier to understanding
for the average viewer. In addition the House should consider
how it fulfils its role in holding the executive to account so
that through activity in the Chamber and in committee timely discussion
of matters of pressing public concern is increased.
15. The expansion of webcasting is welcome,
and contextualisation of proceedings can only assist public understanding
of the proceedings of the House.
28 April 2009
| 
