4.30 p.m.
When the House decided a short time ago on an experimental month of radio broadcasting many hon. Members feared it as an unwarranted instrusion into our private affairs. They regarded radio broadcasting—and still do—as the foot in the door. They had convinced themselves that the media were our enemies and that they would seek to sensationalise or trivialise the proceedings of the House of Commons rather than to educate the electorate on what their Parliament is all about.
I doubt whether the experiment told anyone much that they did not know already, certainly in the technical sense. I doubt whether it converted any hon. Member from the views that he previously held. I am told that only 24 hon. Members bothered to go to the Committee Room to listen to the playback of the tapes, altough I am not sure what significance one can attach to that. I gather that there was a little turbulence when the subject was down for debate. The BBC did not know what information to give me or my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary because the information on the experiment is to be the property of the Committee of the House which is to go into the matter. I think that that is proper and I have no constitutional complaint about it. I was given some information by the BBC for which I am grateful. I was told that the audience of the radio programme "Yesterday in Parliament", which in any case is small, increased by roughly 30 per cent. in the course of the experiment. I do not know how much of that increase was due to the novelty of the experiment, and I do not think that anyone else has any means of knowing whether novelty was the attraction. The BBC gave me some information which I hope that it will not be improper for me to divulge and to comment upon. The programmes were evidently popular with all the 21 local radio stations, and I understand that 150 Members of Parliament were heard live on their local radio programmes—notably in the big cities. Again, we cannot tell whether that experience was more chastening for the Members of Parliament or for the electorate who sent them here, but at any rate they both know now what they got and they both deserve what they got. In the regions, I am told that Scotland had 30 programmes with four hours of live broadcasting of the debate on the Scottish Development Agency. A recording was made of the housing debate of the Scottish Grand Committee. The schools and the Open University expressed great interest in the broadcasts, although it was too late for them to be included in the curricula. I have no doubt that if the radio broadcasting of our proceedings becomes permanent a place in the curricula will be found for it. The BBC Overseas Service used the recordings substantially, especially in its morning news programmes. There were nine requests from foreign broadcasting companies to broadcast their own material, from countries as diverse as Holland, Hungary, Japan and Eire. The reaction of our people was mixed. I think that was the experience of most Members of Parliament. I do not think that they were exactly singing in the streets about the prospects of getting Parliament permanently on the radio, but on the whole I gather that the proportion that expressed favourable views on the experiment was roughly three to one. The proceedings of this place were never meant to be entertaining in the Palladium sense, although they often ascend or descend to that plane according to one's point of view. We can never hope to achieve peak rating figures. It is my view that we have in front of us an exciting and educative challenge that must be met, and particularly at a time when our democratic institutions are under fierce challenge and critical scrutiny. It is vitally important that we do not excommunicate ourselves from the people who sent us here in the first place. They have a right to hear what we say and how we say it. The broadcasting of our proceedings can never be a live continuous show. I could not think of anything more excruciatingly boring or incomprehensive. However, until that becomes a possibility there is the vexed problem of editing. It seems that it is not as insuperable as some people at one time thought. From time to time charges of bias will be made, although I gather that there were singularly few such charges during the month of the experimentation. If there were to be blatant abuse in that respect, the House would still retain the right to put a boot to the BBC's backside. In that context it is very important that the Government should keep their hands off in the matter of costs and, therefore, of control. I understand that the BBC wants to finance its own coverage of the proceedings here apart from the costs that will be covered in any event. I have in mind such matters as power, heating and accommodation. I put on record one or two personal reactions before posing some questions to my hon. Friend. At the outset I think that the House was acutely aware that it was on the air. Perhaps there was no one more aware of that than Mr. Speaker himself. In parenthesis, I hope that the BBC will rid itself of that dreary, tired "Order, order" at the beginning of the proceedings. It sounded rather like a country vicar presiding over granny's grave in some outlandish cemetery. I believe that Mr. Speaker's rôle becomes even more important given the broadcasting of our proceedings. I have in mind his choice of speakers at Question Time in establishing a balance of view as between parties and within parties. That is always a difficult balance for Mr. Speaker to strike, but it becomes much harder and much more important if our proceedings are broadcast. I sensed that there were changes at Question Time. There were certain Members who seemed to attract a greater amount of publicity than was merited by their contributions or their status in their parties. There were even some who made mischievous or bogus points of order, or long interventions in other Members' speeches. I could name names but I do not propose to do so. Perhaps one example is the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) on 12th June at column 669 concerning the personal statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) immediately after her dismissal by the Prime Minister. The point of order was raised and Mr. Speaker expressed his opinion that the controversial character of my right hon. Friend's statement, had nothing to do with the fact that it would be broadcast to millions. I am not so sure whether that opinion was right. I am inclined to disagree with that view. The temptation to make such statements with full media coverage must be very great once we get on the air on a permanent basis. A little later the Speaker said:That statement is topical in current circumstances. I presume it means that if a statement is to be made by the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) when the House resumes it must be approved by the Speaker. I hope that the Minister will consider that matter and give the House his views. Last but not least, I wish to draw attention to one or two problems that worry me very much. The first relates to privilege. In this House we can say what we like without danger of libel actions or anything else, but I merely pose the question: what will happen if those words go out on the radio into the homes of millions of our citizens? The second point relates to broadcasting coverage of House Committees. Obviously the system must be made more comprehensive than it was during the experiment. I gather that coverage would involve considerable improvement in the acoustics of Committee Rooms. I hope that the Minister will say whether the Government are considering that matter. I turn to the vexed question of copyright. What arrangements are contemplated or have been made between the Government and the BBC to prevent abuse of the tapes by selection and cutting? I can imagine "Monty Python's Flying Circus" taking advantage of selective cutting of tapes and matching, say, the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) with the voice of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, or vice versa The mind boggles at what could be done. For example, the words of the Prime Minister could be delivered in the shrill shriek of the voice of the hon. Lady the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Kellett-Bowman). This is a problem on which I hope the Minister will comment. Another question that worries me a great deal is the gulf that is growing between the executive and the ordinary viewer. Any move to worsen the situation must be viewed with considerable suspicion. Broadcasting of our proceedings gives an enormous additional advantage to the executive because it has the last word on everything. I say that even though the Labour Government look likely to enjoy office for a very long time to come. I dislike that trend, even though it may be of advantage to a Labour Government. I was delighted that the voice and accent of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition went out loud and clear in broadcasts to ordinary working folk in London, Wales, Merseyside, Durham and Scotland. They would never have believed it had they not heard it. There is a perceptive piece in tonight's Evening Standard that says that the right hon. Lady speaks as though she is constantly opening village fetes. That just about sums it up. However, I hope that my last comment will not dampen the enthusiasm of Tory Members who want to see broadcasting of our proceedings put on a permanent basis. I hope that the Minister will give some idea of the Government's thinking about a timetable within which to achieve the aim which the vast majority of Members now wish to see—namely that broadcasting will be put quickly on a permanent basis."I still think that the rule is right that in all circumstances the permission of the Chair should be sought, as it was in this case, and also that in other cases, not resignation cases, not only the permission of the Chair should be sought but the terms of the statement should be approved by the Chair."—[Official Report, 12th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 670.]
4.44 p.m.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) for raising this matter. It is one of considerable importance to the House and it is right that it should be discussed. If I have any regret at all, it is that it comes rather late in our proceedings. I take the view that both my hon. Friend and myself are certainly worth a bigger audience than the one we have today.
In case I am prevented from doing so later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I take this opportunity of wishing you a peaceful and restful recess and of saying that, much as we all love you, we hope that no circumstances will arise in which it is necessary for us to see you before 13th October.I reciprocate those sentiments exactly.
If we meet, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that it will be in a Welsh Methodist chapel rather than in this Chamber.
We have had our experiment, and it is my experience, having talked to many Members, that the general feeling is that it has been a success. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central, I believe that it fully justified the vote of nearly two to one last February. Both the BBC and independent radio authorities are well satisfied with the experiment and they hope that sound broadcasting will be resumed at the earliest opportunity. That, too, is the view of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He has made no secret of his commitment to permanent broadcasting and it is certainly his wish that we can make the necessary arrangements as quickly as possible. But this is a matter for the House. It is being considered by a sub-committee of the Services Committee which has been given responsibility for evaluating the experiment, and its findings and recommendations will be reported to the House by the main Services Committee. No doubt the broadcasting authorities will themselves be asked for their views on the way the experiment worked and what lessons can be learned from it. When the House has had an opportunity to consider this report it will be necessary to provide the right framework for a decision on a permanent system. I now wish to deal with the three points which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central wished particularly to be answered. On the question of editing, I hope that I am right in thinking that few hon. Members would wish to exercise any editorial control over what went out from this Chamber. If that were not so, we should be on extremely dangerous ground. As a former newspaperman, I certainly would not welcome it. This matter is best left to impartial judges, and we, by the nature of our involvement, could hardly be regarded as impartial. The questions of copyright and privilege are difficult. They are being considered by Ministers and officials and we hope in due course to make the position as we see it as clear as possible. On the question of cutting and editing for entertainment purposes, we have an agreement with the BBC that what goes out of this Chamber will not be used for such purposes. There is no possibility of Monty Python getting his hands on our proceedings. That is a clear understanding with the BBC. However, I cannot give my hon. Friends an assurance about what the Monty Pythons overseas will do, because I understand that once broadcasts go out from the BBC they become common material for use by anybody. It would be misleading to suggest that we could control what was put out in, say, North America. I have heard some of the broadcasts which have gone out, and they were not at all helpful. Difficulty arises with programmes such as the Jimmy Young programme. I understand that 8 million people listen to Jimmy Young's programme in the mornings. He attempts to deal with matters in a serious way, but I understand that it would be necessary for Jimmy Young to seek approval at a very high level in the BBC before using material even in the serious part of his programme. The authority is being as helpful as it possibly can in circumstances which are not always easy. The Government's view is that the House should have an early opportunity of finally resolving the matter, but before that final decision can be taken, not on an experimental basis but on a permanent basis, the House must have a clear idea what the permanent arrangements would be. It seems particularly essential that there should be a clear understanding about the way in which a permanent system would be financed and what it would actually cost. I share the fears of my hon. Friend that if we provided the money it might be thought that we would want editorial control, or some other form of control to go with it. I should be extremely unhappy if I thought that that was likely to happen. The way that this is to be financed is a matter for discussion between the broadcasting authorities and ourselves. There are other important matters, such as the legal ownership of the copyright of the sound record, privilege—which has been raised already—and accommodation. All need to be resolved, and they are being considered as a matter of urgency. These issues will need to be determined as quickly as possible and as thoroughly as possible. Since the House of Lords is likely to be involved in any permanent system, it might be appropriate for this issue to be considered by a Joint Committee, but I think that the first step is to see what the Broadcasting Sub-Committee has to say in its report. Like my hon. Friend, I have been talking to the BBC, and it has produced some interesting statistics for me, not least the fact that 350 Members were heard in broadcasts. My hon. Friend and I will agree about one matter—that the less that the Front Benches monopolise broadcasts, the better. There is no doubt that there has been a wide selection of speakers. During the experimental period, 450 news and current affairs reports were transmitted, amounting to about 1,000 separate recorded extracts. The audience for "Yesterday In Parliament" increased during the period by about 300,000, to about 1·5 million, and the live broadcast on the first day attracted four times the normal audience. Of course, the extracts were used in programmes with mass audiences—the BBC main news bulletins, ITN bulletins and others. In the case of the BBC alone, there were 56 extracts on television. Particularly encouraging has been the response from local radio stations—both BBC and IRN. The BBC used material on all its stations and the national regional stations devoted considerable time to our proceedings. Perhaps I may mention Scotland. We had four hours of broadcasting on the Scottish Development Agency alone, and there will be much to come, I suspect, on devolution, if the House gives approval for permanent broadcasting. There was also the broadcasting of Committees, although in some Committee Rooms there is a problem with acoustics. Expert advice from the BBC and IRN suggests that the acoustics in this House are better than had been expected, but that in some of the Committee Rooms it was far less acceptable than had been hoped. Clearly that is a matter which will have to be looked at. There has been considerable success with external broadcasting, by both the BBC and the COI There has been considerable demand from around the world for recordings of our proceedings. I have quoted these figures because I believe that there is considerable interest in our affairs. There is no doubt that the broadcasting authorities share that view. That is why they are anxious to come back on a permanent basis and why I for one would welcome them. I believe, as I have always done, that the more that people know about us and our affairs, the less suspicion and distrust there is likely to be. This is not a perfect institution. Sometimes we do not behave as we should. But I know that it is a great deal better than many of my constituents believe, and I want them to know what goes on here. If that involves their seeing a few warts, that is a price worth paying. That is why in due course my right hon. Friend the Lord President hopes to bring forward proposals for permanent broadcasting. It will take a little time. There are problems. But we shall deal with the matter as one of urgency. Much will depend on the speed with which the Sub-Committee produces its report, and that has nothing to do with the Lord President or me. I hope that it will be as soon as possible. We shall learn as we go along.I apologise for intervening in the middle of the debate, but, being a member of the Sub-Committee, I should like to add that it is to meet during the recess.
I am grateful for that intervention.
This matter is not quite as easy as some of our colleagues imagine. There are difficulties and problems. Many people believe that it is possible to put a commentator in the box, bring in a cable, and start it all off again. I do not believe that the House would want that. We need to get this matter right, and it will take a little more time than some of us would wish. I should dearly like to think that it would be possible to begin broadcasting proceedings again on 13th October, but that is just not on. It will take a little while before we can make the necessary arrangements, reach agreement with all parties, arrange the financing, and so on. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to bear with us if this matter is rather longer delayed than many of us would wish. If the House takes the decision which I expect it to take. I believe that it will be a major step forward in involving people in the process of government. We want more, not less, interest in the working of this institution. That is why I shall join my hon. Friend in trying to persuade colleagues on both sides of the House that we should open our doors to all who want to listen to us, and one day, hopefully, see us as well.Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Five o'clock till Monday 13th October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 31st July.