HC Deb 25 April 1966 vol 727 cc355-61
30. Mr. Rowland

asked the Lord President of the Council for what organisation the House of Commons was filmed in colour; by what authority permission was given for this filming; and what fee was paid.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden)

An application was received from Associated British Pathé Ltd. to film the House of Commons in colour on the occasion of the Opening of Parliament by Her Majesty. Permission was given by the House authorities, on the assumption that it was implicit in the House of Commons (Services) Committee's Resolution, which was approved by Mr. Speaker, that the ceremony should be televised by the B.B.C. The fact that a colour film was again being taken in the House of Lords was also borne in mind. No fees were paid.

Mr. Rowland

Does the Lord President agree that some parts of that Answer reveal an extraordinary state of affairs? Could he give an assurance that any decisions about television which are reached with the approval of this House do not apply to the filming in colour of proceedings in this House, with all the attendant lights which are necessary for filming?

Mr. Bowden

On the question of televising the House and the proceedings in Parliament, we have previously, as the House is aware, set up a Select Committee to consider this whole problem. That Committee has not yet reported. It will again be set up in this new Parliament to continue its duties. It must be borne in mind, as far as this particular colour film is concerned, that the application was made after Parliament was dissolved. Therefore, it was not possible to consult the House or you, Mr. Speaker, and the authorities of the House based their decision upon a decision taken by the Services Committee on the question of televising the proceedings in this Chamber on the occasion of the State opening.

Sir J. Rodgers

As one who is in favour of the experiment of televising the proceedings of this House, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he can give us an assurance that there will be no further television of the proceedings in this House without a full debate of the House?

Mr. Bowden

I have made it clear on a previous occasion that any decision to televise the proceedings of the House of Commons will be taken as a result of a free vote, I hope, of the House of Commons which is based upon a Report from the Select Committee. This was not such an occasion. This was an occasion of the State opening and, so far as the film was concerned, Parliament had in fact been dissolved. On the question of the televising of the proceedings in the House and the B.B.C. cameras in the Chamber, this decision was taken by the Services Committee as a recommendation to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Paget

Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether any arrangements were made for the payment of fees to and the insurance of hon. Members who, without consultation, were cast in the rôles of extras and submitted to ordeal by arc lamp?

Mr. Bowden

I understand that no fees at all were paid, but any cost involved by the Ministry of Public Building and Works has been recovered.

Mr. Bessell

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why no fees were paid? Clearly the commercial company concerned must have obtained quite a considerable revenue and profit as a result of filming this ceremony. Surely it is wrong that this kind of thing should happen to the benefit of one particular company?

Mr. Bowden

I am afraid I can accept no more responsibility. Neither the hon. Gentleman himself nor I were Members of Parliament at the time.

Mr. English

In his capacity as Chairman of the House of Commons (Services) Committee, would my hon. Friend instruct the authorities of the House on future occasions to consult him as its Chairman when interpreting the minutes of that Committee?

Mr. Bowden

This would be generally desirable, but it was difficult to consult me when I was not a Member of Parliament and Parliament had, in fact, been dissolved.

Mr. Goodhew

Is the Lord President aware that, in addition to television cameras and movie cameras in the House for the colour film, there were also Press photographers taking still photographs of the House? Are we to assume that the introduction of television into the House automatically means the introduction also of Press photographers on each occasion?

Mr. Bowden

This is a matter for the Select Committee on televising Parliament I hope that Committee will look at the whole question, because this is a very much wider question than one of simply one or two television cameras coming into the Chamber. I hope the Select Commit- tee will consider every possible aspect of this matter.

Mr. William Hamilton

What right has anybody to take this decision without consulting Members of Parliament? Why should we be the guinea pigs in this kind of experiment, and why, in particular, was it decided to televise the most feudal part of our proceedings rather than any other part?

Mr. Bowden

I obviously have not made this clear. The decision to bring B.B.C. television cameras into this Chamber on the occasion of the State opening was taken by Mr. Speaker on a recommendation to him by the Services Committee. Anything that happened subsequently—that is to say, the colour film or the still shots which were taken—occurred as a result of a decision taken by the House of Commons authorities who thought it was implicit in the decision taken by the Services Committee.

Sir D. Glover

On a point of order. I do not understand the last explanation of the Leader of the House. He said the decision was taken by Mr. Speaker. I understood the House of Commons was in abeyance——

Mr. Speaker

Order. There is no point of order arising from the merits of the answer. The hon. Member may not like the answer, but it is in order.

Sir G. Nabarro

Further to that point of order——

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Sir G. Nabarro

On a point of order——

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) was not on a point of order. Therefore the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) must raise a point of order and not speak further to a point of order.

Sir G. Nabarro

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the decision was taken by you, Sir. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he did. My point of order to you, Sir, is: did you or did you not, while there were no Members of Parliament—that is, in the interregnum——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not empowered to submit the Chair to a cross-examination at Question Time. If he is doubtful about the conduct of the Chair he has his remedy, a Parliamentary remedy.

Sir D. Glover

With respect, Mr. Speaker, neither I nor, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is querying the authority of the Chair. We are implying that the Chair was, in fact, vacant at the time.

Mr. Speaker

This is an important matter of merit and argument. It is not, however, a matter of order for the Chair at Question Time.

Mr. Deedes

Will the Lord President clarify this point? Was the decision taken about B.B.C. television cameras before Parliament dissolved for the election?

Mr. Bowden

Yes, Sir; the decision on B.B.C. cameras was taken, two days before Parliament was dissolved, by the House of Commons (Services) Committee, and the recommendation was made to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Shinwell

Will not my right hon. Friend agree that, as the House was dissolved and as not even Mr. Speaker was a Member of Parliament at the time and had no authority either, one cannot blame Mr. Speaker? Was it not the Lord Great Chamberlain who was responsible?

Mr. Bowden

That is not the correct position. When Her Majesty decided, some 16 or 17 months ago, to transfer the control of the House of Commons side of the Palace of Westminster to the House of Commons, that is, to Mr. Speaker, the Lord Great Chamberlain no longer had any responsibility in this side of the Palace.

Sir C. Taylor

The Lord President said that we were promised, as the House of Commons, that no proceedings would be televised without a free vote of the House. Am I not right in thinking that they were proceedings of the House of Commons when we were sitting here before the opening of the new Session in the Chamber of the House of Lords, and, therefore, has not that promise been broken?

Mr. Bowden

The hon. Gentleman is, of course, correct; it is a part of the proceedings of Parliament, but it is not the sort of occasion which Members had in mind when they were thinking in terms of the proceedings of Parliament generally. While I am prepared to admit that it is, obviously, a part of the proceedings of Parliament, I should have thought that this would have been an example worth bearing in mind by the Select Committee on the televising of Parliament for its further deliberations.

Mr. Orme

If the Lord Great Chamberlain had no responsibility, will my right hon. Friend explain to the House how it came about that the Lord Great Chamberlain issued the tickets for the Press photographers to come into this House?

Mr. Bowden

I should have to check that one. I am not absolutely clear that the Lord Great Chamberlain issues tickets for Members or visitors to enter this Chamber.

Mr. Lubbock

If the decision was taken by the Committee two days before the House rose, why was no announcement made in the House at that time so that hon. Members would know what was going on? Second, what does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says that the House authorities took the quite separate decision to allow the film to be made simultaneously with the transmission on the B.B.C. service? Who were the House authorities, and to whom did they refer for their interpretation of the Committee's decision?

Mr. Bowden

On the first point, I think I am right in saying that, either on the date of Dissolution or the day before—I shall have to check it—in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), it was announced to the House that the proceedings would be televised.

On the second point, it has to be appreciated that, while Mr. Speaker has certain responsibilities when Parliament is dissolved, those responsibilities are clearly laid down in Erskine May, and this is not one of them; so it was the House authorities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who are They?"]—there are many, the Serjeant at Arms, the Clerk of the House and many other authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "How did they decide it?"] I assume that they met together and reached this decision based upon what was decided about televising.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. This Question has had quite a good run. We must move on.

Mr. Lubbock

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.