HC Deb 30 January 1974 vol 868 cc445-54

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Dick Leonard (Romford)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the public broadcasting, by sound and television, of the proceedings of Parliament. This is, I believe, the fourth time that this subject has been raised on the Floor of the House. I should like to make it clear at the outset that I do not regard a Ten-Minute Rule Bill as the ideal means by which this issue should be resolved. I have no ambition to carry the Bill through all its necessary stages, if it should receive the assent of the House today. In that case I should urge the Leader of the House, who courteously explained to me earlier that he would be unavoidably absent during this short debate, that the Government themselves should take the necessary steps to arrange for an experiment in sound and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House.

That would be in accordance with the assurance which his predecessor gave to the House on the last occasion that the subject was raised on 19th October 1972. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said that he would be …" entirely content to abide by the decision of such a free vote of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October 1972; Vol. 843, c. 492.1 The proposal I wish to put to the House this afternoon is in three simple parts. First, it is proposed that the Leader of the House should make the necessary arrangements with the BBC and with the IBA for extracts of the proceedings of the House to be publicly broadcast on both sound and television. It is proposed that this should be for an experimental period not exceeding three months.

Secondly, it is proposed that a committee of the House be appointed to supervise this experiment and that the committee should itself set up a special parliamentary television and broadcasting unit under its control. The unit would make the technical arrangements and be in control of the broadcasts of the proceedings.

I should like to make it clear that I should not be in favour of the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House on a permanent basis unless it remained under the control of a committee appointed by and responsible to the House of Commons.

The third proposal is that the committee which would be set up should report back to the House at the end of a further period of not more than three months on the conduct of the experiment and that it should make a recommendation to the House about whether or not broadcasting on sound and television should be continued on a permanent basis.

It is not my intention this afternoon to deploy what I regard as the extremely strong case in favour of televising and broadcasting the proceedings of Parliament.

That case, and the case against it, was forcefully and effectively argued in the full debate in October 1972. What I should prefer to do this afternoon is to stress briefly two or three further developments which have occurred since then and which reinforce the case for broadcasting our proceedings.

Re-reading the debate of October 1972, it is striking that few Members were able to offer more than impressionistic evidence about the state of public opinion on this issue. It was strongly argued by a number of opponents to televising Parliament that there was no public demand at all for television programmes about the House or for the televising of debates. We are now in a rather better position to make a judgment on this issue. Last summer the National Opinion Poll carried out a survey in connection with the Granada television company's State of the Nation programmes on Parliament. This survey found that 71 per cent. of the electors were "very" or "fairly" interested in the proceedings of Parliament and that 59 per cent. of them said that they would be interested in watching television programmes about Parliament.

The only previous survey which had been carried out, as far as I am aware, was also by NOP—in 1966—and it showed that 64 per cent. of the electorate would be interested in watching televised debates. I do not claim too much on the basis of those two surveys, but for what they are worth they show a clear majority of the public favour the televising the proceedings of Parliament and I do not believe that is a view which we as their representatives should lightly disregard.

Since 1972 there has been a further development in the publication of the Crowther-Kilbrandon report on the constitution. It concluded: people have tended to become disenchanted with government". The report suggested that the general disenchantment with government may be largely attributable to a failure in communication and it noted that alone of European countries the vote in General Elections has steadily gone down over the last 20 years in Britain and we now have a lower turnout in General Elections than virtually any other European country. It is not coincidental that, apart from Belgium, we are the only country in Western Europe where Parliament has deliberately cut itself off from the most effective and immediate media of communication—television and radio. It was precisely because they sensed that the public were largely ignorant of the important work that they are responsible for carrying out that the Expenditure Committee passed a motion a year ago asking the House to authorise the broadcasting of its proceedings.

In the last debate in October 1972 those who were opposed to televising our proceedings distinguished their speeches above all else by expressing a fear of change, and it is fascinating to recall that the particular fears which were expressed were almost exactly parallel to those heard in similar debates in the West German Parliament in the early 1950s when it was decided to televise the proceedings of the Bundestag. In the event virtually every one of those fears was proved to be unfounded in West Germany when television began, and I believe that the same would happen here.

However, even though these particular fears are unjustified, it does not mean that the introduction of television cameras would not be an instrument of change in this Chamber. There will be changes and there should be changes. We are living in a fast-moving society and we cannot effectively serve and represent that society if we, too, are not prepared to change. We all know what happens to creatures that refuse to adapt themselves to changing circumstances. How many dinosaurs have we seen around the place lately? Not every creature that refuses to change becomes extinct. For some of them there is another, more cruel fate. They become tame pets, playthings, part of the dignified element of the constitution, as Bagehot put it.

I conclude by asking hon. Members this question. Do we want to become a museum piece, preserved in aspic, to be admired by foreign tourists as part of the charm of old England, while the real world passes us by outside? Or do we wish to be a living organism—which adapts itself to changing circumstances, so that we may survive to play that central part in the political process that parliamentary democracy demands?

3.57 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)

My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) said at the outset that a debate had taken place in the autumn of 1972 and that he did not intend to make the case again. He would have done much better for his purpose if he had stuck to that resolution. The case was then argued and the House decided on a free vote, and by a much larger majority than on the previous occasion, to reject the proposal. I should have thought that was enough for the purposes of this current Parliament. My hon. Friend has not added to the case by talking about a survival kit and things of that nature. We who have to decide on this issue are concerned not with general propaganda tirades but with the precise proposal that we have to debate and decide upon.

It is a serious House of Commons matter which must be examined against the background of what is being asked. The documentation is very scanty so far. In preparation for the debate in autumn 1972 the then Lord President of the Council asked the chairman of the body representing the managing directors of independent television companies to prepare a memorandum. The memorandum was prepared and submitted to the then Lord President, but it has never been published. We have never been allowed to know how those who control the television companies want to approach this topic. I find it ironic that so many hon. Members who have repeatedly belaboured the Government saying that they want more information, for example, about the Common Market or about any other subject, should be prepared to support the proposal now before us when this important information has been withheld. The Government should publish that report. There is no reason why it should be secret.

We have to consider the nature of the House of Commons and the reasons advanced for this proposal. I wish to make just one small unkind point to my hon. Friend. In the run-up to the introduction of this Bill he was heard on the radio programme "The World at One," in an interview about his proposal, to say that it was quite obvious that Members of the House of Commons were out of touch with the situation. I take that somewhat amiss. My hon. Friend is entitled to make the claim for his proposal, but I deny and refute his statement that hon. Members of this House are not in touch with the current situation. They may disagree with the remedies to be applied, but this is no reason for saying that, because our proceedings are not televised, hon. Members do not have the information they should have.

My hon. Friend referred to change. Of course there is perpetual need for change, but there is a confusion of two issues. Change to enable hon. Members to have even more information should move in an altogether different direction. We should be supporting demands that every hon. Member is entitled to a research assistant and to a secretary paid for by the State. All these proposals have nothing to do with the demand for the House to be televised. It is a complete confusion of two issues.

I come to my hon. Friend's point about the nature of the House of Commons If one merely wants a platform for speeches to be recorded, one is mistaking the nature of the House of Commons. The House is mainly a sensible instrument of self-government and comes to conclusions about what is needed for the nation. It is a workshop. This is the profound reason why I feel that the House should reject the motion.

The people who want to televise the House have no intention of showing our proceedings for ten hours a day. Nobody wants that because of the money required to set up a separate channel. What they have in mind, no matter what procedures we set up, is that they should control what is to be selected and how it is to be reported. This is the clash of media. The television companies, because of their arrangements for receiving fees for propaganda and publicity, are dedicated to the proposition that the viewers must at all times be riveted to their seats. The only way they think they can do this is by providing entertainment, and this is what they set out to do. It would be monstrous for hon. Members to hand over to some of these merchants of trivialisation the decision as to what was to be reported about the proceedings of the House of Commons.

When my hon. Friend says that more evidence has come to hand, I would remind him that what evidence has appeared illustrates the trivial approach of those who control programmes. That has certainly been the case since our debate in the autumn of 1972.

Another important point concerns the kind of work which should be undertaken in this House. There is no reason to think that everything must be televised. There is a philosophy, which grew up in the United States and which is now prevalent in this country, that one cannot engage in any important activity unless it be televised—in other words, the stamp of importance is put on an event only if it is televised. This philosophy is far from the truth. Much of the most important work in this House is carried out in quiet debates—debates which would never be recorded if the House were televised. I recall one occasion in the House when the late Sir Eric Errington changed the whole course of a debate by making a contribution—in a quiet voice which would not record very well—from the wealth of his own experience. That is the way in which the House of Commons sometimes works.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

No doubt the Whips were not on.

Mr. Mendelson

My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) says "The Whips were not on." Surely my hon. Friend and also my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who made a similar comment, are not saying that they have never spoken against the Whip. Interventions such as that do not give any strength to their case. They would do much better to keep quiet.

Let me proceed on my course, for I have almost finished. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The decision will lie in the voting, not in the length of speeches. The people who are now arguing, particularly those in the television companies, that televising the House would be a great educational advance are mistaken. The

proposition that one can acquire knowledge and information only through television is wholly misguided and inappropriate. There are many much more profound ways of acquiring information and of following our proceedings.

There would be a case for examining this proposition if three conditions were fulfilled. The first condition is that there should be an overwhelming case that our proceedings require to be televised in the interests of the nation. The second condition is that we must feel certain that there would not be a danger that small groups of powerful men who happen to own the television companies, and who are the new Press lords, would decide how the work of this House is to be recorded. The third condition is that the educational value would have to be proved. None of these conditions is present this afternoon, and I urge the House to reject the motion.

Question put pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 164. Noes 189.

Division No. 44.] AYES [4.7 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Lamont, Norman
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Ellis, Tom Lane, David
Armstrong, Ernest English, Michael Lawson, George
Atkinson, Norman Ewing, Harry Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Austick, David Eyre, Reginald Leonard, Dick
Awdry, Daniel Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.) Luce, R. N.
Barnes, Michael Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Batsford, Brian Fookes, Miss Janet MacArthur, Ian
Beith, A. J. Foot, Michael McCartney, Hugh
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Fox, Marcus McCrindle, R. A.
Blaker, Peter Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) MacDonald, Mrs. Margo
Blenkinsop, Arthur Fraser, John (Norwood) McElhone, Frank
Booth, Albert Gorst, John Machin, George
Bossom, Sir Clive Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Mackenzie, Gregor
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) McLaren, Martin
Buchan, Norman Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Maclennan, Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) McMaster, Stanley
Carlisle, Mark Hamling, William Madel, David
Carmichael, Neil Hannam, John (Exeter) Marks, Kenneth
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Haselhurst, Alan Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Carter Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Hatton, F. Mayhew, Christopher
Chapman, Sydney
Churchill, W. S. Hawkins, Paul Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Hayhoe, Barney Meyer, Sir Anthony
Cormack, Patrick Heffer, Eric S. Mikardo, Ian
Cox Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Horam, John Millan, Bruce
Critchley Julian Howell, David (Guildford) Milne, Edward
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Huckfield, Leslie Molloy, William
Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Money, Ernie
Crouch, David Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Dalyell, Tam Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Neave, Airey
Deakins Eric Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) O'Halloran, Michael
Dormand, J. D. Kaufman, Gerald Orme, Stanley
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Kerr, Russell Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce King, Tom (Bridgwater) Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Driberg, Tom Kirk, Peter Pardoe, John
Eadie, Alex Knox, David Parker, John (Dagenham)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) Torney, Tom
Prescott, John Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.) Tugendhat, Christopher
Proudfoot, Wilfred Skinner, Dennis Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Radice, Giles Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) Varley, Eric G.
Raison, Timothy Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) Watkins, David
Reed, D. (Sedgefield) Speed, Keith Weatherill, Bernard
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) Spence, John Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Rees-Davies, W. R. Sproat, lain Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Richard, lvor Stallard, A. W. Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Steel, David Winterton, Nicholas
Ridsdale, Julian Stoddart, David (Swindon) Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Stott, Roger Worsley Sir Marcus
Rost, Peter Strang, Gavin
St. John-Stevas, Norman Sutcliffe, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Sandelson, Neville Taverne, Dick Mr. Clement Freud and
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under Lyne) Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy Mr. David Price.
Shelton, William (Clapham) Tope, Graham
NOES
Abse, Leo Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Onslow, Cranley
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Hardy, Peter Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Ashton, Joe Harper, Joseph Osborn, John
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Oswald, Thomas
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Benyon, W. Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Pavitt, Laurie
Berry, Hn. Anthony Harvie Anderson, Miss Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Bitten, John Hastings, Stephen Peel, Sir John
Biggs-Davison, John Hicks, Robert Pendry, Tom
Boscawen, Hn. Robert Hiley, Joseph Pink, R. Bonner
Brewis, John Holland, Philip Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Brinton, Sir Tatton Holt, Miss Mary Quennell, Miss J. M.
Broughton, Sir Alfred Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia Redmond, Robert
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hughes, Mark (Durham) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Burden, F. A. Hughes, Roy (Newport) Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Cant, R. B. Hunter, Adam Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Cary, Sir Robert Hutchison, Michael Clark Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Cohen, Stanley James, David Royle, Anthony
Coleman, Donald Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford) Russell, Sir Ronald
Concannon, J. D. Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Scott-Hopkins, James
Conlan, Bernard Jessel, Toby Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Cooke, Robert John, Brynmor Shersby, Michael
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tie-u-Tyne)
Costain, A. P. Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Silverman, Julius
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. Jack Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Simeons, Charles
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Jopling, Michael Skeet, T. H. H.
Digby, Simon Wingfield Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Small, William
Dixon, Piers Kelley, Richard Soref, Harold
Duffy, A. E. P. Kimball, Marcus Spriggs, Leslie
Dunn, James A. Kitson, Timothy Stainton, Keith
Dykes, Hugh Knight, Mrs. Jill Stanbrook, Ivor
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Langford-Holt, Sir John Stokes, John
Evans, Fred Latham, Arthur Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Farr, John Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Tapsell, Peter
Fell, Anthony Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Tebbit, Norman
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. Lipton, Marcus Temple, John M.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) McAdden, Sir Stephen Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.) McBride, Neil Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Ford, Ben McGuire, Michael Tinn, James
Forrester, John Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Tomney, Frank
Fortescue, Tim McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) Urwin, T. W.
Freeson, Reginald Marsden, F. Vickers, Dame Joan
Fry, Peter Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Waddington, David
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D. Mather, Carol Wainwright, Edwin
Garrett, W. E. Maude, Angus Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Gilbert, Dr. John Mawby, Ray Wall, Patrick
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Maxwell-Hyalop, R. J. Wallace, George
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) Mendelson, John Ward, Dame Irene
Glyn, Dr. Alan Miller, Dr. M. S. Warren, Kenneth
Goodhart, Philip Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Wellbeloved, James
Goodhew, Victor Moate, Roger Wells, John (Maidstone)
Gower, Sir Raymond Molyneaux, James Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Grant, George (Morpeth) Monks, Mrs. Connie White, Roger (Gravesend)
Gray, Hamish Monro, Hector Whitlock, William
Green, Alan Montgomery, Fergus Wiggin, Jerry
Grylls, Michael More, Jasper Woodnutt, Mark
Gurden, Harold Morrison, Charles Woof, Robert
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Mudd, David TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hall, Sir John (Wycombe) Nicholls, Sir Harmar Mr. Charles Panned and
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) O'Malley, Brian Mr. Neil Marten.

Question accordingly negatived.