Broadcasting of Parliament: Effect (Hansard, 27 January 1994)

The Minister of State, Home Office(Earl Ferrers)
My Lords, the purpose of televising the proceedings of 1081 Parliament is so that the public may be better informed of parliamentary opinion. There is no evidence that it has had —nor, indeed, that it was intended to have—any particular effect on law and order.

§ Lord Clifford of Chudleigh
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his good answer. However, does he not feel that the behaviour of parliamentarians was sufficiently considered before this House and the other place invited television into their Chambers? Does he not feel that the criticism and condemnation of certain of the electorate's behaviour deserves respect when it is considered that obvious public disrespect is shown to authority by certain Members in Parliament?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, all of the advantages and disadvantages of televising the proceedings of Parliament were gone into in great depth both in this House and in another place. It was decided, first in this House and then in another place, that the proceedings should be televised. That is what is happening. Of course, it is up to everyone, whether in this House or another place, to conduct themselves with the correct decorum.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the broadcasting of the proceedings of this House has done a great deal to build up the standing and admiration felt for this House among all the more intelligent parts of society?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend; but I am not so sure that I would restrict it to that part of society to which he referred in the latter part of his question. The televising of the proceedings of the House has done the House an enormous amount of good and has shown its proper standing as a whole.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl for his advice as the Deputy Leader of the House as to whether Questions of this kind, particularly supplementary questions, reflecting on the conduct of another place are in order, remembering the second report of the House's Procedure Committee of 1991–92, which stated: Criticism of proceedings in the House of Commons and of Speaker's rulings are undesirable"?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to draw attention to this matter. We have to be very careful how we proceed on such Questions. I would only refer your Lordships to the Companion to the Standing Orders, which states: Criticism of proceedings in the House of Commons and of Speaker's rulings are undesirable, but criticisms of the institutional structure of Parliament or the role and function of the House of Commons may be made". It is as well that we bear in mind those strictures.

§ Lord Thomson of Monifieth
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that both Houses of Parliament are currently conducting the mid-term review of the contract that provides the broadcasting of Parliament? Your Lordships' Select Committee on Broadcasting considered the matter last week. It reported that it was satisfied that those doing it were conforming well to the 1082 rules. It noted that the broadcasting of Parliament is better here than in other countries of which we were given evidence. Our only criticism was that there should be better coverage of your Lordships' House, including its committees.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, makes an important point. I am glad that he has drawn our attention to the fact that these matters are being considered. I remind your Lordships that, according to the House of Commons Select Committee on the televising of proceedings, a broadcaster must have regard to the dignity of the House and its functions as a working body rather than a place of entertainment. I am sure that the broadcasters take note of that.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while it can be conceded that televising the proceedings of this Chamber has allowed people to know that the House of Lords exists in a way which was not done before, one cannot be quite so certain that Parliament as a whole, encompassing both Houses, has benefited in terms of its reputation by what we see on television?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, that was a carefully phrased question. It is for the advantage of the people of the country who wish to see parliamentary proceedings being televised to be able to do so. It is up to Members of both Houses of Parliament, in their own ways, to conduct themselves with decorum.

§ Lord Marsh
My Lords, does the Minister agree that far from being a criticism, anything which demonstrates that parliamentarians are ordinary human beings, warts and all, must be good for democracy?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, it depends on the size and the nature of the warts.

§ Lord Ashley of Stoke
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the sturdy exchanges in another place are vital to democracy and that as such they ought to be televised? Does he further agree that the sturdy exchanges in this place—and the sturdier they are the better—should equally be covered? Can the Minister give an assurance that neither this Question nor any other will impede the Government or affect in any way the televising of our proceedings?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the televising of the proceedings of your Lordships' House is not a matter for the Government, but for your Lordships. I have no reason to suspect that this question will have any impact on that any more than it does on law and order, to which the original Question mysteriously refers.

§ Lord Acton
My Lords, is the Minister aware that Prime Minister's Question Time in the House of Commons is regularly shown on American television and that, overall, Britain gains thereby because Americans are so impressed by a system where Members of the legislature can ask questions of the head of the Executive?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, that is one of the many advantages of broadcasting the proceedings of Parliament.

§ Baroness Robson of Kiddington
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are moments during debates in this House which are not televised to the extent that we would like? For example, last week we had a very important debate on quangos introduced by my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter. Is the noble Earl aware that, although parliamentary proceedings were shown on BBC television from 8.15 a.m. to 9 a.m., the only part of the whole of that debate which was broadcast by the BBC was the moment when my noble friend Lord Lester was speaking when the lights went out?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, that was obviously considered a very important part of the debate.

§ Viscount Montgomery of Alamein
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm to the House what percentage of the total of the broadcast proceedings relates to the Lords and what percentage to the House of Commons?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, no. If I could I would say only that that has nothing to do with the Question.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, the noble Earl will recall that the proceedings of this House were televised for five years before the proceedings of another place. Does he also recall that an undertaking was given at that time that, if the proceedings of the other place were televised, this House would have a fair share of the allocation of time? Does he believe we have a fair share?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I believe that we are getting into difficulties. The original Question asked whether the televising of the proceedings of Parliament had any impact on law and order. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is now asking whether there was a fair relationship between the proceedings televised from the House of Commons and those televised from your Lordships' House. That is a different matter.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, the reason I asked the noble Earl that question was because I am absolutely certain that we have a better effect on law and order than the other place.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I am very glad that I gave the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the opportunity to ask a second supplementary question. It was not clear that that was the object of his first supplementary question.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us on this side of the House are grateful to him for distancing himself from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who recently said in a notorious speech that the televising of the proceedings of Parliament was ill-advised? Does he agree that Parliament is an institution which has to deserve respect rather than receiving it as of right, which Mr. Portillo seems to believe to be the case?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, it is not up to me to rise to that particular question from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which, again, has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper. But I do agree 'with him that the way in which people conduct themselves is very important.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, as one who opposed televising Parliament, is it not a fact that the reason why the House of Commons gets a bad name is because of the editing of the programmes about the proceedings of the House? Would it not be as well if more of the proceedings of the House of Commons was broadcast rather than less—

§ Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone
My Lords, next Question!

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
Oh, shut up, you!

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I failed to hear the last part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. Would he be kind enough to repeat it?

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I said "Shut up, you!" I was referring to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, it might just as well have applied to me and I shall take the noble Lord's advice.

§ Lord Clifford of Chudleigh
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the response to the Question that I asked and I also thank the noble Earl. I hope that he has the same opinion—

Noble Lords
Question!

§ Lord Clifford of Chudleigh
My Lords, does the Minister have the feeling that it is Parliament's aim to communicate to the public instructive information as opposed to destructive information when it comes to debate on the nation's future and to give an example to the people who watch television?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, when Parliament debates issues it debates them for Members of Parliament and for the assembly of which they are part. Television repeats what the Members of Parliament in either House say to each other. That is not a question on which it is right for the Government to interfere.