Table 19

We find that people differ in how much faith and confidence they have in various
levels of government in this country. In your case, do you have more faith and
confidence in the national government, the government of this state or in the
local government around here?

Table 20

Table 21

Some people believe a change in our whole form of government is needed to solve
the problems facing our country, while others feel no real change is necessary.
Do you think a big change is needed in our form of government, or should it be
kept pretty much as it is?

THE PARLIAMENTARIAN

(Journal of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth)

LII No. 1, January 1971

Should British Parliamentary Debates Be Televised?

(Professor J. Vernon Jensen, University of Minnesota)

In recent years a number of democratic countries have asked with increasing frequency and urgency whether or not the ordinary proceedings in their legislative halls should be reported by television and radio. Great Britain has been one such country which has probed this issue with increasing thoroughness in the last decade. The ceremonial State Openings of Parliament have been televised since 1958 (in colour for the first time in July 1970). But televising debates is quite a different matter. The House of Commons in November 1966, in a free vote, defeated, 131 to 130, the recommendation of its Select Committee on Broadcasting, chaired by Mr. Tom Driberg, to experiment with televising its debates. With some glee, the House of Lords thus became the first to experiment with closed-circuit television in February 1968, and the House of Commons in April and May 1968 held a closed-circuit experiment in sound broadcasting. Reports were duly made, and debates held, on these experiments but no major step forward was taken before the Wilson Government left office. What the new Conservative Government will do is yet to be seen.

This, then, is perhaps a good time to survey the major arguments pro and con. This article will attempt to summarize the clashing contentions as to the feasibility and desirability of sound and vision recordings of parliamentary debates. Various plans for broadcasting proceedings have been made over the years. A separate television channel with complete and continuous transmission has been virtually ruled out mainly because of high cost and probable low interest of viewers. To limit the television coverage to various closed-circuit audiences, such as universities, schools, clubs, newspaper offices, and public libraries, also has had little appeal. A "drive-in" plan has been suggested, that is, instead of permanent installations, the broadcasting organization would come in only on special occasions. Reporting only in sound is another possible option. But the plan which has emerged as the most likely is for some form of late-evening television programme of approximately 30 minutes in length, which would give an edited account of the day's parliamentary debates. This is the plan long advocated by Mr. Robin Day 1 and many Members of Parliament and recommended by the Commons Select Committee. It is the feasibility and desirability of this kind of a plan with which this article is concerned.

(1) FEASIBILITY

The testimony given over the years and the experience gained from the experiments in the Houses of Parliament seem to indicate clearly that it is possible to install and operate the mechanical apparatus necessary to record in sound and vision without disrupting proceedings. Miniature, remote-control cameras can be hidden in the panelling. Microphones and lights can be placed and regulated with no major problem, except that colour television will demand very bright lights, and it is now felt that colour television rather than black-and-white will have to be the medium if viewers are to be attracted in any reasonable number. Booths for broadcasting control and commentators can be situated with no great difficulty. A second major concern is whether an edited programme could be constructed with sufficient swiftness, accuracy, completeness, fairness, and propriety. The evidence suggests that this could be done, although it admittedly will be a very 1 The Times, 13th November 1959, p. 13; Television: A Personal Report (London, Hutchinson & Co., 1961), Chapter 13; The Case for Televising Parliament (London, The Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government, 1963): First Report from the Select Committee on Broadcasting of Proceedings in the House of Commons (London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1966); pp. 62-72; Charles Wilson, ed., Parliaments, Peoples and Mass Media (London, Cassell and Company Ltd., 1970), pp. 57-60 et passim; The Times, 11th November 1969, p. 11. For other important discussions of the issue, see Colin Seymour-Ure. "An Examination of the Proposal to Televise Parliament." Parliamentary Affairs, XVII (Spring, 1964), 172-81; "Televising Proceedings of the U.K. House of Commons", The Parliamentarian, XLVII (October 1969), 263–7; Allen Segal, "The Case for Not Televising Parliament", in Bernard Crick, The Reform of Parliament, and ed. (London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968), pp. 296–306.

29-801 0-74-App.- -30

difficult and sensitive task. A special broadcasting unit composed of trained, objective BBC and ITV personnel, under a responsible director, and perhaps answerable to the Houses of Parliament, could be depended on to perform the task in an acceptable professional manner. Anxious to win and hold the confidence of Parliament, subject to continual criticism by the general public and by other mass-media agencies, the broadcasting unit would have many healthy restraints. Actually, the opportunity for any one person to inject significant bias is limited, for the process of selection will be handled at different stages by first the cameraman, then the person(s) editing the "take", and then by others making final selections for actual network or regional station programmes. But some observers still feel that the possibility is too great that an edited programme would misrepresent, distort, and perhaps even ridicule the proceedings. Some fear that bizarre audience reactions would be highlighted.

It is emphasized that television by its very nature is attracted to, and hence gives exposure to, the exceptional, the unusual, the abnormal, the colourful, the flamboyant, the interesting, the entertaining, and anything which involves physical motion and conflict. Extreme points of view may be selected in order to give the semblance of "balance" and objectivity, and hence moderate, middle-ofthe-road statements will be ignored. But advocates assert that many of these charges were also made against admission of reporters in the eighteenth century, and that subsequent experience has revealed no great problem.

A favourable analogy, frequently cited, is the BBC programme “Today in Parliament", broadcast at 10:45-11:00 p.m., which has been produced since 1945 without any serious complaint levied at its objectivity or professionalism. The majority view seems to be that the potential for less than perfect reporting and editing is indeed present, but that the gamble is not too great, and that one can reasonably operate in the faith that accurate, comprehensive, fair, and tasteful reporting and editing of parliamentary proceedings, even audience reactions, are feasible via sound and vision.

A basic test of practicality is to explore the relative success of similar operations which may have been tried elsewhere. Has televising and broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings in other countries been successful? The Select Committees of the Houses of Parliament have studied this question carefully by questionnaire, by gathering testimony, and by viewing films of proceedings of such bodies as the Swedish Riksdag, the German Federal Republic Bundestag, United States Congressional Committees, the Council of Europe, and the UN. A study by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, reported in Geneva in December 1968,2 revealed that of the 50 countries surveyed, 29 transmit live or recorded broadcasts of daily debates, and 20 transmit live or recorded television of daily debates. Complete coverage for sittings is rare, but New Zealand (since 1936), Australia (since 1946), and the Philippines do so on the radio; and Denmark has full coverage on both radio and television. More common, however, is the broadcasting of extensive extracts at peak listening periods, often with commentary to supply coherence and continuity. Radio coverage of this type is authorized in 23 countries, and selective televising of parliamentary proceedings is done in at least eighteen countries. Advocates are quick to point to the strength of these analogues, and if broadcasting in vision and/or sound in these countries has not worked too well, advocates hastily indicate that the situations are not closely comparable to Britain. Critics, of course, emphasize the weaknesses involved in these comparisons.

Any proposal is not highly feasible unless widespread support for it can be demonstrated. Despite the defeat in November 1966, many Members of Parliament, parliamentary and political reporters, and other knowledgeable observers, have asserted throughout the last decade, and with increasing frequency and confidence, that a majority of Members of Parliament would favour experimenting with broadcasting of proceedings. It is to be remembered, however, that much of whatever support for broadcasting is present, is related merely to the further experimentation with it, not for a commitment to its adoption for permanent presentation to the public.

Younger Members have tended to favour it, while older ones have tended to oppose it. Age, certainly not party, has been a major factor. This being the case, it is suggested that as older Members are replaced by younger ones, who have

2 Charles Wilson, op. cit., pp. 118-20 et passim.