Parliament, to broadcasters of parliamentary proceedings, to interpreters of such proceedings, to witnesses giving evidence before parliamentary committees, and to others involved in or affected by parliamentary broadcasting. The Parliamentary Counsel in the opinion referred to above and which is summarized in paragraphs 95 to 102, concluded that if the proceedings of the House of Commons were to be broadcast the following matters of law would need to be taken into consideration: (a) The courts would have jurisdiction to determine the validity of any claimed privilege of the House. (b) It is questionable whether the present law of Parliament includes in its privilege of freedom of speech the freedom on the part of a Member to libel a third party and have it published by broadcasting. The broadcasting company would not be protected in these circumstances. (c) The courts may well find that a Member is also not protected. (d) The present law of Parliament in England relating to the privilege of freedom of speech does not clearly establish that the publication of proceedings by broadcasting is inherent or included in this privilege. (e) Section 18 of the British North America Act which states that the House of Commons enjoys the same privileges as those in the British House of Commons and may, by Act of Parliament, define these privileges (but not so as to exceed those held by the British House at the time of the passing of such Act), may in this regard be amended so as to define these privileges to, in fact, exceed those held by the British House of Commons. (f) Sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Senate and House of Commons Act would be required to be amended inter alia to define “"publication" to include broadcasting. (g) The privilege of freedom of speech would be required to be defined to include the occasion when the Member speaks while the proceedings are being broadcast. 104. It seems, therefore, that there would be a need for Federal legislation to protect Members, broadcasters, interpreters and others. One of the decisions which would need to be taken is whether absolute privilege or qualified privilege should apply to the broadcasters. The Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act of 1946 of Australia confers absolute privilege on the broadcasters. The view expressed in Great Britain by the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, and by the Joint Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament in its first report is that the broadcasters should be on the same footing as the press and protected by qualified privilege. The principle underlying qualified privilege is that an accurate report published in good faith and without malice or intent to injure is protected, whereas a selective or garbled report is not. If the broadcasters were able to rely upon absolute privilege as in Australia they would be protected even if they broadcast a speech or extract from a speech containing a defamatory statement in isolation from the rest of the debate. The House might consider that the best course of action would be to extend absolute privilege to any broadcasters employed by Parliament while engaged in their duties under the authority of either House, but to limit the protection accorded to all other broadcasters to that of qualified privilege. 105. As a number of legal uncertainties seem to exist the House might well consider the desirability of passing a special Act if an affirmative decision were taken with regard to the broadcasting of its proceedings. Prior to the drafting of such an Act it would appear desirable that the law officers of the Crown should study the complexities and implications of this question. On the basis of the evidence available to your Committee, however, it seems that the Act might reasonably include the following provisions: (a) The extension of the protection of absolute privilege to Members of Parliament and Senators when speeches delivered in the Chamber or in a committee are transmitted by means of radio and television. (b) The protection of the broadcasters of parliamentary proceedings by absolute privilege if they are employed by Parliament at times when they are discharging their duties under the authority of Parliament. (c) The protection of other broadcasters of parliamentary proceedings by qualified privilege, thus placing them on the same footing as the press. (d) The protection by absolute privilege of those involved in the simultaneous interpretation of parliamentary proceedings in either House or in a committee. First Report of the Joinnt Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament, HL26 and HC 48, 3 December, 1969. (e) The extension of the protection of absolute privilege to witnesses giving evidence before a parliamentary committee when this evidence is broadcast. (f) The protection by absolute privilege of all parliamentary employees who might in any way be involved in the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings when acting under the direct instructions of either House of Parliament or their committees. 106. In drafting such legislation regard should be taken of the statutory authority of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission in respect of all broadcasting in Canada. Your Committee is aware that broadcasters have a statutory obligation to maintain copies of all broadcasts, audio and visual, for a fixed period of time. It occurs to your Committee that in the event of complaints by Members concerning the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings it would be essential to establish a machinery for obtaining copies of the audio or visual tapes concerned. In view of the statutory authority of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission it would appear that this is the body with which direct communication should be maintained for the purpose of obtaining tapes of the broadcasts complained of. Your Committee envisages a process whereby a Member would formally complain to Mr. Speaker who would request the Canadian Radio-Television Commission to obtain a certified copy of the tapes concerned which could then be examined to establish whether or not there was a prima facie case of privilege. 107. One further point which might be noted at this stage of your Committee's report concerns the rights of witnesses appearing before committees. The United States Legislative Reorganization Act 1970 allows all witnesses the right to request that their evidence should not be broadcast. This appears to be fair and your Committee feels that this right might commend itself to the House if broadcasting were to be introduced. CONSULTATION WITH THE SENATE 108. Being a Committee of the House, your Committee's order of reference limits it to considering the question of broadcasting only as it affects the House. However, in the view of your Committee no far-reaching decision should be made without consultation with the other House. Both Houses share the same building, and as the introduction of broadcasting would involve staff, equipment, installation, the use of radio and television channels and possible structural alterations to the building, it would be advisable to seek the views of the other place and, if they also favoured the cost and technical study recommended below, co-ordinate future planning. 109. Some witnesses before your Committee expressed the view that the Senate should be included with the House in any coverage which might be introduced and that the operation should be owned and controlled by Parliament. It is interesting to note that in Australia the proceedings of both the Senate and the House of Representatives are continuously broadcast over a special radio channel and that control is vested in a joint committee of both Houses in terms of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act of 1946. 110. Having regard to the substantial capital costs which would be involved in any permanent installation, the House would be well advised to consult the Senate prior to the planning stage and to make provision for any future cooperaation which might be desirable. Consultation is of particular importance if needless duplication of costs and services is to be avoided. 111. If the House decides to take an affirmative decision in principle with regard to the broadcasting of its proceedings your Committee believes that a message should be sent to the Senate without delay, officially informing the other House of the decision and proposing joint consultation with regard to future planning. COST AND TECHNICAL STUDY 112. It will be apparent from the preceding paragraphs that while your Committee favours parliamentary broadcasting in principle it is not ready to commit itself unreservedly without further study of the costs and technical problems involved. Your Committee believes, therefore, that a cost and technical study should be undertaken to examine the feasibility of broadcasting the proceedings of the House and its committees by radio and television having regard to the nature of the Parliament Buildings. 113. Such a study should take every aspect of parliamentary broadcasting into account, including the nature of the equipment required, the housing and wiring for that equipment, the structural alterations required to the building, the lighting and air conditioning requirements in the Chamber and in committee rooms, the staffing and staff accommodation necessary to the operation, methods of ensuring that operators and equipment are not overly obtrusive, and all other relevant questions. 114. It is most important that the study should include a costing operation. Various estimates of costs were made available to the Committee, including those for a complete and ideal system as recommended by a United Nations expert. This estimate did not, however, take into account the most unpredictable factor, namely the costs which would be involved in the structural alterations which would become necessary to the building if a permanent installation were to be introduced. Your Committee is not at this stage in possession of estimates for any kind of operation which it regards with sufficient confidence as offering a reliable guide to the House, all factors being taken into account. However, although capital costs cannot at this stage be fully assessed, it is probable that operating costs would not be excessive in relation to public expenditure in many other areas of comparable importance. Your Committee also understands that the cost factor would be of no great significance if sound broadcasting alone were to be introduced. 115. If the House were to own its own installation some costs might be recoverable through charges to the users of the material. This raises a question of policy, as the House would have to decide whether access to television and radio transmissions from the House and its committees would be offered to broadcasters on a free or cost basis. If the broadcasters were permitted to run the operation themselves the financial arrangements would presumably be negotiated between the House and the broadcasters and would raise no issues involving the proposed cost and technical study. 116. Your Committee also believes that radio and television experiments should be conducted in conjunction with the cost and technical study which would in effect be a dress rehearsal to give Members an idea of how their conditions would be affected by the broadcasting of debates. It was made quite clear by witnesses that the admission of television to Parliament would change the working lives of Members completely. It would be as well if the House could be given some idea of just how radical the change would be before committing itself to a final decision. RECOMMENDATIONS 117. Your Committee, while agreeing in principle with the radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of legislative assemblies and their committees, believes that certain further steps should be taken before a final report is made and therefore recommends: (a) that a cost and technical study of building, equipment, personnel and other requirements consequent upon the introduction of radio and television broadcasting of the House of Commons and its committees be undertaken in consultation with this Committee; (b) that closed-circuit experimental broadcasts by radio and television of the proceedings of the House and its committees be undertaken in consultation with this Committee; and (c) that your Committee be authorized, in the light of the above-mentioned studies and experiments, to make further recommendations to the House for ultimate decision. A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence (Issues Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the 2nd Session and Issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the 3rd Session) is returned and a copy of the Minutes of Proceedings (Issue No. 4) of the present Session is tabled. Respectfully submitted, D. GORDON BLAIR, Chairman. I have just read that you are chairman of a Joint Committee on Congressional Operations which is studying the possibility of televising congressional debates. I have followed the issue of possible televising of parliamentary debates in Great Britain, and perhaps the two enclosed articles will be of interest to you. As you no doubt know, since the defeat in October 1972 of a motion to experiment with televising proceedings, the House of Commons has let the issue lie dormant. With a new parliament soon to be elected, the issue will perhaps be brought up again. When I was in London last November and December, I got the impression that radio coverage is increasing in probability and that television is not gaining in support proportionately. I would very much appreciate receiving any reports your committee will be publishing. Sincerely yours, J. Vernon Jensen Dr. J. Vernon Jensen University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minn. 55455 J. VERNON JENSEN Attempts to Should television be allowed into all sessions of Congress? This study traces the development of a similar question concerning the English Parliament. Dr. Jensen is professor and director of the communication program at the University of Minnesota. HOULD the proceedings of mankind's legislative assemblies be recorded in sight and sound? Great Britain is one country which has devoted an increasing amount of discussion to this subject in recent years. It is the purpose of this paper to trace the growth of this issue in Great Britain to the present time. Younger Members of Parliament tend to favor it and older Members tend to oppose it; the Parties are divided, so it has been a personal rather than a party issue. The entry into the present Parliament of new members more at home with television, could mean a significant decisive stage will soon be reached. Thus, it would be useful to summarize at this time the British background to see more clearly the evolution and present status of the issue with which both Britain and the United States will be grappling in the coming months and years. Various state legislatures in the United States are increasingly televising selected portions of their proceedings and committee hearings, which raises the question of how far should it go. On the national level, many observers are increasingly insistent that televising of Congressional debates and committee sessions is urgently needed to balance the heavy coverage of the executive branch (travels abroad, ceremonial occasions, speeches, etc.) and restore proper constitutional power to the legislative branch. Attempts before 1966 Although a few sporadic suggestions for radio coverage of parliamentary debates got back to World War II, nothing materialized. © JOURNAL OF BROADCASTING, VOL. XVI, No. 4, (Fall 1972) |