| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Jopling: My Lords, before I begin my allotted time it gives me huge pleasure to congratulate the noble Baroness on her most thoughtful maiden speech. She has brought her experience of media matters as a former Minister in DCMS, but we shall of course look forward to her informing and entertaining us in future with what she is better known for—her experience as a former teacher and former Secretary of State for Education. She is the third member of her family with whom I have had the pleasure of serving in another place. It was a great pleasure a few moments ago to see my old friend, her uncle Alf, standing at the Bar of the House listening to her maiden speech. She comes from a very distinguished parliamentary family, and I hope that she will not be offended if I were to call it one of our most distinguished parliamentary dynasties. We look forward to hearing from her again on many occasions.
3 Nov 2005 : Column 327
I welcome the opportunity to debate the report that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has produced. I have had a long interest in the matters of parliamentary modernisation and effectiveness. I was an early advocate of the Select Committee system in another place. I served on two of the Crossman Select Committees in the 1960s, and I negotiated with the Opposition in setting up the current departmental Select Committees, which have done so much to extend and improve parliamentary scrutiny. Again, in 1991, I had the great privilege of being the chairman of the Select Committee on sittings of the House in another place, which led to a good many changes, for instance the ending of the absurd nonsense of debating the Consolidated Fund Bill several times a year through the night into the following morning.
My first reaction to the report was that it should be seen in the context of the composition of what is called the "commission", although I am not sure of the difference between a commission and a committee. Over half the members of the commission had a media background, whereas less than a third were active parliamentarians, which seemed somewhat skewed. Rather like a referendum if you know the answer you want you can pitch the question to get it. I suspect there might be just a little bit of that here. I understand why the media always press for greater access and transparency. It is only natural in this commission with this membership that many of the proposals are slanted for exactly that. We need to assess the report both in terms of what the media want and what is best for the system of parliamentary government. Those two things do not always fit together.
Incidentally, in the section of the report with recommendations under the chapter headed "Media coverage of Parliament" on page 81, I notice that there are many lectures handed out to the BBC but there is very little advice given to the press. I often think that in terms of reporting Parliament the press need a good many more lessons than the BBC. The lack of interest shown by the press and broadcasters in Parliament leads us to many of our current problems. I have often despaired over the years at the situation where an excellent Select Committee report, which is often acclaimed by the people over whom it has effect, is totally ignored by the media, the press in particular, at the expense of trivia. An example is the Westminster Dog of the Year competition. The coverage given to trivia of that sort at the expense of dealing with Select Committee reports is one of the tragedies of modern Parliament.
On communications, I agree with a great many of the proposals in the report. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Howe that there is a vast and urgent job to do in improving parliamentary communications. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to the fact that it would be a huge step forward if we had a proper, modern visitor centre attached to this House, whether beyond Black Rod's Garden or somewhere between Westminster Hall and the road. That would deal with a great many of the points in the report that refer to young people. I am really not sure
3 Nov 2005 : Column 328
about having children in the Chamber during the Recesses. I understand that the replica of the House of Commons Chamber that used to be on the premises of Granada television, which they let out for tours, was dismantled some years ago. Whether that was because of lack of interest I do not know.
It is not necessary to tamper with anything simply because it smacks of tradition. The report says that we should no longer refer to strangers. When I was a Member of another place, my constituents were tickled to death by being described as strangers. Let us remember the old saying that tradition is a good servant but a bad master.
Of course government can govern only by the consent of Parliament, but I question some of the recommendations to transfer some decision-making from Front Bench to Back Bench. Would Members of the House of Commons or your Lordships' House queue up to stand for election as members of the commission at the other end, or at this end as members of the House Committee? I rather think that they would not. Some people say that the membership of Select Committees should be decided not by the Whips but by election. That might be a good idea for committees on defence or foreign affairs, where there would certainly be a long queue. However, I remember from a former incarnation as a government Chief Whip at the other end that, for some Select Committees, one would have been pushed to find anybody to stand for election at all. I happen to be a member of the august Select Committee on Merits of Statutory Instruments; frankly, I do it only as a favour to the noble Lord the Chief Whip, and I do not know anyone else who would wish to stand in the circumstances.
We must be realistic in our Parliament. Unlike the parliament of the United States, we do not have one based on divided powers. Under our system, it is inevitable that Parliament is government-driven, with the consent of Back-Benchers and the opposition parties, of course.
Finally, I want to say something as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has been kind enough to come here. There is a need for governments to regain the respect for Parliament that they had in the past. I am sure that she knows precisely what I am going to say. One of her great failings as Leader of the House—likewise her predecessor—has been the lamentable way in which government departments treat this House in answering Questions. I shall give one example about which I have tabled a Question, which again is awaiting a reply. Parliamentary Questions are supposed to be answered in two weeks. Last week, we had a Question to the Home Office that had been down for 18 weeks. It was tabled in June and had still not been answered. The noble Baroness keeps telling us that she is doing her best; she will have to do a great deal better. That is simply one example of the ways in which governments successively have had less and less respect for Parliament. Parliament will get much more respect in the country if it is respected much better by government.
3 Nov 2005 : Column 329
2.33 pm
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: My Lords, I add my congratulations to those given to the noble Baroness on her excellent maiden speech. I have long been an admirer of hers. Her style as an MP and Cabinet Minister was distinguished by her understanding of the need to do exactly what the report says—to connect.
I too am grateful for the opportunity provided by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, to debate this extremely important topic. As has been said by many other noble Lords, people out there feel alienated from the political process, and it is essential that we remedy it. Most worryingly, according to a MORI survey, that alienation particularly affects young people. Only 37 per cent of people aged 18 to 24 voted in 2005. That was the only category by age in which turnout actually fell between the two most recent elections.
The report of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, confirms that people are not just confused but plain ignorant about what happens at Westminster, stating that:
The important principle behind the report—made clear in the ironic title, Members Only? Parliament in the Public Eye—is that the public have the right to know what goes on in Parliament and to participate in its proceedings, and that it is Parliament that should actively seek to involve the electorate if we are to succeed in reconnecting with them.
I want to talk particularly about television coverage of the Palace of Westminster. On that matter, I have the luxury of having been involved on both sides—in fact, probably three sides if that is possible, having been a journalist, a spin doctor, and now a politician. Although I agree with my noble friend Lord Holme that the messenger is not blameless, I know from experience that Parliament does not make it easy for the message to be relayed, and it is on that that I will concentrate.
As editor of Channel 4's "A Week in Politics" in the mid-1990s, a very important part of my brief was to cover the Houses of Parliament. In those days, broadcasters were still excited by the access that televising of Parliament had brought, and we were expected to translate what was going on in the Committee Rooms and Chambers of both Houses into appealing TV. Largely due to the wit and wisdom of Andrew Rawnsley and the late, much-missed Vincent Hanna, we did. However, we were not helped by the contents of a file that I was given to read on taking the job called The Chamber's Rules of Coverage. It contained a number of very specific restrictions, one of which is the ban on cutaways mentioned in the noble Lord's report. I find it astonishing that it is not thought okay for the public to witness politicians reacting to what their colleagues are saying.
I happen to have noticed, tucked in front of me here, a Sudoku. Every now and then, maybe there will be a cutaway of a politician doing a Sudoku—I apologise to my noble friend whom I have outed—but that
3 Nov 2005 : Column 330
would not have disastrous consequences. I do not know whether everyone knows it, but we in this House are the subject of a gentle experiment to see whether allowing reaction shots will provoke catastrophe. The rules circumscribe what can be shown. In doing so, they deny Parliament any sense of life. Television coverage is not allowed to reflect the way this place really is. Frankly, the rules make it boring to watch. When people visit the Palace of Westminster, I find that they are excited, exhilarated and surprised, saying, "I didn't expect it to be like this—it doesn't look like this on television". How perverse to pursue a policy of underselling such a great asset.
The other way in which this place needs to change is over access, about which there is frankly a culture of "no". One of the most exciting and important events to have occurred within these walls recently was the Conservative leadership election, but no television camera was allowed to cover it. Instead, we had the political editors rushing to their fixed spot in Central Lobby to relay information to the public. Why that spoon feeding, with the inevitable spin attached? Why could the public not experience the reality more directly—the drama, the euphoria, the dejection, even the ejection of gatecrasher Edwina Currie once fellow Tories remembered that she was no longer a MP, which I read about in the newspaper. How much more likely we are to draw people into the political story if they can see events unfold, rather than retold.
And what historic value there could be. How I wished, when I was making a series on Margaret Thatcher, that there had been footage from that same corridor of her astonishing victory over Ted Heath, to bring alive the stories of those who remembered it. One MP told me how he and Airey Neave ran along the corridor to the room where she was to break the news. We had to cover that with our camera running down the corridor, rather like something out of a horror movie, whereas I was making a documentary.
A more recent historic moment was the all-night sitting on the anti-terror Bill last March. By being denied access to the human story, Andrew Marr stated in this report:
"Television viewers were cheated of perhaps the best demonstration of parliamentary democracy doing what it should that there has been for decades".
People love going backstage, but we do not allow them to do so here, and it is a stage that belongs to them as just as much as to the politicians.
Of course there have to be rules about coverage, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned, but at the moment they are over-restrictive and sometimes ridiculous. The political editor of the BBC Nick Robinson told me that he was recently reprimanded when reporting from Central Lobby for allowing his toes to cross a line that he did not know existed. And there must be rules on access. Politicians, like everyone in their workplace, need privacy, but the default position should not be "No". I believe that the precedent argument is now being replaced with the security one, but the fact is that it has always been "No". As the distinguished former Liberal Prime Minister, HH Asquith, once observed:
3 Nov 2005 : Column 331
"There is no more striking illustration of the immobility of British institutions than the House of Commons".
I think that it is time that we proved him wrong—on that, anyway.
I wholeheartedly support the report's conclusion that a new communications department is needed, pursuing an enlightened, integrated communications strategy. This is a place that deserves a better press, both from the press and the public, but to get it we have to loosen up.
2.42 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |