House of Commons Proceedings (Broadcasting)

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 24 November 1966.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Fred Blackburn Mr Fred Blackburn , Stalybridge and Hyde 12:00, 24 November 1966

I am sorry that I omitted that. I have a note of that sentence, and I should have said that Sir Ronald does not think that it is detrimental to Parliament.

I want to use another quotation from the evidence of the Speaker of the New Zealand Parliament. What he refers to would not arise here, because the conditions are quite different, but it indicates that when our proceedings are televised it will have an effect upon Members. Sir Ronald said that in New Zealand they consider that 7.30 in the evening was the ideal time for broadcasting. He said this: Ministers love to grab the evening. They love to get the chance to make their ministrial statements and people like to make friends with the Whips and get a call for the evening hour, but that is the worst side of it. It would seem that Whips have a little more power in New Zealand than they have here. They seem to have taken over your job, Mr. Deputy Speaker. By that, I merely meant to show that it does have an effect upon the Members of Parliament, and it is bound to have an effect.

I am told that we must have television in Parliament in order to be modern. If being modern means that I must submit to the televising of Parliament, then I am a "square". I have always suspected it, but I think that it is quite obvious. I am told that I am not with it. I have never known what it is I am supposed to be with, but I am still not with the televising of Parliament.

What is the purpose of the House? Is it to do a job or to court publicity? I remember that some years ago an hon. Member asked Mr. Macmillan, who was then the Prime Minister, to look into the question of televising the House. I asked in a supplementary question if the Prime Minister would remember that this was a place of work and not a place of entertainment. I think that that is one of the difficulties. If it is to be a popular programme outside, it will have to be a programme of entertainment.

Anyway, where does the demand for televising Parliament come from? It comes from the Members of the House, or some of them. It certainly does not come from the public. I cannot think of any constituent of mine who has approached me and pressed me that he wants to be able to see Parliament televised day after day, and other hon. Members tell me exactly the same thing.

The Committee refers in its Report to an inquiry that took place in Leeds and in Pudsey among 813 television owners. Thirty-four per cent. said that they would like the televising of Parliament very much; 18 per cent. said that they would like it somewhat. I do not think that those are overwhelming figures from an inquiry carried out by a university department. I wonder whether those figures would be the same when the people who were interviewed found that for half an hour per day they had no alternative, but to watch the proceedings of Parliament. Even of those who considered themselves to be very highly political, only 50 per cent. said that they would like it very much.

What conclusion does the Select Committee come to? It states, in paragraph 75 on page xxx of its Report: Your Committee believe that broadcasts of proceedings in the House might well meet with a favourable response from the public. That is not a very strong argument to spend the very large sum of money which is estimated in the Report.

I am strongly of the opinion that until there is a strong public demand for the televising of Parliament we have no right to spend one penny of public money on this scheme. I hope that tonight hon. Members will go into the "No" Lobby and reject the Motion.