Chapter One

• Introduction: Lord (David) Puttnam - the Chair of the Commission - introduces the collection, highlighting the changes that had taken place since publication of the Commission's report, and what he would like to see happen next.

• Comment: Jack Straw MP, Labour MP for Blackburn and Leader of the House of Commons

Chapter Two

• Organisational change within Parliament - Clare Ettinghausen, Chief Executive of the Hansard Society

• Comment - John Pullinger, House of Commons Librarian and Chair of the Group on Information for the Public

Chapter Three

• Elements of a communications strategy - Patricia Hodgson DBE, Member of the Puttnam Commission and Principal of Newham College, Cambridge

• Comment - Greg Hurst, Political Correspondent of The Times and Honorary Secretary of the Parliamentary Press Gallery

Chapter Four

• Role of the media - Virginia Gibbons, Communications Manager, Hansard Society

• Comment - Theresa May MP, Conservative MP for Maidenhead and Shadow Leader of the House of Commons

Conclusion

• Jackie Ashley - Vice Chair of the Puttnam Commission, journalist and broadcaster on politics

Afterword

• Philip Graf - Deputy Chairman of Ofcom and Chairman of the Ofcom Content Board

R1. A Communications Service should be established for Parliament, bringing together within its departmental remit the various communication activities essential to a contemporary democratic institution. The parliamentary administration has not set up a unified Communications Service, as recommended by the Puttnam Commission. Rather, the different communication functions continue to operate under separate departments of the House. The House of Commons Corporate Business Plan states that the current arrangement is set to continue. However, as with recommendations 38 & 39, this proposed change may be considered as part of the upcoming review of the administration of the House of Commons (a review of the ‘Braithwaite arrangements’). R2. A single Joint Committee of both Houses should be established, responsible for communication matters, though MPs or Peers should be able to consider separately matters solely relevant to their respective Houses. A single Joint Committee of both Houses, responsible for communication matters, has not been established. More positively, however, the various House committees of the Commons have been merged into one committee – the Administration Committee. This goes some way to addressing the communication anomalies highlighted by the Puttnam Commission. A precedent has also been established for informal co-operation on communication issues between the House of Commons Administration Committee and the House of Lords Information Committee. The two committees are currently co-operating, more formally, on an inquiry into a parliamentary visitor centre. R3. A communication strategy for Parliament should be adopted, having been arrived at through a wide-reaching and open process of consultation with parliamentarians, the media, the public and other interested bodies. Some progress has been made towards adopting a communications strategy for Parliament. The House of Commons and House of Lords have set out their approach to communications in a range of parliamentary publications:

House of Commons Strategic Plan 2006-2011: The House of Commons has adopted a strategic plan for the period 2006-2011. One of the three primary objectives in this plan is to ‘promote public knowledge and understanding of the work and role of Parliament through the provision of information and access’.

House of Commons Corporate Business Plan 2006: To accompany this strategic plan, the House of Commons published its first corporate business plan. This looks at services that are provided on a cross-departmental basis – and communication is an example of this. The business plan outlines the aims of the Commons in providing information to the public; the vision of the House in this area; a series of outward and inward goals; and a range of indicators for measuring progress.

Group on Information for the Public Business Plan: The Group on Information for the Public (GIP) has published an accompanying business plan (March 2006), which complements the House of Commons Corporate Business Plan. The GIP business plan provides additional information on a range of communication functions and includes additional targets for parliamentary communications. Neither the House of Commons nor the House of Lords organised a wide ranging and open process of consultation to inform a communication strategy as recommended by the Puttnam Commission. R4. The communication strategy should take Parliament at least to 2010 with provision for a mid-term review, and it should be based on the optimum principles of accessibility and transparency; participation and responsiveness; accountability; inclusiveness; and best practice in management and communication. The House of Commons Corporate Business Plan, referred to above, sets communication targets up to 2011. It highlights the need to inform the public about the work of Parliament; promote Parliament as an institution; and to listen to the public. The business plan states that it was influenced by the principles set out by the Puttnam Commission. It explains that public communications should be based on the needs and interests of users rather than producers and should be subject based, community based, and diverse; they should also be recognised and resourced as a core function of Parliament. The accompanying GIP business plan identifies the target audiences for parliamentary communications as: internal; Westminster Village; democratically active; democratic outsiders; and young people. It identifies teachers and the media as intermediaries. R5. The communication strategy should be tabled for agreement by both Houses. There are no plans in place for a communication strategy to be tabled for agreement by both Houses. R6. The communication strategy will require regular reporting back to MPs and Peers, annual evaluation against targets, and provision for the public to take part in the evaluation process. Neither the House of Commons Corporate Business Plan, nor the GIP business plan, set out provisions for regular reporting back to MPs and Peers or provision for the public to participate in the evaluation process. However, both include annual targets against which progress can be monitored and GIP will report formally each year to the boards of management. GIP is due to publish its first annual report this autumn. During a recent Hansard Society seminar, parliamentary officials acknowledged that one of the biggest challenges facing GIP is raising awareness of their work amongst Members of Parliament. R7. The communication strategy must be accompanied by the necessary and long-term budgetary commitment from the parliamentary authorities. The GIP business plan sets out spending on communication matters for this financial year. The House authorities intend to maintain current levels of spending, although additional funding may be found for specific projects such as a visitor centre. In addition, the parliamentary website is due to receive significant investment in coming years.

R8. A new Communications Department should set up an advisory group of media representatives. In the absence of a Communications Department, an advisory group of media representatives has not been set up. The Commons authorities are due to decide their approach to dealing with the media by the end of this year. R9. Parliamentary officials should do much more to draw the media’s attention explicitly to matters of public interest. Parliamentary officials remain wary about doing more to draw the media’s attention explicitly to matters of public interest. However, Parliament has continued to employ select committee media officers – and five are now in place. There is a general perception among parliamentary officials that media coverage of Parliament has increased during the last 18 months, particularly of select committees. The House of Commons plans to explore the feasibility of a more proactive approach to explaining the work of the Chamber, Westminster Hall and standing committees and initiate a small scale pilot if deemed appropriate. The GIP business plan sets out the aims of the House of Commons Media and Communications Service: to promote a better understanding of, and engagement with, the work of the House and its committees; provide a professional media service for journalists and serve as a central point of contact for media enquiries; provide media and communications advice and support to all House departments and committees; and work with officials across both Houses to improve public information and access. The House of Lords aims to make the House and its work accessible to the public. R10. The rules of television coverage in the Chambers should be relaxed to allow, for example, appropriate reaction shots, the relevant use of close-ups, more panning shots of the backbenches and a greater range of coverage during divisions. It should be an explicit objective of parliamentary coverage to not just inform but to interest and engage the viewer. As a result of this recommendation, the House of Lords agreed to relax the rules of broadcasting for its Chamber for a one-month trial period. This trial was held in early 2006 and the changes have subsequently been made permanent. BBC Parliament believes this will make a fundamental difference to the broadcasting of the Lords Chamber, ensuring that it looks and feels more like a normal conversation or debate. The House of Commons has since sought to enact a corresponding relaxation of rules of coverage. The Administration Committee consulted the Speaker, Michael Martin MP, in relation to this. He has agreed to trial a wider variety of shots of proceedings in the Commons Chamber, including a greater use of reaction shots in order to illustrate the mood of the House. The trial will permit low-level atmospheric sound feed during divisions rather than the current complete silence. This will be complemented on BBC Parliament by a reporter voice-over during divisions. BBC Parliament has welcomed such changes; eventually, the channel hopes to be able to air the division lobbies when Members vote. The trial of relaxed rules for filming in the Commons Chamber was due to begin in October 2006. The Administration Committee will decide at the end of this year whether to recommend that these changes be made permanent. BBC Parliament believes that the changes to broadcasting will result in viewers watching the proceedings for longer and encourage other news programmes to use more parliamentary actuality. The revised rules of broadcasting will enable a sense of intimacy in coverage. In time, broadcasters may call for eye level cameras to be installed at the Despatch Box. R11. There should be a relaxation of the rules for filming in the precincts of Parliament, permission for walking shots, interviews with relevant persons other than MPs, and a wider interpretation of parliamentary subject-matter which genuinely reflects the richness of political activity taking place at any one time within Parliament. The House of Lords implemented a six-month trial of an interview point in the Peers’ Lobby – from which broadcasters could pre-record interviews – and the changes have now been put on a permanent footing. More recently, the House of Commons Administration Committee contacted the Speaker, Michael Martin MP, in relation to relaxing the rules for filming in the precincts. He has agreed to a trial of two new interview points within the precincts: in the south west corner of Westminster Hall and on the Green in New Palace Yard. On non-sitting days, subject to a permit, filming pieces to camera of a presenter walking across Central Lobby will be permitted before 9am. Broadcasters still face too many restrictions on locations for pre-recorded interviews within Parliament. Relaxing such restrictions could enable, for example, witnesses to be interviewed in committee rooms. The Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit states that it intends to develop relationships with TV broadcasting companies in order to take a more flexible approach to filming within Parliament, while working within the parameters set out by the House of Commons Commission. R12. The ban on still photographs should be reconsidered in light of the communication principles set out above. The ban on still photographs has not been reconsidered, despite a subsequent proposal by members of the Puttnam Commission that Parliament employ its own photographer, thereby protecting against the publication of pictures that may be deemed unsuitable. It has been suggested by the parliamentary authorities that the newspapers can access decent quality pictures from broadcasting equipment. R13. The current restrictions on the number of passes available for media outlets should be reconsidered. There has been no formal agreement to increase the number of passes available for media outlets, but some journalists report a more flexible approach and greater willingness on the part of the House of Commons to consider granting extra passes in some cases. R14. The parliamentary authorities should provide regular, formal induction for journalists. The Commons authorities have consulted the Press Gallery about providing inductions for journalists. A trial induction session is due to take place in November, based on explanations of the Order Paper. If successful, the House of Commons would offer induction sessions periodically to journalists joining the Press Gallery. R15. A new Communications Department should establish effective processes to manage, edit, develop and continually update the parliamentary website. The authorities have set up a small unit to manage the parliamentary website, employing a web manager and a range of support staff. There are now identifiable members of staff working on the site, ensuring clearer and improved lines of accountability. The web unit sits within a new department called PICT (Parliamentary Information and Communications Technology), which services both the Commons and the Lords. The Commission recommended that a web team be based within a single Communications Department. A reorganisation of communication functions has not been forthcoming, as set out above, but PICT demonstrates that services can be provided by a department that operates on a cross-House basis. R16. The parliamentary website should be radically improved. At a minimum it should be consultative, interactive and easily navigable. Following the 2001-02 redesign of the parliamentary website, no development or maintenance plan was put in place. As part of the Internet Redevelopment Project, five-year plans for a redesign of the site have now been drafted, and the proposal is currently being considered by the boards of management of both Houses. The plans would commit Parliament to a significant investment in the site over the course of five years, which has been agreed to in principle by the House of Commons Finance & Services Committee. The parliamentary home page was redesigned in September 2006. In the longer-term, it is intended that the Internet Redevelopment Project will include:

• targeted engagement with defined groups of people;

• a subject, calendar and news based approach to the presentation and organisation of content, rather than administrative or procedural approach;

• content in context, including explanation of procedure;

• cross-referenced content – the ability to link subjects, individuals and events; General support for interactive listening and engagement with the public.

The webcasting of Parliament has continued on www.parliamentlive.tv and demand for the service is growing. R17. An improved website should engage the widest range of citizens, using well-designed publicity and targeted advertising to help people understand that there is a virtual route through which they have easy access to their Parliament. The Internet Redevelopment Project sets out what an improved website could achieve. The expressed aims of the web team are: to make information easily accessible to all users; promote Parliament; and investigate tools that will allow Parliament the opportunity to listen to those who wish to communicate with Members or the administration. By summer 2006, usability testing had been undertaken with a small sample of approximately 30 people, representative of different target groups. It has yet to be seen how a redesigned site will be publicised. R18. Parliament should consider its role in consistently developing citizenship education resources and the different curriculum approaches across the UK. It should work closely with other organisations to support more training for teachers, and more and better materials for young people. The GIP business plan explains Parliament’s corporate aim in relation to young people: ‘The parliamentary service should play a full part in ensuring that all schoolchildren have a good understanding of Parliament, young people reaching voting age understand the importance of democracy, and education about Parliament is embedded in the curriculum.’ The Parliamentary Education Unit (PEU) plans to have revised all its publications for young people by 2007, and young people visiting Parliament will now receive educational material on the role and work of Parliament. The PEU has also produced new educational packs, based on the citizenship strands of education. It also plans to enhance the content of the Explore Parliament site – the parliamentary website for young people. These changes have built on previous work produced by the PEU. More significantly, the PEU has begun to build links with LEAs and schools. Further information about this is set out below. In addition, a New Voters’ Guide was launched by the House of Commons in July 2006. Guides are now sent to all young people when they reach the age of 18. R19. Parliament’s facilities, including the Chambers, should be made available during recess for groups of young people. The House of Lords has agreed to make its Chambers available for debating competitions for young people. The first debate is due to take place in 2007 and, if successful, this may be widened to include groups of young people on educational visits to Parliament. The House of Commons has not formally considered this, although it was proposed by Lord Adonis, Government Spokesperson for Education and Skills, during a House of Commons Modernisation Committee evidence session in March 2006. On a broader point, the employment of visitor assistants has improved the experience of those visiting Parliament. Seventeen visitor assistants should now be in place, and the visitor reception centre should now be completed. R20. Parliament should take young people, including pre-voting citizens, far more seriously by involving them in its processes and decision-making. Parliament has not developed long-term proposals to involve young people in its processes and decision-making. However, the Parliamentary Visitor and Information Centre Development Project – set up to consider the viability of a parliamentary visitor centre – may establish a young people’s working group to sit alongside five other working groups feeding into the Programme Board. The key objective of this youth consultation project would be to involve young people in a meaningful way in the development of proposals for a visitor centre. R21. In line with recent joint recommendations from the Accommodation and Works Committee and Administration Committee, the Parliamentary Education Unit should have a well resourced and dedicated teaching space with multi-media facilities. Parliament has not allocated a designated teaching space for the PEU. The greatest likelihood of this happening is the creation of a visitor centre for Parliament. Plans for such a centre are, as indicated above, in their early stages, but it is anticipated that proposals will incorporate enhanced provision for young people. In the meantime, the PEU has extended its autumn visits programme for 16-18 year-olds into a new year round visits programme. It plans to increase the number of young people taking part in such educational visits from 8,000 in 2005-06 to 18,000 in 2006-07. R22. Parliament should employ more full-time and contracted staff who are fully trained and experienced in working with young people in a range of different settings. Shortly after the Puttnam Commission reported its findings, Parliament employed two outreach officers with previous experience in the education sector. More recently, two additional education visit officers have been employed to assist young people on visits to Parliament, both of whom are trained teachers. R23. A young persons’ consultative group should be established with the right to attend and advise at key administrative meetings of both Houses. There has been no progress towards establishing a young persons’ consultative group with the right to attend and advise at key administrative meetings. R24. More should be done to enhance the effectiveness of parliamentary outreach work. The PEU employed two outreach officers, as set out above, who are now in the process of developing an outreach strategy. This strategy considers how the PEU can support people who work with children and young people. A new year-round visits programme should be in place by March 2007, as should an outreach programme to schools and LEAs. A full programme for schools was due to begin this autumn, following pilot visits during the first half of the year. Outreach officers plan to undertake teacher training in regional areas and to concentrate their work in areas of political and social exclusion. Parliament is using focus groups of young people to input into the educational outreach strategy. The House authorities have been considering outreach for the wider public, in the form of a network of regional centres. A business plan for the establishment of regional outreach centres is due in early 2007. R25. There should be a thorough review of the language and terminology Parliament uses in accordance with our communication principles. A thorough review of the language and terminology Parliament uses has not taken place. In the absence of this, there have been modest attempts to explain terminology to visitors, such as the House of Lords’ glossary for visitors to its public gallery. More promisingly, the Coroners Reform Draft Bill, published in June 2006, had an easy-to-understand interpretation of every clause running alongside the text. Harriet Harman MP, Minister for Constitutional Affairs, predicted that soon every bill would carry a ‘plain English’ translation. A recent Modernisation Committee Report on the Legislative Process indicated its support for plain English summaries. The Committee recommended that a simple summary of the main points of each bill should be published on the front page of new legislation gateways, which should be made available to the public on the internet. The Modernisation Committee Report on the Legislative Process also recommended that the name of Standing Committees be changed to ‘Public Bill Committees’ or ‘Delegated Legislation Committees’. The Committee stated that it saw ‘no reason for persisting with a nomenclature which is inaccurate, confusing and anachronistic’. It is hoped that this approach will encourage a wider review of parliamentary language and terminology. R26. Parliament should hold more meetings outside London. Select committees, for example, should hold more formal proceedings and public events beyond Westminster. There has not been an increase in the number of meetings or parliamentary proceedings held outside London. R27. All parliamentary procedures should be comprehensively reassessed from the perspective of the communication principles we have advocated. The Modernisation Committee reviewed some parliamentary procedures as part of its inquiry on the legislative process. The Committee reported that: "The House of Commons should revise its procedures so that it is easier for the general public, as well as lobby groups, representative organisations and other stakeholders, to influence Parliament’s consideration of Bills."[Modernisation Committee (2006), The Legislative Process: First Report of Session 2005–06, HC 1097, p. 3.] The Committee called for an effective democratic legislative process to be as open as possible. It regarded this as not only a fundamental point of democratic principle, but also a prudent strategy. This Modernisation Committee Report is an indication of some degree of willingness to reassess procedures from the perspective of the communication principles advocated by the Commission, but the report is only a first step; much more needs to be done to meet this recommendation. R28. Parliament should revisit and implement the recommendations on topical debates put forward both by the Hansard Society Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny (the ‘Newton Commission’) and by the Liaison Committee. Members of the House of Lords favoured the introduction of weekly one-hour opposition debates on a topical issue, and this is being actively reviewed by committees of the House. The House of Commons has not revisited earlier recommendations on topical debates and there continues to be a sense from broadcasters that topicality is missing from debates in the Commons. Jack Straw MP, Leader of the House of Commons and Chair of the Modernisation Committee, points out earlier in this report that changing the format of parliamentary questions to make them more topical may help make those sessions more attractive to the public. R29. The authorities in Parliament as they appoint staff, and the political parties as they select candidates, should recognise the need for greater diversity if Parliament is to function well. The House of Commons Strategic Plan sets out the importance of having a diverse workforce in Parliament. Political parties have been participating in renewed debates on the need for diversity amongst their candidates. In an attempt to increase the number of women and Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) MPs in their parliamentary party, the Conservative Party has introduced new selection procedures, including primaries, and has drawn up a list of priority candidates. The Labour Party continues to be committed to the use of All Women Shortlists (AWS) – and of those Labour MPs elected for the first time in 2005, the majority were women. The Liberal Democrats’ Campaign for Gender Balance is working to increase the number of women on its list of approved candidates and assist women through the local selection process. In addition to this, the Liberal Democrats recently announced a diversity fund to provide additional campaign resources to those constituencies that select women or BME candidates.

R30. A radical reform of parliamentary communication and presentation should provide an opportunity for the media to enhance their coverage of parliamentary business. There has been ongoing debate about the media’s coverage of politics, including coverage of Parliament. Views on whether the press has made recent attempts to enhance their coverage of parliamentary business are based on anecdotal, rather than statistical, evidence. The House authorities believe that there has been an increase in the reporting of select committees during this period. Broadcasting coverage is considered in further detail below. R31. There should be a renewed commitment by the commercial public service broadcasters to provide national and regional news and current affairs. Ofcom is required by statute to set a quota for each of the commercial public service broadcasters (PSBs). Ofcom has not changed any of the quotas it inherited in 2003 from the former regulator, the ITC, except for a minor reduction in peak-time news on Channel Five and, as part of its Public Service Broadcasting Review, a reduction in regional news on ITV in Central Scotland. Channel Five still maintains two separate evening news programmes and Channel 4 has signed an enhanced contract for news with ITN, and has increased the volume of, and investment in, peak-time current affairs. In addition to this, the new channel More4 runs a news programme every weeknight, with a brief to introduce new and challenging perspectives, as well as covering the main stories of the day. ITV has shown some commitment to this area by giving ITN extra budgets to cover major news stories. However, since the Puttnam Commission reported its findings, ITV has also cut regional newsroom jobs and axed the ITV News Channel. In September 2006, Ofcom’s Deputy Chairman, Philip Graf, warned that ITV’s public service obligations should be seen as ‘an opportunity to be built on’, not a ‘cost to be hollowed out’. [Jason Deans, ‘ITV gets public service caution,’ The Guardian, 19 September 2006, MediaGuardian.co.uk] There has been a shortfall in ITV budget revenue this year and this is likely to have put pressure on their news and current affairs budget.

Ofcom is currently assessing the prospects for plural sources of public service news content in the ‘post-switchover’ era. As part of Ofcom’s work in this area, it held a stakeholder seminar earlier this year on the future of current affairs. [Ofcom (2006), The Provision of Current Affairs, Report on the Current Affairs Audit 2005, Current Affairs Qualitative Viewer Research and Ofcom’s Symposium on the Future of Current Affairs (London: Ofcom).] There was some recognition by broadcasters of the importance of current affairs as a flagship for a channel’s public service broadcasting status. However, it was suggested that after digital switchover there will be less scope to impose quotas for current affairs output on the commercial PSBs, in particular ITV. The BBC, Channel 4 and a potential Public Service Publisher are all believed to have a role to play in delivering current affairs following the digital switchover. R32. We encourage all public service broadcasters to increase the quality and amount of political programming, particularly that designed to meet the needs of young people. Ofcom sets quotas for public service broadcasting, but content is determined by the broadcasters. Over the last five years, the BBC has refreshed much of its political programming, producing shows such as This Week and The Daily Politics. This year, ITV has revived its Sunday morning political programme, seeking to make serious politics more engaging. However, attempts by broadcasters to revamp politics on television can be – and have been – hit and miss. Recent BARB data found that the total hours of viewing of current affairs programming per annum has increased from 13 hours in 2001 to 17.06 in 2005. The 16-24 age group was the only bracket to have decreased its total yearly viewing hours during this period.4 Public service broadcasters have not been explicit about plans to increase the quality and amount of political programming with regards to young people. However, the Charter Review White Paper does highlight the importance of tailored news to meet the needs of different audiences. Next year, the BBC plans to move the current affairs programme Panorama to a 30-minute slot on Monday night. Consequently, it will be aired at the same time as Channel 4’s flagship current affairs programme, Dispatches. R33. The BBC must be required by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and by Parliament to be explicit as to how it plans to report Parliament in an engaging, innovative and accessible way as part of its contribution to ‘democratic value’. A new framework of public purposes for the BBC has been set out by the DCMS in its Charter Review White Paper, A Public Service For All: The BBC in the digital age, and reflected in the New BBC Charter and New Framework Agreement. One of the five new BBC public purposes is defined as ‘sustaining citizenship and civil society’ – informing ourselves and others and increasing our understanding of the world through news, information and analysis of current events and ideas. This relates broadly to the concept of ‘democratic value’, which was set out in an earlier BBC paper, Building Public Value and referred to in the Puttnam Commission Report. The Framework Agreement states that ‘in developing (and reviewing) the purpose remit for sustaining citizenship and civil society’, the BBC Trust must have regard to, ‘the need to promote understanding of the UK political system (including Parliament and the devolved structures), including through dedicated coverage of parliamentary matters’. Each public purpose will have an accompanying ‘purpose remit’, which will be set by the BBC Trust after a process of public consultation. The purpose remit for sustaining citizenship and civil society will be a statement of how this purpose is to be achieved and how success will be measured. The Framework Agreement states that the purpose remit for ‘sustaining citizenship’ should require the BBC to transmit an impartial day by day account of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament. However, concrete proposals as to how the BBC plans to report Parliament in an engaging, innovative and accessible way are not currently in place, so there is nothing specific for the BBC to be held to account for as yet. R34. There should be greater integration between BBC Parliament and the broader spectrum of BBC programming to improve cross-trailing. Routine cross-trailing of BBC Parliament from BBC News 24, as well as mainstream BBC channels, has continued. This included a cross-trail for the 2006 Budget speech, which resulted in 100,000 viewers switching channel to BBC Parliament. Cross-trailing has recently been complemented by mainstream BBC channels broadcasting generic adverts for BBC Parliament. Feedback from the adverts was positive; anecdotally they were well-received and led to an increased awareness of the channel. The public service purpose behind cross-trailing is clear – despite some criticisms of this practice by BBC competitors – and should be continued. R35. Given the availability of webcasting of all parliamentary proceedings, the remit of BBC Parliament should be broadened to permit the live coverage of other noteworthy parliamentary hearings or debates. Broadening the remit of BBC Parliament was supported by the House of Lords Information Committee and the House of Commons Administration Committee. Following a request to the Speaker, Michael Martin MP, it has been agreed that BBC Parliament will be released on a trial basis from the undertaking that it should carry live Commons Chamber coverage, regardless of proceedings at the same time in the House of Lords. This is on condition that the freedom to select proceedings in the Lords is used only sparingly, and that the Speaker should be consulted in such cases. BBC Parliament anticipates that this release will be used on only two or three occasions a year. R36. The ’democratic value’ principles contained in the BBC’s own Charter Renewal document imply the need for a significant increase in resources to BBC Parliament. BBC Parliament remains a seriously undervalued democratic and broadcasting resource, with immense potential to provide innovative parliamentary programming. The BBC should, in the coming months, provide a clear and substantial action plan for its development and for a targeted and ambitious increase in its impact. The BBC has not drafted an action plan for the development of BBC Parliament. The channel has continued to publish annual reports and develop programme policy. The BBC Parliament channel has a team of around 25, and believes it is sufficiently resourced against its objectives. The channel had identified its greatest challenge to be one of distribution – it has been severely restricted in distribution terms due to limited bandwidth on Freeview, resulting in the channel appearing in only one-quarter of the screen. This problem has now been resolved and from mid-November 2006 the channel will appear as a normal full-screen channel on Freeview. The BBC believes this will lead, over time, to a significant increase in the channel’s audience. The change means that BBC Parliament becomes the first parliamentary channel to be available around the clock on terrestrial television. The channel has not set targets for increasing audience share, believing viewing figures to be dependent on political events. BBC Parliament is the first BBC channel to be available on the internet and broadband. BBC Parliament online had 75,000 hits for David Cameron’s first appearance at Prime Minister’s Question Time as Leader of the Opposition. The channel believes that it has good distribution, that it will benefit from investment in new media, and that the new rules of coverage will enhance the quality of debate on air. R37. Resources for BBC Parliament should not be at the expense of effective funding for high quality public service broadcasting on the main BBC channels. The BBC should continue to provide parliamentary coverage across the full range of its output, where it has the power to reach mass audiences. The White Paper on Charter Renewal reaffirms the BBC’s obligations in this area. More will be known about the form of this coverage and obligation when a ‘purpose remit’ is drafted for ‘sustaining citizenship and civil society’.

R38. We believe Parliament will communicate its own messages confidently and effectively only when it is administered independently of frontbench influence. We therefore propose that legislation be enacted to provide for the House of Commons Commission to be elected by secret ballot, with members of each party voting for a proportionate number of Commission members from among their number. The Puttnam Commission recommended that the membership of the House of Commons Commission should be considered as part of an upcoming review of the House of Commons administration – a review that was recommended by the 1999 Braithwaite Report. The terms of reference for such a review, currently being drafted by the board of management, are likely to be narrow – thereby implying that the composition of the House of Commons Commission will not be considered. However, there may be provision to consider whether the right structures are in place to deliver effective connection with the public. The Puttnam Commission also advocated a public engagement role for the Speaker. The new post of Lord Speaker has a representational role. This includes helping the public to understand the significance of the work of the House of Lords. R39. We recommend that the administration of the House of Commons be headed by a Chief Executive, experienced in the management of complex organisations in the public realm, reporting directly to the House of Commons Commission. As above, the forthcoming review of the Braithwaite arrangements could consider whether a Chief Executive, experienced in the management of complex organisations, should be appointed to head the House of Commons administration. The terms of reference were due to be considered in Autumn 2006.

The members of the 16-strong Commission were:

David Puttnam (Chair), Jackie Ashley (Vice-Chair), Patrick Barwise, Stephen Coleman, Matthew d'Ancona, Patricia Hodgson DBE, Raji Hunjan, Andrew Lansley MP, Martin Linton MP, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, Peter Riddell, John Sergeant, Richard Tait CBE, Paul Tyler CBE, Fran Unsworth and David Yelland.

The Commission took written evidence and met with numerous experts and interested parties between January 2004 and early 2005.

The Commission was set up to examine the communication of parliamentary democracy. It had the following terms of reference:

• to examine the presentation of Parliament and how that presentation is affected by the way it conducts its business;

• to consider both the effect of Parliament’s own procedures and the role of the media in explaining and publicising the work of both Houses;

• to evaluate the potential for new channels of engagement; and

• to make recommendations for change.

The Commission's sponsors were the BBC, Ofcom, the ITC and Channel 4. Additional support was provided by Clear Channel International and Johnston Press.

Rosenblatt, G. (Ed) (2006) Parliament in the Public Eye 2006: Coming into focus? A Review of the Hansard Society Commission on the Communication of Parliamentary Democracy (the Puttnam Commission).