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.

A more effective Parliament would make a greater contribution than anything else to a renewal of British democracy. Parliament does not exist simply to provide Government with a majority and a mandate; it should also be a voice for the people – every day, not just once every four or five years.

But Parliament is simply not keeping pace with changes in society. So instead of the support and involvement of the public that Parliament requires, we see disengagement and cynicism, disappointing electoral turnout and low levels of satisfaction. Parliament is increasingly sidelined from the centre of British political life, with satire and neglect threatening to substitute for urgent or informed interest. If these trends continue the whole of our political and civic life will suffer.

The public have a right to expect a Parliament which communicates its work promptly, clearly and usefully, which reaches out to all citizens and which invites participation and interaction. Changes made by Parliament in recent years have not been far-reaching enough to meet its communication responsibilities in a rapidly-changing world. In the 21st century, institutions that do not communicate fail. And in this, Parliament is failing.

Members of the public are increasingly turning to single issues rather than to parties and traditional political processes. Yet Parliament’s communication is still predominantly organised around its own, often inward-looking, procedures. In an environment in which people need to see how Parliament relates to the rest of our democracy and public debate, Parliament fails to link its work to other representative bodies and forums for discussing public issues. Where the public expect institutions to be responsive to their concerns, Parliament provides almost no opportunities for direct voter involvement, interaction or feedback. Where the public look for clear and readily accessible information, it remains unnecessarily difficult to find the information people need.

Change should be driven by what citizens have a right to expect from their Parliament. Having listened to the public, parliamentarians, the media and interest groups during our inquiry, we have come to the following conclusions:

• The public have an absolute right to know what happens in Parliament, as well as a right to participate. The public should be able to understand proceedings, to contribute to inquiries and to access all forms of information about Parliament. This would entail a complete overhaul of Parliament’s current communication structure.

• Parliament should establish a Communications Service that brings together in a single department the various communication activities essential to a democratic institution. This department should develop a clear communication strategy founded on the widest consultation with the public and other interested bodies. The financial implications should not be seen as a cost, but as an investment in contemporary democracy.

• The necessary overhaul of Parliament’s communication structure will be incomplete without a change in the management of Parliament. Key steps are a House of Commons Commission made independent of the influence of the frontbenches; and the administration of the House of Commons by a Chief Executive, experienced in the management of complex organisations in the public realm.

• Parliament should be accessible to the public – whether in London, in local regions, on television or via the internet. This means, for example, that unnecessary broadcasting restrictions should be removed; the website, which is confusing and poorly designed, should be radically improved; and visits to Parliament should offer significantly more than a heritage tour.

Parliament should be an accessible and readily understood institution, a Parliament that relates its work to the concerns of those in the outside world; and a media that works with Parliament to communicate effectively with the public. Parliament must be viewed through a far more engaged and informed public eye.

We urge all political parties to commit themselves to a renewal of British parliamentary life. The long-term gains for our democracy will be immense. We believe a Parliament that involves and engages the public more effectively in its work, and where the public can exercise real influence, would respond to such increased attention with improved performance. Parliament is currently failing in its democratic duty. Its organisation, procedures and general ethos are now seriously out of date. It has failed, in particular, to respond adequately to the opportunities provided by modern communications and in doing so has contributed to the growing alienation of the British public. Parliament may be serving its members more effectively, but there is yet to be a matching improvement in the service it provides to the public. Parliament needs to reassert itself, to reconnect with the public and become what it has always striven to be – the fountain of our democratic freedoms.

In order to achieve this, we make the following recommendations:

• 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. [3.8]

• 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. [3.14]

• 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. [3.28]

• 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. [3.29]

• R5 The communication strategy should be tabled for agreement by both Houses. [3.30]

• R6 The communication strategy will require regular reporting back to MPs and Peers, annual evaluation against targets, and provision for the public to participate in the evaluation process. [3.31]

• R7 The communication strategy must be accompanied by the necessary and long-term budgetary commitment from the parliamentary authorities. [3.37]

• R8 A new Communications Department should set up an advisory group of media representatives. [4.6]

• R9 Parliamentary officials should do much more to draw the media’s attention explicitly to matters of public interest. [4.12]

• R10 The rules of television coverage in the chambers should be relaxed to allow, for example, appropriate reaction shots, the relevant use of closeups, 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. [4.20]

• 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. [4.23]

• R12 The ban on still photographs should be reconsidered in light of the communication principles set out above. [4.24]

• R13 The current restrictions on the number of passes available for media outlets should be reconsidered. [4.26]

• R14 The parliamentary authorities should provide regular, formal induction for journalists. [4.27]

• R15 A new Communications Department should establish effective processes to manage, edit, develop and continually update the parliamentary website. [4.30]

• R16 The parliamentary website should be radically improved. At a minimum, it should be consultative, interactive and easily navigable. [4.43]

• 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. [4.44]

• 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. [4.50]

• R19 Parliament’s facilities, including the chambers, should be made available during recess for groups of young people. [4.53]

• R20 Parliament should take young people, including pre-voting citizens, far more seriously by involving them in its processes and decision-making. [4.54]

• 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. [4.61]

• 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. [4.62]

• R23 A young persons’ consultative group should be established with the right to attend and advise at key administrative meetings of both Houses. [4.62]

• R24 More should be done to enhance the effectiveness of parliamentary outreach work. [4.63]

• R25 There should be a thorough review of the language and terminology Parliament uses in accordance with our communication principles. [4.69]

• R26 Parliament should hold more meetings outside London. Select committees, for example, should hold more formal proceedings and public events beyond Westminster. [4.73–4.74]

• R27 All parliamentary procedures should be comprehensively reassessed from the perspective of the communication principles we have advocated. [4.75]

• 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. [4.78]

• 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. [4.79]

• R30 A radical reform of parliamentary communication and presentation should provide an opportunity for the media to enhance their coverage of parliamentary business. [5.12]

• R31 There should be a renewed commitment by the commercial public service broadcasters to provide national and regional news and current affairs. [5.16]

• 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. [5.20]

• 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'. [5.25]

• R34 There should be greater integration between BBC Parliament and the broader spectrum BBC programming to improve cross trailing. [5.27]

• 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. [5.30]

• 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. [5.31]

• 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. [5.32]

• 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. [6.6]

• 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. [6.11]

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

Hansard Society (2005), Members Only? Parliament in the Public Eye, The Report of the Hansard Society Commission on the Communication of Parliamentary Democracy (the Puttnam Commission).