I would just add a couple of comments to those of Baroness Murphy on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. There have been two things about the debate of the past week or so that have irritated me immensely. The first point I make wearing my parliamentary hat and the second wearing my academic hat.
First, from the media coverage of the past week or so one may be forgiven for thinking that the debate in the Commons this week was the first time that the provisions of the Bill had been seriously discussed in Parliament. The media coverage has largely if not wholly ignored the fact that the Bill has already gone through the Lords, where its provisions were thoroughly debated. Had commentators bothered to follow and report the debates in the Lords, a great deal of the debate of the past week or so would have been far better informed.
Second, the media have been covering the debate as if the outcome of the debates in the Commons was uncertain. Would MPs vote to change the provisions on ‘saviour siblings’ or support amendments to reduce the time limit for abortions? There was never any basis for such speculation. The fact that there was a free vote rather than a whipped vote on some of the issues was never going to have much of an impact. Analysis of previous voting behaviour presented no basis for suggesting that MPs would vote other than in the way they did.
“The media coverage has largely if not wholly ignored the fact that the Bill has already gone through the Lords, where its provisions were thoroughly debated.”
I think you are being rather harsh here – the reason I say this is that for most debates, the media ignore BOTH the House of Commons and the House of Lords ! The fact that occasionally they do cover at least what goes on in the House of Commons should be the cause of some rejoicing, even if it is only that the ‘glass is half full’ !
Perhaps it might encourage them to provide some more coverage in future, but somehow I doubt it.. Which brings me to my next point..
“There was never any basis for such speculation. ” Of course there was ! The basis is that it sells newspapers – the fact that the outcome may not have been doubt should hardly prevent the media from engineering a possibility of some exciting contretemps in the House.
In fact, Lord Norton, stop complaining that you aren’t getting enough coverage. If you will insist on working hard, effectively and with a lot of common sense, intelligence and co-operation, you are hardly likely to have the excitement required for today’s mass media.
If you were to script and role-play a punch-up [preferably verbal] or some purely contrived stand-off or controversy then I’m sure your ‘ratings’ would improve hugely. Maybe in the next 42 days of business such an occasion may arise where a conflict could be engineered ??..
I am aware why the media do it, but it does not deny the truth of my point. On complaining about ignoring the Lords, we are regularly neglected and are quite happy to get on doing a good, detailed job without media coverage. On this occasion, though, the issue was just as contentious when it was debated in the Lords as in the Commons and commentators had no reason to assume that the provisions would not run into trouble in the Lords. On past occasions, when they have made that assumption (often erroneously), they have covered what the Lords was doing.
Lord Norton,
I honestly don’t have a [sensible] answer to this problem. The nature of the media has changed, as documented in Nick Davies’ excellent book ‘Flat Earth News’ – they want to churn out far more stories in far less time. I’m personally not sure that the House of Commons really gets a detailed level of coverage, as I’d be hard-pressed to think of full time ‘Parliamentary Correspondents’ on any of the main newspapers.
They certainly don’t publish detailed write-ups of debates in the House of Commons which they did in days of old, when knights were bold. Can I, however, urge a degree of caution here, before offering a suggestion for improvement ? Do you really want to vastly increase your profile in the media ? Surely one of the advantages of the Lords is that they are not always in the glare of publicity – so neither are they targeted by Public Relations wonks, influence-peddlers, ‘Astro-Turf’ special interest campaign groups, and Parliamentary Lobbyists ? Putting your head above the parapet might make you more ‘in the line of fire’ from campaigning organisations who may or may not represent the wider constituency of democratic opinion ?
That said, if the Lords have only recently started ‘blogging’ then I don’t see how you can absolve yourself entirely of responsibility for a lower profile than you would like in the media. A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step – my suggestion is as follows.
Why not invite the Parliamentary sketch-writers Matthew Parris, Simon Hoggart, Simon Carr and Anne Treneman for lunch next week ? Not only do they cover the House of Commons, they do often attend Select Committees and other meetings. Of course, their objective is humour, and to enliven and entertain, rather than to inform. But they do at least cover Parliament EVERY DAY. And the spotlight of humour can be an effective way to shine a light into the dark places not covered by the rest of the news media. Encourage them to pay a visit to the Lords – certainly listening to ‘Today in Parliament’ there is enough amusing material for them, and it is not a humourless place at all.
That might encourage the more serious correspondents to develop more of an interest in what goes in the House of Lords.. Just a thought..
I agree that there are advantages to having a low media profile. Much of the work we do is not of obvious interest to the general public: debating clause 98 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions)(No. 2) Bill is not likely to be of great interest outside the House (or indeed to many in the House). Limited or non-existent media attention means that it is easier than in the Commons to have an informed discourse with ministers, the ministers knowing that any concession they may make is not going to be splashed across the media as a Government U-turn. If we got too much media coverage, it may encourage ministers to take a more defensive stand.
There are, though, occasions when the House does discuss issues that do excite the interest of the public: Lord Joffe’s Assisted Dying Bill is a good example. That is when it is quite legitimate for debate to attract wider attention. Lord Joffe’s Bill certainly attracted a lot of letter writing by people, both for and against the Bill. Given that, I was surprised that I did not receive more letters than I did on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. That could, of course, be a consequence of limited media attention.
We do, very occasionally, attract the attention of the sketch-writers. Matthew Parris is no longer a sketch-writer but did, on odd occasion, come over to cover the House. He did a particularly good sketch once based on giving people titles based on what they wear. However, it is difficult to compete with the Commons, in part because most senior ministers sit in the Commons (and people know who they are – well some of them anyway) and people have generally heard of some of the back-bench MPs (Dennis Skinner and the like). It is a bit of a Catch 22 situation for the Lords. Sketch-writers do not cover us because people outside do not know who we are, and people outside are only likely to know who we are once sketch-writers and others do report who we are and what we are doing.
It is not helped by the fact that when there is some media coverage, the level of factual knowledge displayed is not always of the highest quality. The Times once illustrated a story on the Lords with a picture of people wearing robes, clearly assuming they were Lords. They were senior judges. Judges wear wigs. Lords do not.