On Lobby Terms A harrowing picture of the conditions under
which parliamentary journalists work is pre- sented in Partners in Parliament, a report by twelve members of the press gallery. I read of the plight of the Exchange Telegraph, who work in 'a cubicle of ninety-three square feet, barely large enough for all their reporting staff to stand in. Their lobby correspondent still prefers to work in the three square feet of telephone kiosk which has been his office for the last fourteen years.' On eating conditions the report is happier. Indeed at one point it is quite sharp with the grumblers: 'People who complain that the cafeteria has the atmosphere of a quick- lunch counter forget that, to a large extent, it is a quick-lunch counter.' But, though I sympa- thise generally with these sections of the report, I am less happy with its recommendation that the press gallery committee should have a say in admissions to the gallery. These are at present controlled by the Serjeant-at-Arms. The Serjeant- at-Arms also controls admissions to the mem- bers' lobby; and he allows the political corre- spondent of the Spectator—and of other weeklies—to use both the gallery and the lobby. The lobby committee, however, refuse to allow the political correspondents of the weeklies into the briefing meetings addressed by ministers and Opposition leaders. It seems absurd to me that Sunday newspapers which, for their own good reasons, may devote only a few lines to politics, should have full lobby facilities, while avowedly political journals like the Spectator should not.
Previous page
