BOTH Sir Winston Churchill and Mr. Attlee have now given
their full support to the 'rule' which prohibits discussion on wireless or television of any subject that is going to be debated in Parliament within fourteen days. Great weight must of course be given to the combined view of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, but I still venture to think it is the wrong one. Sir Winston appears to be chiefly concerned about the power that television can wield. This would be an excellent argument if it were proposed to keep politics off television altogether. It seems less convincing when discussion is only prevented for a fortnight before a Parliamentary debate. Mr. Attlee seems to be chiefly concerned lest the BBC should usurp or diminish the authority of Parliament. But the author- ity of Parliament is less likely to be diminished by anything the BBC may do than by the fact that so many of the important decisions at Westminster are now taken at secret party meet- ings and by the power of the party Whips and machines. If free discussion were permitted the power of the Whips would be lessened and the prestige of Parliament might well be in- creased. There was a similar sort of situation in the eighteenth century when Parliament, jealous of its authority and prestige, refused to allow its debates to be published, and in 1738 the Commons resolved`that any publication of them was a breach of privilege. Reports had, therefore, to be disguised as for example 'The Debates in the Senate of Lilliputia.' The absurd- ity of this position was so obvious that after the Miller case of 1771 the Commons did not try to enforce the ban. If the BBC has not the courage to end the 'rule,' it should get round it by emulating the ingenuity of eighteenth-century journalists..
Previous page
