House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Oct 1990

Mr. Mellor : Mellor, Mr. Speaker. I was about to say that I had forgotten the name of the chap sitting opposite

Column 590

me when I discovered that you, Mr. Speaker, had forgotten my name--but never mind. That serves me right for being cheeky.

Mr. Speaker : Order. It was a temporary lapse.

Mr. Mellor : We all grow older, Mr. Speaker. It is happening to me as well. At your age, Mr. Speaker, these things happen.

The House welcomed the Government's decision, announced during the passage of the Bill, that we should not rely purely on the commonsense position of there being a network, although obviously the ITV system could not operate without a network. However, because of continuing concern about the previous network and the cartel thereby created, because of what some regarded as the unconscionable amount of time that was being taken to get another network and because of dark suspicions that one or two people were delaying settling on the basis that the Bill would not address those issues, it seemed of the essence that the Bill should address those issues. They were discussed between Departments and we achieved an acceptable proposition, whereby for a transitional period there is a back-stop provision to allow a network arrangement to be imposed.

With respect to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), this is essentially a short-term problem and I do not think that we should be justified in giving the ITC the power to impose networking arrangements in the longer term. Although I have made it clear that, where it has a right to impose, it should do so with a firm hand, it would not be right for it to impose networking arrangements over a long period without going back to what I regard as a previous generation of regulation. It needs to regulate where it is necessary to do so, and where it is not necessary we should accept that the aim of the Bill is to remove restrictions.

I have always been concerned about the transitional period. Having decided that there should be intervention, the question arises of who should do it. I noticed a certain strand to the debate--I do not say this critically, but it is an observation worth making--of hon. Members regarding the OFT as rather a boring body and asking, "What has it got to do with this?" I see the OFT as a vital public watchdog. Whatever our political differences, we surely agree that the competition policy must be enforced by a strong independent body. If a body is given an overview on competition, although one wants to give primary responsibilities to the specific specialist regulator, one cannot push the OFT to one side. Much thought, which is reflected in the schedule that their Lordships were kind enough to accept, has gone into giving the OFT a role while not usurping the function of the ITC.

Paragraph 2 of Lords amendment No. 501 sets out the competition test. It makes it clear that the OFT's role is not a formality. If the circumstances arise, it must apply the competition test, which is based on the Competition Act 1980 and on paragraph 3 of article 85 of the EEC treaty. Arrangements satisfy the test if they do not have, or are not intended or likely to have

"the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition in connection with any business activity in the United Kingdom." If they do have such an effect, however, they can still satisfy the test if they

"satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph 3 of Article 85 of the E.E.C. Treaty."

Column 591

That is inevitably complicated because EC law is involved, but that is the test that must be applied.

If the OFT finds that the networking arrangements fall foul of the test, paragraph 5 says that it must publish the report and send a copy to the director and to the nice Mr. Russell. He is not so described in the schedule ; he is merely described as the ITC, but we know that that means the nice Mr. Russell. Paragraph 6 requires the nice Mr. Russell to ensure that, under licensed conditions, the licensees modify the arrangements in accordance with the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Before giving way to the chap whose name I forgot, I should say that the nice Mr. Russell is 55 years old today, so perhaps somewhat belatedly we should send him happy birthday wishes.

Mr. Corbett : I willingly join the Minister in extending happy birthday wishes to that nice Mr. Russell.

Can the Minister give the House an assurance that, in looking at the proposed networking arrangements, he will look at the specific needs and requirements of the industry against the general background of the OFT's requirements rather than use a blanket approach? That is the point in a nutshell.

9.30 pm

Mr. Mellor : The OFT has to apply a competition test that relates to the industry under consideration. That may be why it is necessary for someone to have some specialist awareness within the OFT. I appreciate that it is possible to criticise those arrangements. Obviously, it is possible to criticise any arrangement. If we isolated the OFT, people would ask, "What is the point of having a competition body such as the OFT and pushing it to one side, not giving it a role even though specialist competition issues are involved?"

Our starting point is the fact that, had we not made any of those provisions, the networking arrangements would have been caught by the restrictive trade practices legislation, under which the Director General of Fair Trading and the restrictive trade practices court have a role. The Bill is permissive because it exempts approved networking arrangements from those provisions to ensure that they do not unnecessarily constrain the development of a network. We thought that it would be unjustifiable if, at the same time as removing the provisions of the restrictive trade practices legislation from this area, we also removed the role of the DGFT, particularly bearing in mind his wider competition responsibilities, which I mentioned. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) mentioned the Netco proposals. I understand that they are still under discussion by the ITV companies. As far as I am aware, they have not yet been agreed or approved by the IBA. I understand that the chairman of the ITV association may be having informal discussions with the OFT. That is the process that would have to be followed through.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) mentioned some comments that Lord Boston made in another place, which were the subject of a letter from my esteemed colleague, Lord Ferrers. I shall deal briefly with that matter, but I shall happily let my hon. Friend have a copy of the letter. Three points were raised,

Column 592

the first of which concerned applicants' proposals for participating in networking being sent to the Director General of Fair Trading. He certainly will not play any part in the selection process for applicants for a Channel 3 licence, which I think was Lord Boston's concern. Lord Boston was concerned also about delay because of OFT approval. I repeat Lord Ferrers' assurance that there is no need for any delay. The ITC will have to refer networking arrangements to the OFT, but they can be implemented pending OFT consideration, so there should not be any delay.

There was concern that the competition test went a bit too wide. I set out what the test is. Lord Boston suggested that this should be restricted to the provision of licensed services and services connected with them. Lord Ferrers' view was that, in practice, that is probably how it will work out. That was his judgment on advice. It is unlikely that any networking arrangements will have any outside effects. In so far as they do, it is probably right that the OFT should be able to take them into consideration, but that is an unlikely proposition.

I have done my best to respond positively. I feel that in agreeing with the Lords amendments--as I hope we shall--we are closing what some people at the beginning thought was a major gap in the Bill because no provision was made for imposing a networking arrangement. I am glad to have played a part in ensuring that that should happen. What we have done is in accordance with the spirit of the Bill, doing what is necessary, but not doing more than is necessary.

Mr. Maclennan : I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment to the Lords amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Clause 164

Duty to provide advance information about programmes

Lords amendment : No. 399, in page 127, line 43, leave out ("schedules of and other")

Mr. Mellor : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker : With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 400 to 406, 641 to 649 and 675.

Mr. Mellor : The substantive amendments relate to the extent of the information that broadcasters will have to make available and to the timing of the release of that information. Lords amendment No. 401, in most people's view, is the lead amendment in the group. It requires broadcasters to make information available at such a time as a publisher "reasonably requires it" and to make it available to all publishers simultaneously. However, broadcasters will not be required to make available a complete schedule for any one-week period more than 14 days before the first day of that week. The 14-day limit can be varied by order.

Concern was expressed in Committee that some organisations with both television and newspaper interests might want to take some competitive advantage by getting hold of somebody else's schedule and then rescheduling their own programmes to meet it. The 14-day period is the

Column 593

lowest possible lead time for a weekly magazine for the public dealing with listings on a week-long basis. It is a tight but fair target, which will protect the broadcasters' interests and, at the same time, allow a long overdue reform--the opportunity for freely available information about programme listings subject, of course, to proper negotiations about a payment for copyrighted material.

Mr. Corbett : I am sure that the Minister will be able to clear up a couple of small points, especially as the letter of which I have a copy was sent from his office. Will he confirm that there is no obligation on broadcasters to supply television listings information about programmes that are scheduled to be broadcast before 1 March 1991?

Mr. Mellor indicated assent.

Mr. Corbett : I am glad that the Minister is able to do that. The second point has also been raised with the Minister's office. Negotiations between the copyright holders of the listings can open from 1 January, although the listings cannot be published until after the first programme is running after 1 March. There are fears that not only rogue publishers, but French, Italian and German publishers with a big interest in this market may be tempted to jump the gun in the initial two months. If that happened, and in the absence of an agreement, what would be the position of the holders of the copyright?

Those of us who were members of the Committee will remember that there was great excitement about the next point. During the last sitting, the Minister found a relevant piece of paper in his red Dispatch Box to enable him to make some moves on listings. The House will be interested to know that Independent Television Publications Limited, which bought and holds the copyright to the ITV programmes, has made it clear that the proposal meets an expressed wish of Mr. Tony Elliott of Time Out. ITP has decided to make the information available to publishers free of charge once an initial licence fee has been established and the publisher has been registered as a licensed user. That is a bold and sensible move.

I hope that the Minister can clarify the points that I have raised.

Mr. Simon Coombs (Swindon) : My right hon. and learned Friend is aware of my appreciation of the way in which he has carried out the negotiations on this difficult matter and balanced the interests of publishers and copyright owners.

I believe that the House has now got it about right, but there are still some lingering fears among copyright owners, such as IPC Magazines, that the negotiations between themselves and publishers might be protracted and difficult. They believe that there might be a temptation on behalf of would -be publishers to try to delay settlement of the negotiations so as to obtain an unfair advantage from them. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has been in receipt of correspondence on this matter this week from IPC Magazines. It would be helpful if he could reassure those who have written to him to express their concern.

Once a copyright tribunal is established, such negotiations between copyright owners and publishers will be settled. It is inevitable that that tribunal would make a judgment on the responsible handling of the negotiations by the interested parties. The negotiations, however, might

Column 594

be protracted and it is possible that the copyright owners will suffer a considerable commercial disadvantage. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to reassure them.

Mr. Maclennan : The Minister will be aware that I share the concern that has already been expressed. I took an initiative on this matter earlier in our proceedings, and I am grateful to the Minister for his response then.

Mr. Mellor : I agree with the first proposition advanced by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). The hon. Gentleman also expressed concern about people jumping the gun, but the situation is exactly the same as it would be if somebody purported to publish a rival magazine now. A copyright owner has a legal remedy, which includes an injunction against publishers, distributors and so on, to protect his interests. I cannot precisely anticipate the relief the courts would give, but protection does not run out until the statutory arrangements come into force. Until that time, copyright owners are protected.

I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) recognises that I have gone to some trouble to try to resolve differences with copyright owners. We do not want litigation to arise from this. We want to move into another era, amicably if possible. I am glad to say that, by and large, that has been achieved. I am grateful to John Mellon of IPC Magazines for his positive approach to the negotiations. We are keen to respond to the issues he raised. On unnecessarily protracted proceedings, it is true that we decided, on Report, to delete the provision in what was schedule 15 that would have allowed the copyright tribunal to award costs against any publisher who, in exercising his statutory right to publish, fixed the fee at less than a reasonable cost. We thought that a provision to this effect in the Bill was unnecessary, since the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 already contained such a provision. We therefore decided that that in the Bill did not have any practical significance.

My noble Friend the Earl Ferrers made some other remarks about timing, which are reported in the Official Report of the other place. Although I believe that the timing is tight, there will be enough time for the necessary negotiating procedures because there will be an incentive for everyone to make the negotiations effective. Although I appreciate that there is two months between the negotiations and their implementation, the only alternative would have been to delay the start of the statutory arrangements until after 1 March. That would not have been justified, having regard to the pressure that has existed for a long time to remedy the situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2

Restrictions on the holding of licences

Lords amendment : No. 466, in page 146, line 21, leave out from ("corporate,") to ("and") in line 27 and insert

("shall be construed in accordance with sub-paragraph (2A)") Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.-- [Mr. Mellor.]

Column 595

Mr. Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 467 to 477 and 483 to 499.

9.45 pm

Mr. Maclennan : At an earlier stage my hon. Friends and I sought to reduce the number of local radio stations that a company could own from six to four. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I oppose a system that would allow as many as 20 stations to be owned. It runs a risk of creating something like a game of monopoly, with the companies racing about bidding for the plums. It poses the possibility of large private monopolies being created to the detriment of small local stations and it could make a mockery of the bidding process. Why have the Government agreed to amendment No. 484, to leave out ("six") and insert ("twenty")?

Mr. Mellor : The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) gives me an opportunity to deal with a point that was not always clear from the debates in the other place. Indeed, it was not always clear to me until it was spelt out to me, so I am not assertin great superior insight into the subject.

There is a crucial distinction here. We have changed the rules in a more significant way than just numbers. In the early stages, we were referring to stations. We are now referring to channels. Some independent radio stations in rural areas operate now on up to six channels, because different channels may be required to reach the whole area. A metropolitan example of that is LBC, which has one station with two channels.

We are not talking about 20 stations. At present, there are already over 130 channels in the system, so the limit of 20 gives nobody, on the face of it, more than 15 per cent. It is less than that. But the number of channels is set to expand rapidly, so we shall not be creating a monopoly.

We came up with an ownership system that people thought was crude and not convincing. The Radio Authority came up with another system that we felt needed modification to be acceptable. We suggested, in the spirit of open government which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland would commend, that the AIRC and the Radio Authority, in the light of certain guidance that we sent to them about our response to the Radio Authority's original proposals, should examine our guidance together and come back to us, when we would try to agree to their proposal.

There are undercurrents here. While we do not want monopolies--the Bill is strong on control ; it is only in relation to the non-DBS satellites that we have been remotely criticised for not being rigorous--we must remember that we are dealing with small battalions, so there is every advantage in allowing some element of multiple holding. What is left is still small in the context of enterprises outside of television companies. I hope that, in moving from stations to channels, and in due course promulgating--as we shall do by laying an order--the full details of the ownership arrangements, we shall have an arrangement with which the industry feels happy. I want the industry to be confident about the future and believe that it will be much more confident about it if it believes that it has shaped a crucial sector--the ownership requirements.

Column 596

In further proving that there is life after death in this instance, I gather that I shall have the privilege of dealing with the order when it comes forward. I look forward to then being able to justify what has been done.

Mr. Maclennan : I am grateful to the Minister, who made an extremely helpful intervention.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords amendment : No. 478, in page 148, line 43, at end insert ("or the Authority")

Mr. Mellor : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker : With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 479 to 482, 16, 21, 134, 171, 173, 254 and 256.

Mr. Mellor : Both Houses have made a great effort to try to ensure that a rigorous but fresh climate for religious broadcasting is established under the Bill. I gather that there may be one or two residual problems, so I may intervene later if there are points that I need to pick up.

Mr. Fisher : As the Minister says, many of these matters are technical and, although there are about 700 amendments to come, we are content to accept most of them as technical and will not delay the House. However, I should like the Minister to explain one or two more aspects of this group of amendments, particularly amendment No. 482, which requires the ITC and the Radio Authority to bring into force guidelines.

The Minister will know that hon. Members have received a great deal of correspondence on that matter. The constituency of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) includes Vision Broadcasting and my constituency contains UCB. Both of us have been exercised by the representations of those two organisations on the guidelines, which are currently drawn up by the Radio Authority. The ITC is beginning work on its guidelines.

Both sides of the House are at one in their general aim to prevent American -style, charismatic, evangelistic broadcasting in this country. We do not want the sort of broadcasting where the power of the medium is used to extract a great deal of money with emotional force and all the other sordid elements that have crept in in the United States.

However, many people are, with some justification, concerned that the draft guidelines on which the Radio Authority is working at present may, in one or two particulars, be going too far, especially in relation to restrictions on appeals and donations and exactly what is meant by proselytising. The religious churches that might apply for the licences are perfectly happy to accept the restriction not to appeal on the air for money, but the guidelines on which the Radio Authority is presently working state that no other literature can be produced in support of their activities. That seems to put the churches at a disadvantage in relation to other charitable organisations. It is one thing not to use the power of radio or television to ask for money, but if organisations such as Vision Broadcasting or UCB cannot put out leaflets in support of their activities or ask people to support them in door-to-door campaigns, that seems to be going extremely far, and I am not sure that that is the intention. I should

Column 597

be grateful if the Minister would give his views on that and some guidance, both to the Radio Authority and the ITC, which are currently drafting their guidelines.

It is difficult to define proselytising-- [Interruption.] The Minister has a definition to offer from a sedentary position and I look forward to hearing it later, but hon. Members who do not consider themselves a walking thesaurus would say that it meant to propound and propagate religious beliefs, which is explicitly allowed under this set of guidelines. However, the next sentence in the guidelines says that companies may not use any material

"to proselytise or recruit members."

Once again, this is a matter of using written material which companies may want to circulate to members of the public in support of their claims.

There seems to be some confusion here and it would be helpful if the Minister gave some guidance to the Radio Authority and the ITC to clarify the matter.

We are content with all other aspects of the amendments.

Mr. Michael Alison (Selby) : I should like to carry forward the expressions of anxiety by the shadow Minister for the Arts about the draft codes of conduct and of programme content that are beginning to appear.

I had occasion to write to my right hon. and learned Friend about this a few days ago, so he is well apprised of the situation. There is no doubt that the new regulatory bodies, the ITC and the Radio Authority, which are the very creatures of this Bill, are arrogating to themselves powers of interpretation and discretion which are all weighted in the direction of restrictions that are the very reverse of the Minister's own liberalising and expansionist philosophy on religious broadcasting. So much is certainly beginning to come through in the draft to which the hon. Member for Stoke- on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred.

I want to give the Minister the flavour of what I am complaining about. On 18 October last the new draft broadcasting, advertising and sponsorship codes on religious broadcasting were made available for comment. In a letter accompanying the draft codes the controller of advertising at the IBA wrote :

"After very careful consideration both the shadow ITC and Radio Authority have concluded that there is not a sufficiently persuasive case to prohibit programme sponsorship by religious organisations". But my right hon. and learned Friend will recall that as long ago as April he wrote to parliamentary colleagues as follows : "Religious organisations will be allowed to sponsor programmes and to advertise on both TV and radio".

So who is running the country, to ask a rhetorical question? I hope that the Minister will confirm that the controller of advertising at the IBA had no discretion or any option other than to reflect the Minister's decision as conveyed to colleagues in the House on this matter.

This is not a nit-picking point. As my right hon. and learned Friend will know from the letter that I sent him on 24 October and from representations that he has received from other colleagues, the two broadcasting organisations already mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, United Christian Broadcasters--the Stoke-on-Trent radio station-- and Vision Broadcasting cable television from Swindon, both approved and authorised to operate by the present Cable Authority,

Column 598

would be threatened with closure and extinction if the draft programme code circulated by the new Radio Authority were to be implemented, and if it were to be echoed, copied and reflected in the parallel television code, which would affect Vision television. My right hon. and learned Friend will have noted from the material that I sent him that the UCB station at Stoke-on-Trent falls foul of the new draft code in at least eight identifiable and separate particulars. Yet that very station is warmly commended and authorised by the present Cable Authority. I remind the Minister that, judging from references that he and the Prime Minister have made in correspondence with me and Lord Halsbury, Vision television and UCB are regarded in Downing street and in the Home Office as acceptable and desirable bodies whose future is to be safeguarded and enhanced. The liberalising regime that my right hon. and learned Friend has sponsored and provided for in the Bill is designed not to mutilate but to multiply groups such as United Christian Broadcasters and Vision Broadcasting. We look to my right hon. and learned Friend for firm assurances that no code will be acceptable to the Government that cannot accommodate and secure the future of UCB and Vision Television.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central mentioned the difficulty that we have already encountered in paragraph 7.7 of the draft code--

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motion and the Lords Amendments to the Broadcasting Bill may be proceeded with, thought opposed, until any hour.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]

Lords amendments again considered .

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Alison : The draft paragraph is headed "Proselytising" and it seems quite extraordinary that the draft Radio Authority should seek to ban and bar what it calls proselytising, which means exactly the same as evangelism. One has only to read the gospel of St. John the evangelist on television or radio and one is evangelising. However, proselytising, which means making converts to a religion, is apparently to be proscribed. I cannot believe that such nonsensical random drafting by a body that is itself a creature of the Bill can be allowed to continue unchecked. My right hon. and learned Friend must intervene and put a sharper definition, regulation and control on such drafts. Above all, he must provide that bodies such as UCB and Vision will be able to survive, persist, multiply and flourish under the new regime that he has pioneered. We are profoundly grateful to him for the imaginative, outward-looking and constructive way in which he has approached the whole question of religious broadcasting. We look to him to persist with that matter in the oversight that he exercises on the new codes of practice.

Mr. Simon Coombs : I shall start by assuming that the Government and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the Arts are fully committed to the continuance in operation of the two organisations to which reference has been made in the debate--United Christian Broadcasters, which in Stoke has the advantage of a Dispatch Box speaker, the hon. Member for

Column 599

Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), on its side, and Vision Broadcasting in Swindon, for which I should like to speak. The Minister has made it clear in previous debates and in Committee that he agrees that these bodies are doing a good and useful job and that their future should not be threatened by any legislation, or codes or guidelines drawn up under the legislation. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will tell the House that it is too early to assume the worst. I would be happy to feel that I need not assume the worst in these matters. The problem is that, on 1 January, the new ITC and Radio Authority will be in office. They will then have, as it were, the power of life and death over organisations such as those that I have mentioned.

It is important for those of us who wish those organisations to continue to operate after 1 January to be reassured that that will be possible and that nothing will happen to prejudice their chances of survival. The Radio Authority's draft programme code and the shadow ITC's draft code on sponsorship and advertising contain indications that cause considerable concern.

As has been said, in its draft code, the Radio Authority has produced suggestions that would simply close down UCB in Stoke. There can be little doubt about that. Of course there will be consultations about those draft guidelines and objections will be raised. What happens if those objections are overruled and the guidelines are the same on 1 January? We want to know. What happens if the shadow ITC's draft guidelines on sponsorship and advertising are adopted? To be fair, it does say :

"The shadow ITC would welcome views on how far the draft rules should apply to advertising on specialised religious channels." What if, at the end of the consultation exercise, it decides that those rules should apply? As I understand it, on 1 January, Vision Broadcasting, for example, would be taken out of action. We do not want that to happen. I believe that the Government do not want that to happen, and I have been assured by my right hon. and learned Friend that he does not want it to happen--but the signs are that it could and probably will happen.

In another place, the noble Lord Viscount Buckmaster called me to order and said that he hoped that

"the Conservative Member of Parliament for Swindon will pursue vigorously the cause of the broadcasting installation"

in his constituency. He also said :

"I hope that your Lordships can appreciate the nervousness, especially at Vision Cable, because in recent years the IBA religious broadcasting department has blocked the broadcasting of a number of Christian programmes, as was mentioned on earlier stages of the Bill in your Lordships' House. It blocked them for a number of reasons Virtually all of those programmes have in the end been broadcast, with some editing or modification but from 1st January 1991 Vision Cable will be subject to the ITC and the authority of members of the same IBA religious department as originally refused broadcasting permission for those programmes."--[ Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 1990 ; Vol 522, c. 1221.]

The problem is that those individuals have, for whatever reason, previously demonstrated a dislike of or a hostility towards the sort of programmes being transmitted. We have reason to be concerned about what may happen on 1 January--and on that date it will be too late, unless matters have been clarified and the Government have made it clear to the shadow Radio

Column 600

Authority and the shadow ITC that they will not tolerate the sort of codes and guidelines that are beginning to appear, and which may multiply and take force on 1 January.

My usual feeling is that codes and guidelines should be kept well away from Government and Parliament. We set up bodies and expect them to act reasonably on our behalf. What happens if one or two bodies act in a way that has an effect diametrically opposite to that which has clearly been stated as desirable by my right hon. and learned Friend and by Parliament? I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give us the answer to that. I hope that, before 1 January, he will ensure that any threat to religious broadcasting organisations is well and truly removed for good.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : I join in this part of the debate with some humility because I wanted, like my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to be a member of the General Synod--but unfortunately, as a Conservative standing in Southwark, I failed to be elected. I regard myself as a member of the Synod, failed.

I stand firmly on the ground advocated by David Sheppard, Bishop of Liverpool. I recommend an article that he wrote in one of today's newspapers, in which he said indirectly that the most important part of religious broadcasting was the broadcasting and not the narrow casting that will come on cable.

Millions of people watch "Highway", "Songs of Praise", and the BBC's "Everyman". Such programmes reach far greater audiences than any of the specific religious Christian broadcasting channels are ever likely to reach. If the promotion of opportunities for radio broadcasting on specific religious channels and cable television lead to the major broadcasters-- independent television and the BBC--dropping their God slots and goodness corners, the loss to the people will be great.

We may not be faced with that choice--I do not have sufficient knowledge of the matter--but I do know that the fight for Radio 3 and the broadcasting elements for Christian and other great faiths has meant that people do not watch or listen only to the listings of their choice, but can come across elements of broadcasting almost as a surprise--and faith may do the same, not as the result of evangelism, but as a part of our national life.

Large-scale national religious broadcasting is vital. I cannot speak for the organisations in Stoke or Swindon. I have not listened to their output and I am not sure that I have read what they have sent to me--if, indeed, they have sent me anything. I respect my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) because they know what they are talking about in speaking up for the modification of the draft code, but I do not want the code to be modified so that, although we may gain a spread of local religious channels and stations, the national radio and television broadcasters will drop what is important to those of us who have or seek faith and who want religion to be reflected in national broadcasting.

Let us look at the United States and its three major national networks. There is an absence of what we in this country take for granted.

Next Section

Home Page