| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: I am grateful, Mr. Anderson. Thank you.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that I was in the Chamber at 2.30 this afternoon. I was hoping to catch your eye to come in on the back of Question 1 in the name of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who was not in his place. I am told that he was in his office throughout Transport questions. Is it not a grotesque discourtesy to the House that a Member should not be in the Chamber after he has tabled a question--
Madam Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for me whether Members are in the Chamber. I call their names if they are on the Order Paper, and that is the end of it.
Broadcasting (Religious Programming)
3.32 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove restrictions on the ownership by religious bodies of broadcasting licences and to clarify the role of the Radio Authority and the Independent Television Commission in relation to the religious content of programmes.
The Christianity of our society is embedded in our traditions, our history and, of course, our laws. We still have a law that requests and requires schools to have a daily act of religious worship. That Act may not be carried out in every instance in secondary schools, but our laws state that that is required. To that extent, we are a Christian society.
One would expect that to be reflected in our laws relating to broadcasting, but in fact religious broadcasters are put in a uniquely disadvantageous position. As more and more franchises become available, as more and more people are given the freedom to broadcast on cooking, travel or any other subject, and as the digital revolution progresses, one aspect of our society--religious broadcasting--is uniquely discriminated against and constrained.
The relevant statute that my Bill would amend is the Broadcasting Act 1990, which states in schedule 2 that no religious broadcaster may own a national radio licence or an ITV franchise, and, more importantly as the digital revolution unfolds, that no religious broadcaster may own a digital franchise. That places religious broadcasters in a uniquely disadvantaged position.
One can promote anything one likes. One can get a national radio licence to promote atheism, but one is prevented by law from promoting Christianity. The law is so draconian that, if a local vicar were asked to join the board of a television franchisee, that company would immediately lose its franchise. My Bill would repeal paragraph 2 of schedule 2 to the 1990 Act.
Under the law, United Christian Broadcasters, a small broadcaster in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), can broadcast gospel music, which is hardly alarming and is unlikely to undermine society, only to people who have a special decoder on their television set, which receives only the music, with no picture.
The situation is absurd and anomalous. That view is shared by 170 hon. Members from all parties who have signed a motion tabled by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central to try to put matters right.
There is only one Christian local radio station in London, Premier Radio. Why are there 50 religious radio stations in France, but only one in the United Kingdom? The reason is that the codes are so tight that, whereas politicians or anyone else can go on television or the radio to raise funds for charity, to make exclusive claims or to recruit, religious broadcasters are not allowed to do so. If a religious broadcaster manages to get round all the difficulties of the law, the codes are so tight that it is virtually impossible to produce an interesting programme.
What happens abroad? I have already described France. In no other country in the western world is religious broadcasting as tightly constrained as in this country. In America, there are 1,600 Christian radio stations. People say that we need stringent laws because of all the abuses that have occurred in America. However, in recent years, there have been only two cases of fraud by Christian broadcasters, who were rightly convicted of misleading the public. In any system, there will be a couple of bad apples. Why should all religious broadcasting--Christian, Jewish or Muslim--be banned, because of the fear that religious broadcasters, uniquely, will somehow bamboozle the public?
It could be argued that religious broadcasting is available on BBC 1 and other existing channels, but that is true only to a limited extent. For instance, people who are elderly or disabled or who live in remote part of the countryside may want a Sunday morning act of worship on television, but it is not available except on high days and holy days. It was not available even on Christmas day. The service is very limited. People must tune in to radio at 8.7 am; there is no televised morning service. Out of all the countless hours of game shows, chat shows, trivia, consumerism, violence and materialism, surely 40 minutes on Sundays for morning worship is not too much to ask of the BBC. It simply does not provide that.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West):
The existing law is anomalous, but we must address the question whether that anomaly gives rise to a particular benefit. There are Members present who would argue from different ends of the spectrum that there is a benefit--because Britain is either a secular or a multi-faith society--and that religious broadcasting is inappropriate. It is right, therefore, that those Members should express that view by voting to deny my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) leave to bring in his Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |