| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
25 Feb 2003 : Column 221—continued
6.45 pm
The new clause does not include the changes proposed in clause 347(1). We are still not sure what those proposals are intended to achieve—no clear explanation was given in Committee—but they appear to add to the uncertainty that we are trying to remove. After all, if a person is to be judged according to whether he can get his own wishes carried out, he will be so judged whether or not he actually does that. In so far as clause 347(1) is an attempt to extend the definition of control to cases of limited control, it clearly adds to the uncertainty.
What is meant by the word "significant"? What will happen if individuals take a genuine view that something is not significant, but Ofcom takes the view that it is significant? For example, finance directors can determine many significant financial dealings without generally being thought to control the company. Most executive directors make executive decisions of some importance. Are all those directors to be considered as controllers now?
Any director with specific managerial responsibilities is likely to be able to get the company to carry out his wishes so far as they relate to those responsibilities, but can that director be described, in all seriousness, as controlling the company just because he has that kind of influence? We think not. The proposals in clause 347(1) appear to extend the notion of control to almost anyone with any influence. The Government need to give much more information to justify those proposals.
The final part of the new clause—subsection (5)—would move what is now subsection (5)(1) of part 1 of schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990 into part 2 of that schedule. That is intended to clarify the meaning of subsection (5)(1), which, if left where it is, appears at first sight to have a much broader application.
I now turn to amendment No. 184, which relates to the ownership of ITN by ITV. Colleagues will know that the 1990 legislation introduced the requirement for a majority shareholding in ITN not to be owned by ITV companies. As I made clear in Committee, I opposed those measures in the 1990 legislation against my own Government from the Back Benches, and the consequences that I predicted, chief among which was reduced investment by ITV in ITN, have come true. We can see no logical argument as to why ITV, or Channel 3, should not own its own news services in precisely the way that the BBC does.
The Minister will know that I teased him in Committee by suggesting that perhaps he might like to ring up Mr. Greg Dyke and say that, in future, BBC news will be provided by someone else. That is not a case of BBC bashing; on the contrary, I am simply asking why, if the channel funded by public money is allowed to own its news provider, a commercial channel, which has no public money and pays money into the Treasury, is not.
The changes in the 1990 legislation were intended to give ITN access to increased investment in news programming, but the opposite is the case, as ITN has
to bid competitively on price with other news providers and, in the latest competitive round, against Sky News. That drives down the price that ITV has to pay to ITN, thereby reducing investment. The result is that the investment value of the ITN contract from ITV went down from £80 million to just £38.5 million. In consequence, the value of non-ITV majority ownership is also undermined. So we propose in amendment No. 184 that we should sweep away the provisions in the 1990 Act to require a majority shareholding from non-Channel 3 companies.I want to remind Labour Members, should we have the opportunity to vote on this matter, of what happened when it was discussed in the 1990 Committee. All the spokespersons of the then Labour Opposition spoke generally against the provisions, including the current Secretary of State for Transport and several prominent Back Benchers, as did the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru spokespersons. The only two Conservative Members who were able to speak in favour of the proposal were Mr. David Mellor and Mrs. Edwina Currie. Not only will Labour Members therefore be in extraordinary company if they continue to support the proposal but, if they stick with it, the lesson is that they will lose their seat at the next election, although they will have a career in radio—
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): Egg on their face!
Mr. Greenway: As the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, they could get egg on their face. There are many more jokes that could be made.
In all seriousness, ITN itself wants the system scrapped—it is not just ITV Channel 3 companies saying that they would prefer to own their news provider. ITN can see that the time to reverse the proposal has come. Even if the nominated news provider system is retained, which is dealt with in another range of amendments and new clauses that we are unlikely to reach, amendment No. 184, which I commend to the House, at least scraps the nonsense of having to have majority shareholders other than those from ITV companies.
Finally, I come to amendment No. 179, which deals with an issue that I am sure will be familiar to every right hon. and hon. Member in the Chamber this evening: the vexed question of the existing restrictions on ownership of broadcast channels applying to religious organisations. I am sure that every Member present has received representations on the matter, and the Opposition have believed for some time that that unjustified discrimination should end. The amendment provides an opportunity for the Government to signal that they agree.
Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire): I am grateful to my hon. Friend—and to other hon. Friends on the Front Bench—for tabling the amendment. I congratulate him on supporting the removal of broadcasting disqualifications for religious bodies. Does he agree that if amendment No. 170 is defeated tonight, the House should have a further opportunity on Report to discuss amendment No. 86 to clause 4? That will allow the supposed reasons for the disqualification of religious broadcasters to be debated in the House.
Furthermore, does he agree that it is out of order that religious broadcasters are still disqualified from using eight different types of licence under the Bill as it stands?
Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that he is right—subject to your selection of amendments for the second day of Report, Mr. Speaker—that we may have an opportunity to consider this matter again. As we are almost out of time, other hon. Members who might have wanted to contribute on this matter may wish to take that opportunity. My hon. Friend is also right that there are several broadcast stations that religious organisations are prohibited from owning. We are in danger of dismissing the arguments of religious organisations, so the Government should take a much more realistic view of the requests of those organisations. They are not asking to be awarded licences; they are asking to have the opportunity to apply for licences and to make their case in the same way as everyone else.
We understand that the Centre for Justice and Liberty has expressed gratitude to the Government for allowing religious organisations to apply for digital programme services. However, that is not the request of such organisations. Instead of having to apply under exceptional determinations while still being disqualified, why cannot the religious disqualification be removed so that religious organisations can apply for licences on a level playing field with other citizens and secular competitors? That is what amendment No. 179 seeks to achieve.
The religious organisations ask why they cannot have the same rights in our communications and broadcasting law that are proposed for citizens of non-EU member states, such as Mexico, the USA and Canada. That is a fair point. Why is a profession entered into by people as a vocation to serve the community rewarded by the Government with a legal disqualification? That is what happens for practitioners of this profession. Disqualification means, at the starting point in law, that religious organisations do not have the right to apply to broadcast.
This issue has been long debated and the arguments are not unlike those that my hon. Friends have made in respect of the BBC audit. The matter has been under discussion for a long time, and we strongly believe that this part of our broadcasting law is no longer justified. The time has come for the Government to grasp the issue, so I commend amendment No. 179 to the House.
Mr. Mullin : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can assist me. There are relating major issues in the Bill to ownership—an issue on which we were just about to touch—but they have not been discussed either on Report or in Committee. However, a further day has been allocated for consideration of the Bill, so would it be possible to amend the timetable so that debate on the amendments dealing with ownership could be carried over?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to say to him that I am bound by the programme motion
to which the House agreed. How we proceed is a matter for the House. I am therefore bound by the programme motion.
Mr. Greenway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I remind the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and the House that the programme motion originally agreed by the House allowed for only one day of debate and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not going into that, because I must allow the new clause that the hon. Gentleman has moved to be debated.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |