§ Lord Aveburyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the refusal by the Independent Television Commission to allow witnesses called by MED TV in proceedings held to decide whether MED TV's licence should be revoked under Section 89 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 on Friday 8 April, they will seek to amend Section 89 so as to require the ITC to hear any witnesses brought by the appellants to show why it is not necessary in the public interest to revoke the licence; and [HL1945]
Whether they will amend Section 89 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 so as to provide that any hearing at which a licence-holder makes representations to the Independent Television Commission under Section 89(2)(b) takes place in public; and [HL1946]
Whether they will seek to amend Section 89 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 so as to provide that in considering, under subsection (3), whether it is necessary in the public interest to revoke the licence in question, the Independent Television Commission should have regard to (a) the likelihood of crimes being committed or disorders arising as a result of the programmes mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of that section; (b) the availability of other broadcasts in the languages of the programmes mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of that section; and (c) the availability of other broadcasts from a similar ideological or cultural perspective to that holder of the licence. [HL2002]
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyThe Government have no plans to amend Section 89 of the Broadcasting Act 1996. It is for the ITC to determine how it deals with representations about matters to do with the revocation of a licence. I understand that the ITC heard and considered representations from MED TV before reaching a decision and had advised MED TV in advance what representations would be allowed under its procedures. The ITC announced its decision on 23 April to revoke the broadcaster's licence.