| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.36 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): I begin by apologising on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State--who, of course, cannot intervene in my speech. She had intended to offer apologies for hon. Members from Northern Ireland who were unable, because of air traffic delays in Belfast, to get to the House for this debate.
The debate was short, but, none the less, it was constructive and informed. The hon. Members for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) both mentioned the fact that it has been almost a quarter of a century since Great Britain has had direct rule over the affairs of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Bracknell also asked why an hon. Member such as myself, who represents a south Wales constituency, or himself, who represents a constituency in England, should be dealing with the daily matters of government of Northern Ireland. I believe that Northern Ireland deserves a proper, good and balanced constitutional settlement and, in this debate, many hon. Members have said the same.
The hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for Bracknell mentioned problems with the Select Committee, with the Grand Committee and with local government. I should tell them that members of the Select Committee will soon be appointed and that the exact nature and details of the Grand Committee is being reviewed. Only this afternoon, for example, we discussed the Scottish Grand Committee. There is, therefore, no question but that we will soon deal with a Grand Committee.
Mr. Trimble:
Will the Minister explain what he means by the word "reviewed"? A Grand Committee has been established and rules of procedure have been agreed and are in the Order Paper. What is preventing the Government from establishing a Grand Committee and referring matters to it, as has been done for Scotland and Wales? Week after week, at business questions, my hon.
Mr. Murphy:
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there are no problems in principle with the Grand Committee. As he knows, the previous Government made changes at the very end of the last Session. The present Government are examining the details of those changes, but the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Grand Committee will be established.
Let me also refer to the problems involving local government and Orders in Council. We regret those constitutional difficulties. They arise because a proper settlement has not yet been reached in Northern Ireland. When that occurs, the British Parliament will be able to say that the people of Northern Ireland will have their own arrangements. That is what the talks in Belfast that resume tomorrow are all about.
The Government's programme includes constitutional developments in Scotland and Wales, where there are to be referendums for the Parliament and the Assembly. Although the pace of constitutional settlement should allow for the inclusion of Northern Ireland, as all hon. Members know, that pace depends on what happens in the talks and in Castle buildings in the weeks ahead. We must move on to substantive issues as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to the problems of decommissioning, which will be examined in the talks in the next few weeks. At the end of the day, it will be for the participants in those talks--including all the parties represented--to resolve those matters. The proposals put forward by the two Governments offer the way ahead.
Mr. Maginnis:
The Minister oversimplifies matters when he says that it will be for the parties to the talks to decide how we proceed. It is necessary that the disarmament commission should be put in place. That is the responsibility of the British Government in consultation with the Government of the Irish Republic. Can the Minister tell us now whether we have reached the stage of identifying a single member of that commission or whether, in fact, he is contravening article 4(e) of his own decommissioning paper by not having taken a decision on that?
Mr. Murphy:
I agree that there has to be swift action regarding appointments to such bodies. That is vital. I also agree that there should be regular two-monthly assessments in the review procedure that we are discussing tomorrow and that all those matters should be speedily resolved. However, all that will depend on the participants in the talks in Belfast. I hope and pray that those decisions will be made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made many interesting points. I pay tribute to all his commitment and dedication over the years on Northern Ireland matters. On the specific points he raised, obviously the triple lock applies and the principle of consent is vital to all matters involving Northern Ireland. Consent is vital and the triple lock is built in. They are the essential building blocks of any settlement that we reach.
We want Sinn Fein to be involved in the talks, and Sinn Fein knows what to do in order to be there. It needs to renounce violence and unequivocally restore the ceasefire of 1994.
Rev. Martin Smyth:
The Minister was responding to the points raised by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) who referred to a quid pro quo arising out of the Prime Minister's speech on articles 2 and 3. Is there a suggestion, for example, that the United Kingdom should give up any claim on Rockall? There does not seem to be another quid pro quo, as there is no other claim by this nation on the territory of the Republic.
Mr. Murphy:
The issue of east-west relations has to be examined properly. The hon. Gentleman is aware that that has to be carried out in all seriousness. I am sure that the issues will be addressed in the weeks and months ahead.
All hon. Members agree that the bomb and the ballot box do not mix. The talks will continue--if necessary, without Sinn Fein. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made that clear, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has shown remarkable energy and courage in trying to make progress in regard to the parades. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) said what many of us think--that we should pay tribute to the parish priest of Harryville. I was delighted that he was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
We urge restraint on those who think that disorder will resolve the issue. We urge dialogue so that a local accommodation can be achieved and we urge all those who wield influence in Northern Ireland--whether it is economic, political or religious--to use all their skills to prevent confrontation in the weeks ahead.
Our comprehensive spending review provides the opportunity for people in Northern Ireland from all walks of life to let us know where their spending priorities lie. I am hopeful that this week's Budget will contain proposals to take thousands of young people in Northern Ireland from welfare to work.
The next few weeks will be testing ones for everyone in Northern Ireland. They will also be crucial for our country. Although there have been few Members in the Chamber, the world will be watching what occurs in Northern Ireland in the next two or three weeks.
We hope that the talks will move ahead quickly, that they will include all parties in Northern Ireland and that, by this time next year, we shall be well on our way to achieving a lasting and balanced constitutional settlement for everyone in Northern Ireland. I understand the problems of hon. Members on both sides of the House in coming to terms with the difficulties that we all face, but when we meet in Castle buildings tomorrow, and doubtless meet again between now and the recess, there will be a responsibility for everyone at the talks, including the two Governments, to ensure that we reach a resolution on the decommissioning project. Only then will we be able to move on to the substantive constitutional issues that exercise the minds of all who are interested in the future good governance of Northern Ireland. To that end, I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Chris Smith):
I beg to move,
In brief, the Court found that the United Kingdom had failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive by misinterpreting the basis on which satellite broadcasters fell within United Kingdom jurisdiction, by applying different licensing regimes to domestic and non-domestic satellite services and by exercising control over broadcasts transmitted by broadcasters falling within the jurisdiction of other member states.
This is an opportune moment to debate the regulations, as a revised version of the broadcasting directive was recently adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.
The broadcasting directive is a single market instrument that governs transfrontier television broadcasting within the European Union. For it to work effectively, it is essential that certain elements are implemented in a common manner by all member states. One such element is the determination of which country should have jurisdiction over a broadcaster.
In the United Kingdom, the Independent Television Commission licenses and regulates all broadcasters that come under UK jurisdiction, with the exception of the BBC and S4C. Other countries operate different systems, but from the European Union perspective, the crucial factor is that each broadcaster should come under the jurisdiction of only one member state. To achieve that, it is clearly essential that a single system of determining jurisdiction is in operation throughout the Community.
That is where a problem arose. The wording of the 1989 directive was ambiguous. When member states came to implement the directive at national level, differing interpretations of the provisions on jurisdiction were exposed. The UK chose to use satellite uplink as the basis of jurisdiction. That was the criterion used in the Council of Europe's convention on transfrontier television, which predated the directive and was, to some extent, a model for European broadcasting regulation. Other member states, however, used the broadcaster's place of establishment.
Establishment and uplink are both fairly complex issues, but in simple terms, establishment concerns the place in which an organisation is based. The place of establishment of a broadcaster is generally held to be the place in which it has its head office and where decisions about programming content are made. Uplink is the technical process whereby programmes are broadcast from a specific transmitter on the earth to a satellite, from where they are subsequently downlinked back to satellite receptors on earth.
The situation did not cause too many practical problems, because the vast majority of services uplinked from the UK are by broadcasters also established in the UK. Nevertheless, it was clearly necessary to have a common interpretation throughout the EU to ensure that a member state, or its regulator, would know which Government were the sole licensing authority. Monitoring the implementation of directives, the European Commission considered that, by using uplink as the basis of jurisdiction, the UK had misinterpreted the broadcasting directive. In 1992, therefore, it initiated the legal infractions process.
In responding to the Commission, the Government of the day took the view that the UK had implemented the directive properly. The legal process was pursued through its various stages, culminating in the judgment of the European Court of Justice last September. The judgment recognised that the existing directive was ambiguous, but found that establishment was the correct basis for determining jurisdiction. The regulations implement the Court's judgment by changing the basis of jurisdiction over broadcasters from uplink to establishment.
We now also have the benefit of the revisions to the 1989 directive, including article 2, where the ambiguity to which I referred is removed. The revised directive, which was adopted by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament earlier this month, states clearly that establishment shall be the basis of jurisdiction and sets out a hierarchy of criteria for defining the place of establishment of broadcasters. These regulations can now be read alongside the detailed guidance in the revised directive.
The practical effect of the change is minimal. According to the Independent Television Commission, of the more than 150 broadcasters currently holding satellite broadcasting licences, only half a dozen at most will be affected.
In the second part of its judgment, creating a single satellite licensing regime, the European Court of Justice found that the UK had unlawfully established two licensing regimes for satellite broadcasting in the Broadcasting Act 1990. Domestic satellite services were defined as those that used UK frequencies and were designed for general reception in the UK. Non-domestic satellite services were those that did not use UK frequencies and were intended for general reception in the UK and elsewhere. The Court's judgment found that the distinction between those two regimes was discriminatory and that the UK was favouring its own viewers by imposing a more rigorous content regime on domestic satellite service licensees.
That had not been the intention or the effect of the UK's distinction between the two regimes. The large majority of the more than 150 licensed non-domestic satellite services use non-UK frequencies, but broadcast wholly or mainly to UK audiences. The different domestic satellite regime merely applies to UK satellite frequencies the kind of procedure applied for commercial UK terrestrial broadcasting frequencies--bids for the use of the spectrum and controls on content reflecting the scarcity of the resource.
Nevertheless, under the revised directive the UK clearly must license all satellite broadcasters established in the UK on the same basis. The regulations accordingly remove the distinction between the two types of satellite
service. The consequence of the change is to abolish the domestic satellite service regime and to rename the non-domestic satellite service. Licences issued under the new unified regime will be known as satellite television service licences.
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.
30 Jun 1997 : Column 73
6.46 pm
That the draft Satellite Television Service Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.
The regulations have been laid before the House under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Their purpose is to implement a judgment of the European Court of Justice concerning the United Kingdom's implementation of articles 2(1), 2(2) and 3(2) of the 1989 broadcasting directive, which is perhaps better known in the House and elsewhere as the "television without frontiers" directive.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |