House of Commons Hansard Debates for 30 Jun 1997 (pt 22)

6.57 pm

Mr. John Whittingdale (Maldon and Chelmsford, East): This is the first occasion on which I have addressed the House from the Dispatch Box. I am happy to be able to contribute to the general harmony of this place by agreeing with the Secretary of State and saying that we support the regulations. Indeed, I understand that they were drafted under the last Conservative Government.

I convey the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who is in Hong Kong this evening, witnessing the handover. I have no doubt that he would otherwise have been replying to this short debate.

I do not believe that there is any need to detain the House on the regulations. The Secretary of State correctly explained that the first provision implements the European Court of Justice judgment, changing the basis on which the United Kingdom takes jurisdiction over a broadcaster. It is clearly sensible that that should be agreed common practice between member states. The European system--that jurisdiction is based on the country in which the broadcaster is established rather than the country from which the broadcaster happens to uplink--seems more appropriate. As I understand it, the change will have no effect on UK broadcasters and those broadcasting in the English language into the UK, merely removing an anomaly which could have been abused.

It is also worth noting that there have been suggestions that some other member states might have tried to challenge the UK's regulatory regime in an attempt to avoid having to accept broadcasts on the basis of an ITC licence alone. The change will remove that possibility so that, in future, ITC licences will be recognised without challenge across Europe.

On the second provision, the change is clearly beneficial. It will remove the distinction between domestic and non-domestic satellite services. Such a distinction is purely historic and has no relevance today. As a veteran of the Committee sittings on the

30 Jun 1997 : Column 76

Broadcasting Bill, I can say from experience that the distinction was a source of considerable confusion because, as the Secretary of State has explained, no domestic satellite services exist and all satellite broadcasts are defined as non-domestic. On occasion, that has given the impression that those companies responsible for satellite broadcasts into the United Kingdom are foreign and that they may not be subject to regulation.

Neither of those impressions is true. The best-known broadcaster, BSkyB, is a British company, which invests billions of pounds in this country and deserves proper recognition as such. United Kingdom satellite services are also rightly subject to licensing by the ITC and to scrutiny by the Broadcasting Standards Council. The new description of satellite television services is therefore both more accurate and more sensible.

The Secretary of State has explained in detail precisely the way in which the regulations will operate. We have no problems with anything that he has said and, on that basis, we are happy to support the motion.

7.1 pm

Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough): In the spirit of harmony, I, too, can say that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are very supportive of what is proposed. As a new Member, I must confess that the statement was one of the most confusing ever delivered, but I trust that, on reading it tomorrow, I will find it much clearer.

The Secretary of State will be aware of the hysterical press headlines that greeted the European Court of Justice ruling last year that satellite broadcasters should be licensed in the country in which they have their headquarters. One may make light of that, but there was a genuine fear that that interpretation would mean that broadcasting from countries with very liberal--I use that word in its true sense--laws, especially on child and other types of pornography, was allowed into the United Kingdom.

I have only two questions for the Secretary of State. First, will he continue to be able to proscribe a foreign satellite service that, in the opinion of the Independent Television Commission, would offend good taste and decency, as has always happened in the past? Could his answer go on record? Secondly, will he ensure that the provisions of the television without frontiers directive, which protects minors, will be rigorously applied?

7.2 pm

Mr. Chris Smith: With permission, I should first warmly welcome the hon. Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East (Mr. Whittingdale) to his new post and thank him for his welcome support for the motion. I likewise thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, for his support. I hasten to give him assurances on both the questions that he asked. The answer to both is yes.

As the hon. Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East said, it is of course sensible to do two things: first, there should be agreed common practice across Europe in relation to the definitions of where regulation should take place; and, secondly, the impression that domestic services are somehow foreign should be assisted by a much more accurate description--as well as unifying the two disparate definitions that we have at the moment.

30 Jun 1997 : Column 77

It may have seemed from my speech that the statement was one of the most confusing that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has ever heard, but I think that when he reads it in Hansard tomorrow morning he will find that it is a model of lucid clarity. With that in mind, I commend the very sensible and worthy regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved,

That the draft Satellite Television Service Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.

7.5 pm

Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford, West): I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of redundancies at Marconi Communications in my constituency. The issue is obviously extremely pressing and urgent for the people of Chelmsford and the mid-Essex area. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East (Mr. Whittingdale) is in his place. With me, he has been involved in the matter over the past two weeks or so, pursuing it at a ministerial level and with the trade unions and companies in Chelmsford.

It is a cruel irony that, when unemployment is falling significantly in the mid-Essex area, unemployment in my constituency is down from the height of 4,600 during the recession in the early 1990s to about 1,600 people, economic activity is picking up significantly and the retail sector is doing so well, once again we face a body blow of devastating proportions. Due to the ending of the cold war, the peace dividend and the world recession in the early 1990s--when the market became worldwide and far more competitive, and contracts were more difficult to win--535 redundancies at Marconi Communications have been announced, as well as the closing down of the Marconi college, with the loss of 46 jobs in the town.

It is true that Chelmsford, like other parts of the country, has paid a very heavy price for the peace dividend over the past few years. In fairness, it should be pointed out that, of all the defence-related industries in my constituency, Marconi Communications is less reliant on defence contracts, because it has been diversifying for many years and has of course benefited from a number of civilian contracts. None the less, due to the peace dividend and the contracting of the world market, it, too, has found it very difficult in the new, highly competitive market to win sufficient contracts to maintain the level of employment that it has enjoyed in the past.

To understand the impact of the redundancies, it would be sensible to put into context the history of the manufacturing base in the town and the surrounding area. Chelmsford has always been associated with Marconi companies. In my constituency, there is Marconi Communications, Marconi Radar and the English Electric Valve company. We used to have Marconi Phone and Marconi Marine, and of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East has Marconi Research in his constituency.

Chelmsford and Marconi have been synonymous ever since Marconi set up his factory in the town at the beginning of the century. Twenty years ago, the Marconi companies and English Electric Valve employed just over 11,000 people in the town--one of the main employers outside the local authorities based there--providing jobs not only directly but for all the back-up services. Over the past five and a half years, though, we have seen the all-too-dismal repetition of job losses in those companies.

In January 1992, 150 jobs were lost at Marconi Communications; in March 1992, 140 jobs were lost at Marconi Phones; in June 1992, 600 jobs were lost at Marconi Radar and 225 jobs at Marconi Communications;

30 Jun 1997 : Column 79

in February 1993, 95 jobs were lost at English Electric Valves; in July 1993, 300 jobs were lost at Marconi Radar; in 1994, 180 jobs were lost at Marconi Communications; and last year, a further 150 jobs were lost, also at Marconi Communications. In the past two weeks, we have felt the body blow of 535 further redundancies at Marconi Communications.

With the latest redundancies, some 3,500 people will be left working for GEC companies in the town, compared with the 11,000 of 20 years ago. Those figures show the decline in manufacturing jobs in defence-related industries in that time, with some 2,500 of those jobs going in the past five and a half years. Marconi Communications' work force will have been halved to slightly more than 500 when the current redundancies have worked through the system in the next two years. I fear that the redundancies will be front loaded, and a majority of them will occur in the early months of those two years.

Behind that dismal story is a more worrying factor--the erosion of the manufacturing base in the town. The 600 redundancies at Marconi Radar that I mentioned earlier meant the elimination of manufacturing in the town when GEC moved that activity to Leicester. Worryingly, the majority of the redundancies that have been announced at Marconi Communications represents the remaining manufacturing base at that firm. If and when they go, the manufacturing base as we know it will go, and only an assembly line and research and development will remain. That would be a grievous loss for the town and for the industrial base in mid-Essex.

Two challenges face us before the redundancies come into effect. First, we must try to salvage what we can of the manufacturing side of Marconi Communications; secondly, we must provide every assistance possible to those facing redundancy to maximise their potential to get back to work as quickly as possible. I shall deal with those challenges in order.

On the question of manufacturing, I hope that, even at this late stage, Marconi Communications will be prepared to think again. I met the trade union representatives on Friday, and my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East will meet them on Thursday. I have written to the managing director of Marconi Communications requesting a meeting with my hon. Friend, me and the trade union representatives to discuss whether it is possible for the firm to reconsider its decision. I understand that no company makes people redundant lightly. It is done because of economic circumstances. However, because Marconi will continue to assemble products on the site, it is worth asking the company to reconsider its decision.

I wish to suggest a number of options that may provide a way forward, although I know that it is not the Government's role to create jobs per se. It never has been, and it would be foolish of me, simply because we no longer have a Conservative Government, to change my long-held view and start blaming this Government for what has happened. Governments can--indeed, it is a fundamental responsibility of Governments, regardless of their political complexion--create the economic climate in which jobs can be created.