| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Plan Colombia
11. Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster, Central): What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Plan Colombia; and what assistance Her Majesty's Government are giving to it. [125214]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): The Foreign and Commonwealth Office hosted a meeting on Monday 19 June to help to examine ways in which the international community can help the Colombian Government to take forward the difficult peace process, and we invited non-governmental organisations to participate and give a presentation at the meeting. The meeting paid particular attention to the need to improve human rights and the rule of law, to prevent further degradation of the environment and to combat illegal drugs production and trafficking.
Ms Winterton: Will my hon. Friend indicate exactly how Plan Colombia will help the Colombian Government in their fight against the drug barons, who are funding the activities of guerrillas and paramilitaries? What are the
United Kingdom Government doing to encourage other countries to assist the Colombian Government in their battle against the drug barons and the activities that go with them?
Mr. Battle: Our purpose is to address not only drug trafficking but the whole social and economic development of Colombia, which is what President Pastrana requested when he visited in April. I ought to make it plain that no assistance has been given by any EU member state or ourselves under Plan Colombia, and no pledges have been given. We shall discuss a range of proposals with EU countries and others at a conference in Madrid on 6 and 7 July. However, as everyone present on Monday agreed, our purpose is to address the fact that there may be a window of opportunity for the international community to support the peace process as a whole.
We are especially interested in specific social and economic proposals, which means that we must examine how any plan gives strong emphasis to supporting human rights in Colombia and pays clear attention to the issue of paramilitaries, sending strong messages about impunity, kidnapping, and collusion between armed forces and paramilitaries. There is also a need to ensure that the economic and social development of Colombia works for the ordinary poor people of Colombia in the long term. That is our aim and the purpose of the process, which we have taken the initiative to push further forward. It will be a long-term process, and we hope that it will continue and be sustained in Madrid with our partners.
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam): The Minister will be aware of many well-sourced allegations of collusion between the Colombian military and the paramilitary forces that are killing civilians, including those at peace communities such as Apartado. Does the Minister agree that it would be appalling if any assistance from the UK to the Colombian Government under Plan Colombia were to be given via the Colombian military--perhaps in spite of the wishes of the Colombian Government--who might then be found to be assisting the paramilitaries in carrying out civilian killings? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will make the matter a priority in their negotiations, and will seek to extract guarantees that such events will not happen?
Mr. Battle: The answer is yes. Amnesty International and others have recorded some 24,000 murders in Colombia, so the level of violence is intimidating and, frankly, incredible. We have made it plain that we should support the efforts of the Colombian Government to get a grip on paramilitaries. I want to emphasise the fact that the purpose of the discussions is to suggest that in returning to decent civilian administration, Colombia needs to engage rather more at ground floor level. Indeed, we have encouraged it to engage with NGOs locally.
The Colombians present at yesterday's meeting took on board both those messages. Certainly, Colombia needs to get to grips with the paramilitaries and involve NGOs in
the future development of any plans, as it is vital that NGOs' interests in the design and implementation of those plans are now brought to the forefront.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): Is the Minister saying that Plan Colombia and support from other EU countries was not covered at the summit in Portugal today? Will he assist the House by telling us what plans there are to find alternative agricultural crops for Colombians to harvest?
Mr. Battle: I gather that the matter was mentioned at the margins of the Portugal summit. However, a conference in Madrid has already been arranged for 6 and 7 July to discuss what is broadly described as Plan Colombia. We are trying to see how to extend support for that plan and ensure that is clearly focused on the alleviation of poverty, as well as other social and economic objectives.
In response to the hon. Lady's question, I would add that we need to consider appropriate development of alternative crops. In the past, unsavoury alternatives were suggested in some cases. That is not the way forward, and we must consider crops that enable ordinary farmers to earn a just living, to go to market and to feel that they are not blighting the world. Sadly, most of the cocaine that gets on to the streets of Britain's towns and cities comes from Colombia, and it is in everyone's interest to come up with alternatives and make them work.
Mr. Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale, East): In my hon. Friend's discussions on Plan Colombia, will he continue to argue that it should be centred on the protection of human rights, and should not simply become a US-led military strategy?
Mr. Battle: I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend has visited Colombia and takes a great interest in such matters. We look forward to his continuing contribution to our conversations and discussions, and I completely concur with his comment.
China (Human Rights)
12. Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): What recent assessment he has made of his policy of constructive engagement with China in terms of human rights, with particular reference to Tibet. [125215]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): The bilateral human rights dialogue with China enables us to discuss in depth and critically a wide range of human rights issues, with particular emphasis on Tibet. We continue to press the Chinese to allow greater freedoms in Tibet, and to engage in a dialogue with the Tibetan people, including the Dalai Lama, on a long-term political and peaceful solution there. We welcome the small steps towards opening up Tibet; we have recently persuaded the Chinese to accept the visit of the all-party group on Tibet.
Mr. Baker: That all sounds very grand, but has not the Foreign Office policy been an abject failure? While the Chinese have been signing lots of bits of paper, the human rights situation in Tibet has deteriorated markedly.
The Chinese Government calculate that trade is more important to the UK and other western countries than are human rights, which can be jettisoned. Will human rights be a consideration when the World Trade Organisation makes a decision on China's entry? Will the Foreign Office provide funds to support the all-party group's visit to Tibet?
Mr. Battle: I make it plain that it is not, and never has been, Foreign Office practice to supply funding for visits made by all-party country groups. Our conversations with the Chinese have had some impact; for example, we have now arranged for the Foreign Secretary's death penalty
panel to consider the abolition of the death penalty in China, and now have to determine only the date of the panel's visit. We persuaded the Chinese to allow the all-party group to visit, and it is up to those involved to make the arrangements. We managed to get them to co-operate with the International Committee of the Red Cross on prison visiting.Progress is pitifully slow. Only this morning, I invited Ambassador Ma to my office to make another representation on a human rights case. We shall certainly not be fearful of making such representations, but it is better to engage so that we can make them, rather than facing a shut door.
Point of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have the Government indicated to you whether they will be responding to the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) for a statement on the fate of Major Andrew Harrison? Following his release from capture and torture, he is still in an area controlled by rebels in Sierra Leone and, as our troops withdraw, the House will want to know of his fate.
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that any Minister is seeking to make a statement or to make any response today. The hon. Gentleman knows that if a statement is to be made, it is usually on the Annunciator by lunchtime.
Subscription Television (Prevention of Monopoly Sports Broadcasts)
3.32 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent providers of subscription broadcast services from acquiring sole rights to live broadcast of sporting events.
I know how irrational soccer fans can be because I am just as irrational in making decisions about how much money I am prepared to spend to watch cricket. It may be that English cricket, soccer and rugby fans are a breed apart. We will still be coming back for more, however England performs. The sad fact is that Sky knows that and is earning a fortune from the monopoly position that the House is enabling it to enjoy. The time has come to protect the interests of the consumer who is at the mercy of a monopoly supplier.
As I have implied, I have an interest to declare. I am a consumer of Sky's sporting package, and the Bill was prompted by that personal experience. It seemed to me, when dealing with Sky to establish or repair the service, that the arrangements were wholly inflexible and designed to suit its interests, and not mine. Sky gave appointment days rather than times for engineers, and made dates to suit its schedule, rather than mine--and that was after waiting ages on the telephone and in addition to the unfailing ability of the service to collapse when one really wanted to watch it.
It is clear that I am not alone. The Scottish Sunday Mail consumer affairs columnist wrote in April:
- If I had to nominate the worst company in Scotland for customer service, the dubious honour would go to Sky Television. By a mile.
One correspondent successfully arranged to have the engineer turn up on her day off work. She said:
- We waited all day. When I phoned Sky, they told me it had all been cancelled but couldn't tell me why. Surely this is no way to treat new customers? I would like to be connected because they still have my £80. But after six months, I don't know what will happen.
Millions of British people have proved to be such enthusiastic sports fans that they will pay the subscriptions to watch those events live. Sky alone has 8.6 million subscribers, and the number is rising fast. That represents subscription income of about £3 billion a year. Our legislation has put fans at the mercy of a monopoly. That monopoly has the potential to exploit the interest and enthusiasm of those fans for its own gain. Without competition, the monopoly is exercising its power, as shown in the price that it demands and the often rotten customer service that it delivers.
The Bill is a vehicle to protect consumers from exploitation. It is a limited measure, in which it is acknowledged that a variety of interests have to be balanced. The owners of the rights to the sports have a right to try to maximise their income. There is a national interest in ensuring access to such great sporting events as part of the glue of common experience that holds a nation together. There is also a national interest in ensuring that sporting opportunities are developed for all. Incidentally, the owners of the sporting rights believe that the voluntary code of the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which involves investing at least 5 per cent. of the revenue from the broadcasting rights into grass roots sports, discharges that responsibility--but I do not; that target is feeble.
The viewers also have interests, which were acknowledged when the Broadcasting Act 1996 was considered in Committee. The then Minister of State, Department of National Heritage, Iain Sproat, said:
- it is no use saying, "We completely disregard viewers' interests. We shall allow whoever has the most money to buy up all the sports and to show them to the 18 per cent. of people who have cable or satellite." A balance has to be struck.--[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 June 1996; c. 564.]
The revolutionary rise of satellite, cable and digital multi-channel television has brought exciting opportunities. Benefits have already flowed from the competition between terrestrial broadcasters and the satellite broadcaster. There has been a substantial increase in sports coverage in terms of transmission time, the type of sport and the variety and quality of coverage, but the deck is now stacked heavily against the terrestrial broadcasters and the pockets of the viewing public.
My Bill would build on the framework of the 1996 Act; it would add another dimension of competition, which would protect viewers' interests and further enhance the quality of coverage. It would do that by abolishing monopoly rights to broadcast listed events by subscription broadcasters. It would introduce horizontal competition in the broadcasting of those events, as well as vertical competition to secure rights to broadcast them live.
My Bill would ensure that unless a category A broadcaster--that is, those channels to which access is universal and free--has the rights to broadcast a listed event live, at least two different subscription broadcasters must have the rights to broadcast the major listed sporting events live. Those paying subscription charges for satellite television have the right to expect some competition and to have at least some ability to shop around for the leading sporting events.
Cricket test matches, the cricket world cup, the open golf championship, the Ryder cup, non-finals play at Wimbledon, the rugby world cup, the six nations rugby tournament--which involves the home countries--the Commonwealth games and the world athletics championships could all be prised from terrestrial live transmission and placed with a monopoly subscription supplier, yet they are already listed as events meriting access for the wider public.
English football is the biggest television sport on the planet and the premiership is at its heart. I believe that premiership football should be subject to the competition and choice that my Bill would provide, so I would like that popular championship to be added to the group B list. However, under the Bill, that would remain a matter for the Secretary of State. All that the Bill seeks to achieve is a choice for enthusiastic sports viewers. It is time to protect the public from a monopoly supplier.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Crispin Blunt, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Martin Bell, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Andrew Reed, Mr. Desmond Swayne, Mr. Nicholas Winterton and Tony Wright.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |