| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that reply. Does he agree that there is much more likelihood of the whole of Europe acting en bloc and being able to negotiate properly with the United States for a balanced open skies policy, which would include the fifth freedom opportunities within the United States, if Europe acted altogether rather than individually, with the United States playing off one member state against another?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, our purpose in the negotiations with the United States of America is best to advance the interests of UK consumers, airlines and the wider economy. We shall make judgments in relation to how best to negotiate with the United States of America with that as our touchstone.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the interests of consumers and airlines, whether best served by the present arrangements or open skies, need a functioning air traffic control system? Can he
tell the House whether the Government have now finally agreed to make funds available to secure NATS' financial position; and if so, how much?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is fairly wide of the Question. However, I agree with the principle that obviously a properly functioning air traffic control system is vital; and that is what we have provided.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be better to negotiate the open skies agreements, particularly with the United States, on a wider European basis rather than rely on individual airlines to make arrangements with American airlines, which could cut across all our ideas of what is right in terms of company structure, monopolies, and so forth?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is a similar question to the one asked by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The answer I gave is that our touchstone in deciding how best to negotiate is what will be in the best interests of UK consumers, airlines and the wider economy. There is no single answer to that. We shall make our judgment in relation to that touchstone.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I speak on behalf of the British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA), of which I am president. Does my noble and learned friend agree—I am sure that he does—that the attitude of the Government is right? It is no good anticipating the views of the court at this time. All that has happened is that the Advocate-General has given his opinion. That being the case, I do not believe that the Government should act on that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the attitude of the Government is right. What we have at present is simply the opinion of the Advocate-General, which does not lay down the judgment of the court. The right thing for the Government to do is to ensure that they look all the time to see what is in the best interests of UK consumers, airlines and the wider economy.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, what is the outcome of the Government's negotiations in liberalising the UK and US aviation markets? I understand that the Minister's right honourable friend Mr Spellar flew in Concorde to Washington in November last year to commence those negotiations. What is the outcome of the negotiations, or have they failed?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Lord must know, those negotiations have been going on for 10 years. They were started by the previous government and no conclusion has yet been reached in relation to them.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, further to the Minister's reply to his noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, can he give many examples where the court has
not agreed with the Advocate-General? Secondly, can the noble Lord give the House any reason for confidence that the European Union will be better at running these open skies agreements than it is at running anything else?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, yes, I can give examples of where the court has not followed the Advocate-General. But not now. So far as concerns the best way of conducting these negotiations, I return to the point that we must make judgments about how they are conducted, having regard to the interests of the aviation industry, the UK consumer and the wider economy.
Al-Jazeera Broadcasts in the UK
2.50 p.m.
Lord Campbell-Savours asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is their view on the broadcasting on Channel 674 digital television of Al-Jazeera in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, we value the increasing choice available on digital satellite platforms. In particular, we value the contribution made by Al-Jazeera and other Arab satellite channels to the encouragement of debate about political and social issues affecting the Middle East. Ministers and officials have been able, through the Arab satellite media, to convey messages about British policy to a wide audience.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that Al-Jazeera is available throughout the United Kingdom on Channel 674 on Sky digital television. Would my noble friend be prepared to approach the authorities in Qatar who are responsible for transmitting this service and ask them whether they would be prepared to provide an English subtitled news broadcast or news bulletins so that people within the United Kingdom who are interested in these matters can follow Al-Jazeera, and, in particular, the Islamic interpretation of world events and affairs?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am aware that Al-Jazeera can be watched on Sky digital channels in the UK. Al-Jazeera is licensed to broadcast in Europe by the CSA in Paris. It is the equivalent of the ITC in the UK. A large proportion of its potential European audience are French rather than English speakers. It would be for the CSA as the licensing authority to address the issue of either non-Arabic bulletins or subtitling with the board of Al-Jazeera and not the UK Government or even the ITC.
Growth and Stability Pact
2.52 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they consider themselves bound by the growth and stability pact.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, under Article 116(4) of the EU treaty, the UK shall,
- "endeavour to avoid excessive [government] deficits".
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he saying that we need not take the growth and stability pact terribly seriously unless we are foolish enough to join the euro-zone? If that happens, is it right that we will be much more tightly bound by the growth and stability pact and by the fines to which we are not currently liable as we are not in the euro-zone? If we join the euro-zone and are bound by the rules of the growth and stability pact, will that not severely limit any ability of this or any future Chancellor of this country to use his spending plans as he sees fit in the best interests of this country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, without being thought to accept the language used by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, in his question, let me make it clear, as the Chancellor did only last week, that we support the growth and stability pact subject to prudent reforms to ensure that it takes account of the economic cycle, of sustainability of debt and of public investment. We have been in conformity with the growth and stability pact since its inception in 1998.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, did the Minister's original Answer to the Question mean "yes" or "no"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as we are now in stage 2 of economic and monetary union we shall endeavour to avoid excessive government deficit. That is one part of the answer. If and when we move to the third stage of EMU we shall be bound by it. The answer to the Question was precise, accurate and much better than "yes" or "no".
Lord Peston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that all contemporary thinking on fiscal policy comes to the conclusion that it should be conducted according to a set of rules and should not be ad hoc or gratuitous, as it used to be? The growth and stability pact is a very good example of conducting fiscal policy according to a set of rules. The one thing that this country does not need is to abandon rules in which to engage in fiscal policy. Therefore, the question seems to me at least—and I hope that my noble friend will agree with me; he usually does—to be completely misplaced in its understanding of modern thinking.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that the question was a purely factual one; to which I
gave a factual answer. I agree with the thinking behind my noble friend's question. Yes, of course it is important that fiscal policy is conducted in accordance with rules. Our fiscal policy is conducted in accordance with fiscal rules which are those most suited to our needs. The European fiscal policy is conducted in conformity with the growth and stability pact which is, we believe—subject to the reservations which the Chancellor has made clear—appropriate for its purposes.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |