Broadcasting

HC Deb 13 June 1989 vol 154 cc858-81

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Perhaps I may anticipate the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I should have announced to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). Was that the point of order?

Mr. Taylor

No, it is a different point of order. I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware that this is a desperately important proposal. May I appeal to the Government and ask them to consider whether it makes sense to debate at 1 o'clock in the morning the first-ever measure to give the non-elected Commission controls over British broadcasting? As it is such a desperately important issue, I appeal to the Government not to move the motion at this crazy hour.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

1.8 am

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5574/88 and the Supplemenary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 30th March 1989 and the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 7th June 1989 relating to broadcasting activities; and endorses the Government's view that since these provisions now follow closely those of the Council of Europe's Convention on Transfrontier Television, they should be welcomed as contributing to the reduction of barriers to trade and the maintenance of the internationally-held principles of free-flow of information. Before going any further, I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who I know will be speaking to the amendment, that one reason why we are debating the motion tonight is that the matter will be discussed at the Internal Market Council later today and it was thought appropriate that the House should have the opportunity to air its views on the draft directive before the Internal Market Council meets. I shall deal with that point at greater length in a moment.

Even at this late hour, it is a fortunate coincidence that we are debating the draft directive on what, for Hansard purposes at least, is the same day as that on which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a range of exciting and far-reaching decisions that will affect British commercial television in the 1990s.

The same spirit of preparing in some measure for a new broadcasting world permeates the draft European Community directive that we are discussing. More and more television broadcasts in Europe will become transnational, on satellite or cable. They will stretch across borders and they will ignore frontiers. So there are needs for a minimal set of international rules in Europe on such matters as advertising and sponsorship to make certain that what one country is broadcasting does not cause offence or break all the traditions or standards of another country in Europe that is receiving that broadcast. It is against that background that I ask the House to examine the directive.

I am aware of the desire of the Select Committee on European Legislation to debate the matter and I am sorry if some hon. Members feel that the debate should have taken place earlier, although my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East suggested that it should have taken place at a later stage. The Government felt that it would be appropriate to await any possible changes to the Community's proposals which might be suggested by the European Parliament before arranging a debate so that such changes could be taken into account.

In the event, changes were suggested by the European Parliament following its second reading of the Community's proposals on 24 May, and this is the first opportunity that we have been able to find since then to hold the debate.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

Will my hon. Friend explain to me, a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, why we could not debate this issue before a common position was adopted, despite the fact that a recommendation to that effect was put forward by the Select Committee in its report some time before a common position was arrived at?

Mr. Renton

I cannot add to what I said. We took the view that it was sensible, as the draft directive had been changed many times—there have been four explanatory memoranda from the Home Office to the Select Committee on European Legislation detailing the various changes that have been arrived at—that the debate should not take place until the European Parliament had had an opportunity to suggest any changes. Those were not made until 24 May, and this is the first opportunity since then, given the Whitsun break, to debate the matter.

I am pleased to tell the House that we have made substantial progress on this subject—

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)

Come off it.

Mr. Renton

There is no question of coming off it. I shall go in considerable detail into the matter and I suggest that my hon. Friend listens carefully to the details of the progress that we have made, on the basis of which we are now able to recommend the House to endorse the attitude to the directive as set forth in the motion.

We have made such progress that the Community proposals are now fundamentally different and much more acceptable than those which the House debated on 20 January 1987. At that time the Government and the House were concerned, and rightly so, over a draft directive which appeared to introduce more restrictions on free trade than it would have removed. It had been drafted in such a way that it would have created more obstacles to the free flow of television programmes than it would have eliminated.

We had, for example, serious reservations about the Commission's approach on copyright, which depended ultimately on the imposition of a statutory licence. Nor did we believe that there was a case for fixed numerical quotas imposed on everyone from Brussels. Rather than the establishment of general principles to provide flexible regulation to meet the domestic needs of individual countries, the draft directive then contained such a fine level of detail that it was likely to lead to more rather than less restriction.

On that basis we were attracted to the idea of regulating European broadcasting by a Council of Europe instrument. At the Vienna conference of broadcasting Ministers in 1986, we were instrumental in securing agreement for the preparation of a Council of Europe convention on transfrontier broadcasting. We regarded the Council of Europe as a more appropriate forum for regulating these matters because its approach is more flexible and because it provides a much larger grouping of European states, 22 countries rather than the 12 represented by the Community. As the House knows, our emphasis was on the Council of Europe convention. Thereafter, in late 1987 and throughout 1988 and 1989 it has made significantly speedier progress than the directive.

At the Council of Europe conference of broadcasting Ministers in Stockholm last November, which I had the great pleasure to attend, it was clear that there was a collective political will to reach agreement on the outstanding points in the convention as quickly as possible. It also marked, and I emphasise this, a major turning point on the draft directive. Once the final shape of the convention became clear, we devoted much effort to securing amendments to the draft directive to bring it into line with the convention. Our approach was supported by the conclusion of the European Council in Rhodes last December that the future work of the Community in relation to broadcasting should be based on that of the Council of Europe and that the directive should be adopted in the light of that convention.

The agreement reached by the European Council was very satisfactory because it meant that, in general, the directive would follow closely the provisions of the convention. We had worked hard in negotiations on the convention to arrive at provisions that would not adversely affect United Kingdom broadcasting and advertising interests.

Those provisions substantially met all the points about which we had reservations in the draft directive—I shall list them later—and they were, therefore, in our judgment an acceptable basis for European legislation.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

I have with me the Hansard for the debate on 20 January 1987, during which this very issue was discussed. The point made by the then Minister was that while the negotiations were taking place the Commission was bent on establishing competence in that area. He said that, despite the Commission's endeavour to take over the Council of Europe's proposals, it was a part of the argument that the Government would not fall for. Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell us why the Government fell for it?

Mr. Renton

With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, he is trying to see booby traps and plots where none exist. He should be fair in his quotations. I shall quote remarks made by my predecessor in that debate. He said: The fact of the matter is that Community competence exists."—[Official Report, 20 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 843.] The fact that the Community has competence in broadcasting has been argued not only by the Commission a great many times, but it has been upheld in the European Court on a number of occasions.

Mr. Taylor

rose—

Mr. Renton

I shall give way to my hon. Friend for the last time. He will have his opportunity to make his points.

Mr. Taylor

During the debate on 20 January 1987, the then Minister was asked whether the Government's view was that the Community should have competence in this issue, to which he replied "No".

Mr. Renton

I have just quoted what my predecessor said. The Government accept the fact that the Community has competence in the issue of broadcasting—

Mr. Taylor

No.

Mr. Renton

I must explain the present position to my hon. Friend. The court has decided on many occasions that broadcasting is to be regarded as an economic service under the terms of the treaty. That is the final state of play. We have consulted legal opinion, which has confirmed that view.

I assure my hon. Friend that, despite his concerns and echoing back to the debate of 1987, I can now recommend the draft text to the House because all the amendments to it that we have achieved mean that it sits closely alongside the Council of Europe's convention on transfrontier broadcasting—a convention that we have already signed.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I thought that it might be convenient to clear the legal matters before we go any further. Leaving aside the question of the scope of the Single European Act, and in this case article 57, the hon. Gentleman's memorandum dated 7 June, which he deposited in the Vote Office, tells us that the proposal is presently conceived under articles 57(2) and 66 of the treaty. Is there any likelihood of any change in that? The phraseology suggests that there could be, although I rather doubt it. Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, will he tell us whether there is likely to be a vote on this? It is awaiting qualified majority and he may know the likelihood of its passage?

Mr. Renton

I am not aware of any likelihood that the proposal will cease to rely on articles 57(2) and 66 of the treaty. The Commission's regular view has been that those were the articles on which they relied, and I am not aware of any view that that should be changed. I cannot advise him of whether there is likely to be a vote on this. I believe, however, that it will be discussed at the Internal Market Council today. Obviously, that is something that we shall watch with considerable interest.

We came to the conclusion that the decision made by the European Council in Rhodes was satisfactory because it meant that the directive would follow closely the provisions of the convention. We felt that those provisions substantially met all the points in the draft directive about which we had had reservations in the past.

It followed from that that this signalled the need for a different approach to the directive on our part. Given our acceptance of the provisions in the convention, it would have been unreasonable to argue that we could not support the same or similar provisions in the draft directive. That position has since been reinforced by our decision to sign the convention when it opened for signature on 5 May. Nine other member states of the Council of Europe joined us at that time in signing the convention, and I have no doubt that others will do so.

Before going on to comment specifically on the changes within the draft directive, I shall explain to the House why we considered it necessary to have some form of international regulation of broadcasting. That, of course, lies within the fact that until recently broadcasting has been primarily a national industry, aimed predominantly at domestic audiences. However, it is clear that television will become an increasingly international medium as satellite broadcasting leaves its footprint throughout Europe. I have heard it forecast, for example, that within a few years about 200 international satellite television channels might be beamed down to the countries of Europe.

All countries have developed means of regulating their domestic broadcasting services over the past 50 years, and those new technological developments will make desirable a measure of international regulation—minimal, I accept. There is a need both to avoid any regulatory loophole that might otherwise develop and, more positively—for the sake of British industry interested in this market—to promote a pan-European market in broadcasting.

It was not in our view sensible or desirable for satellite or cable broadcasting to develop completely outside national or international regulatory controls. As a result of the fundamental changes made to the draft directive, we believe that we can withdraw our earlier objections to the substance of the directive.

I shall list those main changes. The proposal for a 60 per cent. quota of broadcasting time to be devoted to European Community work has been amended in two ways. First, the provision is now couched in terms that require broadcasters to devote "a majority proportion" of their transmission time to European works where it is practicable to do so. There is no longer, therefore, any fixed or legally binding numerical quota. Secondly, the definition of European works has been widened to embrace works coming from Community states, non-Community states that are party to the Council of Europe convention and from other European states that have concluded reciprocal agreements with the Community. That provision is now sufficiently flexible to be compatible with the existing requirement in the United Kingdom law that broadcasters should show a "proper proportion" of European Community material. Our broadcasters regularly show about 65 per cent. of EC material within the definition that will apply to EC programmes in the directive.

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North)

Does that mean that if the United States signs the European convention, as it well may, its work will be classed as a European production?

Mr. Renton

There is a difference between the United States and non-Community states that are party to the Council of Europe convention. I have not heard any suggestion that the United States might sign the Council of Europe convention. It is an interesting thought, but it has not crossed my desk. Perhaps my hon. Friend will develop that idea in his speech.

The broadcasting services, such as satellite channels that depend on a substantial amount of programmes imported from the United States and elsewhere that would not find it practicable to devote the majority of their transmission time to European works, will not be impeded by the provisions. The House will be reassured, therefore, that the flexible nature of the provision will not threaten or prejudice the constitutional independence of British broadcasters. Freedom of choice will continue and there will be room for programmes from non-EC countries.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Renton

With respect, I have given way to my hon. Friend three times. Time is short and, given that his amendment has been selected, it would be better if he made his own speech.

The proposed 10 per cent. quota of works from independent producers can now be achieved either as 10 per cent. of programme budgets or as 10 per cent. of transmission time, on which member states can choose. This is less stringent than the 25 per cent. targets which the Government have already set the BBC and IBA in relation to independent productions.

The provisions on the duration and insertion of television advertising have been changed to reflect the corresponding provisions of the Council of Europe convention. Advertising is now limited to 15 per cent. of the daily transmission time, or 20 per cent. if it includes tele-shopping services. The amount of spot advertising within any given hour shall not exceed 20 per cent. Television advertising within the United Kingdom already falls comfortably within those limits.

Detailed rules are laid down for the time and frequency of advertising breaks. Some member states favoured grouping advertisements between programmes rather than inserting them in natural breaks. But thanks very largely to proposals we formulated and tabled, in particular on the need to retain natural-break advertising, we believe that we have secured provisions which will not adversely affect British broadcasting and advertising interests.

Although the draft directive continues to contain a ban on the advertising of all forms of tobacco products, this is in line with the corresponding provision in the Council of Europe convention which the Government accepted in order to secure agreement to the convention as a whole.

The requirement for a right of reply has been widened to refer to a right of reply "or equivalent remedies". That will enable us to continue to rely on the existing procedures operated in the United Kingdom through the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, and we will not be required to introduce any further measures. The provisions on copyright have been withdrawn.

We are also satisfid that the provisions on the protection of minors, which are in themselves unexceptionable and indeed desirable, should not have undesirable consequences for Community competence in other sectors.

It is our view that the Commission's proposals now represent a satisfactory outcome. We have successfully resisted the arguments of some member states for protectionist measures which would have imposed greater restrictions on European broadcasters and, instead, we have achieved a substantial deregulatory text fully in line with that of the Council of Europe convention.

I stress, finally, that a prime objective in supporting the directive is to foster the free flow of television programmes throughout Europe. In that context, article 2 of the draft directive is in my opinion much the most important. I firmly believe that this will promote and encourage the growth of the broadcasting industry in the United Kingdom.

I do not need to remind the House about the approach of 1992. This will be an opportunity for all British interests—and broadcasting is no exception—to expand into the European market. The potential is enormous. The development of cable and satellite technologies that ignore frontiers has created opportunities for a new and expanding market.

There is already a large gap between the European demand for television programmes and their supply. In 1987 western Europe needed 125,000 hours of programming but produced only about a quarter of this itself. By 1990 western Europe will need at least 300,000 hours of programming. The balance of trade in this field is currently very much in the United States' favour. Europe is an importer of programmes and clearly more European co-operation and co-production in making programmes that are attractive to all the European market is necessary and will be helped by the abolition of trade barriers against the sales of such programmes that is implicit and explicit in the directive.

This is a formidable challenge for the British broadcasting industry but I believe that it is one that we are very well placed to meet, for British broadcasting already has a high reputation abroad. We have, as the House knows, the creative talent, the commercial enterprise and the production and distribution infrastructure to make the most of the expanding markets elsewhere, and the development of the independent production initiative in this country in recent years is an example of how we can take advantage of an opening in the market.

We should be in the vanguard to take advantage of these new opportunities throughout Europe in the broadcasting world to the benefit of broadcasters and viewers alike. It is on that basis and in expectation of our obtaining a wider share of this European market that I ask the House to endorse our view that the draft directive should now be welcomed.

1.32 am

Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington)

I must confess to being a little puzzled by what I will describe as the Minister's muted euphoria over these proposals. As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) reminded the House, in January 1987 the Minister's predecessor stood at the Dispatch Box questioning the need for a directive and indeed the competence of the Commission in this matter.

I have no doubt that some of his hon. Friends will quote from the advertisement in the Sunday papers which warns voters that if they do not do a certain thing on Thursday 15 June they will be living on a diet of Brussels. I do not want to make too much of this because the mere mention of the Euro elections pours salt into the grievous wounds of the differences between the Prime Minister, the former Prime Minister and others over this Government's real attitude to the Community.

At the last debate—and the Minister knows this—virtually the whole House, not to mention the programme makers and the advertising industry, shared the view that a better way ahead lay with the Council of Europe, and that was indeed the view of the Opposition. As the Minister has confirmed, in essence what has happened is that the Commission has now decided to follow the Council of Europe, and generally, although with some reservations, that is welcomed, I believe.

I must state my reservations about the watering down of the original proposal arguing that 60 per cent. of broadcasting time should be devoted to works originating in the Community. That has changed in two ways, as the Select Committee on European Legislation helpfully noted. The 60 per cent. has not merely become a majority proportion—which in plain English I take to mean at least 51 per cent.—but is hedged with a qualifying phrase— where it is practicable to do so". It is not within any time limit; it implies that this will go on for ever unless we are invited to consider another directive. I hope that the Minister will tell me what that means. I accept that some countries would find even that provision for a majority proportion difficult to move towards immediately. For example, I understand that in Greece and Portugal virtually all programmes during peak-time viewing are of American origin.

Would it not have been better to make exemptions for some stated period for such countries rather than to weaken the provision for those well able to cope? Do I take it from the Minister's remark that the current United Kingdom position of the use of about 65 per cent. of EEC originated material remains, in the Government's view, the one to which we should hold rather than the looser, weaker formula of a majority proportion?

My fears are these. Because of cross-considerations, the demands of advertisers and the need here to recoup as quickly as possible the cash laid out for a franchise, the pressure will be on the programme makers and programmers to cut costs. Unless we are careful, that can only mean more American-made programmes. Or, to put it another way in the words of the Home Secretary in an interview with Independent Radio News today, "more rubbish programmes". Those were the words that he used when discussing the announcement that he had made earlier in the day to the House. The absence of a binding numerical quota means that competition will not be so much on programme quality as on programme cost.

There are some other objections as well. There is no reference to the times at which the programmes are shown. I understand, but do not accept, that the Government want as light a regime as possible, nationally and within the EC. In the context of a majority proportion of European originated works, that could mean that some programmes are pushed, either mainly or wholly, into the off-peak, late-night hours.

In that context—it is interesting that the Minister made no reference to this—we should all be properly conscious that transfrontier broadcating should not squeeze out or threaten the rich and varied cultural backgrounds of the countries joined together in the Community. It is perfectly possible—I call the Prime Minister as witness—for individual nations to preserve their essential identity while willingly co-operating. National identity need not be sacrificed upon the altar of European co-operation.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

How can the hon. Gentleman talk of co-operation when the directive makes provision for the Commission to implement the majority, and when, in paragraph 3, there is legal provision in five years' time for any new percentage to be laid down by majority voting? There was certainly co-operation in the old Council of Europe directive, but this proposal is something quite different. It gives the Commission the power to implement whatever percentage is arrived at, and paragraph 3 makes it abundantly clear that whatever percentage is not appropriate can be changed.

Mr. Corbett

I understand exactly the hon. Gentleman's point. He will not thank me if I say that when we come nearer to the position that he mentioned in five years' time, the Minister may be on the Opposition Benches and somebody else on the Government Front Bench.

I welcome the widening of the provision to embrace nations which have relationships with the Community. That is an important contribution to the growing interest in all European co-operation beyond the boundaries of the present Community and in the interests of what President Gorbachev has called "our common European home".

I have doubts about the 10 per cent. quota for works from independent producers being tied to either a choice of transmission time or programming budgets. There is the risk that all the independents will be allowed to do is the cheap game show, late-night, nodding heads type of programme with whatever high-cost, often high-quality, drama or current affairs is done, left exclusively in house. I welcome the higher targets for independent productions, and I assume that the Government have no intention of seeking to reduce them.

We are used to joint funding of programmes by British and American interests. I welcome the growing co-operation with German and French co-sponsors in particular and hope that we shall see more. That can only help to protect and promote national and Community programme co-sponsorship—the better to resist the American invasion. Perhaps the Minister can say whether American companies will be tempted to establish production facilities in Britain or elsewhere in the Community to get around the majority proportion rule. If the Americans make such an attempt, will they be permitted to succeed?

Some may view the provisions as restricting the free flow of broadcasting across frontiers, but that need not happen. But in the wake of developing technology we must ensure that nothing destroys the best that British broadcasting and that of other countries has achieved. We must never risk the single European market offering only a choice of soaps or game shows made in Britain, France, Germany or Italy. That does not represent real programme diversity, quality or variety. We want proper choice, not just more of the same.

I regret that provisions for a right of reply were dropped, and the Minister knows that I do not accept that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission represents a serious alternative. But that matter will have to wait.

Article 8 deals with television advertising and rightly proscribes any that discriminates on the grounds of race, sex or nationality. That is important, and should give another push to progress made in this country and elsewhere in ending sexual and racial stereotyping. It may be a laughing matter to some people, but it is hurtful and offensive to those who are its targets.

I particularly welcome the provisions in article 8 for ensuring that television advertising will not encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety or to the protection of the environment. The latter is a welcome addition and properly recognises growing concern in this country and in others about the need to stop and to reverse pollution and destruction. There is every reason why responsible advertisers, using the most powerful medium, should be part of that process.

The Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members may have noted the recent Mintel survey reported in the Daily Mail today. The report stated: The vast majority of shoppers are willing to pay up to 10p in the pound extra for products which do no harm to the environment … Seventy-seven per cent. of shoppers will pay 5p to 10p in the pound extra for 'environmentally friendly' washing powder, falling only slightly to 72 per cent. for organic food and 66 per cent. for toiletries not tested on animals. There is a powerful message in those results both for manufacturers and for advertisers.

I hope that the House will welcome the tight restrictions on alcohol advertising, which must not be aimed at minors, claim that it enhances physical performance, or give the impression that it aids social or sexual success. I say in all seriousness that the alcohol problem in Britain and in the rest of the Community affects far more people, across a much wider age range, than does the real menace of drugs—and it causes more social and economic damage. Alcohol abuse must be taken seriously, and the proposals help in that.

I hope that the Government will learn the lessons from sporting and other events in this country that attract young people. The Minister's predecessor was critical of the earlier draft's provisions for the protection of children. They are now covered by articles 12 and 14, and, although they represent the minimum, they are none the less welcome. Responsible advertisers—and it is manufacturers or service providers who must take proper responsibility—have nothing to fear from the provisions. In any event, it would be entirely wrong to allow them to stand aside. As we have seen with British newspapers, all too often it is one product—the example I have in mind is the sewer Sun—that inevitably drags down standards among its competitors.

The original copyright proposals were almost universally unacceptable. I regret the absence of new proposals, but we are better without what was originally on offer. This problem must be tackled. I hope that voluntary contractual agreements work, but I wonder whether the provision for arbitration will, perversely, discourage rather than encourage agreement, since it happens after retransmission. As the Minister has explained, the copyright proposals weaken the position of owners of rights, although the proposal seeks to preserve the present position for cable.

These proposals fit fairly comfortably alongside the Council of Europe's directive, but they are not the end of the matter. Experience will doubtless show that other provisions will have to be made. As I have said, we need proposals which will not impede the free flow of television across national boundaries but which, at the same time, do not impose what Jeremy Isaacs, when he headed Channel 4, called "Euro-puddings".

Individual, national, cultural and other traditions must be guarded as an essential ingredient of transnational television. If the proposals strike that balance and protect us from any form of loss of national and cultural identity, they will have been shown to be worthwhile.

1.46 am

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)

I beg to move, to leave out from "activities" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof: 'but can see no merit and no benefit whatsoever in having the content of broadcasting in the United Kingdom or any other member state being subject to a European Economic Community directive; expresses concern about the extent to which the non-elected Commission is being given powers to implement the directive; believes that broadcasting and artistic merit should be the basis of broadcasting selection rather than Euro protectionism; and trusts that Her Majesty's Government will vote against this absurd proposal which is an insult to the high standards and objectivity traditionally displayed by the United Kingdom broadcasting media.'. If a Home Office Minister was, in normal conditions and daylight hours, to come to the Dispatch Box and introduce legislation which dictated restrictive new Government terms and conditions with which television and broadcasting companies had to comply in order to put out more than half their own air time, the outcry and vehement denunciation of censorship and state control would soon ring up and down the length and breadth of this country. It says much for the nocturnal, almost clandestine, way in which we continue unsatisfactorily to monitor EC legislation that this very same offensive principle of placing state or, in this case, EC controls on half the transmission time of broadcasting companies should be greeted almost soporifically by the House at 1.47 am as a virtual non-event.

My hon. Friends and I do not think that it is a non-event. We believe that the directive is an extremely important and seminal event. My hon. Friend the Minister should feel deeply unhappy and ashamed at having to support the directive in the way in which he has been forced to do so tonight. The oddest part of his speech was his brave, or perhaps brazen, attempt to make it sound as though his speech this evening flowed naturally with and matched up to that made by the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) when he was the Minister at the Dispatch Box, debating much the same directive on 20 January 1987.

Leaving aside the two personalities, if one read the two speeches with any objectivity one would feel that it was not a harmonious flow, but Tweedledum and Tweedledee having a battle. Time and again the statements made in either one or the other cannot conceivably be matched up. If I had to pick out one clear and demonstrable clash between the two diametrically opposed speeches, I would refer to the statement made by my hon Friend the Minister tonight about how the Government had always believed that majority voting would apply to this directive.

The hon. and learned Member for Putney said: The point I am putting to my right hon. Friend is that we shall argue with might and main that this is such a contentious matter that it should be dealt with only by way of unanimity."—[Official Report, 20 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 855.] I could find half a dozen other examples in the two speeches. In the previous speech, they are usually accompanied by rhetorical flourishes such as "tooth and nail" or "might and main". However, at the end of all that, we received not a bang, but a whimper of a defence of what is being brought in tonight.

Mr. Renton

I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels on the subject, but I think that he is misquoting me. I did not say that we had always believed that majority voting should apply; I quoted my predecessor, saying that he had accepted in the opening of his speech that the Community had competence in respect of broadcasting, in particular because of the economic base.

I said earlier that the court had confirmed European Community competence in important aspects of broadcasting, which is a service within the meaning of the treaty. I would indeed argue that my speech flowed on from that made by my predecessor in January 1987. Not only, however, have we managed in the intervening two years to amend all the points in the draft directive that we previously found objectionable but the key case on European competence—the Dutch cable case—arose and was decided only after the Commons debate.

Mr. Aitken

I suggest that, instead of engaging in textual arguments on the Floor of the House, hon. Members read the two speeches. Let us look at the two examples defended by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asked: Is it my hon. Friend's view, and the view of the Government, that the Community should have competence in this issue?". My hon. Friend the then Minister replied: No. I think it is our view that the Community's competence in this issue is extremely limited and should remain so."— [Official Report, 20 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 843.] The clear implication is that at that time the Government did not believe that the Community necessarily had full competence. Here we are talking about whether unanimity applies. It is obvious from what my hon. Friend said then that he considered that it would be essential, but tonight we are saying that it is not.

Instead of engaging in arcane textual argument—important though it may be to resolve the battle between Tweedledum and Tweedledee—let us get on to the gut issues. My hon. Friends and I feel that we should oppose the directive vigorously, on several different grounds. First, it has nothing to do with the single market or with free market forces. Those of my hon. Friends who voted for the Single European Act must be amazed to find that the Act that they thought was all to do with free trade and the toppling of barriers is now forcing television companies to accept a whole set of restrictions. I think that television companies should be free to put on any or all of the best and most popular programmes: that is true broadcasting freedom. But the freedom of the air waves will now be restricted in an astonishing seizure of new powers by what I believe to be the ideological Euro-nannies and Euro-meddlers of Brussels.

What really sticks in our gullets is the statement—which has changed only marginally—that the majority of airtime from now on will have to be given to Euro-programmes from European sources. I think that such a restriction is anti-viewer, anti-populist and, indeed, anti-American. Anti-Americanism provides much of the rocket fuel inside the EEC in favour of the directive.

I am disturbed at the hostility towards the culture and history of the English-speaking peoples that is now emanating from Brussels. Anti-Americanism is a disease that is spreading through the Commission. The fact is that, for better or worse, the taste of the British viewer—and now, we hear, even the Portuguese viewer—is strongly in favour of the United States popular culture, from Alistair Cooke's "Letter from America" to great epics such as "The Winds ofWar" and popular programmes such as "Cagney and Lacey", "Hill Street Blues", "Dallas" and "Dynasty". Those are the shows that viewers apparently like to watch and listen to—and do not let us forget the growing input from other parts of the English-speaking world, such as the Australian popular programme "Neighbours".

Those programmes and their successors will be placed in jeopardy. Big brother in Brussels knows what the average British family enjoys watching and he wants to stop it. Not having been able to beat the popular television culture of the English-speaking peoples on the ratings, the Euro meddlers now want to drive these programmes off the screens by restrictive legislation. The Government should be pretty miserable at the idea of blessing a proposal that encourages that.

The Government have had to stand on their head. In January 1987, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney said that he would not shrink from voting against a broadcasting Euro directive of the type that was then contemplated. For all the fine words of the Minister of State, attempting to show us that things have changed in the intervening period and that great concessions have been won, the reality is that in June 1989 we are debating only a mildly diluted version of the same unpalatable legislative brew. Far from shrinking away from it, we are asked to swallow it almost whole.

I have said that the Government are standing on their head and I must say how strange the posture of my hon. Friend the Minister looks on the issue of the right of reply. He is the Minister who has done his best to thwart the admirable private Member's Bill, the Right of Reply Bill, which has been promoted by an Opposition Member and which many Conservative Members support. My hon. Friend used strange methods. His oratorial technique in killing off that Bill could be broadly described as "praising with faint damn". He blocked the Right of Reply Bill when it came forward in the House as British legislation, but, lo and behold, this European directive contains a firm commitment to introduce the right of reply on the air waves. It is odd that my hon. Friend can be "Mr. Facing-Both-Ways" on the right of reply issue within such a short time.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdingtort (Mr. Corbett) touched on the issue of advertising. Some of his points are to be commended, but I see others in a different light. I should like to raise a technical point that could have great implications for British television companies. Does the phrase in the directive, the duration of the programme—referring to the amount of advertising time—apply to scheduled time or running time? We appear to be confident that the British interpretation will be accepted, but there may be a triumph of hope over experience.

Mr. Renton

I should like to reassure my hon. Friend immediately. It is agreed that scheduled time is acceptable within the draft directive.

Mr. Aitken

I am glad to hear that, as no doubt will some television companies.

Article 8, which the hon. Member for Erdington praised highly, contains many noble sentiments. We are all in favour of such ideas as preserving decency, the environment and the dignity of women, but we should look at the small print. We are told that advertising must not offend against prevailing standards of decency", or encourage behaviour prejudicial to … the protection of the environment or employ forms of expression which contravene respect for the dignity of women. All those high-sounding ideals are sloppy bits of legislation when it comes down to the possibility of television companies being prosecuted for showing advertisements that, in someone's opinion, offend against any of those vague and ill-drafted sentiments. They sound fine but are very unsuitable when it comes to practicalities.

I return to the issue of principle and clothe it in the language of practicality. I think that I am the only Member who has had the experience of running a major television company. I suppose that there are those who would say that, in view of that company's history, it could not have been much worse if the entire EEC Commission had had its hands on the controls at the same time. Be that as it may, at least that experience gave me an understanding of what it might be like to operate a television company against the judgments of the directive.

A busy television station has feeds coming into it from all over the world. News stories are breaking all the time. The format of programmes is always changing. With all the hustle and bustle of major programme-making rolling on through the hours, it would be impracticable then to have to get out a stop watch and start to measure how many seconds of time are coming from which sources, which cartoons originate in the United States, which originate in France and to be faced—as one would he under the directive—with very tight bureaucratic restrictions because of the need for the Commission to report regularly on the minutage of the contents of programmes and ensure the application of the provisions in article 2.

Broadcasters need to be given freedom to develop ideas. They do not need the very bad new principle that the directive would introduce.

2 am

Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington)

I join other hon. Members who have criticised the ludicrous hour at which we are debating this important subject. I hope that the lesson will be learnt by those who are responsible, because it happens all too often.

I have a good deal of sympathy for the two-man band onslaught on European legislation that is waged so assiduously in the early hours of the morning. However, on this occasion I have to part company with it. As a member of the Council of Europe Assembly I have been involved in various ways with transfrontier television. I was in Stockholm when the original proposals that were much criticised—I think fairly—by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) were thrashed out by the then 21 nations of the Council of Europe. I pay tribute to the excellent work that was done by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. But for his leadership I do not believe that we should have made the progress that we in fact made. It was a very good convention. As my hon. Friend explained, the directive follows closely the Stockholm proposals.

In this modern age, when television is bursting out in all directions, there must be regulations to govern transfrontier television. Unless a minimum set of rules can be devised, there will eventually be chaos and a great deal of undesirable material will appear on our television screens. I am one of the last to advocate the establishment of a nanny society. I echo some of my hon. Friend's criticisms of action being taken over advertisements. That could be difficult.

When the Council of Europe first considered the subject, it drew up three basic rules to govern what it was trying to achieve on behalf of the countries of Europe. I remind the House that they cover all the countries of Europe, not just those in the EEC. They were the integrity of the television company and the programme, honesty and decency.

The future will bring satellite television and the opportunity before too long to see other countries' programmes without too much difficulty. Sensible though not onerous regulation is needed. I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend was so successful over natural breaks for advertising. I am sure that I am right in saying that this now follows closely the pattern of television advertising in this country. I think that it is appreciated by the public. If changes were made, they would be resented. The public are used to our comfortable arrangements. Advertising is not too intrusive, and it is often enjoyed and appreciated.

I sought to speak in the debate tonight to draw attention to one particular aspect which my hon. Friend the Minister should consider. Quite recently, one main French television channel has started showing hard pornography late at night. It makes the sleazy Soho cinema clubs of 10 or 15 years ago look like a vicarage tea party. It is shown on an open channel. We have four main channels in Britain and that material is shown on a main French channel. It does not take much imagination to realise that young people can stay up after 11 o'clock at night, and if they do not want to stay up they can video the programme to watch at some other time. I should like a categorical assurance from my hon. Friend when he replies to the debate that under the rules of transfrontier television in no way will it be possible for people in Britain to receive that French television channel, or any other such programmes as there is also a pornographic programme in Italy.

I am reasonably broad minded, but I was very shocked by that programme and I believe that most right hon. and hon. Members would also be shocked. The public is entitled to the protection offered by the convention and the directive to make absolutely sure that young people and others in society are not brought down to the standards to which I have referred. I hope that my hon. Friend will address that point when he replies to the debate.

2.5 am

Sir Giles Shaw (Pudsey)

I shall speak briefly in general support of what my hon. Friend the Minister has said this evening. A considerable time ago the European Commission tried to get involved in the broadcasting scene. At that time we rightly refused to encourage it unless it was able to become involved on a pan-European basis. That is why the fundamental shift that my hon. Friend has put before the House tonight is so significant, not just because the Commission has accepted the Council of Europe's suggested lines of approach, which are wholly preferable to those suggested by the Commission, but because it sets a very important precedent. It suggests that when transfrontier broadcasting can extend far beyond the boundaries of the Commission's competence there might be within the Commission an awareness that it might have to introduce some system which conforms to a far wider grouping of nation states. That is an extremely important precedent.

I fully understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and others find it pretty nasty that there are possible threats to the integrity of television producers in using material which they consider the British public might wish to see. Since the advent of independent television, there have always been pretty significant restraints on the use of imported material. I think that I am right—my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—in saying that the percentage of imported American material is still a factor which, under IBA regulation, has to be observed within reasonably acceptable limits.

The way in which the directive works out, if and when it is finally ratified, will depend very much on the climate of producers and the public at the time. I am charitable enough to believe—and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South should take heart from this—that many issues that have come before the Commission and have resulted in directives have been applied theoretically as part of Community statute law and have not had a huge impact in various parts of the Community. The French seem to be able to devise a Poitier connection for getting round most obstructive measures, and I have little doubt that broadcasters, whose ingenuity is prodigious, will find ways and means of finding new material from other sources which might have some Community tag attached to it even if it is routed to our screens in some funny or strange way.

What concerns me most was my hon. Friend the Minister of State's passing reference to satellites over Europe, the footprint, and what will go on inside the footprint. It appears that there is great uncertainty as to how far domestic regulation or Commission regulation will have any effect upon the satellite exposure we are about to experience. To what extent does my hon. Friend the Minister feel that the steps announced tonight will be able to embrace that in a sensible yet sensitive way? We all wish to see the development and effective use of broadcasting waves as they become available for use for this purpose and we all wish to see no restraint, in a fairly general sense, of the access of the public to the media.

However, there is a real problem in the origination of satellite material and in the competence that the owners of satellites might easily find in relation to the European Community or the Council of Europe itself. The satellites operate from very distant places. My hon. Friend the Minister must be a little more sanguine if he is to believe that the step he has talked about tonight will have a measurable effect on that development in non-terrestrial broadcasting.

In general, we have come a longish way since the proposals of 1984. I welcome the proposal that my hon. Friend has laid before the House. I am certain that it is not the end of the issue and I am certain that, as time moves on and pressures move on, there will be changes and additions made to the proposal. The right to offer some competence to the Commission in this area is sensible. The first steps it is now taking are infinitely more sensible than its original ones.

2.11 am

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North)

I had some sympathy with the sentiments of my parliamentary neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) in his amendment, but it is a shame that he did not find it in his heart to pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Minister in securing the convention on transfrontier television.

About a year ago, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I am member, visited Brussels and Strasbourg. In Brussels, we spoke to Lord Cockfield, who was then a European Commissioner. Perhaps I should not speak for my colleagues on the Committee, although I am sure that they would share my view, but I was most concerned by the languid, arrogant and almost laissez-faire attitude that the Commission appeared to be taking to what we regarded as a pressing problem, which was the imminence of the arrival in this country of satellite broadcasting and the total lack at that time of any control over the content of the programming that would and could be received in the United Kingdom.

It is fair to say—and I made some passing reference to this only 24 hours ago in this Chamber—that I am a proponent of satellite broadcasting. I see in it tremendous opportunities for education, for the exchange of culture and language, multi-channel broadcasting and choice. I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that we should fear it. I do not believe that it is a threat. I see it as an opportunity, although it is only an opportunity if it is properly used and controlled.

For that reason, having visited Strasbourg, the Select Committee on Home Affairs in its report on the future of broadcasting recommended that the Council of Europe convention proposals should be pursued with all possible speed. I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South that it is, if not entirely, then very largely, due to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister in Stockholm and elsewhere that the convention was agreed and was open for signature in Strasbourg at the 40th anniversary plenary session of the Council of Europe last month.

It is a matter of sadness to me and perhaps of some interest to hon. Members of all parties that since the convention was opened a number of countries that are members of the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom is proud to be one, have signed the convention. However, perhaps significantly, among the major European Community countries, France, Germany and Italy, which kicked up much of the fuss, had, at the last count, not signed the convention.

The directive reflects much of the provisions of the transfrontier broadcasting convention. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South said that he felt that it was right that United Kingdom television companies should be allowed to broadcast "all and any of the best of television". With respect, I find nothing in the transfrontier convention or, by implication, in the directive that would prevent his television company, or any other, from doing precisely that.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State picked me up when I said that the United States might become a signatory to the Council of Europe convention. There is not yet—but there will be—provision for non-member states to add their names to the convention. It is likely that in due course the north American states, both the United States and Canada, and possibly Australia, may find commercial advantage in adding their names to the convention with a view to not only pan-European but possibly pan-world broadcasting. Companies such as Cable News Network may well wish to take advantages of the opportunities for transfrontier broadcasting in Europe.

We should remember that when we in the United Kingdom talk about transfrontier broadcasting, we tend to talk in satellite terms because our terrestrial broadcasting is not by satellite. However, on the continent, and within the now 23 countries of the Council of Europe, transfrontier broadcasting can mean terrestrial broadcasting. Transfrontier is a much simpler concept. Indeed, some United Kingdom programmes are watched with great interest and enjoyment on the north coast of the continent.

That experience is much more common in othe European countries. The tiny Principality of Liechtenstein, for example, has no television station of its own and relies entirely on transfrontier broadcasting—on German, Austrian and Swiss programming—for its television reception. It has expressed real and genuine concerns about intrusions on its culture. Some of us in the Council of Europe have sought to encourage that state to establish its own broadcasting systems for precisely those reasons.

Although I shall not vote for the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South because I agree only with its first part and not with its second part, in support of it I should say that I believe that it is wrong that this House should address this issue at this hour in the morning of the day on which the Council of Ministers will discuss the directive.

The Select Committee on European Legislation reported that the Commission has made it clear that it is not prepared to accept a number of major amendments requested by the Parliament, because these would have jeopardised the rapid adoption of the draft Directive. It is referring to the European Parliament.

With great respect, there has been nothing rapid about the European Commission's progress in this matter. Indeed, it would still be discussing it cheerfully had it not been goaded into action by the Council of Europe convention, and largely by the actions of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Having taken so long to achieve so little and to base its conclusions finally on the Council of Europe convention, perhaps it could be asked by the Minister attending the Council of Ministers later today to take just a little longer and to pay greater heed to the Members of the European Parliament.

While the transfrontier broadcasting convention, which I have welcomed as has the House publicly, is a voluntary convention, voluntarily entered into, tonight we are dealing with something very different. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South makes clear in his amendment, the directive represents an imposition by an unelected Commission and I do not think that we can welcome that.

2.20 am

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I must at the outset object to the hour at which we are asked to debate this issue and to the limit of an hour and a half for the debate. I believe that we shall hear a great deal more about the content of the directive, remembering that we must in any event translate it into our own legislation. When that has happened somebody might wake up to precisely what is involved. I wonder whether they are awake at Broadcasting house and whether these deliberations will be featured in "Yesterday in Parliament" later today. This matter is of fundamental importance to all broadcasters, present and future, in this country.

Speaking from experience, the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) made what I would call a reasonable contribution. I sympathised to a great extent with what he said. I understand that one reason for including what he called an anti-American element is an effort by the French-speaking people in the European Community, and possibly some Germans, to withstand, as it were, what they see as the tide of English language.

In that, of course, we have a natural interest. Indeed, there are feelings in this country too, about certain aspects of north America culture which can penetrate our culture and air waves more easily than they can penetrate those of France and Germany. Certainly an effort is being made by those countries, and particularly France, to retain their cultural identity, and with that the hon. Member for Thanet, South will have some sympathy, as I have.

The points that I wish to raise are treaty-based. I said some time ago that many surprises would spring from the Single European Act, and tonight we have one of them. There was not a scintilla of a suggestion when we ratified that legislation that we would be faced with this type of directive.

I accept what the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) said about the need for some international arrangement on satellites. Whether that should be done through a Council of Europe convention, which this directive parallels, or through the competence of the treaty of Rome, is the point at issue. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) spoke of the need for an international arrangement covering satellites and their standards.

The Council of Europe is a good forum in which to achieve that. But what if the European Community says, "We shall not keep within the Council of Europe on this. We claim competence by majority vote to make an alternative set of proposals which are not parallel to those of the Council of Europe"—or, for that matter, even with those which the Government could not accept? We would then be in dead trouble because, as the Minister conceded, the matter would be decided by weighted majority vote.

The articles under which the directive is promulgated are strange. Article 57(2) speaks of the co-ordination of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the taking up and pursuit of activities as self-employed persons. It is significant that the heading of the memorandum which the Minister produced on 7 June also used those words. It read: Amended proposal for a Council Directive on the co-ordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities. The opening words of that heading follow the wording of article 57(2). The clue to it all lies in the final words: the pursuit of television broadcasting activities. That is not mentioned in article 57.

It is based on another article which comes at the end of a chapter about what are called "Services"—broadcasting is a service—and that is article 66, which is so short that I can read it all; The provisions of Articles 55 to 58 shall apply to the matters covered by this Chapter. It is rather like having a provision at the end of an Act of Parliament saying, "This part of the Bill applies to everything contained in an earlier part of the Bill."

As I understand it, that particular mechanism gives competence to the Community. Who, on initial reading of the Single European Act, would envisage such a backtrack mechanism? If I have that wrong, and if the Minister has the time to reply to the debate, I am sure that he will correct me. It is an example of the surprise package. All matters of regulation relating to all services of all sorts come within the ambit of article 57 which, in certain aspects, carries majority voting. In fact, the issue is even more complicated than I have suggested, but I have tried to give the bones of it.

In view of the time I shall conclude, as other hon. Members wish to speak. I feel bound to point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have powers under Standing Orders to postpone the conclusion of the debate if you feel that the matter is of such importance as to warrant that. I am not necessarily suggesting that you do so, especially as the matter has to be decided in the Council today. This is an example of the very narrow window of time in which we have to deal with these matters.

Mr. Renton

The matter does not have to be decided in the Council today. I said earlier that it would be discussed in the Interior Market Council.

Mr. Spearing

It may not be decided, but it will be discussed. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that, constitutionally, if so agreed a decision could be taken.

Mr. Renton

Yes.

Mr. Spearing

Under the complex rules of the Council of Ministers, if the Presidency so decided the matter could be put to the vote. Again, it is a matter of procedure of when the question should be put. The Presidency could put the question and wrap up the matter. The Minister is nodding. I do not suppose that the Presidency will think fit to do that because there is a consensus that it is not yet time to take that decision. It is another example of the way that this House and this country are being constrained not only by the terms of the treaty, unexpected though they are, but because of the procedures adopted by the Council of Ministers.

My final point about broadcasters is that a few weeks ago there were four important debates on the European Community. The first related to a new withholding tax, the second to merger control—which is departing these shores for Brussels—the third to public procurement and the fourth to the six-monthly White Paper. The first three matters were legislative. They were not reported on an otherwise well-regarded programme called "Today in Parliament". Its half-hour report at the end of the day did not cover any of those three debates. The programme, which is broadcast from 11.30 pm to midnight, went out two and a half hours ago and, therefore, cannot have reported this debate which, ironically, is about broadcasting. I have mentioned that as an important footnote to yesterday's debate on television and a dedicated channel. I hope that among the 200 channels there will be a dedicated channel covering all debates in the House.

2.28 am

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

I wish to say a few words, which I hope the Minister will consider. We are discussing the vital issue of transfer of sovereignty. If anyone thinks that that is not important, he should read the Hansard of the debate in January 1987. The then Minister made it abundantly clear that he would fight for the Council of Europe proposal because it was abundantly different from an EEC directive. The Government said that they would fight all the way and would do everything possible to ensure that there was unanimity. They made it clear that in their view the EEC did not have any control and that the Council of Europe proposal was right.

The Minister is well aware that night after night, when no one in Britain is aware of what is happening, we are transferring responsibility from democratic bodies, Government bodies and bodies over which we and the people have some kind of control, to the non-elected EEC Commission.

The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned the recent debate on merger control. W e gave the Commission the power to send inspectors into British firms to ask for information and to impose fines for which they need not go to a court. This directive—which, of course, will be accepted—gives the Commission powers over British broadcasting and British broadcasting companies. What do we do about it?

If there is any doubt in the minds of hon. Members, they should look at paragraph 2 of the proposals, because there it clearly and precisely states that The Commission shall ensure the application of the provisions in Article 2(1)"— which are concerned with the majority European broadcasts— and Article 3 in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty. The Minister is, of course, saying what Ministers consistently say late at night—"We are glad to say that the directive is not so bad as it once was". We heard the same comment the other night about heavy lorries. We shall have heavy lorries, but they will come two years later. We had, too, the debate on mergers. Tonight the Minister is really saying, "Do not worry about this directive, because it will not do anything that will upset British broadcasters."

I hope that hon. Members will look at clause 2, because that says that we shall have to give reports about what every British broadcasting company is doing to the non-elected Commission. It will consider those reports, give opinions on them and give advice as to how the proposal should be changed. The Minister says that it is only the majority of broadcasts that must be Euro-broadcasts. Even that is not terribly clear—and that includes some Council of Europe Members. Sadly, what the Minister did not say was that, under article 3, there is a specific proposal for the Council of Ministers by a majority to change that to whatever figure, conditions or considerations that it might want. The Minister must be aware of that. It is because the Government fought this so severely and so well in 1987 that we now have something completely different. When we have something in the Council of Europe, we know that there the basic control and responsibility is left to a democratically elected parliament and bodies appointed by that parliament.

I wish that our party Whips would appreciate how serious it is when we transfer control to a non-elected committee. We are doing that night after night in the House, and no one is hearing about it. There was a time when I heard the Prime Minister's splendid words about how we would fight this unnecessary transfer of sovereignty. We were going to stop the Single European Act being used for what it was not intended. We were to promote free trade. What we have, however, is not the free trade that we want, but the transfer of more and more responsibility to the non-elected Commission.

For those who say that they are not terribly worried about the content of the directive, let them think about what happened recently about the sixth directive. When we debated that directive in the House we were told that there was nothing in that that could be used to affect Britain's zero VAT rating. Yet, as the Minister is well aware, we have had two recent court cases in which the Commission interfered with our zero rates.

We are doing something terribly serious tonight. If hon. Members read the directive or read the debate of 1987, or if the Minister studies the files in his Department, they will appreciate the seriousness of the matter. The Government fought a very hard battle to stop this becoming a Euro-directive. The Government said that they would fight it by "might and main". They knew that the issue here was not the question of how much sovereignty, but the question of the transfer of that sovereignty. What we are doing is starting a process whereby the control of broadcasting is switched to a non-elected body of the European Commission. That is a most dangerous thing for our democracy and, in the long term, Parliament will regret it.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), some other hon. Members and I are a thorough nuisance keeping people up when they could be asleep. Probably our action is pointless, as our views will have no effect because of the decisions that will be taken tomorrow. Our action is utterly pointless, as this House has no power. At the end of the day, however, I do not believe that we should be fulfilling our obligations to our constituents and doing the job for which we are paid if we did not say that this decision was shocking, shameful and undemocratic. I believe that Parliament will live to regret it.

2.37 am

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

I have a paper with me that was issued from Brussels entitled "Common position adopted by the Council on 13 April 1989". To my surprise, I found that it was published on 10 April, apparently three days before the document was adopted. That is extraordinary.

Some of my hon. Friends have already have said that the legislation will be implemented by way of a United Kingdom statute. That statute must be construed in a manner that is consistent with the directive. If there are any inconsistencies, the European Court of Justice will determine the matter against the statute in favour of the directive. Parallel to the directive are the provisions of the Council of Europe convention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has already said that other third-party states outside the EC may become subscribing members to the Council of Europe convention. Effectively we could be faced with a tripartite problem—a United Kingdom statute that is interpretable through our courts to the European Court of Justice; the provisions of the directive which are within the framework of that European Court and the Council of Europe convention that could be interpreted in a different way. The directive's provisions cover—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary for the disposal of the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 11, Noes 68.

Division No. 239]	[2.37 am
AYES
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Skinner, Dennis
Clay, Bob	Spearing, Nigel
Cryer, Bob	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Golding, Mrs Llin
Lewis, Terry	Tellers for the Ayes:
Loyden, Eddie	Mr. Roger Gale and
Meale, Alan	Mr. Jonathan Aitken.
Michael, Alun
NOES
Amess, David	Jack, Michael
Amos, Alan	Lightbown, David
Arbuthnot, James	Lord, Michael
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Miller, Sir Hal
Atkinson, David	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Moynihan, Hon Colin
Bevan, David Gilroy	Nelson, Anthony
Boswell, Tim	Norris, Steve
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Paice, James
Burns, Simon	Porter, David (Waveney)
Carrington, Matthew	Renton, Tim
Chapman, Sydney	Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Sackville, Hon Tom
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Shaw, David (Dover)
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Day, Stephen	Stern, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen	Stevens, Lewis
Durant, Tony	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Fallon, Michael	Summerson, Hugo
Forth, Eric	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Thurnham, Peter
Gregory, Conal	Tracey, Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Twinn, Dr Ian
Hague, William	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Waller, Gary
Harris, David	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Watts, John
Hind, Kenneth	Widdecombe, Ann
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)	Wood, Timothy
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Tellers for the Noes:
Hunt, David (Wirral W)	Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and
Irvine, Michael	Mr. David Maclean.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 7.

Division No. 240]	[2.48 am
AYES
Amess, David	Carrington, Matthew
Arbuthnot, James	Chapman, Sydney
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Atkinson, David	Currie, Mrs Edwina
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Day, Stephen
Boswell, Tim	Dorrell, Stephen
Burns, Simon	Durant, Tony

Fallon, Michael	Paice, James
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Renton, Tim
Gregory, Conal	Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Sackville, Hon Tom
Hague, William	Shaw, David (Dover)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Harris, David	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Stern, Michael
Hind, Kenneth	Summerson, Hugo
Howarth, Alan (Strafd-on-A)	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Thurnham, Peter
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Twinn, Dr Ian
Hunt, David (Wirral W)	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Irvine, Michael	Waller, Gary
Jack, Michael	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Lightbown, David	Watts, John
Lord, Michael	Widdecombe, Ann
McLoughlin, Patrick	Wood, Timothy
Miller, Sir Hal
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Moynihan, Hon Colin	Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and
Norris, Steve	Mr. David Maclean.
NOES
Clay, Bob	Spearing, Nigel
Golding, Mrs Llin
Lewis, Terry	Tellers for the Noes:
Meale, Alan	Mr. Bob Cryer and
Michael, Alun	Mr. Harry Barnes.
Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5574/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 30th March 1989 and the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 7th June 1989 relating to broadcasting activities; and endorses the Government's view that since these provisions now follow closely those of the Council of Europe's Convention on Transfrontier Television, they should be welcomed as contributing to the reduction of barriers to trade and the maintenance of the internationally-held principles of free-flow of information.