I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." This Bill deals with some fundamental matters of democracy. The two fundamental principles proposed in the legislation establish the rights of citizens, rights that are cultural rights, to be exercised in relation to the media. On the one hand it argues that sporting activities, along with some other activities, are so essentially part of the culture and experience of every citizen that they should be enjoyed through the media in a way that is derived from rights and from a cultural space rather than the marketplace. The second principle, which establishes the principle of there being a diversity of ownership is equally derived from cultural rights. It argues that monopoly in the ownership of a form of the media, or forms of the media, limits the diversity to which citizens enjoying a vibrant culture are entitled.
I would have liked to think that all of these matters had been handled expeditiously and that my legislation would be unnecessary. Sadly, that is not the case. When I was Minister with responsibility for broadcasting I recall these issues being raised, correctly, with some energy by those then in Opposition. They seemed to be convinced of the first principle that those who have been enjoying sport were entitled to continue to do so without any intrusion of a purchased right from the marketplace. The difference however is that we were, at that stage, in preparation of a new television sans frontie res— television without boundaries — directive. An article of that, later to become Article 3a, clearly established the principle of which I speak. We were waiting to see if we could act in concert in Europe to vindicate this right which is a right not just of citizens within the jurisdiction but one that is also enjoyed by those who are outside the jurisdiction but who are interested in the events involved. Put plainly, the Irish in Birmingham, in Coventry or elsewhere are as affected by an exclusive claim placed on sporting rights as some of the Irish at home. Consequently, when the final text of the revised “Television without Frontiers” directive was passed in June l997 there then existed the capacity to take the action that I thought was agreed upon on all sides of this House in the past.
It is important that I speak about something else in this context. Perhaps this will explain as well the urgency that attaches to this legislation. Before the end of this year Sky Television will offer digitalised service and perhaps television boxes which will come pre-encoded. It will be too late. One will have missed the whole signing of contracts period. This is not just a legal concern. We could put it more dramatically. At the moment many people are watching the World Cup. That is a separate argument but it is an example of the context with which I am dealing, and I will return to it later. The Kirch Foundation in Germany has purchased the rights of the World Cup in 2002 and 2006, and if citizens in Europe are to see it without the inhibition of capacity to pay, the European Broadcasting Union will have to deal with that foundation and try to purchase the rights back and they in turn will be passed on to citizens. I will leave that issue aside for the moment because it is not the essential one, but it is germane in the sense that we do not have the time to delay until the main broadcasting legislation is published at the end of the year. When I was Minister I was pressed to bring in the legislation on this matter as a matter of urgency, even though I knew it could be best implemented on a Europe-wide basis.
Article 3a of the revised directive, which was accepted in June l997, states:
1. Each member state may take measures in accordance with Community law to ensure that broadcasters under its jurisdiction do not broadcast on an exclusive basis events which are regarded by that member state as being of major importance for society in such a way as to deprive a substantial proportion of the public in that member state of the possibility of following such events via live coverage or deferred coverage on free television. If it does so, the member state concerned shall draw up a list of designated events, national or non-national, which it considers to be of major importance for society. It shall do so in a clear and transparent manner in due and effective time. In so doing the member state concerned shall also determine whether these events should be available via whole or partial live coverage, or where necessary or appropriate for objective reasons in the public interest, whole or partial deferred coverage.
2. Member states shall immediately notify to the Commission any measures taken or to be taken pursuant to paragraph 1. Within a period of three months from the notification, the Commission shall verify that such measures are compatible with Community law and communicate them to the other member states. It shall seek the opinion of the Committee established pursuant to Article 23a. It shall forthwith publish the measures taken in the Official Journal of the European Communities and at least once a year the consolidated list of measures taken by member states.
The force that the revised directive, and particularly Article 3a, was that the European states would act in concert against the forces of monopoly as it were robbing the citizens of Europe of the right to participate in the cultural events to which they had become used. That was the reason, we having established our list, Britain had effectively gone ahead in the l996 Broadcasting Act and listed eight events. The advantage of our doing the list after the directive was that we would be acting in concert. We also would have been making something real out of the Ninth Protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty which spoke specifically about the importance of different states being able to help public service broadcasting widen its remit and secure investment and expand in entirely new and challenging conditions.
I do not intend to give very many quotes, but one would be very relevant in relation to that first point I made about the right to view sport as a citizens' right rather than as a facility purchased in the marketplace. Mr. Rupert Murdoch has said: "Sport will be the battering ram for pay television". The context of the legislation I speak about this evening is one in which we have to make up our minds, late in this century now, whether we are going to vindicate citizens' rights in relation to the media and do it through directives that have been established in concert with our European partners, or simply drift or refuse to implement something that is clearly within our capacity to implement. That would be quite monstrous. If we decide to abandon our responsibilities in this regard, the implications are clear.
I wish to say some more about the issues that are at stake in regard to the first principle of the legislation. On another occasion I will speak about how all of what I have described is made far more dangerous by the arrival of digitalisation, irrespective of the form by which digitalisation is introduced. Effectively it will be argued, rather like the old argument that anyone passing the Shelbourne was free to go in, that people will have a choice of hundreds of television programmes and that they can become their own programmer as long as they pay for it. Indeed, the current operation of pay television in relation to sport is interesting because those who have secured that part of the market have split the sports channels they have had and doubled the imposition on those whom they were willing to rob of a citizenship right.
Let us note the principle that is at stake here and why I say it is of the utmost democratic importance. The principle is one of universal access. It is rather like saying to people they have a choice to make. One might say one had a right to health, irrespective of one's ability to pay the highest priced consultant. One is arguing for the principle of universal access within citizenship and within a theory of active culture. If, on the other hand, one says that a television programme is a commodity, like a tin of beans, and it is a matter of simply having the money to purchase it, one is arguing effectively against the democratic ethos of broadcasting, but the principle is one of universal access.
The context in which this argument is being made is one in which there have been four major trends that I can discern in relation to broadcasting, not just in Europe but in the western world, one of which is convergence. There is a consistent con job going on in that regard, the idea being that people should be mesmerised by the developments in technology. Three kinds of convergence are clear. A convergence of technology that will combine the computer, the television set, the telephone and whatever, but also the idea that we must invest in Europe at such a speed as to be able to be in competition with Japan or the United States, that everything to do with citizens' rights or the impact on the society is tedious. Thus there is regular tension at three levels of the Commission between the Commissioner responsible for the introduction of new market services, the Commissioner responsible for the Internal Market, Commissioner Monti, and Commissioner Marcelino Oreja who is responsible for cultural diversity. Put bluntly, the cultural Commissioner and his arguments are always treated residually, hence the cultural expression is rather weak. That is the technical convergence.
Much more serious is the convergence of markets and, beyond that, a convergence of content. Left neatly aside is consideration of the second most important dimension in regard to what is happening in the media in general in terms of concentration of ownership. The draft directive on concentration of ownership was promised more than two years ago. It is still not in place and now it appears that when it does come, it will not be a directive enforceable by law but rather an expression of what should be a code of good practice by those who "gobble up" the ownership of the media internationally, we meanwhile having removed every inhibition to State regulation within the member countries of the European Union.
Part of the great alienation in Europe by citizens is that they are saying, even on the doorsteps in the recent referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty, they did not realise that is what they voted for — the destruction of every State regulation and provision and open season for oligopoly and monopoly internationally in ownership of the media. That is why, for example, Time Warner, after its latest merger, becomes No. 47 in the list of the largest corporations in the world. The cross-links between Disney, for example, Turner, which is part of Time Warner, West-inghouse and General Electric are a map of a set of unaccountable conglomerates. If a person goes out in the evening to see "Titanic" or "The Full Monty", buys a magazine on the way home——