HL Deb 14 November 1996 vol 575 cc1077-90

6.40 p.m.

Lord Mason of Barnsley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what were the criteria for the decision of the Sports Council to exclude angling from the 22 sports designated as having an enhanced status.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, last May the Sports Council held a seminar entitled "Building a Sporting Future", during the course of which it announced that 22 sports chosen by the council were to receive, what it called, an enhanced service from the Sports Council. Criteria were laid down for recognition. The main ones covered participation in the sport; what of governing body membership?; what is the geographic spread?; and excellence of the sport. I was staggered to learn that angling, based on these main criteria, did not qualify for the Sports Council's recommendation. One cannot believe that angling, the biggest participatory sport in the country, did not deserve recognition.

Angling has never been a favourite sport of the Sports Council but this deliberate act of omission from enhancing the activities of the most successful sport in the country has resulted in total disbelief, anger and derision by all sections of the angling community. The Minister and the Sports Council have been bombarded with protests from every angling organisation, including the Salmon and Trout Association, the National Federation of Anglers, deep sea anglers, the Confederation of English Fly Fishers, Dick Clegg's, Coarse Fisherman, and so on. Many individual branches throughout all sections of angling and many individuals have risen in anger. The Angling Times and Angler's Mail, with a circulation of around 200,000, condemned the decision, as did Tom Pendry MP, the shadow Minister of Sport, and a cross-section of MPs, led by Sir Cranley Onslow MP.

The first test to be recognised was participation. Angling has 3.2 million participants—not spectators—so in participation it has no equals.

The second test was: what of governing body membership? Well, through the individual and club membership the Angling Governing Bodies Liaison Group, covering the three disciplines of coarse, game and sea angling, represent half a million anglers from branch to national level. What is the geographic spread? Angling, covering fly fishing, trout and salmon, rivers and still waters, coarse and deep sea fishing around our shores—the answer is every nook and cranny in the United Kingdom. It has no equals.

And what of excellence? Our international fly fishing team and coarse fishing teams win gold medals and world championships with constant regularity, shaming football and cricket with their lack of success. The international coarse fishing team, competing against up to 30 countries, has won the championship golds in 13 of the past 17 years. Contrast that with England's dismal record at soccer. Fly fishers have also taken nine golds in recent years, and in the 17 country world championships, Britain's sea anglers are dominant. Again, there is not one sport in this country—and a participatory sport at that—that can even start to match up to our country's success and excellence through angling. So on all the four main criteria, angling beats all comers.

What of the results? Who was recognised? Of the £1.5 million that went to coaching, angling receives nothing. Of the £8.7 million that goes to 103 governing bodies, coarse fishing, with 2 million participants, gets just £25,000 and is 71st in the list—and game angling, with a million participants, receives £17,500 and is 84th in the list. It is quite incredible and absolutely astonishing that angling should be treated in this fashion and that on their own criteria such a vast blunder could have been made.

Here are a few examples. The Salmon and Trout Association received £17,500; the sea anglers received £30,000; but badminton received £240,000; basketball, £266,250; and table tennis £279,000. The Canoe Union received £320,000 and amateur rowing £447,000. I remind the House that anglers have to pay for a licence before they can use a rod. Those canoeing and rowing do not have licences yet they receive between them £767,000. Not by any stretch of the imagination can any of these sports satisfy the Sports Council's main tests as can angling.

The Sports Council has frowned upon angling in the past for its failure to speak with one voice; but that was prior to the review of angling in 1991. Since then the Angling Governing Bodies Liaison Group has been established, formed with the National Federation of Anglers, the National Federation of Sea Anglers and the Salmon and Trout Association, and is working well. Indeed, it put proposals before the council in 1994 for broader programmes to encourage participation. But as everyone knows, no significant support has been forthcoming.

In July Chris Poupard, the director of the Salmon and Trout Association, writing on behalf of the angling governing bodies, wrote to Iain Sproat, the Sports Minister. He said: The fact is that angling has been treated shabbily by the Sports Council since 1991 and seriously neglected in terms of both service and funding".

He went on to say: Since 1994 the angling governing bodies have met with, and put various proposals to, the Sports Council for assistance with programmes to broaden specifically education and training schemes aimed at young people. No support has so far been forthcoming".

Ken Ball, president of the National Federation of Anglers, wrote a powerful letter of protest to the Prime Minister. The reply came from Conservative Central Office. He regarded that as a brush off. When Chris Poupard wrote a letter of protest to the Minister on 10th May he got a brush off from the Minister's assistant diary secretary. My Lords, what about that for shabbiness? Indeed, it was insulting.

Within the broad criteria, the Sports Council focused attention on youth sport, youth development and excellence. Performance and excellence in angling are beyond doubt; and undeniably angling has more youths to develop in a sport that can be enjoyed from the age of four upwards. But to help maintain its standards and assist in further development—indeed, to quote the Sports Council, to enhance its services—it needs finance for youth development, as it is a youth sport as well, and to increase its youth activities. Angling needs aids for the disabled; greater facilities for the growing numbers of women involved; improved training and tuition opportunities; and especially for blind and disabled persons. Only recently, as President of the Lords and Commons Fly Fishers, and with the support of Gallaghers, the tobacco firm, I launched a wheelie boat to cater for disabled anglers in wheelchairs. Note, my Lords, it was not the Sports Council. The chairman, Sir Rodney Walker, and chief executive, Derek Casey, of the Sports Council could not have made a bigger blunder incurring the wrath of all the active participants in the nation's most famous and successful countrywide sport.

The Labour Party's Anglers' Charter, published last year, stated its position—that Labour will call upon the Sports Council to review the amount of funding it allocates to angling; and again, in an official press release following this recent disgraceful allocation, calls upon the Sports Council to review immediately this decision.

Finally, Tony Pawson, OBE, sports correspondent for the Observer for 45 years, an internationally renowned angler and former fly fishing champion of the world, wrote to Iain Sproat listing his objections to the Sports Council's decision. He wound up by saying to him: The current Sports Council attitude can only be based on extreme ignorance, or extreme prejudice, since the logic for angling being a major sport in this country is incontrovertible. To put it below a minority import like judo is farcical. I hope you will help them come to their senses before they incur too widespread hostility".

That was on 2nd June. Well, my Lords, widespread hostility has been incurred, and the Sports Council now should be thoroughly ashamed.

6.50 p.m.

Viscount Mills

My Lords, the Sports Council is quite right to draw up a logical set of criteria to assess the national development of sports and their governing bodies. Criteria include giving consideration to the public profile and the numbers of participants in the sport. So does angling meet these criteria? According to the most recent National Angling Survey commissioned by the National Rivers Authority in 1994, there were 2.9 million anglers aged 12 years and over in England and Wales. I believe that that figure represents England and Wales rather than the United Kingdom.

It is also relevant to note that in coarse angling, which has by far the most participants, 20 per cent. are aged 12 years to 16 years and 42 per cent. are under 30 years of age. As the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, has already said, this is an important consideration in determining the development potential of any sport and a criterion the Sports Council itself emphasises as being important. When compared with other sports which are included in the Sports Council's list of the top 22 sports for enhanced status, only golf and aerobics may overall have higher numbers of participants.

Two further criteria are the geographical spread of the sport and the availability of its facilities. Wherever there are rivers, lakes, ponds and canals in this country you will find anglers as well as all around our coasts. And where there are fisheries, increasingly these are well equipped, for example, with fishing lodges, special fishing platforms and with access and facilities for disabled anglers.

Other criteria include the achievements and the potential for international success within the sport in question. In the sport of angling, again, as the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, has already said, there is an enviable record of success. Indeed, there are few sports where England can boast of being world champions on so many occasions.

Finally, there are those criteria relating to the governing bodies. As a member of the Salmon & Trout Association for many years, I can personally attest to it being a body which has served and will continue to serve extremely well the interests of game anglers. Likewise, the National Federations of Anglers and Sea Anglers represent their branches of the sport with equal effectiveness.

It therefore seems harsh of Mr. Derek Casey, the Director General of the Sports Council, to single out the supposed lack of unity among the governing bodies as the major reason for excluding angling from the top 22 sports, particularly as these three bodies are continuing their efforts to progress towards setting up an umbrella body for the sport.

Before this debate I contacted the three angling governing bodies to ask for their comments on this particular point. They kindly produced a joint statement which, if I may, I would like to read to noble Lords: The National Federation of Anglers, National Federation of Sea Anglers and the Salmon & Trout Association support the need for an effective single voice to represent angling in the UK. We believe any new body should he built on the foundations of the existing Angling Governing Bodies Liaison Group formed in 1993, which has proved increasingly effective. Representation within any new body should he confined to national organisations, with smaller groups and individuals able to seek advice from it. The financial arrangements for administering this should be borne by the participants on a per capita basis. An Annual Standing Conference open to all, will be held to report progress, future plans and to hear the views of those who wish to make a contribution. This process is deserving of the support and encouragement of the Sports Council, and we sincerely hope that support will he forthcoming". That statement is signed by Mrs. Jean Howman, the chairman of the Salmon & Trout Association; Ken Ball, the president of the National Federation of Anglers and Jack Reece, the chairman of the National Federation of Sea Anglers. I believe that represents a powerful statement of unity.

I would like to conclude by highlighting the fact that the benefits of angling are not restricted to the very great pleasure it gives to literally millions of anglers. Fishermen have done, and continue to do, much for the water environment. They are prepared to take on polluters, challenge water abstractors and help to maintain and improve aquatic habitats. Without them, I fear that our waterways would be so much poorer. This dimension of the sport should not be forgotten.

I therefore have no hesitation in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, in calling for the Sports Council to reassess its decision. At the earliest opportunity, I suggest that the Sports Council should include angling in the list of the top 22 sports eligible for enhanced services. Not to do so will, I fear, both damage the public perception of the sport and anglers' views of the Sports Council. It also defies all rational explanation and appears to contradict the Sports Council's own selection criteria. All of that poses the question as to what is the real reason for excluding angling from this list.

6.56 p.m.

Lord Moran

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, has played a notable part over the years in defending the interests of our rivers and the anglers who fish them and also the still waters, both as a member of the board of the former National Rivers Authority, the Anglers Co-Operative Association and in many other ways. We must all be grateful to him for raising this question of the Sports Council's support for angling, or the lack of it, tonight.

It has puzzled me for a long time why the Sports Council takes this line on angling. I remember that some years ago I wrote to a former chairman of the Sports Council pointing out the extraordinary disparity between the amount provided by the Sports Council for angling and that provided for canoeing, which is a very worthy sport, but which does not have as many participatory members. I got a somewhat wishy-washy answer. The disparity has in no way been corrected, as the noble Lord, Lord Mason, pointed out. The British Canoe Union is receiving £320,000 in grant from the Sports Council this year, which is about four-and-a-half times the amount provided altogether for the three angling governing bodies, which comes in total to £72,500.

I believe that the amounts provided for angling by the Sports Council are derisory as the noble Lord, Lord Mason, and the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, have pointed out. They are roughly equal to the amount provided for the British Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association and for the English Karate Governing Body, both of which get £70,000 from the Sports Council. The Salmon and Trout Association gets, as has been pointed out, £17,500 a year, which is substantially less than is provided for Health & Beauty Exercise, for the Margaret Morris Movement or the British Petanque Association. They are no doubt very worthy bodies, but not really to be compared with a sport which is providing participatory opportunities for something like 3 million people.

It appears from the discussions that have taken place between the Sports Council and representatives of the sport of angling, that the objection of the Sports Council to giving any more money to angling is that it claims that angling does not speak with one voice. As both the previous speakers have pointed out, substantial progress has been made. The three governing bodies are speaking with one voice and have a liaison committee. It seems totally unreasonable for the Sports Council to declare, as it has, that those bodies must organise themselves in a particular way. Its 1991 review of angling recommended the formation of three bodies, an angling council to oversee the sport, an angling development agency and an annual standing conference. That would no doubt be perfectly acceptable, but I do not think it is for the Sports Council to lay down precisely what should happen or to withhold funds simply because the sport of angling is not organised precisely as it would like.

I note from the Sports Council's list of grants that other sports, which do not necessarily speak with one voice, are fully funded. The list of grants records separate grants to the British Olympic Table Tennis Committee, the English Schools' Table Tennis Association and the English Table Tennis Association, amounting to £317,500. There are also separate grants for the All England Women's Hockey Association, the GB Men's Hockey Board, the GB Women's Hockey Olympic Committee and the Hockey Association. There seems no reason in principle why the Sports Council should not give grants to the three governing bodies of the sport of angling—and it should do so on a proper scale.

The Sports Council must consider the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, and should particularly consider financing the angling clubs which do such a lot for people in all walks of life. They need help in order to buy stretches of water and with their work for the disabled. The Sports Council should provide substantially more—not less than double what is now provided. It should certainly reconsider its decision to omit angling from the list of enhanced sports.

7.2 p.m.

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, I must first thank the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Before going any further I should declare an interest in that I am a regional chairman of the British Field Sports Society.

I support the case that has been so ably made for anglers being included on the elite list. I shall not bore your Lordships by repeating what has already been said, but should like to bring one or two other points to the attention of the House. I went to find out about the list and think that we need to go back to a Statement made in the other place by my honourable friend the Minister responsible for sport, Mr. Iain Sproat, on 8th July 1994 on the structure and management of the administration of British sport. In that Statement, Mr. Sproat said: In due course, those changes will allow us to give much greater help to our most important national sports. It will be for the new body to decide those sports, but I would expect it to concentrate, although not exclusively, on about two or three dozen".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/94; col. 585.] The list numbers only 22. It does not reach two dozen, so I do not see that there is any rhyme or reason as to why it should not extend to 23 or 24 sports and thus include anglers.

I have also tried to find out a little more about the Sports Council's activities. I should like it to be noted that the last annual report was produced in 1992–93 and included a strategy and plan for as far ahead as 1995. Despite there being a plan for 1995 and despite the change of structure and of emphasis by the Minister responsible for sport, here we are now, at the end of 1996, but we have heard nothing about an annual report and no reports are readily available. I found it extremely difficult to find out anything.

The case has been extremely well made by those who have already spoken. Angling should be included on the list. I have a worry that there is no real logic governing its omission. If there is not, I should be even more worried because dare I suggest that there is another agenda in the Sports Council as far as country sports are concerned?

7.5 p.m.

Lord Addington

My Lords, the case that has been made out tonight seems to revolve around one important point—that fishing, or angling, in all its forms probably has the highest participation rate of any sport in this country. That is probably true, but we do not know the real participation figure because of the number of people who take part without a licence.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has just referred to "prestige sports" and to how one interprets that phrase. It is undoubtedly true that vast numbers of people participate in angling, but is that the basis on which to decide that it should receive extra funding? If we do so decide, where does the funding come from?

My attitude towards angling is similar to Dr. Johnson's attitude to golf. He referred to golf as "a good walk ruined". I think that angling is a nice view ruined by something bobbing around in front of you in the water. I do not see the attraction, but I am not necessarily right and my opinion is not worth any more than that of anybody else. Indeed, it appears that I am in a minority here. However, we shall be in serious trouble if we start to say that angling can demand more funding simply because it enjoys mass participation. Mention has been made of the Sports Council's criterion of national participation. Let us not forget the hoo-ha and the great hue and cry over our performance in the Olympics. Where is the money to come from? We must all bear such points in mind.

It has been said that the angling associations have often been vitally important watchdogs for environmental concerns. Angling gets more sympathy from me on that count than when it argues for more money in competition with other sporting associations. I play rugby union. I am a coach for women's rugby union and amateur rugby league and am a vice-president of the UK Sports Association. All the relevant bodies for those sports receive some money from the Sports Council and if anyone tried to take money away from them I would put as much pressure on the Sports Council as the angling bodies are now doing to try to ensure that my sport is protected. We must always be even-handed.

If we are to bring pressure to bear when something goes wrong, we must also find new alternative ways forward. Anybody who is interested in sport must consider the position of participation sports as opposed to those sports involving the pursuit of excellence. We must also ask who needs the money. From what I have heard so far, and from other information that I have received, I have got the impression that angling does not need all that much help. Indeed, it is in rather better shape than virtually all other sports in this country. It is a question of balance because our resources are finite.

Having said that, however, angling's mass participation leads us to ask questions about policy. If we are taking the participation rate as opposed to Olympic membership as the criterion, we have real problems with the Sports Council. I take this opportunity to say to the Sports Council, "Kindly explain your position rather more clearly and rather more often". I do not know whether any other noble Lords have had the problems that I encountered when trying to get information from the Sports Council. It was not easy. Indeed, most of the information was second-hand. A great deal of the information that I needed for this debate had to come from the angling bodies because it did not come from the Sports Council. In the end they spoke with one voice and I received the information from one source as opposed to several. Faced with this attitude, one must balance several matters. If one knew by exactly which criteria one had to judge the matter and what benefits would accrue from it one would have a better idea of the position. If one is dealing with the matter simply on the basis that angling does not have one unified body but has taken steps to achieve it, and that participation in the sport is one of the primary criteria, angling should be there or possibly in a group all by itself. I do not believe that there can be any real argument about it. If not, the Sports Council must tell us why.

As a word of caution, when one considers all of the bodies that receive funds they will fight back, but angling has one thing going for it: virtually anyone can be involved in it on an even keel. However, when one talks about sports associations one must remember that, for example, women have different needs in terms of coaching and the laws that apply to their sports. They play according to different criteria because of the physical differences between the sexes. They need separate funding. I hope that the angling bodies will not use that as an example in future.

7.10 p.m.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I rise to wind up the debate on a subject ably dealt with by my noble friend Lord Mason. I do so with some pleasure. The noble Viscount, Lord Mills, and other speakers have provided a great deal of information right across the board to put the case beyond argument. As regards the 10 criteria on the list, angling at present meets all of them. My noble friend has referred to the fact that Mr. Pendry, the shadow sports spokesperson for the Labour Party, has called upon the Sports Council to review its position and to support angling immediately. My noble friend also refers to the fact that the Labour Party has a charter for anglers and, if successful at the election, will seek to implement it.

But I believe that there is more to it than that. I cannot for the life of me see why angling has received such shabby treatment, bearing in mind the money that has been poured into soccer to curb hooligans. Some clubs are now so awash with money that they pay nonsensical prices for players. A few years ago they passed round the begging bowl to build new stadia. They had no money. They were annoying everyone within miles of their grounds. So-called football supporters attacked people. The Government listened to the clubs readily. Was it because it was big business? I have not heard of any hooliganism among anglers. I have not heard about any anglers who attack other members of the community. One point that has been missed is that angling is to an extent a family sport. That has been so for a long time. I believe that the Government are quite right to emphasise the importance of the family as a mainstay of the community in teaching people how to behave. I believe that, strictly, angling qualifies on that basis.

Having been a former secretary of a working men's club, I know that at the bottom end of the social scale angling is widespread. Most working men's clubs have angling teams, some of which are extremely successful in both national and international competitions. This activity runs right across the political, social and economic spectrums. It goes from the lower income groups right to the top. I refer to those who fish for salmon and so forth. No one can say that a narrow group of people is asking for special treatment.

I believe that this week a member of the Olympic Board has said that more money will be made available to win medals. It would not be a bad idea if it started with some of the people referred to by my noble friend Lord Mason and the noble Viscount, Lord Mills. I refer to those who have won international medals, sometimes with great frequency. If we do not do better at the next Olympic Games than at the last ones, we shall forget what an Olympic medal looks like. We shall have to return to history. The Sports Council may need to have its memory jogged as to what this situation is about.

Whatever the criterion by which one judges the situation, whether it is people spending their leisure hours in a fulfilling way without annoying others—I do not use the word "entertainment"—there is no sport to compare with angling. I understand that some fishermen go out on Saturday evening and fish all night. They return in the morning. No one has been interfered with or been troubled by them. I do not understand what Mr. Rodney Walker, who is known to me personally, is thinking about in acting in such an arbitrary manner. I believe that the sooner he reviews the situation and does justice to the angling community the better. The three main bodies are almost amalgamated into one. They certainly declare the same objectives. This sport has a tremendous following. Those involved in it are overwhelmingly peaceful. I should have thought that angling would have top priority and would not be at the bottom of the list. The sooner the Government lean on the Sports Council to alter the situation to the satisfaction of people who understand angling the better. If the speeches in your Lordships' House tonight are anything to go by, there is no question where the support lies.

7.16 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, in view of the remarks that have been made about our Olympians, I think it is as well to point out how well our disabled Olympians have done. To return to the subject of today, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mason, for initiating this debate. He is a keen angler and, I understand, the founder of the House of Commons and House of Lords Fly Fisher's Club. I assure noble Lords that the Government are well aware of the importance and popularity of angling and welcome this opportunity to explain to your Lordships the Government's policies on angling.

I also congratulate anglers for their amazing record of success both nationally and internationally. The National Rivers Authority commissioned a national angling survey in 1994 which estimated that there were around 3 million anglers in England and Wales. The survey also highlighted that angling made a significant contribution to the economy, with an estimated £3.3 billion per year being spent on angling-related activities. The Government, therefore, remain fully committed to developing the sport. Angling is eligible for lottery funding and has already received significant awards totalling nearly half a million pounds. My department also funds Sportsmatch, the business sponsorship incentive scheme for sport, which has awarded £59,461 to angling schemes. Together with a similar amount in commercial sponsorship, Sportsmatch has, therefore, generated over £100,000 for angling since its creation in 1992. Fishing will soon be exempt from non-domestic rates under a measure which will reduce the rates bill of sporting rights in England and Wales by £5 million a year. We have also taken action, among other things, to improve river quality and protect anglers from saboteurs.

The noble Lord, Lord Mason, referred to angling and the disabled. Lottery funding has provided for the purchase of 10 wheelie boats through a grant of £20,674 to the Handicapped Anglers Trust, over £7,000 towards the reinstatement of a fishing lake at Darwen and nearly £40,000 to the Saddleworth and District Angling Society.

However, for the most part, the Government pursue their objectives for sport and active recreation through the Sports Council which awards annual grants to sports governing bodies. This year, it has committed £73,750 to the three main angling governing bodies: the Salmon and Trout Association; the National Federation of Anglers and the National Federation of Sea Anglers.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, it is reasonable to expect the bodies responsible for angling to work together. There is no requirement for them to amalgamate. As the noble Lord made clear, the council supports more than one body for a number of sports, but to avoid waste they are encouraged to pull together.

In July 1994, the Minister for Sport announced the restructuring of the administration, and re-focusing of government support for sport on the young and the development of excellence. As part of this re-focusing, the Minister announced that he wished the Sports Council to concentrate its resources on fewer sports which best deliver these objectives. Operating under its Royal Charter, the Minister made it clear that it would be for the Sports Council to decide on those sports, not the Government.

On 8th May 1996, the Sports Council announced how it intended to take forward this new policy. The proposed system involved the categorisation of sporting activities, and their governing bodies, based on their national development potential and using a detailed list of criteria. In undertaking this exercise, the council considered: the public profile of the sport; participation levels; current and potential governing body membership; geographical spread of the sport; achievement at excellence level; potential for international success; availability of facilities; governing body administrative infrastructure; coaching and officiating infrastructure; and the extent to which the governing body's objectives were consistent with the council's policies.

At the conclusion of this exercise, the priority sports and governing bodies identified were considered again in respect of their particular relevance to the two main aspects of the Sports Council's remit; namely, young people and the development of excellence.

In summary, those sporting activities which were considered to be particularly relevant to young people and the development of excellence were designated Category A sports. The Sports Council will work more closely with these sports and their governing bodies to ensure achievements on the world stage are sustained, while also sustaining the existing pathways for young people through participation to excellence. I shall give a full list for the record of the 11 Category A sports: football; rugby union; rugby league; athletics; swimming; cycling; cricket; gymnastics; hockey; judo; netball and sailing.

Those sports which were considered to be particularly relevant to either young people or the development of excellence were designated Category B sports. The Sports Council will work closely with these sports and governing bodies to ensure their particular area of strength is sustained, while helping to develop the "other" area. The 11 Category B sports are: badminton; basketball; tennis; canoeing; golf; rowing; squash; triathlon; fitness/aerobics; orienteering and table tennis.

My noble friend Lord Glentoran rightly pointed out that the Minister of State spoke of concentrating on two or three dozen sports. There is room for manoeuvre here within the Minister's target if the council believes that it can be justified, but that is ultimately a matter for the council.

This proposed system for corporate working with governing bodies of sport will provide a high quality range of services to all governing bodies as standard. It will reduce bureaucracy and enable the governing bodies of sport to make better use of the available resources. It will allow the Sports Council the flexibility to provide an enhanced service. This may mean additional funding, and will almost certainly mean the provision of additional development officer time to work with the governing bodies, through selected sports to address the Sports Council's key objectives.

I can assure noble Lords that the council's decision not to include angling in the list of 22 sports to receive an enhanced service was taken only after careful consideration. I am sure that the decision in no way underplays the importance which the council attaches to the sport. Furthermore, it is the Sports Council's policy to keep the list of sports to receive an enhanced service under constant review. Angling will not be excluded, but any consideration to include angling will be subject to the sport being represented with greater unity. It is hoped that the sport will be able to build on the good work already undertaken in developing clear work programmes and targets across the various angling disciplines. Indeed, I understand that the council had a useful meeting last month with representatives from the angling world to this end.

My noble friend Lord Glentoran raised a question of the publication of the Sports Council's annual report. It is expected early in the new year. My noble friend Lord Mills mentioned the umbrella body for angling. We welcome work towards creating an umbrella body for angling, which will undoubtedly help the Sports Council work with the sport of angling towards a common goal.

The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, mentioned hooliganism. I agree that angling is a family sport, but I feel that I should speak up for football and the high standard of family accommodation which has been developed with the support of the Government and Euro '96, which was a tremendous festival of friendly sport and sportsmanship.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, the Government recognise the importance of angling, not only as a sport but also in terms of its many other benefits. The Government, and their agencies, have already implemented a number of important initiatives, and are continuing to develop a wide range of measures to help angling as a sport, as a recreational pastime and as a commercial industry.

In conclusion, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, said that angling meets all the criteria. Angling is indeed an extremely popular sport in which there is a tremendous record of achievement. As I said earlier, it has received a good deal of support from the Sports Council and will continue to do so. I will draw to the chairman's attention the views expressed by your Lordships this evening. I know that he is listening to what has been said and that the council had a useful meeting with angling representatives last month.

House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past seven o'clock.