Lords Sitting of 1 March 1984

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Nutrition: The James Report
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to implement the recommendations of the James Report on nutrition.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the report to which the noble Lady refers is not a Government report. It is an independent discussion paper which has been passed to the expert panel set up by the Chief Medical Officer's Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy. The panel is expected to report later this year.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, when the panel has reported would the DHSS consider publishing a brief pamphlet setting out its recommendations for circulation to general practitioners and to health and education authorities with a view to improving meals in schools, hospitals and other such places?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Government welcome the paper to which the noble Lady has referred as a contribution towards the discussion about diet and health. The James advice regarding the direction in which people should change their diet is very similar to the department's advice given in a pamphlet called Eating for Health. The definitive body is the body to which I have referred in the original Answer. We shall have to await that before we can decide whether or not to publish any pamphlet such as she suggests.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in his further consideration of these matters will the noble Lord bear in mind that, if he were to heed the advice of all my medical colleagues about what not to eat, he would come to the conclusion that the only way to stay absolutely healthy would be to starve to death? In that connection, would the noble Lord the Minister bear in mind that the positive advice in the James Report regarding what to eat is of much greater importance than the view that if we all ate a great deal more fibre we would all be a great deal fitter?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly share with the noble Lord the feeling that if we paid attention to every single comment that is made on health we probably would all end up in the way he described. As far as fibre is concerned, the Government entirely share his view.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that one encouraging thing revealed in the James Report is that, whereas we have had for a very long time great disagreement in the medical profession about what is a balanced diet and what is dangerous and what is not, we now seem to have agreement with the medical profession, with dieticians and the rest? I wondered why the Government do not themselves feel that they themselves should publish this report; and, secondly, whether it would not now be wise, since there are so many dangers, for the Government to launch a campaign so that the public have a better understanding of what are the recommendations in relation to a balanced and wise diet.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I have said, the James Report was an ad hoc piece of advice to another committee. We are concerned about the degree to which people should change their dietary habits, but I have to say that we think that in some respects—and this, I think, was borne out by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley—there is a great deal of discussion among the experts as to what is right. We think that James perhaps goes further than can be justified in the present state of scientific knowledge. But it is up to the committee to which I referred to produce the definitive answer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree at this time that the addition of leek to the diet would be beneficial to the nation?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, on a day like this how could I possibly say otherwise?
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that nutritional standards could be advanced considerably if the Government were to campaign to encourage people to grow their own fresh vegetables?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is entirely right and I know of his particular interest in this matter.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Government make this report available to all Members of the House since quite obviously many of us on these Benches are under-nourished?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord looks very well to me, but if he has any complaints I am sure that somebody will be able to look after him.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, do the Government realise that an improvement in the nation's health would result in a reduction of disease so that the DHSS would save a great deal of money?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes, I daresay that the noble Lady is right, but I would still ask her to await the definitive result of the report to which I referred.

"Short Sharp Shock": Evaluation
3.5 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they propose to publish the results of research on the short sharp shock régime in detention centres.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, as quickly as possible after the evaluation report has been completed. Our intention is that it should not be later than when the House rises for the Summer Recess.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Is the noble Lord aware how tantalising the Government have been to those of us who told them in the first place that this measure was wrong-headed and who cannot wait to be told that we were right? Is the noble Lord aware that we were first promised a date by the right honourable gentleman Mr. Brittan in 1950; we were, secondly, promised a date in 1951 when the promise was made by the right honourable gentleman then Mr. Mayhew, and thirdly, the noble Lord himself at the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill promised us a date in 1982. Lastly, the honourable gentleman Mr. Hurd gave us the final date, we thought, which was early in the new year of 1984. Would the noble Lord agree that February 29th is the latest time which can be described as "early in the new year"?
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the basis that all the noble Lords' references were to the present decade, I freely admit that we have been over-optimistic—and I impute this to myself in the statement that I made in this House. The work to be done has proved much more intricate and more extensive than I had supposed but, in view of the exchanges on the last Question, your Lordships may think that a few of a Minister's words are a good part of his diet.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, has the noble Lord the Minister seen the report, certainly from one of the centres, that the short, sharp shocks introduced at detention centres have been more shocking for the prison officers than for the boys they are supposed to reform?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord is probably referring to the West Yorkshire Probation Service Study, in which case I can say that we are aware of that study. I understand that the report on it is not yet complete. Whatever its conclusions may be, of course, they will be a good deal narrower than what is clearly becoming the very extensive work that we are engaged on ourselves.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, can we be assured that the report, which we await with great interest, will be published before the events in the second week of October in Brighton this year?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not get the reference or the implication of the date in the noble Lord's supplementary question.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I was asking whether we could have an assurance that the report will be ready before the conference in Brighton in October.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I presume the noble Lord means his conference rather than ours. I have already said when we expect the report to be. It is not in our control and it would be quite wrong for us to force statisticians to publish figures before they were content with them. The analysis is now being written up; the whole of the results will be published; the report will include an account of the techniques used to arrive at its conclusions, and it will be supported by all the necessary statistics. The whole of this is being overseen by a committee which includes two eminent and independent professors.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill 1982 concern was expressed by a number of people at the number of boys being sent to these centres undergoing this experimental regime who were subsequently found to be unfit and had to be returned whence they came? Is it not a fact that, as at September 1982, more than 100 boys were found to be medically unfit on grounds of mental or physical handicaps and had to be sent away? Could he assure the House that something has been done since, and ahead of the publication of this report, to rectify that very unsatisfactory state of affairs? May I put another question? Would he not agree that this form of treatment, if appropriate, would be appropriate for acts of vandalism, hooliganism, muggings and other forms of violence by young people? Would he accept that my information is that the great majority of boys being sent to these centres are found guilty of taking and driving away vehicles, and of theft?
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first question, the step which has been taken to ensure that nobody is sent to these centres for whom such a régime is not medically suitable is that they shall be medically examined on arrival and before they are committed to the régime. Therefore the numbers mentioned by the noble Lord refer I think to those who have not actually embarked upon the régime at all; but I will of course look into that. As to the second of his questions, as a layman I have a view of course as to which of the offenders is the most suitable for this treatment. However, it is not for me, as a member of the Government, to instruct the court what sentence to give in any case.

Public Transport: Smoking
3.11 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will encourage transport authorities to ban smoking on buses.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, regulations enable bus operators to enforce a ban on smoking in any part of a public service vehicle. But it is a matter for the bus operators, taking full account of public opinion, to decide whether they will implement such a ban. The Government welcome the trend towards further restrictions on smoking in buses.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that helpful answer, may I ask whether he is aware that whereas it is St. David's day today, yesterday was a national no-smoking day? Is he aware that certain unnamed Members of this House seemed blissfully ignorant of that fact? Also, in the case of London's double-decker buses where people are allowed to smoke on the upper deck, the travellers face serious hazards. First, there is the danger of being asphyxiated in the rush hour; secondly, there is the problem of ash all over the place because there are no ash trays; and thirdly, in the crush to leave the bus there is the danger of holes being burnt in one's clothes.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, regarding yesterday's day for no-smoking, I certainly congratulate the organisers; but it is too early of course to say whether it has been a success. So far as Members of your Lordships' House who smoke are concerned, I certainly would not like to be the person who turns, for example, to my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip and says that he has just smoked his last cigar.
As to buses, as my noble friend says, London Transport completely, prohibits smoking on single-decker buses and on the lower decks of double-decker buses. In the latter case, smokers are asked to sit at the rear on the upper deck. It is a matter, as I have said, for the bus companies to decide on these arrangements and I am sure that they will take note of his remarks. My noble friend also made a specific reference to the passive smoking factor, in that others in the same environment pick up smoke. He used the word "asphyxiate". On present evidence, this situation is not likely to cause any great harm to healthy adults, but of course the Government are keeping the matter under review.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I should be the last person in your Lordships' House to prevent any Member asking questions—that is the very last thing I would think of—but really I am becoming a bit aggravated by questions which aim at interfering with a civilised existence.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Shinwell: Only the other week they tried to prevent members of the police force having a drink occasionally, and now they want to stop smoking on buses. I have never travelled on a bus—I have the opportunity of using a car—but really this is going a bit too far. Are we going to stop everything? Some people want to stop this place going on—and that is another example of aggravation. With great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who often asks very sensible questions, I am sorry but on this occasion I think it is completely uncivilised.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, would it be out of order, since the Minister did not immediately leap up to reply, to ask this question. Is not the principle concerned involving not those who smoke pipes and cigars but those who smoke cigarettes? Is not the evidence that was quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, quite correct—that there is increasing medical evidence of the effect on non-smokers of those who are smoking? This is a new factor, which is better understood now as the result of the third report of the Royal College of Physicians. Is it not right that the Government should seek to use their influence, as was suggested by the noble Lord?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords; the Government will do their best to discourage people from smoking, for the reasons which I think I have made quite clear and which were also made clear when a similar Question was asked two or three weeks ago. So far as bus passengers are concerned, surveys seem to suggest that comparatively few people consider smoking on buses to be a serious problem or a serious deterrent to travelling by bus. I dare say that if long-distance bus operators were to ban smoking on their buses then they probably would not get all the customers they want.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Government are considering increasing taxation by putting up health service charges in order to make up for the loss of revenue on tobacco duty?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, that question would be better directed to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I certainly do not propose to be drawn into answering it now.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, would not the House and the Minister agree that the concluding question on this subject might well be to follow a recommendation of the Wolfenden Committee—of which I was proud to be a member—namely, that smoking should only be allowed between consenting adults in private?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had been involved in that committee; but I take the point that he makes.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would agree that the "upstairs, downstairs" system on the buses has now been running for a very long time and has worked extremely well. Is it not really an excellent example of freedom of choice which I understand this Government are very keen on?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, of course the Government are keen on freedom of choice. However, it is a matter for the bus companies to decide for themselves whether it is appropriate to ban or discourage smoking in any particular part of a bus because there are those among the public who do not like smoking as much as others.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the question addressed to him by my noble friend Lord Mishcon is not contained in the Labour Manifesto? Is it not improper that a member of our Front Bench should raise an issue which is in violation of decisions taken by our annual conference year by year?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I would hesitate before getting into the middle of a discussion between the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and his noble friend Lord Mishcon; but I can tell him that this is not in our manifesto either.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, although my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has incurred the formidable censure of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, by his suggestion of banning smoking in buses, is not the practice followed in London a reasonable compromise between safeguarding health and individual liberty? Would my noble friend consider commending this example to other companies throughout the country?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if it is successful, as my noble friend suggests it is, then I have no doubt that other bus companies will follow. There are other examples which I could give but I do not think it would be appropriate necessarily to compare those bus companies outside London with those bus companies within it. The message is much the same.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that in places like the Underground one does not have the choice of going upstairs or downstairs to smoke? Would not the advice of the Government in such a case as that to the London Transport Board perhaps be advisable?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I understand it, on the Underground one has the choice of going into a smoking or a non-smoking compartment.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am a little shocked at his suggestion that just because a man owns a bus he should thereby he entitled to correct another man's faults?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, he can do that only if he owns a public bus and uses it for public transport.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does the Minister not think that people should be left free to smoke or not to smoke as they please? I ask this question as one who gave up smoking 40 years ago.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, of course individuals are entitled to do what they please, but the fact is that, as I said in answer to a Question a couple of weeks ago, a great deal of money and a great many working days are lost as a result of smoking, and I do not think one can escape those facts.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords would the noble Lord—
Noble Lords: Next Question!

Public Transport Users' Groups: Submission
3.21 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the submission on Streamlining the Cities (Cmnd. 9063) by the Public Transport Users' Groups in Greater London and the Metropolitan Counties.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the submission from the Public Transport Users' Groups is currently being considered along with other submissions received.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that this is a submission from some 20 or more official Passenger Transport Users' Groups in Greater London and the metropolitan counties? Will he also recognise that the submission is highly critical of the proposals in the Government's White paper; that it is concerned that there may be an erosion of the progress made in passenger transport development since the metropolitan counties were established; and that it is concerned that the question of passenger transport will be divorced from other important subjects—not least, strategic planning? As almost every report dealing with Streamlining the Cities is critical, is the consultation really genuine and will the Government consider revising their proposals?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I can confirm that the submission is from a number of transport users' groups. I have to refute nearly all the first set of points which the noble Lord embraced, in that we do not see the submission as particularly underlining a need for a reversal of public transport policy, nor do we see it as underlining a departure from the consideration of social and other needs and so on. So I cannot agree with what the noble Lord is suggesting. So far as consultation is concerned, this is a submission and I said in my original Answer that that submission is being considered.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I must ask whether the Minister has really read the submission. I have a copy here and my two extracts are only two of seven submissions, all of which are in line with what I said.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Yes, my Lords. I have read the submission. I, too, have a copy here and I also have a summary in front of me and I cannot accept what the noble Lord says.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister tell us how many of the voluntary organisations—those for the disabled, the elderly and so on—have put in submissions in this field?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I regret, not without notice, my Lords.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are not only concerned with

1367
transport, and that every public organisation concerned with practically every aspect of public policy, and of whatever political party and none, has made submissions to the Government opposing their proposals?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper deals with the submission from the transport users' groups and I certainly do not have at my fingertips any information about any other submissions.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the behaviour of English soccer fans in France. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Aerospace Industry. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Belstead who will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 27th and 28th February.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Cable and Broadcasting Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment the Third Reading of the Orkney Islands Council Order Confirmation Bill, consideration on Report of the Western Isles Islands Council (Kallin Pier, Harbour Jurisdiction) Order Confirmation Bill and the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1984 will be taken.

Animal Health and Welfare Bill [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
Read a third time.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the privilege amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords—
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that if we are to have a debate it should be on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. Will that be suitable to the noble Lord?
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My, Lords, the Motion that I heard was that the privilege amendment be agreed to. Does the noble Lord rise to speak on that?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I wish to speak on the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think there will be an opportunity. I have only the privilege amendment in front of me at the moment.
On Question, an amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, this is a very useful Bill, and it brings up to date the legislation necessary to keep up with the present situation in agriculture, where we have developments in animal breeding, in the keeping of animals and, of course, in the rights of veterinary people to collect material that may be required in the control of diseases. I know that my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby may have liked to go a little further than the Bill has gone, but, so far as we are concerned, it fills a useful gap because of the developments that have taken place in the keeping of animals, in the slaughtering of animals and in the control of diseases, and we give it our blessing. I am glad that the Minister was able to say that he would make exceptions in the slaughtering provisions so as to allow housewives to kill their Christmas turkeys without a licence.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, having taken rather longer on the Committee and Report stages of this Bill than is customary for a Bill of this kind, I ask leave to make a few comments before the Bill finally passes through your Lordships' House. This is a useful Bill, and we have improved it slightly in the course of its passing through the House. It is not a criticism, but it is a disappointment that I have that the Bill does not contain a great deal more along the line of reform of the conditions under which animals go to slaughter. Clauses 4 to 7 are a distinct advance on present conditions, and we look forward to the regulations and the codes of practice which will be issued under the provisions of those clauses.
But the main problem here is that we are never going to catch up. At the present rate of progress, old problems will take too long to remedy and new ones will be looming up while we are still dealing with past practices. The Government should make up their minds to make speedier progress with the changes which they must know are overdue, and which I thought were implicit in the undertakings given by the Conservative Party as long ago as the election of 1979. I fear that Ministers express hopes about doing things during coming Sessions and during the lifetime of a Parliament, but find that the processes of administration, consideration and consultation all drag down the hopes of the Government, month after month and year after year. Even though we are dealing with a Bill which relates principally to poultry going to slaughter, there is still the problem of the battery hen in the background to be dealt with, a problem of probably 25 years' standing which is giving rise to increasing concern among members of the public about the conditions under which poultry are kept.
I have stressed more than once that new problems need to be identified very early before they rapidly change into considerable enterprises and industries, with very large amounts of capital invested in them. In this connection it is very important that when the Farm Animal Welfare Council undertakes an investigation and a report there should be the least possible delay in implementing the recommendations which

1369
the Government feel able to adopt, otherwise the Farm Animal Welfare Council goes through the whole process of consultation and the department then goes over it all again and gives more time to express views to people whose views have been expressed much earlier to the Farm Animal Welfare Council. This happened in relation to the recommendations which are embodied in Clauses 4 to 7 of the Bill.
One problem which is looming ahead and which I hope will be dealt with speedily is that of the slaughter of deer. A new farm animal, the red deer, is now the subject of intensive husbandry and a new element in the meat market. There is no doubt that there is considerable concern about it. I noticed that on our menu the other evening there was venison. Where did it come from? How was it slaughtered? Was it shot in the open by high velocity bullets, or was it slaughtered in an abattoir with a captive bullet? The deer is not yet a farm animal which is protected under the slaughterhouses Acts. It is very desirable that we should deal with a problem which is far different from that of the domesticated cow, bullock, sheep or pig. These are wild animals—much nearer the wild than the domesticated farm animal. It is important that we should look at this problem before it becomes a matter of serious public concern.
There are other aspects of the problem which it would not be suitable for me to go into at length on the Third Reading of the Bill. In the case of a Bill of this kind one must stay within reasonable boundaries of discussion. However, I should like to make one point before I sit down. It relates to the role of the consumer. Throughout the different stages of the Bill we have been dealing with the slaughter of millions and millions of birds for the table: poultry, geese, ducks, turkeys. And at the end of the Report stage we added quails.
When I read the evidence that was given some years ago to the Select Committee in another place, consideration of which was the forerunner of certain parts of the Bill, I kept on reading about "consumer demand", as though consumers were making imperative demands upon producers which somehow had to be met, on pain of public anger. The consumer may have preferences and choices but I do not believe that it can be called "consumer demand". There is a tendency to regard the consumer as a kind of automatic shopping basket. But the consumer is a human being and a whole person, with feelings and intelligence about the factors and conditions which lie behind what is being bought in the shops. When, therefore, we consider animal welfare, since we are told that birds and animals must come first, I hope that we shall not raise the status of consumer demand to a kind of religious text. It is nothing of the kind. I hope that the divide between producers and consumers in this context can be narrowed.
It is distressing to read of the venom expressed by some spokesmen in the context of the production of food animals and livestock in relation to those who are agitating on behalf of welfare societies. But so-called "welfarists" are just members of the consuming public, like everybody else. I wonder whether or not some of the animal welfare societies would do well to convert themselves into a kind of consumer
1370
association in order to express their views as consumers rather than as those who care for animals, without full regard to their own involvement in the treatment of animals about which we now complain. There is need for a closer relationship between consumers and producers so that the interests of both can be looked at with a greater degree of harmony and understanding than is the case at present.
Another aspect of this matter is the use of the boycott. I hope noble Lords have not overlooked the fact that Tesco have said that the protests they have received from their own customers about the culling of seals in Canada have been so strong that they have decided, as a matter of company policy, to ban the future purchase of fish products from Canada, so long as the culling of seals continues. That is a very courageous and very unusual decision. We might devise something of that kind as between consumers and producers in other branches of production if the gap of misunderstanding and hostility which exists between them is widened still further. That is why it is very important that we should not regard the producer as our enemy. Nor should the producer regard the consumer as his enemy. The consumer is acknowledged by the producer to be in command in the shops. Therefore producers should try to come to terms with the consumers, who have views about the way in which animals and birds are produced and slaughtered.
I shall not detain the House any longer. However, this is an opportunity which rarely occurs. I am glad to see that animal welfare, which is usually the last business of the day, today happens to be the first. I am grateful for that.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have responded to the Motion, That this Bill do now pass and who have contributed to the debates we have had on the Bill. When the Bill was introduced it was a good Bill, but due to the very hard work which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and other noble Lords have done on it, we have made it even better. I am always full of admiration for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is able to talk about enormously interesting subjects which do not necessarily always fall within the scope of the legislation which is being discussed.
It has been a great delight in the last few minutes that on a Bill which deals with farm animal disease, poultry slaughter, veterinary drugs and the artificial breeding of livestock, the noble Lord has taken us to Canada to have a look at seals and has referred to the very acrimonious debates which took place in this House a few years ago on the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, which is a matter for the Home Office and a different kind of legislation. However, the noble Lord made various points to me. I am not saying that the points to which I have referred are not serious—of course they are—but the noble Lord made other points to me about the Bill.
Briefly, on the subject of deer, we in the Ministry of Agriculture are awaiting a report from the Farm Animal Welfare Council about the slaughter of deer. So far as getting on with things is concerned, we are aiming to introduce very soon proposals for

1371
regulations under Clause 6, which is the clause dealing with codes of practice, with a view to making regulations as soon as possible after the Bill enters upon the statute book.
The question of battery cages, as the noble Lord will know, is currently under very active discussion in Brussels and here in Britain. This Bill covers a wide range of measures in the veterinary field, and our debates have concentrated on those clauses dealing with the welfare of poultry and slaughter, and with other important and useful provisions, too. Perhaps I may add to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. With great respect to the noble Lord, perhaps he went a little further than I did on Report. We are certainly going to provide for exceptions in relation to the licensing of commercial slaughterers, but I did not actually say what those exceptions were going to be. With that small word of difference between myself and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, may I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this Bill, and particularly the two noble Lords who have spoken on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Soccer Hooliganism: English Fans in France
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with permission, I will repeat the Answer which has been given to a Private Notice Question in another place on the behaviour of English soccer fans in France. I believe that my honourable friend Mr. Macfarlane gave the Answer, which was as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, no-one in the House can feel anything but a sense of shame, disgrace and revulsion at what occurred in France before, during and after the international soccer match in Paris yesterday.
"I am currently awaiting further details from my and other officials in Paris, but early reports show that 30 English fans were arrested following violence in the stadium: 26 have been released and four are still being held. My officials will be holding further discussions to assess the extent of the damage caused by the disturbances.
"It was in the light of previous incidents caused by English football supporters abroad (notably in Luxembourg in November) that pre-match planning for this game, on the part of Government, the football authorities and the French football and law and order authorities, was particularly extensive.
"Considerable efforts were made to implement the measures agreed by European Ministers with responsibility for sport at our meeting in Rotterdam in November. The initiative for European agreement on these measures to combat football-related hooliganism was taken by me in January 1983 when I met European Ministers in Paris. The paper agreed by European Ministers for sport contains a number of recommendations for action by Governments and by football authorities. Two in particular—control of ticket sales and crowd
1372
segregation—would enable a considerable reduction in the opportunities for crowd disturbances.
"In addition to my visit to Paris in January 1983, I met the French Minister with responsibility for sport again in Paris in September 1983 and discussed football hooliganism and the great importance of co-operation between European Governments. I also wrote to the French Minister on 10th February 1984 stressing the need for adequate policing within and without the stadium and the need to deter offenders by resolute action by the police and the courts.
"Representatives of the English Football Association (including their overseas liaison officer—a retired senior Metropolitan Police officer) visited Paris on 9th, 10th and 11th January 1984 and met with representatives of the French football authorities, the French police and our embassy in Paris. Arrangements were made regarding control of ticket sales, crowd segregation, sale of alcohol, supporter travel routes and policing.
"The European agreement is a major and constructive document reflecting the positive action and intention of government to do all within its power to combat hooliganism. We are confident that proper and effective implementation of the measures contained in the agreement would greatly reduce the problems.
"I am in touch with the French Minister for Sport requesting a full report of the incidents, and will also be meeting the chairman and secretary of the Football Association tomorrow afternoon for discussions.
"Mr. Speaker, I shall be conducting a full appraisal of the incidents with the parties concerned. I shall need to establish whether the measures agreed by European Ministers were fully implemented on the day. I fully intend to continue to urge all concerned to do everything possible to rid the game of these mindless louts and to urge European countries to use stringent penalties against convicted offenders to act as a deterrent".
My Lords, that concludes the Answer to the Private Notice Question.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the Answer he has just read to us. We on these Benches echo what his honourable friend feels about the assault on the reputation of this country as well as on that of football when events such as this take place. Unfortunately, it does not come as such a surprise as one would have hoped, because this has happened in the past two years, not only in Luxembourg but also in Denmark, Holland, Italy and Switzerland.
We feel that it is no longer a question for the Department of the Environment, who have done their best to wrestle with this problem both in the last Government and in this one. It is no longer a matter of sport, because the football authorities have done what they can. They have sold tickets only to registered fans and through reputable travel authorities. We believe that it is a law and order problem. It is well known that drunken fans were fighting on the train. They boarded the ferry drunk, and were fighting. May I ask the noble

1373
and learned Lord these questions? What were the special arrangements for the role of the county police in Kent this time? What part did British Rail police play? What part did the harbour authority police take in this? And what happened in respect of the passport authorities at Dover when fans got off the train, as I understand it, already drunk but able to obtain duty free alcohol on the ferry across?
Is it true, as we have been led to understand, that the National Front was behind much of the ugly violence and organised its members to attend the match? As the noble and learned Lord has told us, 30 fans were arrested and 26 have been released. Is it not true, and also understandable, that other countries want to get rid of these people, and that they do not want to keep them in their prisons, at their expense, in their countries?
It must surely be apparent that new government initiatives are wanted in respect of this whole question, because all the old initiatives have now failed, with the increase in intensity of the violence. We must find a way of exercising some form of passport control. There must be tougher controls to protect both other passengers who are travelling and the people of the countries abroad which such fans visit. Is it not now an urgent matter for the Home Secretary and for the forces of law and order?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I also thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating the Answer which covers that shameful event and which I think everyone in the House will have blushed to hear. Having not had the chance to read and consider the Answer, I can only say that it sounds as though a great deal was done to try to prevent this sort of thing happening and it was entirely unsuccessful. Therefore, as a whole, we must think again. I have only one suggestion to make and that came out of the Statement. I understand that over 30 fans were arrested, and I believe 24 were then released and sent back. I should like to have a bilateral arrangement when these matches take place that the fans are sent back under arrest and not released. At least we could then deal with them here. I withhold any further comment from these Benches until we have had time to discuss the matter; but we deeply deplore anything so shameful to our nation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for the way in which they have treated this Statement. There is no difference in the House either about our feelings on this subject or about the seriousness with which we treat outbreaks of violence of this kind. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that there is what I might call a law and order dimension in this—and I apologise for the English of that—but it is at the moment a matter of international agreement between Ministers for sport. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will agree that in this country his responsibilities are closely involved, as indeed are the responsibilities of his appropriate counterparts in France and other countries where these matches take place.
I am informed and believe that alcohol was not available on the train in Kent. I believe the train was
1374
escorted by the British Rail police and that the bar on the ship, which was a French ship called the "St. Eloi", was not open. Therefore that has been dealt with. British transport police were on the ship at the request of the French owners.
The movement of citizens is of course a legal right and a legal right guaranteed within the Common Market. I think it would require rather stringent changes in our legal system to restrict the free movement of individuals in that respect. I note the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, about persons being sent back here under arrest. I think I should refer that to my right honourable friend because it would probably require some kind of primary legislation and agreement between the authorities involved in both countries. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord further on the subject. I think I had better leave it there for the moment.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether it is not time that on these occasions we stopped referring to these people as football fans since it is perfectly obvious that their interest in football matches is minimal? They are simply looking for an excuse for a violent foray against persons and property.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend's suggestion. I did not read the word "fan" with any great enthusiasm when I repeated the Statement. I noticed other expressions such as "hooligans" and "mindless louts" were also used. I rather deprecate the use of jolly expressions about people who misbehave in this way. They are offending against the criminal law of any country in which they perform. Some of the offences are undoubtedly punishable by imprisonment and would be covered by the extradition Acts. I take the same view as my noble friend. He is quite right in expressing our feeling that to describe them as just friendly supporters of the side playing away is not quite enough.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not a particularly disturbing and deplorable feature of this grave matter that unfortunately the British hooligans are the worst, so far as one can see from the reports of what has been going on? They bring a shame upon this country and do great damage to us. One is glad to detect that a fresh look is being applied to the scene. The recital of the international conferences and discussions has apparently produced nothing—at least nothing to stop events like those which took place yesterday. I ask one factual question. One gathers that a great deal of criminal misconduct happened from this howling mob before it ever got to France; apparently on the train, ashore, and on the boat. What prosecutions are to be brought and what arrests have been made for offences committed within our own jurisdiction? If we started there it would give some example. It is a grave situation which is doing our country grave harm.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I can only agree with the noble and learned Lord. I have no idea whether our miscreants are the worst. Whether they are the worst or not, they bring grave discredit upon

1375
Great Britain. I gather that these were English and I notice that the noble and learned Lord is wearing a daffodil today.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, if I may interrupt, it never happens at Welsh rugby football matches.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it did not happen yesterday, at any rate. However, the miscreants bring great discredit on the sport and on our nation. I cannot give the noble and learned Lord any information with regard to arrests within our jurisdiction; but I note what he says. There was a certain amount of damage on the train and I think that the other damage was either on the French boat or in France.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can cast his mind back to 1921 when we attended the Eton and Harrow match at Lords, after which, wearing our top hats and wielding our sticks, we descended upon the pitch in order to wreak vengeance on the Harrovians. The police, with the utmost good humour, intervened and suppressed it. They suppressed it not only for 1921 but, in spite of a 60-year presence, they suppressed it altogether and it never occurred again. Can we look at that remarkable example of deterrence and see what was the deterrent used, how it worked and try to repeat it?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I remember 1921; but I think the noble Lord should have used the first person singular rather than the first person plural about what took place. I was a perfectly innocent witness on that occasion. So as far as I remember, the worst that happened was that top hats were smashed and jumped up and down upon. I do not think there were many casualties. My own view about what did happen then—which I think he was right in saying was the last, or almost the last, of such occasions which had hitherto become almost a tradition—was that the force of public opinion made people realise that there was no justification for such behaviour and that it brought great discredit on those who participated and those who were associated with them. The parents of those concerned and the school authorities conveyed that message quite sharply to those who could be identified.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, may I be permitted to correct one thing in my observations? If I referred to British hooliganism, on this occasion it would appear to have been an English excrescence.
Lord Somers: My Lords, so many attempts have been made to eliminate this pestilential nuisance without a great deal of success. Does the noble and learned Lord think that something really drastic could be done in the way of threatening, should there be another outbreak, to ban all professional football matches for the space of one year?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that would depend, of course, upon Parliament, but I fancy that some Members of Parliament might think that this was rather drastic action to take. I must say that it is a very serious matter, but curiously enough it reminds me tremendously of what took place in ancient Rome between the Blues and the Greens.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, while I share the general revulsion at this behaviour, I was a little uneasy about the last few words of the original Answer, if I heard them aright. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord this question. Whatever else may happen in the rest of Europe, it would be wrong, would it not, for the Government in this country to urge the courts to impose more severe penalties for a particular type of offence?
The Lord Chancellor: Curiously enough, my Lords, the last words of the Answer read as follows:
"I fully intend to continue to urge all concerned to do everything possible to rid the game of these mindless louts and to urge European countries to use stringent penalties against convicted offenders to act as a deterrent".
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I had always thought that we were European.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I rather gathered from the original Answer that my honourable friend the Minister responsible for sport was contemplating urging European countries to impose stringent penalties upon British hooligans if they misbehaved abroad. The courts in this country do not have jurisdiction to impose penalties of any kind on foreign offences, except murder.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that sending the football hooligans out of the country where the offence has occurred, except where there have been very serious assaults, makes it extremely difficult after they get home to bring charges, and that for the most wanton damage and vandalism people get off scot-free? Would it not be possible, by mutual agreement with the host country, to hold and charge these people where the offence has occurred? Would not a period in a foreign gaol be far more effective than all our cries of woe?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have no doubt that the French authorities will take careful note of what my noble friend has suggested. I do not think that we could compel them so to act if they did not want to.
Lord Plant: My Lords. I rise to say how much this incident has upset me. When I saw on the television these disgraceful scenes I was greatly upset. I was even more upset to read in the newspapers this morning what a good thing it is that Britain was not successful in the European Cup, and therefore will not be playing in France this summer. That, I think, is a condemnation of the sporting instincts of certain of the British football supporters. No solutions have been posed by your Lordships, and I have none. There could be more stringent penalties; but I think that we have to take into account what my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale has said, and must be careful not to have more severe penalties in this connection than in others. I think that the law has to take its course. I believe that a great responsibility rests on the police. They are doing a good job, and I think that we have to support them. The Government must try to find some way out of this, and I am sure that in their discussions they will have the full support of the House.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not know quite how to comment on that. I do not think that the noble Lord could have complained about the tone of the press this morning, which was universally condemnatory of what took place. As regards the British Government dealing with such disorders in this country, it is of course our responsibility, but it is not our responsibility to punish offenders abroad. Speaking generally and from the point of view of the general jurisprudence of Europe, of course the offences themselves are not classed as hooliganism, or football hooliganism: they are classed as assaults, criminal damage, offences against Sections 18 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and so on, and the equivalent offences abroad. The offenders must be punished for the offences which they commit, which are that class of offence. The penalty must suit the crime and the record of the offender.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, may one take it, by virtue of the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is dealing with this PNQ and Answer, that he together with the Law Officers will be consulting on this matter and the very serious situation in regard to it? May I also ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would agree that the one positive contribution that could be made here is by the youth clubs of this land, which at the present moment are getting very little support indeed and which very much need encouragement?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think that I was asked to repeat the Answer of the Minister with responsibilities for sport in my capacity as Lord Chancellor. I think it was probably because I had once been a Minister for Sport myself. I should probably not be consulted about law and order problems. My function as Lord Chancellor is to administer the courts and to deal with the judicial side of matters of this kind. I studiously avoid saying anything about prosecutions. Whether the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General should be called in I think would be a matter for my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary, who is principally responsible in this country for law and order. I suppose that in France, although the distribution of offices is somewhat different, it would be the Minister of Internal Affairs.

Cable and Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
4.7 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 13 [Restrictions on inclusion of certain events]:
Lord Elton: My Lords, it may help if I remind your Lordships that before I was so politely interrupted last Monday I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 36, 39 and 43.
Your Lordships will now have had the very considerable advantage of having had 48 hours in which to consider what I said and to decide what was wrong with it, or, as I hope, what was right. In the interval I, too, have had time to reflect on the
1378
difficulties of handling under the rules of procedure for Report stage—which do not permit noble Lords to speak more than once, except when moving an amendment—groups of amendments addressing the same problem. May I suggest that after I have briefly summarised my wares, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, might speak to his Amendments Nos. 44 and 45, so that your Lordships can see the alternative shapes in which the Government amendments might reach the statute book? Thereafter, if my noble friend Lord De La Warr wants to comment on them and advance the claims of his solution he might do so; the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, can do likewise with his; and your Lordships will then have the full range of proposals before you. After any further discussion, it would then be open to me, by leave and by convention, to reply to the whole debate. If your Lordships are broadly content with that, perhaps I should very briefly recapitulate the points that I sought to put before your Lordships on Monday night.
In summary, the effect of Amendments Nos. 36, 39 and 43, taken together, is as follows. First, the amendments re-label the events covered by Clause 31 which are to be kept on a list maintained by the Secretary of State. They become "listed events". Secondly, we are proposing for the first time a label for the events covered by the restrictions in Clause 13(2) on pay-per-view and restricted services. These events will become "protected events". Thirdly, the amendments provide that the term "national interest", which is referred to in connection with listed events, includes interests within the four parts of the United Kingdom.
Fourthly, the amendments provide a new definition of the events covered by the restrictions on pay-per-view showing—that is, those events we are now to term "protected events"—rather than referring to events of a class of description which your Lordships thought in Committee might go too wide. The new definition talks in terms of an event which,
"is one of a series of similar events which it is the practice of a broadcasting authority to broadcast".
We believe that this effectively narrows the scope of the restriction and makes it clear that to qualify for protection an event must in some way be a continuation of something which the broadcasters have previously shown.
Finally, the amendments provide a definition of "listed event" to tie in with the re-labelling of these two categories and provide a technical revision of the expression "pay-per-view". We believe that these changes will considerably improve the operation of Clause 13.
I shall be replying to points your Lordships will make in my wind up—which, I am afraid, will be longer than this because I shall be replying to four groups of amendments—but I believe, as I say, that what your Lordships have before you now is an improvement on what was before your Lordships at Committee stage and I commend these amendments to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am very grateful for having been invited to take this opportunity not to move but to speak to my two amendments, Nos. 44 and 45, which are amendments to the Government's

1379
amendment No. 43. These are amendments which relate back to subsection (2). Subsection (2) is the one whose message is that events which really belong or have belonged to the BBC or to the ITA shall not become available to Cable. I think that is a sort of shorthand description of subsection (2).
May I take this opportunity to say that for myself I am very grateful to the Government for the amendments to subsection (2) that they have put down to narrow it, because I think it is conceded by all of us that subsection (2) as it stands is far too widely drawn and is much too big a net and would be hopelessly unfair to cable if it went through unamended.
Subsection (2) refers to protected events. To see what that means we have to look at the Government's Amendment No. 43, which says:
"'protected event' means … one of a series of similar events which it is the practice of a broadcasting authority to broadcast".
I think, if I may say so, that that definition is quite satisfactory if what you have in mind is what I believe the Government had in mind when they drafted their definition; that is to say, a series of single events which come round probably year after year. But there is another situation which can be described by the expression,
"one of a series of similar events".
To give an example of this, let me take a series of qualifying horse races which take place throughout a single season. The heats are run on different race courses at different times during the season and they lead up to a final at the end of the season between the horses that have qualified by winning the heats. Some of these heats, or qualifying races, will have taken place on Saturdays on race courses with which either the BBC or the ITA have long-standing arrangements. But other heats are likely to be held either in midweek or upon other race courses with whom neither the BBC nor the ITV have arrangements. I do not see why those other events should not be broadcast by cable if cable would like to broadcast them, and I do not believe that the definition of "protected events" is satisfactory to deal with the events that I am describing because I do not believe that the Government had those events in mind when they drafted their definition.
But my two amendments to the definition "protected events" seek to make it clear that in the kind of situation that I am describing the events which the BBC and ITV do not regularly broadcast shall be open to cable to broadcast if that is what they would like to do. That is the purpose of my two amendments.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, before I speak I must once again declare my interest as being a member of a cable consortium. It was brought to my attention that I failed to do this last time and in retrospect I would like to apologise to your Lordships for what I regard as having been a serious omission. I am very grateful, as I was before in Committee stage, to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for the things he has said, because he has in a very large measure covered my arguments.
I have taken the view, after the very careful consideration which we have been allowed during the 48 hours that have elapsed, that the amendments that the Government have made are helpful. I am very
1380
sensible of the trouble that my noble friend has taken. So it is with a certain amount of grief that I have to say that, though they are helpful, I do not believe that they go nearly far enough.
In order to explain to your Lordships why not, I think that it might be helpful if I went back, not for the first time, to the White Paper. I am going to quote a few lines from paragraph 115 which is to be found on page 49. That is from the chapter that deals with pay-per-view, where it says as follows:
"The Cable Authority will therefore have a duty to ensure, by means of the conditions attached to the operators' franchises, that no programme shall be offered on a pay per view basis if an event customarily shown on one of the existing public service channels would, as a result, no longer be available on such a channel".
Although that sentence contains double negatives it is in fact a very positive sentence and it accords exactly with what I am after and with what I believe the cable operators would find to be very satisfactory, because they are in no circumstances looking for any exclusivity for themselves. Under no circumstances are they looking to show anything or to do anything which denies the broadcasters the right to do what they have done in the past; and by definition this means that there can be no question that they would have the opportunity in any way to outbid.
It was because of that situation—and at the Committee stage I made a suggestion which was not found satisfactory, and I can well understand why—that we objected to Clause 13(2), and in particular to the phrase,
"is of a class or description which has been regularly broadcast by a broadcasting authority".
We objected because, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, the phrase was so wide and so indefinite that it would by definition almost entirely exclude the showing of important sporting events on a pay-per-view basis.
The Government were good enough to say that they would have a look at the point and it is as a result of that that these amendments come from my noble friend. Having just read out the important words in Clause 13(2), like my noble friend I now want to read out the words which it is proposed should appear. Instead of the words,
"is of a class or description which has been regularly broadcast by a broadcasting authority",
we are invited to accept,
"is one of a series of similar events which it is the practice of a broadcasting authority to broadcast".
I think that we are getting dangerously into the realm of semantics because it would be possible to take the view that there was very little difference between these two sets of words. Certain it is that neither of them satisfies what I understand was the Government's intention which was so clearly set out in the White Paper in the terms which I have just read out to your Lordships.
To me the phrase is still highly restrictive. It denies the objective that we have, which in many cases, because of the multiplicity of channels, is the opportunity to put out the whole of an event, whereas the BBC or the contractors, due to the limitation on their time, can put out only part of it. I submit that the phrase falls far short of the White Paper, and I hope that, if he agrees that it does fall short, my noble friend

1381
will explain why the Government have decided to make the change.
That deals with the failing, in my view, of the amendment to give cable the total freedom that it wants, subject only to the condition that it can never stop the broadcasters putting out what they want and can never therefore affect the price that they have to pay for doing so. Let us go on, if we may, to deal with the question of the meaning of the word "series", because we have really got down to the meaning of a single word. What does the word "series" mean when it is applied to sporting events?
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, dealt with this question, too, and he used racing as an example. Perhaps I may use the example of football. Most of the major club matches are either part of the lead-up to the League Cup or heats in the lead-up to the Cup Final. Are they then series? Let me take an example. Let us suppose that in the fourth round of the Cup competition Liverpool are playing some other club and the cable system that is to be set up in Liverpool (which is called Merseyside Cable) wants to show the match. Will it be denied showing it because it is regarded as part of a series?
The same would apply, I suggest, to Wimbledon. A cable channel could be devoted to Wimbledon for a whole day, showing all the important events that are taking place on the subsidiary courts. Would that be part of a series leading up to the great Friday and Saturday when matters are decided? The same could apply to the snooker championships, the darts championships, or, if I may for a moment go perhaps a little up market, the three days of the Badminton horse trials.
This is quite a different exercise from the request to justify the restriction at all, which I maintain is away from the White Paper's intentions. Can my noble friend help us by giving us an interpretation, which will be very important in that it will appear in Hansard and people will take account of it in days to come? Can my noble friend give us an interpretation in specific terms of what he means by the "series" which cable would be prevented from showing?
I fear that I have laid rather a heavy burden upon my noble friend, but he will appreciate that this matter is an absolute cornerstone in terms of the prospects for the new cable operators—possibly even their chances of surviving—in the early years. On my own admission I am a cable operator, speaking for cable operators, and I ask my noble friend very urgently whether he can help us in this matter. At the same time, I am sorry to say, I must tell him that in any case I find his solution, at which he has worked so hard, to be generally unsatisfactory.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, looked around the House to see whether I was in my usual place to move my amendment. Bearing in mind where I am at present standing, I would say that I am not intending to try to dominate him by height on this occasion. It so happens that the Bench on which I usually sit was rather full. We are discussing a rather complicated, interlocked series of amendments, and if by mischance I move slightly astray from what is strictly germane to
1382
what we are supposed to be discussing together, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me.
The situation is complicated further still by the fact that we have redefinitions of what are "events"; redefinitions which are intended, quite properly, to secure a more accurate definition of what is protected, what is listed, and so on. On the whole, I think that we should congratulate the noble Lord on bringing forth amendments which make these matters clearer. In particular, I would like to thank him for accepting a point that I raised in relation to England, Scotland and Wales and for neatly incorporating it into his own amendment and for having the courtesy to write to me to the effect that he was doing so.
I shall go straight to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. The amendments go to the heart of the matter. The Government, in the Bill originally and in their amendments, have striven as hard as they can to strike a fair balance between the broadcasters' interests and the cable operators' interests. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, so far as I can make out, appear to narrow down that definition quite considerably in that they qualify the event. The amendments would seem to exclude—if I am wrong, I shall no doubt be told—any event even if it was of a kind that a broadcaster would normally broadcast. The event would be broadcast against pay-per-view only if it itself has been broadcast before.
Similarly, in Amendment No. 40 there is a narrowing down. A prohibition of pay-per-view would not apply if the broadcaster was able to secure nonexclusive rights in the event or any part of the event, in a wider category. Here we come to the crux of the matter. This may seem to be nitpicking. If, however, I am right, the principal weakness of the amendment would appear to be the possibility of abuse through the organiser—I stress the word "organiser"—offering to the broadcaster broadcasting rights not in the event but in "any part thereof". What is a part? Presumably, a sequence, however short, however unimportant, could be a part. Such protection as the amendment affords could therefore readily be frustrated by making available unnecessary and very boring bits of the event that would be of no use at all to broadcasters.
I have tried to deal briefly with the amendments because we discussed these matters at great length in Committee. I am not anxious to delay your Lordships any longer than necessary. I shall therefore proceed to speaking briefly to my own amendment in which I propose that the Secretary of State should have reserve powers, not necessarily ever to be exercised, to prevent the making of exclusive arrangements for the broadcasting or cable transmission of sporting or other national events which are on the Secretary of State's list. There was a weakness, I am conscious, in the amendment that I moved at Committee stage. It was a weakness that I freely acknowledge.
The purpose of the powers now proposed, which I hope I have got right this time, is to encourage the various interested parties, that is to say, the organisers of the event, the cable authorities and the broadcasters, to work out satisfactory arrangements on an informal basis. I am sure that this is the key to success in the endeavour that all of us are making. We should have informal discussions and work out

1383
satisfactory answers without having to bring into play the powers of the Secretary of State. But it is unlikely that those informal arrangements will always be satisfactory unless there are reserve powers to back them up. This has been found in other fields. I must not refer to other Bills before your Lordships' House. But the very existence of reserve powers concentrates the mind wonderfully—like the prospect of being hanged the next day.
The purpose of my amendment is strengthened by news that appeared, I believe, in today's newspapers of the surprise coming together of two different sorts of cable-providing consortia. There is the coming together of Home Box Office and other people who propose to provide films. There is also the report that, again, I read rather hastily in the newspapers this morning, of the coming together of two companies that have been set up to provide sporting events to cable companies.
To return to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, I think that he chose a particularly unfortunate example in order to illustrate his question about a series of events. Wimbledon is one of the few events covered virtually from beginning to end, very often on two channels—not on 24 channels which could happen on cable—by the BBC. ITV has chosen not to do so, although it occasionally shows excerpts of matches. There are other series events that might have provided better examples. I agree that it is essential that we have some kind of definition at least of what the noble Lord in charge of the Bill believes to be a series of events.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, this is getting more and more complex as we go along. It is a very difficult subject. The Hunt Committee took one view of it, and the White Paper took a more generous view. From this side on Second Reading, there was cautious endorsement of pay-per-view on the ground that it would raise the level of cable television. I do not think that anyone really believes this is another licence to print money. I was lunching today with a Commonwealth citizen interested in pay-per-view who says that, in his part of the country, it has been a complete flop and that people who are presented with new films would rather see excellent not-so-new films "for free" on the ordinary broadcasting service. So pay-per-view is running into grave difficulties.
When we suggested that there was something to be said for pay-per-view, the proviso was that there should be no deprivation of the person who lives in an uncabled area or of the person who lives in a cabled area who cannot afford to subscribe and, even if he can afford to subscribe, says that the broadcasting services that he has long enjoyed are good enough for him provided that they endure. We have sympathy for such prudent, perhaps parsimonious, citizens. We feel, in short, that the people of this country should enjoy all those events that they would have enjoyed on television if cable had never existed. We insist that those people should not have the programmes that they are accustomed to receiving sold over their heads to wealthier or more free-spending citizens.
We are grateful to the Government for getting the events in question into orderly categories. First, there
1384
is the protected event. The events which the authority believes to be a series of similar events seem to be absolute sacred cows. I must say that, although the category looks to be useful, it does require further and better definition. One assumes it includes the Cup Final, the main contests at Wimbledon, the Rugby Union internationals, the highlights of Test cricket; and I suppose the non-sporting events such as Trooping the Colour or the Royal Opening of Parliament.
The proposal is that in no circumstances should any part of these be sold on pay-per-view cable. One agrees with that, but perhaps before the Bill is completed the Government could issue the protected list—it exists; it belongs to the past—in the interests of clarity, and to provide us with the necessary reassurance.
We come to the listed events. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, is not content with the great concessions that have been made on listed events. He also wants a bite at the cherry of the protected category. He wants permission to include on pay-per-view protected events if the authority believe it will not adversely affect the terms on which the broadcasting authority is able to acquire a non-exclusive right to the event. I can see a certain logic in this. It would obviously make sense on an all-sports channel to make a bid for the whole of Wimbledon, including the bigger matches which the BBC would continue to broadcast on the usual terms. I can see the logic of this, but what I should like to know is this: the cable operator under the must-carry rule is already carrying those important Wimbledon matches—this is an obligation; does he also have freedom to carry those matches on another channel as well? Because if he has, then the problem which the noble Earl suggested is solved. I am a little worried about the—
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord would give way for a minute? He did say: "then the problem is solved". Indeed it is not, because under the must-carry rules all the cable operator can put out is such (I use the word) snippets—where they are snippets—as the broadcaster has time to do. It is not solved for him if what he wants to do is to use one of these channels to give the whole thing.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, what I am suggesting is that he can perhaps have all the events leading up to the protected events; a "protected snippet" as it were.
I ask: as he has an obligation to give that protected snippet on one channel, on his BBC or ITV channel—he has an obligation to do that—has he got the freedom to present that snippet to conclude the matches which he has given on his pay-per-view channel? He is not charging for that. People get them free. Can he sell preliminary matches and still complete his programme and make it sensible by adding these snippets which his viewers could see anyway if they were to switch over to the must-carry channel?
I am a bit worried about these restricted national events. I should really like to know what they are. We can understand that the protected events relate to the past; these are historic. But the restricted events are current events and they are future events. I can see that some of those events will be so highly saleable or so

1385
highly box office that pay-per-view could exact quite a good fee from their viewers and pay a very high fee to the promoter of them.
What are the broadcasting companies to do? If cable had not existed, the broadcasting companies might well have made a modest bid for one of these events—which are now classed as restricted—and they would have given it freely to the viewers. But suppose they are faced with the competition of cable which is in a position to pay a much higher fee. The noble Lord suggests that cable does not want anything exclusive; they will be quite willing to share with the BBC or ITV; but the question is: at what price? Do they all get together and agree a price? I think the promoters will be very upset if they get together and agree to pay a minimum price. Or is the leading bidder going to get the exclusive rights? Or is the one who gets the exclusive rights going to be able to sell it on at a reasonable price, or just want the exclusivity?
All these questions are very difficult and very detailed. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be able to answer them all, but quite obviously during the course of this Bill very profound thought will have to be given to the question of pay-per-view and fairness to the average viewer.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps I might briefly support my noble friend Lord De La Warr on one point only. In reading what my noble friend the Minister said last time—and it has been very helpful—I came up with two points. The first point was that it seemed to me that his amendments—which he has already spoken to—were helpful in that they clarified the situation, but I was left with the thought that Amendment No. 39 in particular did not really relax the severity of subsection (2). I think, from what other noble Lords have said, that probably he will be addressing himself to that when he comes to reply, but it really does seem to me—I believe this is what my noble friend was saying, and giving good reasons for it—that subsection (2) newly amended by Amendment No. 39 is still very severe.
It was interesting to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, had to say about his discussions at lunchtime because I get the feeling that there is not going to be an enormous amount of money in this cable operation business. There might be one day, but I do not know that the financial competition is going to be as fierce as people fear. Obviously there has got to be a degree of control, and that is where I think the sort of things that are said in our Amendment No. 40—which give authority to a Cable Authority to use its discretion, if you like, rather than the great severity which is forced upon us even in the amended subsection (2)—are perhaps a better way through.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in following the scheme of handling on which I think we are all agreed with these amendments, I turn first to those numbered 44 and 45 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and will try thereafter to follow a labyrinthine path through my notes on the amendments. The question of what constitutes an event in Clause 13 is going to be difficult however we define it. Under the scheme of Clause 13(2), whatever descriptive terms or definitions
1386
we do use, it will be for the Cable Authority to take a view as to what is a protected event and what is not. In so doing they will, of course, also have to decide what constitutes "an event", and that will involve using their collective common sense.
The noble Lord's intention is quite probably to try to make it clearer both to us and to them what that decision should embrace. That is a task in which he has my sympathetic interest and evidently that of my noble friends and all noble Lords. There do, unfortunately, appear to be two weaknesses in what he proposes and one of them, I fear, is fatal.
The first difficulty is that in narrowing the criteria the noble Lord may have made it a matter of no difficulty to evade the effects of the clause. The test we propose is only that the event shall be one of a series of similar events that have habitually been broadcast, and to this the noble Lord's amendment would add the test that the event itself should have been habitually broadcast.
If we apply this new definition to the example which the noble Lord gave in Committee, then if last year's "Baked Beans Handicap" goes under the illustrious title this year of the "Golden Cigar Handicap", and even if all other aspects of it remain the same, it would be open to anyone to argue under the noble Lord's amendment that this year's race is a different event which it had not been the practice to broadcast and which could therefore be offered on pay-per-view terms. That is contrary to common sense, I readily agree, but it would not be contrary to the law as it would stand if this amendment were accepted. This could be a real difficulty. For example, when the sponsorship for the one day cricket championships changes, as happens from time to time, it would—would it not?—be most unfortunate if the broadcasters, and thus the viewing public, were deprived of all protection.
So it would seem that the noble Lord's amendments open the way both to deliberate evasion of the intended effect of the clause and also to its effects automatically lapsing under circumstances which could not be avoided and which, I should add, common sense suggests did not amount to discontinuity at all. So at least it could be argued in court, and that would be a weakness.
But there is another argument which could be made which would be far more worrying and which, I believe, does contain a fatal weakness. We are, after all, dealing with strict definitions on the basis of which decisions of the authority could be challenged in court, and it could perfectly well be argued that any event and every event is a unique occurrence which occurs at a single point of time and can never be repeated. The England/Wales Rugby International of 1982 was not the same event as the England/Wales Rugby International of 1983; it was played on a different ground, by different players, on a different day, in a different year and with a different result—a result, I may add, that I hope, even on seeing the daffodil on the Bench in front of me, may be different again in a fortnight's time!
Although we tend to think of the England/Wales match and the Cup Final as "an" event, they are really a series of events, one of which happens every year.

1387
That is why the Government have plumped, after some agonising, for the wider formulation of,
"one of a series of similar events".
It is less susceptible to this kind of perverse but nonetheless powerful argument.
I cannot, of course, draw for your Lordships a precise dividing line between an event which is similar and one which is the same, but this is not a distinction that has to be made under the Government's definition. Under the noble Lord's amendment this difficult distinction has to be addressed and could lead at best to litigation and uncertainty, and at worst to rendering the whole clause completely ineffective. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will let us have our amendment without his amendment.
But I cannot leave the subject without giving to my noble friend Lord De La Warr the clarification for which he asked, of what exactly a series of events might be. My noble friend, among others, was concerned about an event which might change its name. However, my noble friend was more particularly concerned with the different rounds of the FA Cup or of a snooker competition and so on. His question—if I can paraphrase it—was whether the fact that the broadcasters always showed the finals and some matches from the earlier rounds meant that cable would be precluded from offering anything from that particular competition on pay-per-view. I can see the close attention which my noble friend is paying to my reply. I have to tell him that I fear that there is no cut and dried answer to this, and nor do I think we can hope to resolve these matters with absolute precision on the face of the Bill. It will be for the authority to determine whether any particular event which cable might wish to put on pay-per-view, is similar to a series of events which it has been the broadcasters' practice to show.
The important thing is whether on the facts it is clear that the broadcasters have actually covered that series of events. Let us take the example of the FA Cup. The broadcasters have always covered the final, and so that would clearly be protected, in addition, no doubt, to being a listed event under Clause 13(1). Equally, the broadcasters have never covered the qualifying rounds, when the more romantically named teams like the Corinthian Casuals and Marine are locked in combat, nor even the first two rounds proper—if I can say that without giving offence—when the third and fourth division teams come in; but not their senior colleagues from the first two. So the broadcasters could not reasonably seek protection for those matches. Where there would obviously be more scope for argument is in the subsequent stages up to the semifinals where the broadcasters do show some games, but not others.
We shall certainly reflect further on what has been said by my noble friend, because I would not claim to have got a perfect definition—in fact, I doubt if there is one. But if it is possible to get closer to it, then of course we shall continue the attempt. I would not offer too much hope, therefore, that the definition will be perfect. It is now narrower than it was (it may not be quite as narrow as my noble friend would like) but for the reasons I have given, I think that it may well prove to be the best that we can do.
1388
My noble friend suggested that Clause 13(2) and paragraph 115 of the White Paper are at variance. That is certainly not our intention nor, indeed, our understanding of the effect of the clause. The White Paper talked of "customarily", and in statutory language that has come out as what is the practice of broadcasters. So far as a series of events is concerned, the White Paper was able to talk as if the Cup Final or the Grand National was a single event, whereas in strict statutory terms each event, each year, is a separate one. It is not possible to get an exact coincidence of statutory and colloquial language. We have attempted to get as close as is feasible. I will obviously look at his strictures before I put my hand on my heart and say that they are exactly the same in the result.
I should like now to turn to Amendment No. 40 which stands in the name of my noble friend. I apologise for the length of my reply, but I must answer all of your Lordships. This amendment is similar in form to the one moved by my noble friend at the Committee stage. Clause 13(2) as it stands provides a protection for the viewer of regularly broadcast events by seeking to prevent the coverage of those events by the cable operator on a pay-per-view basis. The subsection is designed to prevent the cable operator from using the special purchasing power of pay-per-view effectively to exclude the broadcasting authorities from the market. My noble friend's amendment would waive that protection afforded by subsection (2) where the Cable Authority was satisfied that the terms upon which the broadcasting authorities were competing for the rights were not adversely affected.
The Government accept that cable companies should not be subject to unnecessary restrictions and we have already proposed a reformulation of Clause 13(2) which meets a number of the concerns expressed at the Committee stage. The further modification of the subsection which this amendment proposes assumes that there will be circumstances where the coverage of these events on pay-per-view will not adversely affect the competitive position of the broadcasters in the market place. But I think it is in the nature of pay-per-view that the broadcasters' position will be adversely affected. That at least is the conclusion that was reached by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, in the report of his inquiry into cable when he suggested that there should be no pay-per-view on cable. The restriction in Clause 13(2) is far less restrictive than that, but it is founded on the same presupposition that pay-per-view will inevitably put the broadcasters at a disadvantage when they are interested in covering the event. It would be unrealistic to impose upon the Cable Authority, as this amendment would do, a duty to weigh up the effect of every proposal to put an event on pay-per-view upon the competitive position of the broadcasting authorities, when the working assumption must be that their competitive position would be adversely affected.
The second assumption made in the amendment is that there will be circumstances where a cable operator is prepared to cover an event on a pay-per-view basis at the same time as it is covered by the broadcasting authorities. I may, perhaps, be less puzzled by this than I was, because it seemed to me, on the face of it,

1389
odd that somebody should wish to provide for money a service which was already available to the same audience free. But the noble Lord has now, I think, made clear that he is suggesting that it might happen that the broadcaster would wish to produce coverage of prime time and prime events, and that the cable might want to go wider. That is a very difficult issue.
I do not want to create confusion between pay-per-view and other forms of cable, but this is a proper moment to say a few words about Wimbledon because my noble friend has used it as an example and I know that there is some anxiety about this. In clarification of that issue I should say, first, that this clause applies only to the inclusion of listed and protected events in cable services in this country. I understand that Wimbledon is sold for showing on cable in the United States, and there is, of course, nothing here which bears on that.
Secondly, when it comes to offering the rights to broadcasters and cable companies, it is for the rights holders to decide how to package them up. To take a lengthy event such as Wimbledon, the organisers might decide to set a price for a number of separate packages. There is nothing in Clause 13 to prevent that. As regards listed events, Clause 13(1) ensures that the broadcaster has the opportunity to buy each of the packages. The third thing to elucidate is that the 24-hour rule means that none of the Clause 13 restrictions applies for more than 24 hours immediately after the recording has been made. So, to change the example, in the case of a Test Match there would be no restriction on cable showing on the second day highlights from the first day's play.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I suggest a better example to him? Suppose the Seven-a-Sides are being held at Twickenham, which start at about one o'clock and continue until six o'clock at night, and that an all-sports channel decides to broadcast all those rounds right to the final, which will be broadcast on BBC. The question I ask is: could they include that final in their package—they are not selling it—instead of saying to their viewers, "We have now reached the final, switch over to the BBC channel in order to watch it"? Can they broadcast it on the same cable channel?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am loath to be drawn into too specific detail, but the Bill as drafted imposes a delay of 24 hours on the transmission of what is on the tape. I think that that is sufficient elucidation to the noble Lord, although what the announcer would say under the circumstances I do not think would be exactly what the noble Lord has said.
My noble friend was intending the coverage of part of an event on pay-per-view terms, but I have reservations about that, and I had just given one of the reasons in answer to the noble Lord when he interrupted me. The truth is that with many of the larger sporting events, such as the Test Matches and Open Golf Championships, the broadcasters already give a very comprehensive coverage and I doubt whether in those cases there are large extracts which they do not include and, judging by the length of the extracts that I have seen, which therefore could be offered by cable on pay-per-view.
1390
Even with very large events, such as the Wimbledon championship or the Olympic Games, where the broadcasters cannot cover every minute of every day, they make it their job to give the viewers access to the main matches and competitions. That could well leave room in the periphery, as it were, for conventional cable; but however modest their declared ambitions, to make pay-per-view attractive the cable companies would inevitably want to acquire an even larger slice of the best action for themselves. Your Lordships can see the conflict of interests involved in that.
I well appreciate the desire of the cable interest to gain more of the action in this field, and for that reason in the Government amendments tabled on Clause 13 we have attempted to make the definitions less restrictive. I should add—and this may perhaps reassure my noble friend—that we are talking here only about pay-per-view and not about other forms of pay television. I understand that in the United States pay-per-view is still an extremely limited phenomenon compared with pay-per-month, and although the use of switched star technology may increase the attractiveness of pay-per-view over here, it still remains to be seen how popular it will be.
There is nothing in Clause 13(2) to stop cable operators bidding to show these events on a subscription or an advertising-financed channel, and I am talking only about pay-per-view. I do not pretend that what I propose is perfect I think that it is nearer to perfection than it was. I hope that your Lorships will prefer it to what has been offered in the alternative.
I have said that my notes are labyrinthine and I must speak to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, and then I can promise my patient friends that their ordeal is nearly over. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, is an extension of that which he moved in Committee. It provides a reserve power for the Home Secretary to make regulations preventing the making of exclusive arrangements for the broadcasting or showing on cable of a major national event; that is, what we now propose to call listed events. This follows from the existing provision in Section 30 of the Broadcasting Act 1981.
When preparing the Bill, the Government gave careful thought to the possibility of taking a regulation-making power in this context, but we came to the conclusion that this was not a promising approach. Regulations have never, in fact, been made under Section 30 of the Broadcasting Act, and I noted that the noble Lord said that his amendment might never actually come into service, but that it would hang behind the door like the headmaster's cane. It is far from clear how a comparable power might operate in the case of cable, particularly if it were directed, as it would be under the noble Lord's amendment, against the rights holders. However effective or otherwise Section 30 might be as between the BBC and independent television, we ought not to read it across into the very different situation which cable will create unless we are confident both that it is an appropriate power and that it would work.
The Government have doubts on both counts. We have to remember here that we are dealing with the freedom of sports organizations, such as the Football Association, and the Test and County Cricket Board,

1391
to decide who they want to let in to televise their events and at what price. We have to be very careful before attempting to place any restrictions on their ability to take the normal commercial decisions which they judge to be in the best interests of their sports. Television must not become a burden on sport; Her Majesty's Government must ensure that it does not. The Government also have a responsibility to the ordinary viewer, as do the broadcasters. That is why we have built two specific safeguards into Clause 13. Under Clause 13(1) we have ensured that the broadcasters must always be given the opportunity to acquire the rights to major national events on comparable terms, and under Clause 13(2) we have ruled out pay-per-view for those and, indeed, a wider range of events.
I shall read very carefully the observations that your Lordships have made about the piecemeal protection within those categories to which my noble friend and others have drawn attention, but what we have not felt able to say, as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, does, is that if these events are to appear on television at all, they must be covered by the broadcasters. In our view, that would give the broadcasters an unreasonably strong position in the negotiations over price.
So far as practicality is concerned, I would only say that powers without proper sanctions are never particularly effective, and it is far from clear to me at the moment what sanctions could be operated appropriately in this area. For those reasons, therefore, we think that Clause 13 offers the most sensible approach and that the noble Lord's amendment is not as helpful as he would like us to think.
During my necessarily lengthy speech I hope that your Lordships have been able to weigh up the merits of the different approaches here proposed. I believe that what Her Majesty's Government propose represents the best solution, both to the tricky question of definition and to the equally tricky problem of access. I shall, of course, look with great care before the next stage at any new ideas that have been put before me, and there have been some this afternoon. I shall not recapitulate what I have said—your Lordships could not possibly take it. Your Lordships have been most patient and I hope that you will allow these amendments to be incorporated in the Bill at this stage.
5.9 p.m.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, as I do not intend to move my amendment, with the leave of the House, I should like to make three brief remarks. First, in spite of all the help that we have had from my noble friend, I want to leave it on record that his amendment falls far short of what the White Paper suggested and of what is suggested in my amendment; that we believe that my amendment, but more importantly the White Paper's suggestion, is absolutely fair and totally protective of broadcasters. Secondly, I take great comfort from the offer that my noble friend has made to have a look at everything that has been said with a view to further consideration at the next stage or even with a view to this matter being dealt with in another place.
1392
Finally, with respect, I think it became apparent that the meaning of the word "series" had not been fully thought out, and perhaps that is what my noble friend meant when he said that he would have another look at it. The interpretation of the word "series" as it will be, I expect, in the Bill, will be crucial. Whether my noble friend wants to see it still in the Bill or whether he is content, as he suggested, to leave it to the Cable Authority to sort out—and I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, suggested that this could largely be settled by discussion—in the terms that they think are most sensible, I do not know. As it stands, "series" is a word that lacks definition, and if it is to stay there it must have it. Having said that, I am obliged to my noble friend for all the trouble he has taken on this matter.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I will just say that of course the definition is something we will look at. Whatever we come to in the end, the interpretation is going to rest with the authority, and we are not producing something which is totally watertight. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 37, 38, and 39:
Page 12, line 21, leave out from ("that") to ("been") in line 23 and insert ("both broadcasting authorities have")
Page 12, line 25, at end insert ("; and for the purposes of this subsection an opportunity given to the Welsh Authority, the IBA's subsidiary or a programme contractor to acquire broadcasting rights in respect of a listed event shall be treated as given to the IBA")
[Amendment No. 39 printed earlier.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Aerospace Industry
5.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which has already been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the Government's policy towards the aerospace industry. The Statement is as follows:
"Last November the Government announced launch aid of £ 70 million to assist with the development of the E.4 version of the Rolls-Royce RB.211–535 now powering all Boeing 757s in airline service. Earlier this month I informed the House that approval had been given for Rolls-Royce to participate in the V.2500 project, and to collaborate with General Electric of the USA on larger civil engines. These programmes represent the core of a civil engine strategy based on international collaboration and dedicated to commercial success. The House will be informed when launch aid arrangements for the V.2500 are finalised but as with the E.4 scheme the Government will expect a real return on the taxpayers' investment.
"In September 1982 launch aid of £ 41 million to assist Westland was agreed for their W.30 civil helicopter, and last month the Government

1393
announced £ 60 million in launch aid towards Westland's civil costs in the anglo-Italian EH.101 project for a helicopter for civil and naval use in the 1990s and beyond. These investments will help to bring Westland into the expanding civil market and will be repayable with a return in real terms by a levy on sales.
"British Aerospace have now decided to participate in the A.320 and to launch the ATP. The Government have reached agreement with British Aerospace on the terms of launch aid for the A.320. Launch aid of up to £ 250 million repayable on terms designed to yield a return in real terms on the Government's investment has now been agreed. As a result of our agreement I understand that the company will now join its partners in formally launching the A.320 programme. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Industry will be meeting his French, German and Spanish colleagues shortly to endorse this. British Aerospace will also proceed, without Government assistance, with the ATP aircraft. I am sure the House will join me in wishing these projects every success.
"Taken together these decisions express a clear commitment by the Government to support the efforts of the aerospace sector to maintain its position as an internationally competitive industry for the future. I believe the House will welcome our determination to see this sector of British industry, management and production workforce alike, given the chance to succeed".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. In general from these Benches we welcome the various decisions as set out in the Statement and join in wishing success to all the projects. I shall deal with only two of them. When your Lordships debated the question of the A.320 Airbus on 25th January there was general support throughout the House for British participation. Therefore, we welcome the support that is proposed for this project. But the launch aid of £ 250 million falls well short of the £ 437 million which I understand Aerospace had requested. Are the Government satisfied that the company will be able to raise the difference and meet any costs that may be involved?
Also important is the approval, previously announced, for Rolls-Royce to participate in the V.2500 engine project. There appears to be general agreement that this development will enable Airbus Industrie to offer its customers for the A.320 an alternative engine, which is obviously in Britain's interests. Is the Minister able to say what figure of launch aid is in mind for this Rolls-Royce engine project?
Although, as I have said, from these Benches we give general support to these various projects and the assistance being given, it is obvious that particularly in the case of Rolls-Royce and Aerospace some of these projects can only be embarked upon with public financial help. It therefore appears rather tragic that we are not leaving the aerospace industry where it should be, in public hands.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement, may I come to the last part first. We on these Benches have been waiting anxiously for a Government decision on the A.320 Airbus. It has always seemed to us an excellent proposition from many points of view: for the workforce it will keep together; for the cooperation with our European partners; and, above all, for the excellence of the Airbus family.
While wishing that the launch aid could have been more than £ 250 million—I gather from the Statement that agreement has been reached with British Aerospace about this—we are glad that the company will now join its partners in formally launching the A.320 programme. We wish it well and we hope that this very fine aeroplane will fulfil all expectations.
In addition, may I say that in so far as Rolls-Royce is concerned everyone will welcome the approval given for the company to participate in the V.2500 project and to collaborate with General Electric of the United States of America on larger civil engines. We look forward to a further announcement on these points when launch aid arrangements are finalised. On these Benches—and I am sure throughout the House—we hope that the new Rolls-Royce engine may be ready in 1988 at the same time as the launch of the A.320 Airbus. In noting all the decisions contained in the Statement, we believe that the Government have indicated a clear commitment to the aerospace industry, and we appreciate the action taken.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, for their response to this Statement. In reply to the questions put to me by the noble Lord, may I say that it is indeed the case that the amount that has been agreed with British Aerospace is rather less than that company originally sought by way of launch aid for this particular aircraft project. However, I can tell the noble Lord that the negotiations have been conducted in the best of spirit. There has been give and take on both sides, and the Government too have given way in some particular aspects of the discussions, particularly with regard to the rate of dispersement of the funds which we were able to agree to more in line with British Aerospace's requirements. Thus it was that we were able to reach agreement on the sum of money referred to in the Statement.
The noble Lord asked whether I could give him a figure for the launch aid for the V.2500 engine. Negotiations are still in progress on this matter. I cannot therefore give him the figure that he asks for, but an announcement will be made in due course when agreement has been reached. Those, I think, were the principal points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. I hope I have covered them adequately, but if there are any that I have omitted I shall be happy to rectify the position.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister, first, to give us a little more information as to why it took so long for the Government to come to a decision, and, secondly, why the figures are so much below that which, as I understood it, British Aerospace thought essential? Is he not aware that all

1395
these hesitations and reservations put us in a very bad position with our partners in Europe and raise doubts as to whether this country really wants to sustain and continue a viable civil aircraft industry? If we do not do this, I think he is well aware that, in terms of major civil aviation, we shall no longer have a stake. Would it not be more feasible to give a more generous and more rapid response, and to do as we did when I had some responsibility in the matter; that is, to have arrangements whereby, when the project was a success, we received a payback according to the profits that were earned? Would not that kind of partnership be more satisfactory than what seems to be a very lengthy and not at all satisfactory approach to the problem?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the reason why it sometimes takes rather a long time to reach a conclusion in these matters is that the Government have to be very clear indeed that the project that they are backing is a project that will in due course come to a profitable conclusion, because (as was not, I think, referred to in the Statement, but which I am happy to say now) in fact the money is by way of launch-aid. A certain proportion of the money will be repaid on a fixed schedule, but the remainder of the money will be repaid by means of a levy on sales in due course. It is necessary for the Government to take a very careful approach to these matters to make sure that the forecasts of the company, particularly with regard to sales of the aircraft and the likely size of the market, are proper estimates. The Government have done that and have reached these conclusions.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can tell us a little more about the raising of the balance of the money that British Aerospace were seeking. Are we to understand that there will be no question of a Government guarantee for raising these funds? If it is possible for British Aerospace to raise £ 180 million-odd for the Airbus project in the City without Government guarantees—and presumably the Government are themselves satisfied as to the prospects of a return on the project—why cannot the whole of the sum which British Airways have sought be raised in the same manner? Finally, could my noble friend tell us whether it is the case that British Aerospace have effectively written off £ 240 million in the last two years on its civil aviation projects? And is my noble friend satisfied that British Aerospace can finance that part of the cost of the Airbus project that it is expected to produce from its own return in profits without undue strain?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that these matters were very much in the Government's mind when we conducted these negotiations with British Aerospace, but I must tell him that the answer as to where the rest of the money will come from must be provided by British Aerospace and not by the Government. British Aerospace are now a private-sector company. They have the responsibility for these matters, and the Government are satisfied that they are in a position to do that. We would not have proceeded in the way that we have if we had not been so satisfied. I might add that the sort
1396
of proportion of the launch funds required which we are providing in this particular instance is very much in line with the proportions that we have provided in the past, save for one particular case, and that was Concorde, where the Government provided a much larger proportion—virtually all, in fact—of the money that was required. This, however, is a wholly different project, essentially within the range of existing technology, whereas Concorde was pushing the frontiers of technology considerably further back. I think that the Government are right to proceed along these lines, providing about half of the launch money required by British Aerospace. I believe it will be a successful project.

Council of Agriculture Ministers: February Meeting
5.26 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Council of Agriculture Ministers which took place in Brussels on 27th and 28th February. I represented the United Kingdom Government with my honourable friend the Minister of State.
"Most of the time of the Council was taken up in detailed discussion of the Commission's price proposals and adaptations to the common agricultural policy. No decisions were taken. But there was further clarification of individual national positions on the various commodity sectors and other issues. These negotiations will be resumed at a further Council meeting next week.
"The Council agreed that the existing structures directives should be extended with effect from the beginning of the year until the end of June. Under this agreement, FEOGA will contribute in the normal way to payments made since 1st January under the Community schemes for capital grants and hill livestock compensatory payments. Aids to dairy investment are not included in the roll-forward. This means that no application for development plans under the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Scheme which include dairy investments will be accepted from today onwards. Nor will claims be accepted under the Agriculture and Horticulture Grant Scheme on dairy expenditure incurred from today onwards.
"I am pleased to tell the House that the Council agreed to the extension of the less-favoured areas in the United Kingdom. This is an important decision for farmers in our marginal areas. As foreshadowed in my Answer to my right honourable friend the Member for West Devon and Torridge on 30th November, it enables the Government to make arrangements for paying enhanced rates of capital grant in the marginal areas and to consider in the autumn review appropriate intermediate rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances to be applied in 1985.

1397
"The Council also agreed that the present import arrangements for New Zealand butter should be extended for a further month so that 20,750 tonnes can be imported during the first three months of 1984 pending a decision on the proposal which the Commission have made for a five-year agreement".
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we must thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. I may say that it is like the curate's egg—good in parts. I note, under the first section of it, that the next meeting is next week. We have been promised year after year that a decision will be taken by the end of March, by the beginning of the farming year. Farming is a long-term business, and I should like to ask the Minister whether, this year, there is any chance of this decision being taken in time. We know there will have to be considerable cuts and changes in agricultural production, and we should have adequate warning about what is to be done. The Minister mentioned in the Statement the individual national positions. What are those individual positions? Are some of the countries not agreeing? Does he know that? As we all know, the Council of Ministers put forward the question of phasing out MCAs, which is an important thing for the British farmer. I wonder what the position is there?
Giving, from today, no notice at all to the dairy industry—although I think they had been warned; I have to admit that—about the question of no further aids to improve dairy buildings and to improve anything in the dairy sector, seems a little hard. I wonder whether it would not have been possible to detail this a bit better and to keep the grants for something which improves efficiency but does not improve production; in other words, no extension to a yard to bull more cows but something to help the efficiency, probably transferring cows from a yard to slats or cubicles, or something which does not increase the farmer's herd but increases his efficiency. I should like to ask what the Government's ideas are here: whether they are in favour of a price freeze or a price reduction, for that matter, or a sugar levy or quotas. If the dairy farmer is faced with all that, I think it is a little hard not to allow him something to improve his efficiency.
It is good to see that New Zealand is to be considered. In earlier stages of negotiations, in 1972–73—and I believe agreement was reached in 1975—we gave New Zealand a long period when the reduction of the butter supplies was agreed on. I hope that agreement will not be broken.
As regards the less favoured areas, there are difficulties. I have looked at some of them recently, notably in Ireland, I also saw some in Scotland during the last harvest that I looked at when I was a member of an AEC during the war, when they were given hill cow and hill sheep subsidies. I was amazed to see that land growing wheat today. If that is the case, what is to hinder these less favoured areas improving their pastures to such an extent that they can grow wheat or keep dairy heifers for dairy farmers?
It is a very real problem deciding about these things. I am sorry to ask so much of the Minister but this is a
1398
very important Statement, and I would reiterate once again the importance of getting decisions in time for farmers to alter their plans for next year, when they can do it, and not a year later.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, in the temporary absence of our own most respected farmer, my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, it falls to me to make a few observations, and I can only hope that they will be considered moderately relevant. First, it must surely be obvious that on what I might call the overshadowing question of the reform of the common agricultural policy very little progress has been made. Final agreement, if it is ever reached, will have to be reached at the next European Council meeting (not at the next agriculture Ministers' meeting) at the end of March—perhaps as a result of some bargain which none of the agriculture Ministers will find acceptable or even agreeable.
For the rest, unless I have misunderstood the Statement it looks as though, for the time being at any rate, our hill farmers and farmers in marginal areas, to say nothing of the New Zealanders, have reason to be moderately happy and our dairy farmers rather less happy—although not so unhappy as they probably will be when there is general agreement, as there will be, substantially to limit the production of dairy goods in the EEC as a whole. I imagine that we must, while being thankful for small mercies, go on hoping that general agreement on the future of the CAP will be forthcoming before the money runs out and members of the committee have to take measures which might not be consonant with the continuance in being of the EEC itself.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their response to my right honourable friend's Statement. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, expressed the very strong hope that it would be possible to get agreement on the price fixing, from the point of view of farmers knowing where they stand for the forthcoming year. The Government most certainly agree with the noble Lord in that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, pointed out, the final decision on this by the agriculture Ministers will have to take account of the next full council meeting, which falls later this month. Her Majesty's Government will certainly be working hard to achieve the objective which I know the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, wishes us to be able to achieve.
The noble Lord asked me about the different national positions on these matters, and although I have expressed the wish of Her Majesty's Government to see these matters of the price fixing and, indeed, the future of the budget resolved, there are presumably different national positions. I do not think that either noble Lord would feel it appropriate for me to go into details now; but as your Lordships will know, Her Majesty's Government are looking for action to contain the cost of surplus production and to reduce the actual surpluses which exist. We shall certainly continue to stick to that line through these lengthy negotiations.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked me specifically about the MCAs. I should like to make it

1399
perfectly clear to your Lordships that my right honourable friend considers that there is no justification whatsoever for the Commission's proposals to revalue the green pound. We believe that these proposals do not take account of the United Kingdom's position in having a freely floating currency, and hence a variable MCA.
The noble Lord also asked why it was that the dairy farmers appeared to have suffered as a result of the meeting of the agriculture Ministers whereas other sectors—for instance, cereals—had not. I would only say that it has been generally recognised—and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, recognised it in his remarks—that the key surplus area at the moment is milk. The agreement in the council is an important element in the Community's aim to reduce that particular surplus.
Having said that, I of course recognise, along with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that cereals are also very much in surplus. Her Majesty's Government have been pressing for several years for price restraint—and not without success, because the price of cereals, having regard to average price increases, has increased by a lower amount. Perhaps I may just add that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, will remember that only last year the Government significantly reduced the grants for cereal drying and storage.
The noble Lord also asked what our policy was so far as the milk surplus is concerned. Our view remains that a substantial cut in support prices in order to bring the milk market into better balance is the way forward. We are prepared to discuss proposals for a supplementary levy, but we have made it quite clear that any measures concerning a levy that are taken would have to be fair as between producers in the member states and without exemptions or exceptions which would allow some producers to keep on increasing milk production while others did not. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, also put to me the apparent contradiction of trying to reduce surpluses while giving help to the marginal areas. I am sure that the noble Lord, who is characteristically generous as well as wise, would he the first to say that there must be a balance in agricultural matters, and we must try to keep a healthy agricultural industry in the hills.
Our application to the European Community for an extension of the less favoured areas and the marginal areas was in recognition of the special difficulties of farming in these areas. I believe that the success of our application will give great confidence to those areas, and I am very glad that the application has succeeded. These are complicated matters, and I should like to end by expressing my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, for having given me notice of the questions he was going to ask.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, would my noble friend please do the very best he can to give farmers an assurance that the Government are sensible of the agonising uncertainty through which the industry is going at the moment? Perhaps, as he has mentioned milk, it is all right for me, as a dairy farmer, to talk specifically about milk.
Will he tell us that he realises that there are many
1400
farmers—most of them small farmers—who just do not know at this moment whether they will have a livelihood within the next year? Does he fully realise that the suffering at the moment is the suffering of real anxiety for their way of life and for the livelihoods of them and their families? Does he realise that they are not squealing about any burdens with which they may be hit, but they are squealing about the length of the uncertainty? Finally, will he take on board that the publicity which has recently been given to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's working party, which is to have a look at the benefits that are alleged to be given to the farming industry, has caused a further shiver to go down the spine? It is really much more than a shiver; it has struck terror into the hearts of many who feel, perhaps unjustly, that this is another blow aimed at their livelihood.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend Lord De La Warr has underlined the enormous importance of the agricultural industry to this country. In the last decade, it has saved this country literally millions of pounds in foreign exchange and it will be a bad day when this country ceases to recognise the importance of British agriculture. I say that because my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was very ready to recognise the importance of the agricultural industry in this country.
As I think my noble friend is aware, on 23rd February this year, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister recorded that we are determined to reduce farm surpluses, which is likely to be painful, and that the Government are very well aware of the difficulties which face certain sectors of the farming industry. But, at the same time, my right honourable friend said that people in Britain realise that there is a need to support our agriculture, and that support is offered by every Western industrialised country to its agricultural services. My right honourable friend ended that passage of her reply by saying that we need a healthy agricultural industry. It is, therefore, in this difficult context of surpluses, which we have in the Community at the moment, that those words which my right honourable friend spoke stand.

Cable and Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
5.43 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 12, line 31, at end insert—
(" ( ) Appeal shall lie to the Secretary of State from a decision of the Authority under subsection (2) of this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 41, I have one piece of good news for your Lordships and one piece of bad news. The good news is that at least we are now discussing only one amendment, which must help. It is a simple and a short one—at least, it is simple in concept. It simply states that:
"Appeal shall lie to the Secretary of State from a decision of the Authority under subsection (2)".
The piece of bad news is that we are still on the protected event and its definition, and whether a series of events are similar.
An interesting point is that, as I listened to the Minister's speech opposing my Amendments Nos. 44 and 45, I was thinking to myself that he could not have been making a better speech in favour of this one. If I am wrong, I hope that the Minister will stop me. I thought at one moment that he was envisaging a case going before the court from a decision of the authority under subsection (2), but I do not think that that is a practical proposition.
I say that for this reason. Subsection (2) contains the words "in the opinion of the Authority" and whenever you try to litigate in a matter where those words are used you always get the same answer from the court, which is "Whatever the private opinions of the members of the court may be, it is not for the court to substitute its opinion for the opinion come to by the authority, the Minister or whoever it was. Unless we think that the authority were acting perversely, we are not going to substitute our opinion for theirs"—and one can hardly envisage this Cable Authority acting perversely. Therefore, taking a case before the court is not a practical proposition. But I hope to show that taking it on appeal to the Secretary of State is a very much better proposition.
It is extremely difficult—this must be present in all our minds from what has gone on in our discussions on this Bill so far—to decide whether a particular event is one of a series or, being one of a series, is similar to some other event. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, dealt in great detail with the difficulties of the series and I do not want to bore your Lordships by going on about them. But I should like to say a few words about the difficulties of similarity between two events.
It is perfectly easy to find some resemblance between a sporting event which occurred last year and one which is taking place this year. The difficulty is that the terms and conditions tend to change, to a larger or a smaller extent, probably according to whether last year's events attracted too many entries or too few entries or, no doubt, for other reasons too. The Minister reminded me that on this subject in Committee I chose, again, a horse racing example to describe what I meant and, if I may, I shall briefly rehearse this argument in case the Members of the House who are present in the Chamber are not identical with the Members of the Committee on the last occasion.
I should like to take a sponsored horse race which is not of the first importance. The first thing which frequently happens is that the sponsor may change from one year to the next, which means that the title of the race changes. Then the new sponsor probably produces different prize money from the last sponsor, so there is that change. What difference does that make? Does that make this year's event dissimilar to last year's or is it similar? Let us suppose that everything is the same as last year, except that the race course is changed. The event is transferred to a different race course over the same distance, but over a different conformation. Does that make it a similar event to last year's or not? If it stays on the same racecourse, but is transferred from the spring meeting
1402
to the summer meeting, what difference does that make? Let us suppose that last year's race was over 10 furlongs and this year's is over nine furlongs, or that perhaps last year's race was for three year-olds and four year-olds, but there were not enough entries so this year's race is for three year-olds and upwards. I do not want to go on like this, but I hope I have said enough to indicate that it is not an easy question to answer.
Even if it were, I do not believe that the Cable Authority are the right persons to be the final arbiter in this matter as under the clause, as at present drafted, they are. For one thing, wise people—and no doubt they will be wise in the Cable Authority—will not feel particularly qualified to make nice distinctions between one sporting event and another. The second and more important reason is that they will be much too closely concerned and much too close to the action. Surely, from time to time, there will be disagreements between cable companies on the one hand, and the other broadcasters on the other, as to whether or not a particular event is available to cable.
The authority are going to be in an embarrassing position. They will say, "People will suspect us of giving the benefit of the doubt to our cable companies all too readily or, on the other hand, of leaning over backwards to achieve the opposite result." Therefore I do not believe that the Cable Authority are the right final arbiter of this quite difficult question. For the reasons I have given, I have ruled out the court, if I may use that phrase loosely. Therefore we come to the Secretary of State. In my opinion, the Secretary of State is the satisfactory final arbiter. He already has to go into these kinds of questions because he has to maintain the list of sporting events under the previous subsections, events which are sacrosanct because they are of great national importance. This therefore is an area which the Secretary of State has to investigate. I hope your Lordships will say that it is right that this difficult question should not be finally decided by the Cable Authority but that there should be an appeal from him to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, all our discussions have borne out the assertion that most of us have made, that the definition of the events which, under Clause 13(2), would be excluded from a pay-per-view cable service in order to safeguard the interests of the viewing public is very difficult to draft. Nor is the interpretation of a clause drafted to achieve this result of its nature easy, either. It is to that that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has addressed his careful attention, though I do hope that Amendment No. 43, to which I have already spoken and which I hope I have persuaded your Lordships to agree, will go some way towards clarifying it. Therefore I appreciate why the noble Lord has tabled the amendment, which provides for a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against a decision of the Cable Authority that any particular event is or is not one which should be protected under Clause 13(2) and therefore should be excluded from showing on pay-per-view.
But the involvement of the Secretary of State in decisions of this nature runs counter to the general philosophy of the Bill, which is to let the Cable

1403
Authority regulate the new cable services without undue interference from the Government. Moreover, I find it a little difficult to see, on this particular issue, how the Secretary of State, who is not running the cable administration from day to day, is going to be any better placed than the Cable Authority which will be running it from day to day. The Cable Authority will be concerned with these and similar matters on a regular basis. They will have the chance to develop an expertise that my right honourable and learned friend will inevitably lack.
So my first reaction to the noble Lord is that he is suggesting that for the opinion of the Cable Authority, when it does not suit somebody to whom it is applied, there should be substituted the opinion of the Secretary of State, who will not necessarily be any better placed to have a sound opinion than the Cable Authority. The Bill sets out a test for the authority to apply. We believe that the best course is to let them get on and apply it. I do not believe that issues to be decided under Clause 13(2) require an elaborate system of appeal. In other parts of the Bill we are trusting the Cable Authority to take equally important decisions. In the case of Clause 13 we should also trust the Cable Authority to exercise their powers both completely and fairly.
The noble Lord suggested that the Cable Authority might be too closely involved, but these are not questions which the authority will have an unfettered discretion to determine at will. This is very different from the kind of determination procedure under Clause 12(3) which concerns the financial arrangements for the relay of DBS services. There, in our view, it would have been wrong to leave the authority with the last word because there is no clear objective test which can be applied. Here the authority will have to apply the terms of the statute which set out a particular test to be followed in each case. Certainly the authority's judgment will enter into the equation, and certainly the equation will be a difficult one, but it will enter into it only to the extent that it involves a reasonable assessment of the broadcaster's actual practice.
I am advised (here I come back full circle to the noble Lord's first point) that although the opinion of the authority is involved in the Bill—though not now, if your Lordships accept our amendment, in the way that it was before the amendment—nonetheless the authority has to exercise its opinion, whether or not it is written into the Bill. The question as to whether or not it has exercised it reasonably will, I am advised, be justiciable, so there will be an escape to the courts.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I was not suggesting that the Home Secretary would be any better qualified than the authority to answer these difficult questions. What appealed to me was that he would he seen to be completely impartial and that, however impartial the Cable Authority tried to appear to be, inevitably, in a dispute between the BBC and a cable company, there would be people who would question the impartiality of the Cable Authority. I can only say that if I were a member of the Cable Authority I should be thankful not to have to be the final arbiter of a matter in which my authority was so closely concerned. I should be
1404
thankful that the impartial Home Secretary would be the final arbiter. However, I have not had resounding support for this amendment and the Minister does not like it very much, either, so I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, does the noble Lord. Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, wish to move Amendment No. 42?
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, yes.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 12, line 31, at end insert—
("(2A) With a view to preventing the making of exclusive arrangements for the broadcasting of protected events or their inclusion in a licensed diffusion service, the Secretary of State may make regulations as to the grant to any person to whom this subsection applies of the rights or facilities required for the broadcasting of such events or their inclusion in such a service.
(2B) Subsection (2A) above applies to the BBC. to the IBA and programme contractors, to the IBA's subsidiary, to the Welsh Authority and to any person to whom a licence to operate a diffusion service has been granted pursuant to section 4 above respectively.
(2C) Regulations made under this section shall not apply to the broadcasting of a record of any events specified in the regulations or to its inclusion in a licensed diffusion service where the transmission is made more than seven days after that event.
(2D) Any regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 42 very briefly and formally, simply because I want to remind the House once more of the increasing power of the cable programme providers. They will provide the programmes which the multiplicity of people will put down their cables. I have already reminded the House that they are coming together in very powerful consortia—consortia which bid fair to rule cable in a way which has very considerable dangers indeed. The American experience alone teaches us how powerful, especially if they dispose of important sporting and other events, some of these are. It was for that reason that I wished to provide the Home Secretary with a fall-back power, in case he became worried by what was happening. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, at an earlier stage I spoke at some length to this amendment—length which your Lordships were good to put up with. But the House will not wish me to repeat the arguments against the amendment. I trust that the noble Lord, having begged to move the amendment, was only seeking an opportunity to withdraw it. If not, I shall lobby your Lordships very powerfully against what the noble Lord proposes.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, indeed I was merely seeking an opportunity to say a word or two legitimately about this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 43:
[Printed earlier: col. 1140.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 36. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, before we agree to this amendment, there are two amendments to it standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, these amendments are not moved.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I take it that this is Amendment No. 43 as not amended.
The Deputy Chairman: That is correct, my Lords.
Lord Elton: In that case, my Lords, I am happy to beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Complaints of unjust or unfair treatment etc]:
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 13, line 7, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Broadcasting Complaints Commission")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 83.
Amendment No. 47: Page 13, line 14, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
("(2) Schedule (Application of Part III of the Broadcasting Act 1981) shall have effect with respect to the Commission and to complaints of the kind mentioned in subsection (1) above.")
Amendment No. 83: Insert the following new Schedule—

SCHEDULE

  APPLICATION OF PART III OF THE BROADCASTING ACT 1981
  1.—(1) In paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section 53 of the Broadcasting Act 1981 (in this Schedule referred to as "the 1981 Act") after the words "the IBA" there shall be inserted the words "or of the Cable Authority".
  (2) At the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of that section there shall be inserted the words "or for inclusion in a cable programme service".
  2.—(1) In paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 54 of the 1981 Act there shall be inserted after "1981" the words "actually included in licensed services".
  (2) In paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of that section there shall be inserted at the end of that paragraph the words "or included".
  (3) In subsection (3) of that section there shall be inserted before the definition of "complaint" the following words:—
  "cable programme service" has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984.
  (4) After the definition of "complaint" in that subsection there shall be inserted the following words—
  "licence service" has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984.
  3.—(1) In paragraph (a) of subsection(4) of section 55 of the 1981 Act after the words "the broadcasting" there shall be inserted the words "or the inclusion in a licensed service".
  (2) At the end of subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted the words "or included in a licensed service".
  (3) In subsection (6) of that section after the words "was broadcast" there shall be inserted the words "or included in a cable programme service".
  4.—(1) In paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 56 of the 1981 Act after the words "was broadcast" there shall be inserted the words "or, where the complaint relates to a programme included in a licensed service, the Cable Authority and the person who included it in the service".
  (2) At the end of subsection (3) there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the Cable Authority and the person who included it in the licensed service".
  (3) In subsection (4) of that section after "broadcasting body" there shall be inserted the words "or a person who has included a programme in a licensed service and after the words "that body" wherever it occurs in that subsection there shall be inserted the words "or person".
  (4) In subsection (5) after the words "was broadcast" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the person who included it in a licensed service" and after the words "that body" in that subsection there shall be inserted the words "or person or, where that person is an individual, that individual".
  (5) In subsection (6) after the words "was broadcast" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the person who included it in a licensed service" and after the words "broadcasting body" on the last occasion when it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, that person".
  (6) In subsection (7) after the words "any such person" there shall be inserted the words "responsible for the making or provision of the relevant programme".
  5.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 57 of the 1981 Act after the words "was broadcast" there shall be inserted the words "or to the Cable Authority".
  (2) In subsection (2) of that section after the words "a broadcasting body" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the Cable Authority".
  (3) At the end of subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted the words "or the Cable Authority or a person providing a licensed service".
  6. In section 58 of the 1981 Act after the words "each broadcasting body" there shall be inserted the words "the Cable Authority and persons providing a licensed service".
  7. At the end of subsection (3) of section 59 of the 1981 Act there shall be inserted the words "and to the Cable Authority and every person providing a licensed service".")
  These are precisely the same amendments that I moved in Committee and which I withdrew at a rather late hour because it would not have been appropriate to divide the Committee at that time. The Committee was very sparsely attended, although I do not know how many noble Lords were lingering outside, waiting to quash me had I forced the amendments to a Division. In any case it did not seem appropriate to do so, because there were not many people here to listen to the arguments.
  In replying to my contentions on that occasion, the noble Lord made various suggestions. He suggested that the Cable Authority was very different from the BBC and the IBA and therefore should not be subjected to any form of Broadcasting Complaints Commission, because the authority was not involved in either the production or the transmission of programmes. It was argued therefore that the authority would be able to exercise some entirely independent judgment. I do not believe that is so.
  The authority will clearly have a duty under Clause 4 to promote cable services. In other words, it will have a duty to encourage as well as to regulate cable services. It is there to serve not just as a regulatory body. It is there to encourage cable services as well. That duty to encourage cable services may at times conflict with the authority's duty to be seen at any rate as an entirely impartial body when adjudicating upon complaints.
  The second of the noble Lord's arguments carried more force, but I hope to demonstrate in a moment that it was a slightly illusory force. That argument was

  1407
  that it will be easier for the consumer to deal with one body about all cable matters—whether about programme quality, privacy, unfair treatment or whatever. Again, there may be some force in that argument if no conflict of interest should arise. The noble Lord's third argument was that the authority would be able to consult with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission with a view to adopting a common approach to standards. I am not quite sure how this could be expected to work but it anyway seems an extremely cumbersome way of proceeding.
  The IBA is a regulatory authority. It happens also to transmit programmes, but that is merely a detail because it is not directly responsible for the programmes. The Cable Authority is also a regulatory body. Admittedly the rules by which it regulates the industry are a good deal looser, on the Government's terms, than those which restrain the IBA. Nevertheless, it is a regulatory authority. If we can have the kind of proposal I am putting forward, so that we may refer all these matters to the complaints commission, we are more likely to have a satisfactory state of affairs.
  The Broadcasting Complaints Commission exists to provide redress as a statutory independent body to individuals or groups of individuals who believe that they have been traduced or unfairly treated in one way or another in a programme. That is a source of complaint which is not as frequent as some people think, but it is nevertheless a fairly frequent source of complaint. Some people invariably think they have been unfairly treated in a television programme—especially certain Members of the Lower House, and perhaps potential Members of the Lower House in particular. The fact remains that there is an independent body to whom such people can have recourse. But they do not usually approach the independent body in the first instance. They have been known to do so, but frequently they complain first to the BBC or to the IBA, or to ITCA or to a programme company. They frequently complain to the BBC about IBA programmes.
  They are then informed that if it is not a general but a specific complaint, their proper recourse is to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. If it is a general complaint about sex, violence or bad language, then it is something which the BBC or the IBA can be expected to deal with and to reply, for it is part of the statutory duties of the authority and of the charter agreements of the corporation that they should do so.
  Why on earth the same procedure should not apply to the Cable Authority I cannot think. I do not believe that the reasons we have been given for not doing it that way are at all valid. Let me return to the argument that it would be simpler if the consumer had only one body to approach. This happens at the moment with the BBC and the IBA, but if it is a singular rather than a general complaint, the complainant is told of the remedies which are available. It seems very curious that the Secretary of State for Home Affairs who produced the statutory Broadcasting Complaints Commission in response to a number of years' of pressure should now in a Bill for which he is equally responsible say. "In this case, there is absolutely no need for the commission to perform that function. It
  1408
  can all be perfectly well dealt with by the Cable Authority".
  If one has been traduced in a cable programme, it does not matter tuppence whether that programme has come down a wire or has come over the air because one has still been traduced. The slander or whatever is just the same if it appears on your screen in precisely the same way. Because this new technology is to be supervised with a loose rein, that does not mean that it should be treated differently in this particular respect from broadcasting generally. I beg to move.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment as strongly as I possibly can. The House will know that we are dealing now with people who see upon a screen—and it is one screen—matters which they feel treat then unjustly or unfairly, or which invade their privacy. As the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, said, it was very late at night when we last discussed this matter. The Chief Whip was hovering in the background, waiting to ask that the Committee, at that late hour, should adjourn. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, responded most courteously to the presence of the Chief Whip and said that this was a matter that he would prefer to deal with at a later stage.
  I have said that it is the same screen. The same question is involved: the invasion of privacy and unfair or unjust treatment. An authority is already in existence—the Broadcasting Complaints Commission—which has, over a period of several years, built up on its experience a whole host of precedents so that it is able very easily, and one may think very properly, to adjudicate on these matters. When, in a short intervention. I made that point in Committee, the noble Lord the Minister replied by saying that he had no doubt there would be consultation between the two authorities. III may say so, that in itself was an admission that they were dealing with precisely the same thing, or the same principles. Why therefore there should be this need to consult when the body is already there, I do not understand.
  The next point made by the Minister was, "Well, people are used to dealing with one authority on cable". The person who would be complaining and would want to put his complaints before some quasi-judicial body, as it were, is not an applicant for a licence. He is not a person who is quarrelling about terms and conditions of a licence. Most likely he will have never been in touch with the Cable Authority, and, if I may say so with all deference to that body which we are to create, most likely he will not even have heard of it; but he will most certainly have heard of the complaints commission. Therefore, that argument drops by the wayside.
  As his third argument the noble Lord the Minister says that for some reason he feels that the BBC and the independent authority were in a different position from the Cable Authority in the sense that the Cable Authority is not responsible for the production of the programmes. We do not even know at this stage who the personnel of the Cable Authority will be. From these Benches—but your Lordships felt it was wrong and the noble Lord the Minister thought it was wrong—I tried to see that certain interests and

  1409
  expertise were in the statute and were set down as the sort of expertise and representation that one ought to have on the Cable Authority. The Minister replied that one ought to have faith in the Secretary of State—and I certainly have a lot of faith in the present Secretary of State—and one should leave this representation to him; that he would have the general mix of expertise that should be on such an authority and that one ought not to write this into an Act. But we do not know what sort of expertise will in fact be on that body. We do know what sort of expertise is sitting on the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.
  All that adds up to this. If this amendment were made to the Bill and we were to find that for some reason or other there was a conflict of interests, or some way in which this was not a convenient procedure, there would not be the slightest difficulty in amending this provision. It would be the shortest possible amendment anyone would ever have to make. If the Minister says, "Please, I do not want to consider amending the Bill at this stage", I answer him by saying that if we happen to have personnel on the Cable Authority who do not satisfy the members of the public who complain he will then, as a result of experience, have to amend the Bill and give this power to the complaints commission.
  This is a most sensible amendment, and I believe that we have a very real duty, in safeguarding the interests of those who will be depicted on cable programmes, to see that we give them the protection of being able to complain to a commission which, I repeat, has had a wealth of experience and has, by and large, carried out is duties to the satisfaction of the general public. Therefore, from these Benches we most earnestly support the amendment and hope that the Minister, on a matter which, though not of the greatest principle, is very important, will find that at long last he can yield to sensible arguments which are addressed to him.
  Lord Mottistone: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to support in principle the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe. It seems to me logical that in the areas which are common to what the Broadcasting Complaints Commission is currently doing, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just said, the same body should continue to do the same things. I suggest to my noble friend that this is the aspect of it to which he might like to give some thought with a view to perhaps tabling an amendment of his own incorporating the principles embodied in the three amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe.
  We are debating the terms of Clause 14, which is entitled:
  "Complaints of unjust or unfair treatment etc.".
  It is the "etc." which worries me slightly, because I think there may be matters which are peculiar to cable in the areas which are not common to broadcasting or the sort of entertainment and information type of programmes, where one may want a different level of expertise for which the Cable Authority might be more suited. I am not sure whether there is a provision elsewhere in the Bill for bodies such as advertisers with a solely advertising programme being able to complain on a technical basis. I am not talking about people
  1410
  complaining about the advertising, I am referring to advertising companies who want to complain that their programmes have not been put on properly as contracted, or something of that nature.
  It may be that there is something in the Bill which gives the Cable Authority an overall responsibility for receiving complaints about the programme providers. If that is so, nothing further needs to be done. But we do need, as it were, to narrow down the amendment that is under discussion to make sure that it relates strictly to those areas which are common to what this particular body is currently doing. Apart from that, I am right behind the amendment. I will not, I hope, be asked to go into the Division Lobby. That is the last thing I want to do on this issue because I agree with it in principle rather than in fact.
  Lord Aylestone: My Lords, the noble Lord and the House may recall that prior to the setting up of the commission to consider complaints the BBC and the IBA themselves considered any complaint of unfair or unjust treatment, the infringement of an individual's rights, or whatever it might be, One of the main arguments for setting up the commission, the noble Lord may recall, was that the BBC and the IBA were both judge and defendant in their own cases. Therefore, it was essential to set up a new body to do precisely that.
  It seems to me that in the Bill the Government have completely gone back to the position where they are allowing the Cable Authority to make the decisions on complaints against programmes which it may not itself have produced but which it is transmitting. In that respect, may I remind the noble Lord that the IBA does not produce programmes either? It transmits programmes made by the programme companies.
  6.20 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I should like to add my support to the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe. There is no need to repeat the very cogent arguments which he and the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Mottistone, also put forward. When we were debating these matters in December I ventured to say that I hoped that the Government would look again at the possibility of the Broadcasting Commission having responsibility for these matters. Everything I have heard this afternoon persuades me that there is a strong case for this. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister might think again and meet the wishes which are so widely expressed from all Benches in this Chamber.
  One factor which concerns me in addition to all the arguments that have been put forward is the interest of the general public. Because the existing broadcasting authorities are public service institutions they not only have accountability in their annual reports to Parliament but also are surrounded by a network of advisory committees, and so on. This means that there is a considerable public involvement in what is being done, considerable discussion of programme standards and advice being given to the programme broadcasters. That will not be the case with the Cable Authority. Indeed, by a whisker, the Motion that there should be a code of minimum standards and some

  1411
  kind of public accountability was rejected. An earlier proposal that there should be local councils in different areas in consultation with the programme providers has also been rejected.
  While I very much welcome the proposal which the noble Lord will later put forward under Clause 21 that in the annual report the authority might give to Parliament an account of the complaints and how they have been handled, nevertheless, I still think that public interest would be better and more widely served by entrusting these matters to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. This would bring in expertise, objectivity and across-the-board experience which would undoubtedly be very welcome.
  One just has to repeat again that for the ordinary viewer, whether he is receiving a BBC, ITV or cable programme, it is coming through the same set in his living room. He will not make the kind of distinctions which are very easy for us to make. For all those reasons, in addition to those so cogently put forward by other noble Lords, I very much hope that the Government will think again on this matter.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, so many of your Lordships have with no great admiration summarised the arguments that I advanced at the Committee stage that I feel it is only a matter of ritual to repeat them, and I shall therefore do so very briefly. But I think that I ought to pull the debate together by saying that there is nothing dividing the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, and myself on the essential point, which is the belief that it is proper for people considering themselves unfairly treated in cable programmes to have the right to have their complaints considered by a body exercising an impartial and independent judgment. Where we differ is over the question of the suitability of the Cable Authority to act as the complaints body.
  With great respect, I begin by putting straight what I believe to be one misconception. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, was I think followed by the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, in substance in saying that, although the IBA transmits ITV and Channel 4 programmes, it has no responsibility for the programmes. It appears that I might have misunderstood the noble Lord. If he did not make that imputation, there is no need for me to rebut it.
  Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I said that it did not make programmes; I said that it had a regulatory function.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, then I think I do need just to say this. The IBA has a regulatory function and a responsibility for the programmes.
  The noble Lord argued that the Cable Authority and the IBA were in all material respects in a comparable position and that it would be anomalous if the Cable Authority could consider complaints when the IBA does not have the last word because of the existence of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. That is not exactly so. The IBA is statutorily responsible for independent television and radio services. In law they are the I BA's services and it is the IBA which is subject to the statutory duties in respect of the programme
  1412
  content. The analogy between the IBA and the Cable Authority, therefore, does not seem to me to be a good one. But I shall not make a meal of that.
  The role of the Cable Authority in relation to programmes included in its service is wholly supervisory. This will enable it to exercise, and to be seen to exercise, an independent judgment on cable programmes in a way that the BBC and IBA cannot in relation to broadcast programmes. That was the first point that I made. The second was the fact that dealing with the whole range of complaints about cable programmes would help the authority to maintain a check on its licensees' performance. I attach some importance to that.
  Thirdly, I said that we thought that it was in the interests of simplicity and of positive benefit to cable customers—that is, to those members of the public who receive cable programmes—to be able to put all their complaints about the programmes, whether related to general standards or to alleged unfairness, to a single body. I said that the application of common standards would arise from consultation. At that point of the argument today my noble friend Lord Mottistone and others pointed out that of course there are pictures from more than one body coming on to the screen. But there will be only one screen, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, and only one question, but two authorities to whom the viewer would have to address himself. My noble friend pointed out also that the body which we now have is the body which everybody knows, and it would be easier to address it. The right reverend Prelate chimed in with the one screen theme, if I may say so, and pointed to the interests of the public at large. The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, put his weight on the same side of the balance.
  In his elegant speech the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked whether at long last—I am not sure whether I like that phrase—I might yield to sensible arguments used against me. In face of the weight of your Lordships' opinion, I will undertake to take this to my right honourable and honourable friends to see whether they might not be persuaded by what your Lordships have said. If the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, is prepared to stay his hand until the Third Reading—I cannot give an undertaking to have an amendment ready, he will understand, because that has to be a matter decided by others, but I undertake to take your Lordships' clearly united concern to my right honourable and learned and my honourable friends. I would hope therefore that it might be possible for me to come back with something on the lines that the noble Lord is proposing. If he finds that what I come with is not agreeable to him, or that I have been unable to do this—of which I should advise him in advance—he would still be in a position to put down his amendment again. There would be nothing improper in him deciding to do it then. I must say that I find what your Lordships have said somewhat persuasive.
  Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord for what he has said and for his (shall I say?) rather unexpected conclusion after repeating the arguments which he had used in Committee.

  1413
  May I just clarify one point for the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone? I believe the word "etc." in,
  "Complaints of unjust or unfair treatment etc.",
  relates to Clause 14(1)(b), which is:
  "unwarranted infringement of privacy in, or in connection with",
  rather than the rest. I just wanted to clarify that particular point.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, may I say that I have caused understandable confusion by suggesting that we could have an amendment perfected by the Third Reading. This suggests a slight difficulty, because I cannot give a cast-iron undertaking to your Lordships, therefore, that what the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, wants will be available in precisely those terms. I think I have made it as clear as I can what I believe our position will be. If I may presume to advise the noble Lord, if he felt that the issue was insufficiently decided to let it go entirely, I should have thought the place to pursue it would be in another place, where I do not doubt he has powerful allies, but I expect to be able, as I say, to give a very clear impression to my right honourable and honourable friends of what your Lordships' feelings are and I think that will weigh with them.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—and, of course, with the permission of the House as I have already spoken—I have said this before, would not the noble Lord the Minister agree that it is the duty of this House, if at all possible, to see that legislation goes to the other place with the imprimatur of your Lordships' House upon it and the recommendations of your Lordships' House, as accepted by the Government, finding their way into the Bill before it reaches the other place, especially when the Bill originates in your Lordships' House? In those circumstances, I know the noble Lord the Minister well enough, as do all his colleagues in this House, to know that he will strain every effort to see that an amendment will in fact be before us before the Third Reading.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I accept that it is alway desirable to send a Bill from this House as near to perfection as possible, though we are—are we not?—in the initiatory rather than the revisory mode as it were—a very clumsy phrase but your Lordships will know what I mean—and there will be revision elsewhere? But I do not think it is a point of honour and principle that we should have everything finalised; and I would rather get it right in another place than wrong in this place to be revised when the other place can say that we did not get it right.
  It occurs to me that by the Third Reading I shall be in a position either to give an undertaking or not to give an undertaking, and to give it in fairly precise terms. I will be in touch with the noble Lord in whose name this amendment stands before then, so that if what I am going to say is not going to appear satisfactory to him he will still be in a position to put something down without incurring too much official wrath at putting it down too late.
  Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I shall unfortunately not personally be in a position to put anything down if the date of the Third Reading is when I think it is, because I shall be enjoying a few days' sun in a sunnier clime than this. Nevertheless, I am sure there are other noble Lords present in this House who will listen carefully to the noble Lord the Minister's remarks and would be willing to assist by doing so in their own name. Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Deputy Speaker: The next amendment is Amendment No. 47. I have to point out that if this amendment is agreed to I will not be able to call Amendments Nos. 48 and 49.
  [Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
  Lord Aylestone Lord Aylestone moved Amendment No. 48:
  Page 13, line 33, leave out ("or").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, if the undertaking that the Minister has given us results in what I hope it will result in, then my amendment will be quite unnecessary. But if the Bill remains as it is at the moment, with the Cable Authority considering complaints made on cable, then I think my amendment would be essential.
  May I point out precisely what I think might happen? A programme which could upset an individual because it is unfair or unjust could come to him in more than one way. It could come to him terrestrially from the BBC or the IBA or could come to him, if he pays the requisite amount of money, from cable, or it could come to him from DBS—direct broadcasting by satellite. Having seen something on the box from the BBC which he does not like and which he feels is harmful to him and unjust, he protests. He protests to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, whose duty it is to look at it, and they may take a little time in doing this. These things cannot be done overnight. Within a day or two, lo and behold, he sees exactly the same programme with exactly the same objections—objections to him, anyway—appearing on cable. He has already complained to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. What does he do now? Does he complain also to the Cable Authority? All my amendment suggests is that if there is already one complaint either way—either before the Cable Authority or before the Broadcasting Complaints Commission—in fact that complaint should be the one considered and should apply to both of them. I beg to move.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope, in view of the possible developments of the next stage, the noble Lord will not wish to press this. At the same time, I think I ought to put on record the response which is appropriate, in my view, to what he has proposed should be done if the position were to remain as it now is. He has drawn attention to the risk that, by having separate bodies to consider complaints of unfair and unjust treatments in broadcasting cable programmes, a form of double jeopardy might arise where a programme is carried by both services.
  There is a specific safeguard against that possibility in the case of a simultaneously relayed broadcast

  1415
  programme included in the cable service in Clause 14(2)(a), which provides that the Cable Authority must not entertain or consider a complaint about such a programme. The effect is not simply to prevent the complaint from being considered by both parties but to direct a complainant to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission if he wishes to pursue a complaint against a broadcast programme which orginated as a broadcast and has been simultaneously transmitted by cable.
  The present amendment is designed to deal with complaints about programmes contained in broadcasts and in cable services on different occasions, and it would prevent the Cable Authority from considering any complaint which is under consideration or has already been considered by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.
  We agree with the object behind it, so far as it is concerned to prevent a complaint about a programme from being considered by both Cable Authority and the Commission, but the noble Lord's amendment does not address the question of which body is most appropriate to consider any particular complaint. It would not, for instance, stop the Cable Authority from considering a complaint about a programme which has been included in the cable service after having been broadcast which might yet, and more appropriately, be considered by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission
  We have considered whether to propose an alternative group of amendments which would specifically prevent a complaint about a single programme from being considered by both the Cable Authority and Broadcasting Complaints Commission and which would at the same time ensure that it is considered by the body best fitted to deal with it: that is, the Cable Authority in the case of a programme originating on cable and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission in the case of a programme orginating over the air. We have found that the amendments would be complex and, moreover, they would be required not only to Clause 14 but also to the corresponding provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1981 which deal with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission's functions, in order to deal with complaints relating to cable programmes which are later broadcast.
  On reflection, we have come to the conclusion that specific provision on the point is not necessary. The Cable Authority has a discretion under Clause 14 to refuse to entertain or to consider a complaint if, for any reason, it appears to be inappropriate to do so. The relevant words appear in lines 35 to 37. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission has a matching discretion under the 1981 Act. Both the commission and the authority will be responsible bodies, and it seems to us that these provisions will in practice be used sensibly to avoid both the difficulty foreseen by the noble Lord and the reciprocal difficulty which his amendment does not bear upon, of double jeopardy for programmes complained of in the first instance, not to the commission but to the authority. All that I insert, as I think the Americans would say, on the record, in case it should later become relevant.
  Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does my noble friend not think that his remarks have underpinned the
  1416
  debate we had on those earlier amendments? When he cares to consider, as he has so kindly said he will, Lord Howard's earlier amendment and our various statements on it, if he reads the speech he has just made at the same time he will find that he strengthens the case for doing what we hope he will do.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, my right honourable friend has many abilities, but that of reading two speeches at once evades even him. However, I know what my noble friend means and I shall take it on board.
  Lord Aylestone: My Lords, in view of the explanation given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
  Clause 15 [Power to give directions]:
  6.41 p.m.
  Viscount Long Viscount Long moved Amendment No. 50:
  Page 14, line 40, at end insert—
  ("(2) References in this section and section 16 below to programmes or advertisements do not include programmes or advertisements which are included in a licensed service by the reception and immediate re-transmission of broadcasts made by a broadcasting authority.").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Elton, I beg to move this amendment. I hope that it will meet points made during the Committee stage by both the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, and my noble friend Lord Glanusk. The amendment exempts from the provisions of both Clauses 15 and 16 BBC and IBA services when they are included in cable programme services as simultaneous relays of broadcasts. So far as Clause 15 is concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, pointed out when we were in Committee, it would clearly be inappropriate for the Cable Authority to have any jurisdiction over the content of broadcast programmes and advertisements when they are relayed over cable.
  As to Clause 16, my noble friend has already made it quite clear to my noble friend Lord Glanusk that we are prepared to reduce the potential burden on cable companies in respect of keeping recordings of programmes by excepting from the provisions of Clause 16 the broadcast services. There is no reason why the authority should ever need to see recordings of these, either in advance of transmission or afterwards, given that the broadcast services are subject to control by the broadcasters. My noble friend will have seen that there are on the Marshalled List further amendments to do with recordings of programmes, in the name of my noble friend Lord Elton and he will speak to them later. I beg to move.
  Lord Glanusk: My Lords. I am most grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment. As he says, this is a matter which I raised at the Committee stage, and this amendment will now mean that I shall not have to move my Amendment No. 56, which is almost identical to this one.
  Viscount Long: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his kind assistance.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16 [Power to require visual and sound records etc.]:
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 51:
  Page 14, line 41, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  ("(1) Where the Authority have served on a person authorised by a licence to provide a diffusion service a written notice applying this subsection to programmes specified or of a description specified in the notice, they may, within such period as—

  (a) begins with the inclusion in that service of any programme to which the notice relates; and

  (b) is of a length (not exceeding two months) specified in the notice,

  direct that person to produce to them for examination or reproduction a visual or sound record of any matter included in that programme.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may assist your Lordships if I speak to all the Government amendments to Clause 16 together. Therefore with your Lordships' leave, in addition to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55.
  Amendment No. 53: Page 15, line 21, leave out ("(including advertisements)" and insert ("to be included in the diffusion service").
  Amendment No. 54: Page 15, line 23, leave out from second ("of') to end of line 27 and insert ("those programmes as will consist of or include recorded matter, to produce to the Authority in advance for examination or reproduction such visual or sound records of that matter as may be so specified:").
  Amendment No. 55: Page 15, line 31, after ("a") insert ("notice or").
  When we discussed this clause in Committee I said that the Government would be bringing forward a number of amendments dealing with the keeping of records. One—the exemption from Clause 16 of the broadcast services when they are relayed by cable—we have already dealt with by means of Amendment No. 50 (relating to Clause 15). moved by my noble friend. Another—a requirement for recordings to be available in all cases for 14 days after transmission, to assist enforcement of some of the Bill's criminal provisions—is dealt with by the amendments that we have tabled to Clause 32 and by an amendment proposing a new clause, to which I shall speak separately.
  The present amendments (Nos. 51, 53, 54 and 55) have two main objectives. The first is to reduce the maximum period during which the Cable Authority may require recordings of programmes after transmission from three months to two, and the second is to re-cast Clause 16 in terms of licensees ensuring that recordings are available rather than having in all cases to make the recordings themselves. This applies to Clause 16(3), which deals with the pre-vetting of programmes, as well as to Clause 16(1). The point is that many programmes will be provided nationally to cable operators, and we accept that it would be an unnecessary burden on the operators if they had in all cases to make their own records of programmes when records might be held centrally by the programme provider. In order to be able to comply with any directions the authority may make in relation to recordings, cable operators will no doubt wish to include appropriate conditions in their contracts with the programme providers.
  The first amendment in this group constitutes a complete redraft of Clause 16(1), and sets up a new procedure. It may be helpful if I explain how it will work. If the authority decides that it wants to be able to see programmes after they have been transmitted, it must serve a notice on the licensee. The notice must specify programmes or descriptions of programme, and a period of time lasting not more than two months. During that period after a programme has been transmitted, it may then direct that a recording is produced to it for examination or reproduction. The amendments should mean that the potential burden on cable operators in respect of keeping recordings is considerably reduced while still enabling the authority to do its work effectively. I beg to move.
  Lord Glanusk: My Lords, this matter, too, relates to one of my Committee stage amendments. I am not quite clear as to when the authority intends to serve such a notice. Will the operator have to keep the recordings at all times in case a notice is issued, or need he not keep the recordings until he is notified?
  Lord Elton: My Lords, my attention flickered minimally right at the end of what my noble friend was saying. I am not quite sure what were the two alternatives he was presenting.
  Lord Glanusk: My Lords, Amendment No. 51 states:
  "Where the Authority have served on a person …"
  What I am trying to find out is when will the authority serve such a notice, and does the operator have to keep his recordings whether or not the notice is served?
  Lord Elton: My Lords, the notice will be served when the authority feels that it will wish to see the recordings by reason of its belief that in some way or another the person who has put out the programme has infringed the provisions of the statute or the code of conduct.
  Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does that therefore mean that all cable companies must keep records of all their transmissions for two months, apart from those in regard to which they are excused?
  Lord Elton: No, my Lords. That requirement results from the notice being served.
  The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, the word "Where" in the amendment, at the bottom of page 3 of the Marshalled List, could be the same as "when". It is just a semantic question. "Where" makes it look as though there is a place where it is done, whereas "when" refers to the moment when it might happen. But I think that all recordings are kept for 14 days, are they not? After that they are kept only "Where the Authority" has served a notice. The amendment says "Where"; I should have thought that it should be "When".
  Lord Elton: My Lords, that is I think a semantic question, which could be better argued by a lawyer rather than by me. This is a use of the word "where" which I have frequently seen used in both legislation and litigation. I think that I have already made it clear

  1419
  that the operator must start keeping the recordings once a notice is issued. The operator does not have to produce the recordings to the authority until the authority directs their production. The length of time that various recordings must be kept relates to the reason for which they are required.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 53:
  [Printed above.]
  The noble Lord said: I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55 with Amendment No. 51. With your Lordships' leave, I will move them en bloc.
  The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, it is customary to move the first amendment separately, I think, followed by the other two.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 53.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 54 and 55.
  [Printed above.]
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
  Clause 17 [Power to revoke licences]:
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 57:
  Page 16, line 5, at end insert ("or
  (c) where that person is a body corporate, if any change affecting the nature or characteristics of the body corporate, or any change in the persons having control over or interests in the body corporate, takes place after the granting of the licence which, if it had occurred before the granting of the licence, would have induced the Authority to refrain from granting the licence").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords who were present when we discussed Clause 17 in Committee will recall that the Government's withdrawal of the final one of a series of three amendments left the clause in a somewhat less than satisfactory state. The amendment now before us in my name is the third amendment of that group, with which we hope to set the position right.
  It may be helpful if I set out again briefly what my noble friend Lady Trumpington said on moving the amendments in Committee. Following a point which the right reverend Prelate—not the right reverend Prelate who is present today, but the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield—had put to us on Second Reading, we came to the conclusion that it would be advantageous to give the Cable Authority a specific power in respect of changes of ownership or characteristics of a company after a licence has been issued. The amendment accordingly seeks to add to Clause 17 a third set of circumstances where the authority may revoke a licence. That is where the constitution of a licensed company changes with results that, had they occurred before the licence was granted, would have led the authority not to grant the licence in the first place. A formal breach of the
  1420
  restrictions in Clause 7 would not necessarily have to have occurred: a particular example of a case where the authority might need to use this power might be where, after the full licensing process, an unsuccessful applicant tried to buy out the successful company. The authority might well consider this undesirable in view of the procedures they have gone through and the things they have learnt in granting the licence.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised one particular point about the amendment when we were in Committee, and we have since been in correspondence with him. It may be of some assistance to other noble Lords if I summarise what was said in the letter to the noble Lord. The noble Lord's concern was whether the Cable Authority had the power to require licensees to give advance notice of proposed changes in shareholdings. The answer is that Clause 4(6)(a), which gives the authority a general discretion to include in licences conditions reflecting their duties, enables it to include a requirement to give advance notice of proposed changes in shareholdings. In addition, under Clause 4(7)(b) the authority may take power in its licences to require that specific actions—for example, changes in shareholdings—are not carried out without its approval.
  The noble Lord also raised in Committee a more general question about revocation of licences; namely, what would be the position of the customers where a company has its licence revoked. The answer—and we touched on this in Committee—is that revocation is very much a final sanction, and the authority will have sanctions short of revocation. The authority has a general duty to promote cable under Clause 4(8), and there is no question of it deciding to revoke a licence arbitrarily. I have no doubt that before ever it considers revoking a licence it will wish to consider very carefully the position of the cable subscribers.
  Finally, I should like to come back to a point made by the noble Lord. Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, when we discussed this matter in Committee. The noble Lord suggested that Section 20(5) of the Broadcasting Act 1981, on which this amendment is closely modelled, had proved difficult for the IBA to operate. We have been in touch with the IBA since that exchange, and we understand from them that not only has Section 20(5) given rise to no particular difficulties or interpretation but it has proved extremely useful to them in dealing with the sort of circumstances I have outlined. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not here.
  Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I am here.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I see now that the noble Lord is present. I did not wish to traduce him in his absence. In fact, I am not traducing him, but simply putting a gloss on what he said. I beg to move.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister with the courtesy to which we have become accustomed so far as he is concerned, did communicate with me, did deal with the points I raised in Committee, and did so to my complete satisfaction. I am most grateful.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 21 [Annual reports]:
  Viscount Long Viscount Long moved Amendment No. 58:
  Page 17, line 42, leave out ("also include—(a)") and insert ("include")
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we discussed in Committee an amendment to Clause 21, moved by my noble friend, Lord Nugent of Guildford, to require the Cable Authority to include in its annual report an account of complaints received regarding programme standards and the action taken on them. My noble friend, Lord Elton, accepted the proposal in principle and, as the formulation of the amendment was not quite right, he undertook to bring forward an amendment having the effect which my noble friend intended. This amendment is designed to that end. It imposes on the Cable Authority a specific requirement to include in its annual report an account of complaints received about the discharge of its duties under Clauses 9 and 10 to do with the maintenance of programme standards, and of the action it takes in relation to them.
  The authority's account will have to cover all the complaints about programme standards which it receives, whether levelled directly against it or at cable operators distributing the offending programmes. This is because the authority has the general duty to ensure so far as possible that the requirements of Clauses 9 and 10 are met, with the consequence that any complaint about programme standards in effect constitutes a complaint against it for failing to ensure that proper standards are maintained. I beg to move.
  Lord Ardwick: My Lords, this was a problem that concerned us. We are most grateful to the noble Lord for the action that he has taken.
  Lady Saltoun: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and myself, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, very much for this fine, healthy and lusty amendment that has replaced the poor, weak, puny little thing that we put down at Committee stage. We are very happy with it, and most grateful.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, may I interpose to say that we think that the amendment is a distinct improvement to the Bill. We are grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for providing the basis of it.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Viscount Long Viscount Long moved Amendment No. 59.
  Page 17, line 45, leave out ("and (b)") and insert ("(3) the report shall also include").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Viscount Long Viscount Long moved Amendment No. 60:
  Page 18, line 2, at end insert ("and a general account of—

  (a) any complaints received by the Authority about the discharge of their duties under sections 9 and 10 above; and

  (b) the action taken by the Authority in relation to those complaints.").

  The noble Viscount said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 22 [Copyright in cable programmes]:
  Viscount Long Viscount Long moved Amendment No. 61:
  Page 18, line 19, leave out from ("or") to end of line 21 and insert ("a sound broadcast").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before dealing with the substance of the amendment my noble friend would like to take the opportunity to assure your Lordships that although it has not been possible to bring forward Government amendments in time for Report on certain of the other copyright issues which were raised at Committee stage, we have not forgotten our commitment to look closely at them. My noble friend is thinking of the question of whether the word "programme" is wide enough to cover certain types of material that might be put out on a cable service and of whether it might be possible to provide copyright protection for satellite transmissions other than DBS. We are still looking at the difficult problems raised by these questions, but we shall bring forward appropriate amendments in another place if these prove necessary to meet your Lordships' concerns.
  The purpose of the present amendment is to make a minor adjustment to the scope of the copyright which is to be given to cable operators by Clause 22 of the Bill. Noble Lords will recall that the intention of Clause 22 is to provide cable operators with a copyright in the programmes which they themselves originate, broadly comparable in extent to the copyrights which broadcasters receive in their broadcasts by virtue of the provisions of Section 14 of the copyright Act 1956.
  It was, however, never intended that the cable operator should receive a copyright of his own where his transmissions are no more than simultaneous relays of broadcasts which the public can also obtain directly off-air, and to which the cable operator has made no creative contribution. For this reason subsection (2) of the new Section 14A of the 1956 Act, to be enacted by Clause 22, provides that the cable operator's own copyright only comes into being where the programme transmitted is something other than an immediate retransmission of a broadcast made from the United Kingdom by the BBC or the IBA. The reasons for relating this exception to retransmissions of BBC and IBA broadcasts made from the United Kingdom were that it is BBC and IBA domestic broadcasts which are most likely to be subject to simultaneous relay and that it is only in respect of those services that the cable operator is exempt from any responsibility as to programme content.
  It has, however, been put to us that in copyright terms this is a somewhat inconsistent position, and on reflection the Government agrees. It cannot really be said that the cable operator makes any greater creative contribution if he relays a broadcast by Radio Luxembourg or a station in the Republic of Ireland, should he choose to do so, than if he relays a domestic broadcast by the BBC or the IBA. Nor would the foreign broadcaster himself lack copyright protection for broadcasts receivable in the United Kingdom, provided he was located (as in practice seems likely) in

  1423
  one of the countries to which the relevant provisions of the 1956 Act have been applied by the Copyright (International Conventions) Order, 1979. Moreover, the position of authors and others who may have contributed to a foreign broadcast is generally protected separately against unauthorised cable diffusion under the present law.
  The Government therefore considers that it would be more appropriate if the exception to cable operators copyright in the new section 14A(2) of the 1956 Act were to apply to all simultaneous retransmissions of broadcasts, from whatever source, and this is the effect of the present amendment. I hope your Lordships understand what I have been saying! I beg to move.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, may the House congratulate the noble Viscount on his very learned comments relating to a most abstruse subject. I think he would expect that we should study them rather carefully; it is a little difficult to take them in after he enunciated them a moment or two ago.
  The noble Viscount also made a general observation—which was a most helpful one—that the various points on copyright (and they are very weighty ones which were raised at Committee stage) were being carefully considered by the Government, and that it might not be possible for the actual amendments to be available—if there were going to be amendments—in your Lordships' House, but they would be available very possibly in another place. It would be helpful to those of your Lordships who are very interested in this matter of copyright—and I can only put this forward as a request—if at Third Reading or in the speech which I have no doubt the noble Lord the Minister will make when he asks that the Bill should be passed by your Lordships' House, some general indication of the line that those amendments will take could be given. That will mean that at least in your Lordships' House there is a record, as there should be, of the Government's attitude on this most important subject.
  Viscount Long: My Lords, I am most grateful for the generosity and kindness of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because when it comes to copyright we are really on a very sensitive area.
  As to the latter part of his speech, the answer is: yes, we will carry out what he wants and we will try our best to get over the very sensitive areas of copyright.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 23 [Other amendments of 1956 Act]:
  7.5 p.m.
  Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 62:
  Page 21, line 3, at end insert ("unless the broadcast is made in the course of providing a pay service.
  ( ) In this section "pay service" means a broadcasting service for general reception by virtue of which the Corporation or (as the case may be) the Authority receives money or other valuable consideration in respect of the provision of the service from those to whom it is provided.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment printed on the Marshalled List. I will try to get on as fast as I can in view of the evident desire of the rest of your Lordships' House to finish as soon
  1424
  as possible. This, however, is another of these slightly complicated copyright matters.
  Sub-clause (3) of Clause 23 gives in effect the cable operator a free copyright licence to transmit broadcast programmes which are subject to the must-carry rule. My amendment is designed to withdraw that licence in relation to the relay of pay services so as to give the broadcaster a means which he would not otherwise have of controlling them. It is, of course, vital to the broadcaster that he should be able to do this if services are offered on a paying basis. It is to be hoped that the abuse of pay services will be dealt with by the provisions relating to theft which I appreciate are highly complex and which my earlier amendments did not fully meet. I am not quite sure when the Government will be able to bring forward those provisions.
  This is a straightforward means of enabling the broadcaster to attack a particular form of abuse. I did move a similar amendment in Committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who was answering for the Government said the Government would take the matter back and have another look at it, she did see some difficulties, one of which was a cross-reference which no longer applies. The other difficulty she saw was that since a free copyright licence is also given to the cable operator under subsection (4) in relation to copyright works included in a broadcast programme, that licence by the same token shall be withdrawn in relation to those works.
  In my view, that is slightly misconceived. The amendment is designed to provide a mechanism whereby through the operation of copyright law the broadcaster could attack the abuse of a pay service. It is not really to protect his copyright as such—although indirectly it is part of the mechanism—still less to protect the copyright of other rights owners; it is designed to protect the subscription income by enabling them to bring a copyright action against the cable operator if his pay service is appropriated without his authority. I beg to move.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has once again stressed an important point. As we said in Committee when he tabled a rather different version of this amendment, the Government agrees that it would be inappropriate for cable operators to enjoy the right to diffuse broadcasts within their intended reception area free of copyright royalties where the broadcasts are subscription broadcasts and the operator, because of his exemption from the need for a cable authority licence by an order under Clause 3, is not subject to the operation of Clause 12. Since there could be a number of small relay operators in this position, it is obviously important that the point is dealt with.
  We have not forgotten the commitment to look into the matter but there are several questions still to be decided: in particular, whether if licence-exempt operators relaying pay services are to be made liable to the broadcaster for copyright, they should also be made liable in respect of DBS services financed by advertising. I do not think the noble Lord's amendment would in any case do as it stands because in this version it is so drafted as to apply to all cable operators relaying what he calls "pay services"; not

  1425
  just the smaller operators who may be exempt from the need for a licence from the authority.
  This is an outcome which we have sought to avoid since it does seem to us to result in an unnecessary overlap which could lead to complications between copyright and the arrangements provided for by Clause 12(3). In the case of the licensed cable operator, the Clause 12(3) arrangements should be sufficient to produce a satisfactory return to the broadcaster in respect of the relay of DBS subscription services by cable. We touched on this on Monday when the noble Lord moved Amendment No. 33A which would have enabled the broadcaster to pull out of the Clause 12 procedures if he did not like the arbitrator's decision, and I explained then why I thought that that approach would not do.
  I hope however, in the light of my repeated assurances that the Government do accept the need to do something about the more limited proposition which the noble Lord advanced at the Committee stage, and my noble friend's undertaking that there will be a progress report at the last stage in this House, that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I hope that what the Government are able to produce in the way of anti-theft provisions will do the trick. I agree that it is extremely complicated to try to do it by what are almost back-door means relating to copyright. If the ingenuity of those who have assisted me in the drafting has been somewhat overstrained, I can only apologise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 24 [Amendment etc. of law relating to obscene publications]:
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 63:
  Leave out Clause 24.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 63 and I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 64, 65, 66, 67, 74 and 81:
  Amendment No. 64: Page 24, line 2, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 5 and insert—

  "(a) a programme included in a cable programme service involves the publication of an obscene article; or

  (b) a programme included in such a service is such that, if any matter included in it were recorded matter, the inclusion of the programme would involve the publication of such an article,

  the person providing that service shall be guilty of an offence.
  (1A) A person guilty of an offence under this section")
  Amendment No. 65: Page 24, line 27, leave out ("live").
  Amendment No. 66: Page 24, line 33, leave out ("live").
  Amendment No. 67: Page 25, line 10, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
  ("(9) In this section expressions used in the Obscene Publications Act 1959 have the same meanings as in that Act.
  (10) This section does not extend to Scotland.").
  Amendment No. 74: Leave our Schedule 2.
  Amendment No. 81: Page 45, line 12, at end insert—
  ("The Obscene Publications Act 1959.
  7A.—(1) At the end of the proviso to subsection (3) of section 1 (test of obscenity) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 there shall be added the words "or of including a programme in a cable programme service within the meaning of Part l of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984".
  (2) It is hereby declared that a person who has an obscene article in his ownership, possession or control with a view to its being shown, played or projected in the course of a cable programme service shall be taken for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 2 of that Act (prohibition of publication of obscene matter etc.) to have that article for publication for gain.").
  These amendments all deal with the Bill's provisions on obscenity in cable programmes. Noble Lords will have seen that there are further amendments on the Marshalled List in my name dealing with the enforcement of these provisions, but it will avoid unnecessary complication if they can be dealt with separately, and I will speak to them when we reach them. At this stage I will restrict myself to the offences, not the punishment.
  The present amendments may look like radical surgery to the provisions of the Bill dealing with obscene cable programmes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In fact, the surgery is to the drafting and not to the substance. The main change of substance is that the power in Clause 32 to require the production of records and scripts will now be extended to apply to the offence of publishing an obscene prerecorded cable programme. We think that this is desirable given that the powers in Clause 32 already extend to obscene live cable programmes. This change is achieved by amending Clause 25 to deal with both pre-recorded and live programmes. As a consequence, Clause 24 and Schedule 2, which applies the Obscene Publications Act to Northern Ireland for cable, are no longer necessary. Unlike the Obscene Publications Acts in general, Clause 25 applies in Northern Ireland, and so there will continue to be an offence of putting out obscene material on cable, whether recorded or live, throughout the United Kingdom.
  The final amendment in this series contains two amendments to the Obscene Publications Act itself. The first is to make it clear that the main offence in that Act, that of publishing an obscene article, does not apply to anything done in a cable programme service. That is not a deed of liberalisation; it is simply to avoid duplication. The offence is already contained in Clause 25. The second is to make it clear that the second offence in the 1959 Act, that of having an obscene article for publication for gain, does apply to any article being held with a view to its inclusion in a cable programme. This is currently achieved by Clause 24(2) which is about to disappear.
  These amendments, as well as applying Clause 32 to recorded cable programmes, represent—I think your Lordships will agree—a very considerable simplification to the Bill's provisions on obscene cable programmes, and I hope that on those grounds your Lordships will welcome them. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Obscene live progammes]:
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 64:
  [Printed earlier: col. 1425.]
  The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord would tell us a little more about Amendment No. 64, because I noted that he said that it looks like radical surgery, but it is not. The noble Lord is speaking at some speed and the whole of pages

  1427
  24 and 25 which deal with obscenity cover very wide matters and I wanted to assure myself, and indeed those of us who sit on these Benches, that in fact it is as watertight as the noble Lord can make it. Clearly the noble Lord wants to make sure that obscene matter does not come on cable television. However, with the whole of Clause 24 now out, Amendment No. 64, which stands in the Government's name, does call to be spelt out a little more clearly to assure us that the question of obscenity is being taken care of with usual watchfulness by the Government.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I would have some difficulty in doing that without repeating myself. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate would be kind enough to look at the print of the Bill that will result from the amendments. I am happy to repeat the assurance that I have given that this is as watertight as it can be. But when he reads it, he will find it a great deal easier to follow than what is in the present print. If he still feels doubt, he may like either to write to me or to raise the matter on Third Reading. I would be very happy to deal with the matter in that way when we can actually see the print in front of us. But I think he will be reassured when he sees it.
  The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I am most grateful.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 67:
  [Printed earlier: col. 1425.]
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 27 [Incitement to racial hatred]:
  [Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
  Clause 32 [Power to make copies of scripts and records]:
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 69:
  Page 30, line 1, after ("be") insert ("so")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment to insert a word that inadvertently was missed out of the text of the Bill and without which the meaning of Clause 32(1)(b) would be obscure. I believe it was erroneously included in the list of groupings, but it stands in fact on its own. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 70:
  Page 30, line 13, leave out ("(a)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 are paving amendments for Amendment No. 73. With your Lordships' permission, I will move Amendment No. 70 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 71 and 73.
  Amendment No. 71: Page 30, line 14, leave out from ("exists") to ("if") in line 18 and insert—

  ("(a) an actual script on which the programme was or, as the case may be, will be based; or

  (b) a visual or sound record of any matter which was or, as the case may be, will be included in the programme, and")

  Amendment No. 73: After Clause 32, insert the following new clause:
  (" Availability of visual and sound records.
  .—(1) The Authority shall do all that they can to secure that, if an order is made under section 32 above in relation to a person providing a licensed service and a programme included in that service, that person will be able to comply with a requirement under subsection (3)(b) of that section made within 14 days of the inclusion of that programme.
  (2) Nothing done under or in pursuance of a condition included in a licence by virtue of this section shall—

  (a) constitute an infringement of the copyright in any work, sound recording, cinematograph film or television or sound broadcast; or

  (b) constitute an offence under any of the provisions of the Performers' Protection Acts 1958 to 1972.

  (3) In this section "cinematograph film" and "sound recording" have the same meanings as in the 1956 Act.")
  When we discussed Clause 16 in Committee I made it clear that, in addition to the various amendments we have already brought forward to Clause 16, we would be bringing forward amendments to assist the enforcement of Clauses 25 and 27. We have already dealt with a group of amendments to make sure that Clause 32 applies to obscentiy in recorded as well as live cable programmes. The purpose of the new clause under consideration, together with the consequential amendments to Clause 32, is to make sure that, once an order under Clause 32 has been made, the Cable Authority's licensees will be able to provide recordings of their programmes to the police within 14 days of transmission.
  As I said in Committee, we came to the conclusion that, while the existing enforcement provisions in Clause 31 and 32 were necessary, they were not of themselves fully adequate for the enforcement of the Bill's provisions on obscenity and incitement to racial hatred. This was because, under the Bill as it stands, there would be no guarantee that a record of what actually happened in a cable programme would be available at all.
  The new provision will operate by the Cable Authority inserting appropriate conditions in its licences. Licensees will not necessarily have to keep recordings themselves. They will merely have to make sure—through their contracts with the programme providers if necessary—that records will be available. This is consistent with our amendments to Clause 16 and should mean that the potential burden on cable operators in keeping recordings is considerably less than if in all cases they were themselves required to keep recordings of their output. Having made cable programmes subject to the criminal law on obscenity and incitement to racial hatred, it is only sensible that we should make adequate provision for the enforcement of those offences, and I therefore beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 71:
  [Printed earlier: col. 1427.]
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  7.22 p.m.
  Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 72:
  Leave out Clause 32.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise in some difficulty to myself and very considerable apologies to

  1429
  the Government Front Bench. In place of moving that Clause 32 be omitted from the Bill, I had produced a series of much shorter amendments which I had sent down to the House last week and which, for some reason never reached the Printed Paper Office. I am not blaming any official of this House because they work extremely hard and very efficiently; it is probably entirely my fault that something went wrong on the way. I believe that, in fact, officials at the Home Office saw the sense of my amendments, but obviously it would be quite unfair to move manuscript amendments which your Lordships have not had a chance to consider in detail.
  Perhaps therefore I may be allowed to say a few words on my amendment to leave out Clause 32. I shall not repeat the speech that I made in Committee on the question whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill; but it seems to me that if obscenity and race relations laws are to apply to cable there should be some means of guaranteeing that evidence of the matter transmitted should be preserved, although there is no overwhelming precedent for this. In particular, there are no enforcement provisions whatever (other than those fixing the penalties) in the Public Order Act 1936 which, as amended by the Race Relations Act 1976, contains the principal criminal provisions relating to the offence of incitement to racial hatred.
  In the race relations field the only precedent is the Theatres Act 1968. On the assumption however that powers to preserve evidence should be conceded, my amendments (if I had been able to move them) would have accepted the 14 day and two month periods and the powers to require production of scripts and recordings after transmission.
  What is less clear to me is the need for the police to have any powers before transmission, either to require the production of scripts and recordings, or to enter premises and to seize articles which they have reason to believe to be obscene. Obviously it would make the law even easier to enforce, but at the cost of setting what I believe would be a most dangerous precedent in the broadcasting field.
  I submit that the ability of the authorities to enforce the law is adequately protected by enforcement powers which are exercisable after the event. Powers which are exercisable before the event are virtually unprecedented for the following reasons. The powers of search and seizure in Section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 permit a constable, if he obtains a magistrate's warrant, to enter and search "any premises, stall or vehicle" and to seize and remove articles which he has reason to believe to be obscene and kept for publication for gain. The reference to "premises, stall or vehicle" quite clearly indicates the kind of mischief that this is presumably aimed at; we can all envisage the sort of stall or vehicle from which these particular obscene video films, or whatever it might be, are being sold. It is hardly an appropriate weapon to apply against the cable operators, who supposedly are respectable people, or an appropriate precedent for this Bill.
  The only precedent for the power to require the production of scripts before the event is in the Theatres Act 1968, a measure which was designed to bring to an end the pre-censorship of plays by the Lord Chamber
  1430
  lain, which had existed for many years. For example, there is no power to require a speaker to produce a script of his speech before he delivers it, however obscene or—much more likely—racially offensive a policeman suspects it may be. In fact, the person who is to deliver it may almost give a policeman an automatic assumption that it will be racially offensive. But nevertheless he has no power to make him produce any form of script or preview of what he will say. Perhaps it was accepted in the Theatres Act because pre-censorship had been a feature of the theatre for so many years—indeed, for so many centuries—and nobody thought to deny the police a somewhat similar power in the legislation that abolished the office of the Lord Chamberlain.
  Any power which would, in the case of search and seizure or which might in the case of requiring production of scripts and recordings, amount to a form of pre-censorship of cable services would, in my view—and I hope in the view of many noble Lords—be a most dangerous precedent for broadcasters and possibly others. I beg to move.
  The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest care to the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe. It seems to me that the amendment to leave out the whole of Clause 32 calls into question the assurances which the Minister has so clearly and helpfully given on the whole obscenity situation. I happened to prick up my ears when I heard the noble Lord mention obscene video films, because your Lordships will know that next Wednesday we shall be holding a press conference when we shall bring some very assured and some very strong recommendations concerning this whole area of what are colloquially called video nasties. A number of Members of your Lordships' House are concerned with that. Therefore, I hope—
  Lord Elton: My Lords, will the right reverend Prelate forgive me, but could he tell me in the context of the word "we", who are giving the press conference? I am sure that that would be useful to know, and I think I missed it.
  The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I used the word "we" rather lightly. I could name two or three Members of your Lordships' House who are part of a small group concerned with producing a report about video films, and a press conference is to be held next Wednesday. I pricked up my ears when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Howard, speak of this because I believe it is easier for us now to restrain all possible dangers in the obscenity world before they take place rather than, as in this particular case with video work, having to find out how that restraint can take place after they have been released to the world. It is the old business of once you shake a feather pillow up into the air it is very hard to catch the individual feathers and put them back into the pillow. With that rather homely illustration, I hope that the Government will resist this amendment.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, might I start by sympathising with the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, for the loss of his batch of amendments, and admire the restrained and courteous way in which he has

  1431
  reconciled himself to it. I cannot address myself to them because they are not on the Marshalled List. I can venture a faint note of surprise that he should think that their sense had been seen by officials in the department. My impression was that they had not thought them altogether necessary, but we are talking about something which technically does not exist, so may I simply repeat the assurance that I gave when we discussed Clause 32 in Committee that the clause is not intended as the thin end of the wedge. It is necessary, as the right reverend Prelate has rightly said, as a provision to enable the proper enforcement of serious offences which we are creating in this Bill for cable.
  While we all hope that prosecutions under Clauses 25 and 27 will be rare, we have thought it necessary—and your Lordships agreed with us—to make it clear that the offences of obscenity and incitement to racial hatred which apply in other areas apply also to cable programmes. Since we have done this it is only sensible to make adequate provision for the enforcement of those offences. I cannot therefore accept the noble Lord's view that this is a dangerous or unnecessary thing to do.
  May I briefly make things clear. First, this is not a draconian power. There is no power of entry. There is no power of search. There is no power of detention. There is no power of arrest. It is a power simply to demand a script or recording and the opportunity to make a copy of it. Nor is that rather limited power a power at large. A police officer, not any police officer but one of superintendent rank or above, must first have reasonable grounds for suspecting that one of these offences has been, or is likely to be, committed. If he acted unreasonably his action would be vulnerable to challenge in the courts.
  Having his suspicions reasonably aroused because the power is not a power at large, he must then name the person he suspects and write his name on the order. He cannot go fishing for a suspect. Not only that, he must describe the actual programme in terms by which it can be recognised, so he cannot go fishing for programmes, either. Only if the person named does have such a programme available and refuses the policeman at the door—and the policeman, please note, cannot put a foot inside it without his permission—will he be guilty of an offence. The noble Lord's speech had the rattle of breaking doors and wailing of sirens about it. I assure him that his fears are perfectly groundless.
  Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I hope that they are groundless. I am certain that if the noble Lord has anything to do with it I need have no fears at all. I am, and remain, afraid of precedents which may be carried over into other fields. It was for that reason that I hoped to be able to improve this particular clause. Having given this an airing which will be reproduced in print, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 73:
  [Printed earlier: col. 1427.]
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment 69. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [Application of the 1959 and 1964 Acts to Northern Ireland]:
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 74:
  [Printed earlier: col. 1425.]
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment 63. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  7.33 p.m.
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 75 to 79:
  Page 43, line 31, after ("words") insert (" "works to be")
  Page 43, line 32, after ("words") insert (""works or sound recordings to be")
  Page 43, line 35, after ("service"") insert ("after the word "works", in second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or recordings"")
  Page 43, line 38, after ("section") insert ("after the word "works", in each place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words"or recordings"")
  Page 43, line 42, at end insert—
  ("(14A) In subsection (4) of that section after the word "works", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or sound recordings"")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79. The custom I understand is, having moved 75, to move the remainder en bloc, with your Lordships' permission.
  Clause 23(1) introduces for the first time a right for the makers of sound recordings to control the inclusion of their recordings in cable programme services. Section 28 of the 1956 Act, which contains special provisions relating to the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Performing Right Tribunal in relation to the cable relay of foreign broadcasts, is also amended in Schedule 3 to take account of the terminology of the Bill. However, those amendments, as they stand, do not take account of the new rights of makers of sound recordings.
  These amendment are designed to set the position right so as to avoid the situation where the Performing Right Tribunal might make an award resulting in double payment to makers of sound recordings. The problem is a relatively limited one in that it concerns only sound recordings which are included in foreign broadcasts relayed to a United Kingdom cable audience and for which the foreign broadcaster had already made the necessary rights payments. But we ought to get the matter right and these amendments, which take account of representation made to us by the British Copyright Council, should do the trick. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 80:
  Page 44, line 29, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 81:
  [Printed earlier: col. 1425.]
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment also I spoke to with 63. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 82:
  Page 48, line 39, at end insert—
  ("The Education and Libraries(Northern Ireland) Order 1972
  .In Article 2(2) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (interpretation) at the end of the definition of "newspaper" there shall be added the words "or programmes to be included in a cable programme service which is, or does not require to be, licensed under Part I of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984".").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment designed to bring a particular Northern Ireland provision into line with other analagous provisions which have already been attended to in Schedule 3. This is the last amendment on which I shall have an opportunity to speak, and I should like to take the opportunity to thank your Lordships for notable patience during some difficult passages where it must have been evident that my own understanding—and I should have seen more of this Bill than your Lordships—was straining at its limits. I think between us we have got safely through difficult ground. The number of disagreements between us has markedly diminished. We have a little more way to go which I hope we shall be able to achieve on Third Reading. I should like to thank your Lordships for your patience and considerate handling of the Minister who could otherwise have been in great difficulty. May I return to the matter in hand, and beg to move Amendment 82.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that every Member of the House on whichever side they may sit would want to thank the noble Lord the Minister in turn for his patience and courtesy, and his tolerance of some long debates that have taken place on some of the matters in this Bill. If he thinks that his understanding was in any way lacking, he is so astute that we did not notice it.
  The Lord Bishop of Norwich: Amen.
  Earl De La Warr: My Lords, may I add my thanks from these Benches from some of my colleagues who have been helping me on a number of amendments. We have enormously appreciated the courtesy we have had from the Minister and the help that has come from him and his department. We are extremely grateful, and we want to say thank you.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 83:
  [Printed earlier: col. 1405.]
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am strictly in order in saying that I am not moving this amendment but thanking the Minister for his courtesy and the help which he has given us throughout this Bill. I have thrown him some really nasty ones, particularly over copyright. He has
  1434
  accepted them always with willing grace, but sometimes with a complaint that they have arrived a little late. That complaint is fully justified.
  The work which is put on Ministers' shoulders and on their officials at weekends by proceedings in this House—and by the kind of amendments which we put down on highly technical Bills like this—is not always appreciated by ordinary Members of this House, particularly those who have the backing of others, and I should like my personal thanks also to be recorded among those of others. I do not move this last amendment.

  Orkney Islands Council Order Confirmation Bill
  Read a third time, and passed.
  Western Isles Islands Council (Kallin Pier, Harbour Jurisdiction) Order Confirmation Bill
  Considered on Report.

  Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1984
  7.42 p.m.
  Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st February be approved.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order, the third of its type, will replace the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1979. It carries forward the provisions of the previous order and, inter alia, widens the scope of aircraft noise certification by including for the first time requirements for supersonic aeroplanes and standards for microlight aeroplanes. As in 1979, it is considered preferable to have a new comprehensive order than to prepare an amending order.
  The order is unavoidably complex. There are a multiplicity of categories and related standards which vary with the type and weight of the aeroplane, with the date of the certificate of airworthiness, either for the type or the individual aeroplane and, in the case of jets, with the number and type of engines fitted. Further, to comprehend fully its effect, it is necessary to study three related Civil Aviation Authority documents—two of which are highly technical. Copies of these—British Civil Airworthiness Requirements, Section N Noise; the amending Blue Paper No. N810 dated 12th January 1984 and Civil Aviation Authority Official Record Series 4—have been provided in the Library.
  This draft order, which is to be made under the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, will give effect in the United Kingdom to the new and revised noise emission standards which have already been agreed by member states of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO, following the 6th meeting of the Committee on Aircraft Noise in 1979,

  1435
  known as CAN/6. The order together with the accompanying document, the CAA Official Record Series 4, will also give effect to EC Directives 80–51 and 83–206. These directives were issued following a long period of consultation with our colleagues in the Community, and have already been approved by Parliament. They are in line with ICAO Recommendations.
  Broadly speaking the order will: require new production of older types of heavy propeller-driven aeroplanes to meet the earliest standards for subsonic jets; allow aeroplanes up to a maximum weight of 6,500 kg to be noise certified to the light propeller-driven aeroplane standards where the prototype was certificated to those standards; require derived versions of low by-pass ratio engined subsonic jets (mainly the older types) to meet the slightly more stringent standards for derived versions of high by-pass ratio engined jets; and, require further production and derived versions of existing types of supersonic aeroplanes to be no noiser than the parent aeroplane.
  The draft order also introduces standards for microlight aeroplanes, which the Government undertook to bring into effect in time for the coming flying season. I refer to the Commons Hansard of 29th March 1983, column 117, in which the response was given in answer to a Written Question. While perhaps not a major problem, this relatively new activity is undoubtedly a source of annoyance to people living near the airfields from which these small machines operate. The British Microlight Aircraft Association, the sport's controlling body, recognising the need to minimise the disturbance caused by their activities has co-operated helpfully with my department in drawing up the proposed standards. The Government believe these will give worthwhile environmental protection without imposing unreasonable penalties on microlight owners and manufacturers. The remainder of the order carries forward the provisions of the 1979 Order.
  Standards for helicopters are not being introduced. Although noise certification standards were agreed at CAN/6, further work demonstrated that the proposed noise limits did not allow sufficient margin for growth for future derived versions of existing types. Since they could have been harmful to the helicopter industry, new standards were subsequently discussed and agreed by member states at CAN/7 in May 1983. They will be given urgent consideration as soon as they have been promulgated by ICAO.
  The standards which ICAO develops set levels which have been shown to be technologically feasible and economically reasonable for the category of aeroplane to which they apply. That this is so is confirmed by our own aviation industry, which has known for some time of these latest ICAO standards and of the United Kingdom's commitment to introduce them, and the industry is content.
  Of all causes of noise disturbance—heavy lorries, motor bikes, lawn mowers, or others—aircraft noise in some ways is the most intractable. While, unfortunately, aircraft noise is likely to be a source of considerable annoyance for years to come, the Government will continue to do what they can to minimise the problem, particularly for those people
  1436
  whose quality of life may be affected because they live in the vicinity of an airport. Many noble Lords will know of the various operational measures that are taken to this end; for example, the special noise reducing take-off procedures: requiring aircraft to keep to carefully selected departure routes designed to overfly as few people as possible: establishing maximum permitted noise levels on take-off and limiting the number of night movements. But it has to be admitted that at best they are only palliatives. The real answer lies in quieter aeroplanes and it is the introduction of these that this order will help to encourage. Your Lordships will, however, recognise that it is essential to strike a balance between the environmental benefits of a new and technically feasible standard and the costs it imposes on manufacturers, operators and eventually users. My Lords, I commend the draft order to you.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st February be approved.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the order which is before us tonight. As he rightly says, it is of a very complex nature and very technical. I would not ask the Minister to explain to me the actual noise standards which are set out in the seven parts of Schedule 1 and Schedule 3 but, as these are matters of international agreement, I am sure that noble Lords like myself will accept them as they are presented to us. It is an important order. The development of aviation makes the question of noise control important and, while we all wish to see the further development of air travel, as with heavy lorries the development must be what is environmentally acceptable. I was very pleased to note the sympathetic approach of the noble Lord the Minister to that point.
  The Minister has explained that the order does not cover helicopters. This is of increasing importance and, while I appreciate that there must be international agreement on this, I hope that there will be no delay because there is increasing nuisance around many of the airports. There is also increasing use by the police. I can assure your Lordships that in the area where I live, just near Epping Forest, there have been a number of letters in the local press, talking about the noise nuisance created by helicopters used by the police authorities. Therefore I do appreciate that there will be international agreement and I trust there will be no delay. I am also pleased to note the inclusion of microlights. I understand that the Microlight Aircraft Association gave the fullest cooperation on the inclusion of microlights in this order.
  When the matter was discussed in the other place, the question of the level of fines was raised and also the question as to whether £400 was adequate. In reply to my honourable friend the Opposition spokesman the Minister said that the level of fines had been reviewed two years ago but if the honourable Member considered that they were not sufficient the Minister would examine the matter further. I hope that the level of fines will be examined further because a maximum of £400 for this type of offence seems woefully inadequate.

  1437
  The issue is not one solely of the control of the noise of individual aircraft but also of nuisance which, even with noise control envisaged in this order, can be increased by having over-frequent aircraft movements. Naturally, the major problem here is Heathrow, and in reading the Hansard report of the debate in another place I noticed that a number of honourable Members sought clarification about the control of movements at Heathrow. It brought up the strange situation that at present there is no limitation of movements, but that when Terminal 4 is opened as expected in late 1985, there will then be a limitation of 275,000 movements. However, if in the meantime the number should exceed 275,000 when Terminal 4 opens, there will have to be a cutting back to 275,000. This will mean that some operators in those circumstances may have to move elsewhere; and the question of more domestic flights being allowed into Heathrow is a matter of great importance. It may not he covered by this order but it is associated with the whole question of aircraft noise.
  I trust that there will be no question of increasing total movements at Heathrow beyond 275,000 without reference to Parliament. It would appear that the question of noise control, at least so far as London is concerned, is tied up with talk of possible deregulation of domestic flights. I hope that the Civil Aviation Authority will keep this question in mind during the present review that is being undertaken, and that when the report is available it will be considered by the Secretary of State and by Parliament. We welcome this order, and we will support it.
  Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches should like to thank the noble Lord for explaining this order. I simply want to ask him one question about Article 7 concerning the noise certificate to be carried. Article 7(1) says:
  "An aeroplane shall not land or take-off…unless it carries any noise certificate which it is required to carry under the law of the country in which it is registered".
  Does that mean that there are some countries which do not require noise certificates? One would imagine that all major carriers would subscribe to the international bodies to which the noble Lord referred: but what about minor carriers? What I am really asking the noble Lord is whether the harmonisation of laws is well developed.
  Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his welcome to this order. I hope to deal quite quickly with the points that have been raised because I do not think your Lordships would wish to be delayed unnecessarily this evening. With regard to helicopter noise certification, as I said in my introductory remarks this will be a matter of some urgency when the CAN/7 standards have been finally accepted by the association. Frankly, we do not expect that until about 12 months hence.
  The noble Lord asked me particularly about the £400 fine. I think I should say here that, of course, if there is real evidence that a fine of this amount is inadequate there will certainly be a review, but if one is thinking particularly in terms of the microlight aircraft, a fine of £400 is an enormous amount of
  1438
  money. You can almost put a man's summer sport out of court for some two or three years. On the other hand, I think that noble Lords should remember that the fine itself is not always the end of the disadvantage—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will appreciate this—because, of course, coupled with a fine would be a refusal for the aeroplane to fly. For an aeroplane to stand idle on a runway, in shipping terms, would be called demurrage. I am not quite sure what it would be called in aircraft terms, but it would involve the loss of use of the aeroplane, and, of course, additional charges would be a further penalty. Happily there have been very few instances where that has been necessary.
  The noble Lord asked me about Heathrow. While I appreciate that there is real concern over the level of air traffic movements and the changed situation arising with the opening of the new terminal, I think that perhaps Heathrow and ATMs are a little special. Perhaps we might have a conversation, if he is agreeable, because I do not think at this stage, in relation to the order before us, I can add anything. Perhaps we might review this in the usual way. However, I take note of the point he raised.
  I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for his remarks. He raised a particular question as to the certificate of registration. In the main, I can tell him that the vast majority of operating countries, and certainly all those engaged in the manufacture of aircraft, are subscribers to the international convention. I do not have a long list of countries, and perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to write and set out that particular piece of detail. But in terms of actual practice, I do not think he need have any undue worries. I do not think I can add anything further at the moment to assist your Lordships.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  London Docklands Railway Bill
  Reported from the Select Committee with amendments and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee; a Special Report made and ordered to be printed.
  House adjourned at two minutes before eight o'clock.