Lords Sitting of 6 February 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell
Patrick Burnet, Lord Bishop of Southwell—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Southwark and the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.
The Earl of Iveagh—The Earl of Iveagh—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Aircrew: Duty Hours
2.44 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the anxiety on grounds of safety caused by the proposed extension of airline pilots' flying hours, and what action they are proposing to take.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Government are aware of some concerns that have been expressed about the Joint Aviation Authorities' proposals for aircrew flight and duty time limits. The Civil Aviation Authority believes that these proposals would provide an equivalent level of protection to the present UK rules, and that the high safety standards in the UK would not be compromised by their adoption.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which I find very encouraging. Can he confirm what I think he said, that the Civil Aviation Authority in this country has approved of this extension of flying hours?
Viscount Goschen: Yes, my Lords, I can give that assurance. The Civil Aviation Authority has been deeply involved in working out these proposals throughout the whole course of their consideration and is content for them to be adopted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, the former trade union leader for the airline pilots, I should like to ask this question. Is the noble Viscount aware that the British Air Line Pilots' Association is concerned about these new proposed limits, not so much as regards the limits imposed in a year or a month, but rather the amount of flying that is to be permitted in a single day? Has no consideration been given to the danger of fatigue from excessive flying within a single day?
Viscount Goschens: My Lords, in the absence also of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who I
114
understand is the president of the association under consideration, we recognise the anxieties of BALPA. It is a responsible body and it is of course quite right for it to express its concerns. However, one has to view these proposals as a package. It is the firm view of the Civil Aviation Authority that while the proposals are more restrictive in some areas, they are perhaps less restrictive in others and they provide a comparable level of protection. There are different levels, for instance, of rest periods, not just duty times. As the noble Lord has said, there are indeed more restrictive limits as regards annual duty hours. Taken together, it is the firm view of the expert authority that has been involved in this matter, the Civil Aviation Authority, that safety standards will not be compromised by the adoption of these proposals.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the House will allow me to return to this matter, my anxiety was specific and concerned the amount of flying time within a single day. That is what I think the flying public, rather than the airline pilots, will be concerned about. There will be concern about the issue of fatigue and the problem of pilots having to fly for too many hours in a day. Has medical opinion been sought as regards the risks involved in such a change?
Viscount Goschen: Yes, my Lords. A considerable amount of medical opinion has been sought in producing these proposals. The daily limits are not the be-all and end-all of the story. One must also consider rest periods, and rest periods when pilots have crossed time zones. It is the case that operators can schedule slightly longer duties under the JAA proposals, although when the discretion currently available to aircraft commanders is taken into account, the absolute daily limits are broadly similar. I believe that addresses the specific and detailed question of the noble Lord. One should also take into account the fact that the CAA—as it does now—will monitor extremely carefully the implementation of these proposals which depend on proper, responsible rostering by responsible operators. That is the key to ensuring that fatigue is not a problem.

Mr. Humphrey Errington
2.49 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the judgment in the sheriff court on 5th December 1995, they will take steps to reimburse Mr. Humphrey Errington for the costs which he incurred in defending himself and his product against the proceedings brought against him by Clydesdale District Council.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): My Lords, the question of Mr. Errington's expenses in the proceedings is a matter which is currently before the sheriff at Lanark for decision. Until the sheriff has announced his decision, it would be inappropriate for me to comment other than to remind the House that

115
Her Majesty's Government are not a party to the proceedings, which involve Mr. Errington on the one hand and Clydesdale District Council on the other.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving me prior warning that in the present circumstances he would not be able to answer the Question as I would have liked. However, will he have in mind that the unrelenting pursuit of Mr. Errington by the Clydesdale District Council was seriously flawed because of a failure either to look carefully at his production methods or to consider who, if anybody, had suffered as a result of eating his product? Will my noble and learned friend consider circulating the admirable judgment of Sheriff Allan to be read with care by all those who are tempted to use their office as an opportunity to bully?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am aware that the anxieties raised by my noble friend have attracted a measure of publicity. In view of the fact that the case is currently still before the court there is a limit to what it is appropriate to say. It is my understanding that the sheriff hopes to deliver his decision by the end of this month. However, I can assure my noble friend that in the meantime the judgment is being studied carefully. I have little doubt that it will be studied carefully by the officials of the district council. Certainly the relevant government departments have in mind to review all the relevant guidance to make sure that when such issues are addressed in future they will not take as long to decide as in this case.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I hope that it is in order to ask my noble friend whether he is aware of the appalling comments about the witnesses for the Clydesdale District Council, to the effect that Dr. Ahmed did not appreciate serious matters, Dr. McLaughlin was not reliable as an expert witness and the Scottish Agricultural College was not reliable in all the tests that it undertook. They have all been torn to pieces in the judgment. Does he agree that such comments should not be allowed in public affairs?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, again, I must remind the House that there is a limit to what I can say. As my noble friend correctly observed, certain criticisms are made of individual witnesses. I am sure that the witnesses concerned will read the judgment and reflect carefully on the criticisms that are made of them.
Lord Richard: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Macaulay, who is recuperating from a recent fall, perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that we on this side of the House are
116
delighted that Lanark Blue has been preserved. After all, it is one of the very few places north of the Border which can still be called blue.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I understand that it is not only blue but it is thriving, like other areas in Scotland.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend tell us what is the product which is the subject of this great discussion?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Cheese, my Lords.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the Clydesdale District Council spent £250,000 in pursuing this case, very badly, against Mr. Errington? Can he say whether in the light of that large figure the matter will be considered by the district auditor?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am uncertain as to precisely what sum has been incurred by the district council, but it is a very large sum indeed. In addition to proceedings before a sheriff, at an earlier stage in proceedings there was an appeal for judicial review in the Court of Session in which the district council was unsuccessful and in which it had to meet not only its own expenses but also those of Mr. Errington. If any expenditure has been incurred which ought not to have been incurred that is a matter which can properly be investigated by the usual procedures. Again, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, would my noble and learned friend care to comment on the current position of the draft appeal procedures which were promoted in this House about a year ago and which, when enacted, will enable the regulatee to appeal against inappropriate or excessive regulation to a far greater extent than currently? Had those procedures been enacted when this horrendous case arose no doubt it would not have occurred. Can my noble and learned friend give some idea of when those appeal procedures are likely to be introduced?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, this is an aspect of the whole issue of deregulation which the House knows has been considered actively by the Government. In relation to the particular statutory provisions with which this case is concerned, it is my understanding that until this particular case they have operated in the manner in which they were designed to operate; namely, to provide a speedy remedy for establishing one way or another whether the food in question is unfit for human consumption. Clearly, this case has lasted a great deal longer than anticipated. It has cost more money than is desirable. Therefore, the matter will be looked at fully by the Government once the proceedings have come to an end.

Stalking of Women
2.55 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to legislate to combat the stalking of women by men.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government have recently completed an examination of the anti-stalking laws passed in the United States, Australia and Canada and are currently considering whether workable and effective legislation to combat stalkers can be introduced in the United Kingdom.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful for that constructive response. Does the Minister agree that some 5,500 people, the overwhelming majority of them women, have complained of being stalked, and that stalking induces terror and devastates their lives? That is before any assault or rape which sometimes follows. When the noble Baroness discusses these matters in relation to the United States, will she bear in mind the example of Los Angeles where a threat management unit has been established with legislation and penalties specifically aimed at this serious and obnoxious offence?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord about the horror of stalking, the fear it generates and the physical violence which is often the end result. I am able to say to the noble Lord that we are looking at lessons to be learned from abroad. The noble Lord will know that the picture is patchy. There is not a uniform approach to stalking. One of the main difficulties is that many of the activities of stalkers are already offences in this country. Many of the less serious aspects of stalking can, on the one hand, be very sinister and part of the ways in which real stalkers stalk their prey and, on the other, the harmless activities of innocent people. The problem is finding words to put on the statute book that would catch the kind of person who is of concern to all noble Lords in this House.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has raised an important subject which needs to be addressed. However, on a less serious point perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether she is aware that there have been cases of men being stalked by women, not in the same way but with the perseverance and guile of a femme fatale, who usually achieves her object in the end. Will an attempt be made to avoid sex discrimination in any legislation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, by way of warning, it is leap year. Therefore, I ask all male Peers in the House to beware. Of course we shall always respect the need to avoid discrimination in this respect.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, can my noble friend say how one would define stalking as distinct from any other offence?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right: that is the difficulty. We all know that
118
the kind of stalking which is the subject of this Question is what we want to prevent. Some of the activities involved in stalking include looking at someone, appearing at the same venue frequently over a period of time or sitting in a car in a road outside someone's house. It is difficult to regard those as criminal activities when we know that in some cases they are criminal activities but in others they are not. We also know that there are many aspects of legislation that can be brought to bear here. The police have a general power to bring people before the courts for breach of the peace. It is an offence to make indecent, obscene or menacing phone calls. It is an offence to send a letter which is threatening, offensive or indecent. It is possible to seek an injunction on someone who is behaving in an objectionable way. It is an offence intentionally to cause alarm, distress or harassment. There is a great deal on the statute book that can be used.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would it be accurate to say that the Princess of Wales and the Duchess of York are stalked by the press?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be inappropriate for me to go into any detail on that. However, it has been the subject of public comment that they have been stalked. On reading through all the symptoms of stalking in preparing for this Question, I have to say that journalists come to mind.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this loose use of the word "stalker" is somewhat upsetting to someone who lives in Scotland where stalkers are highly trained, suffer an arduous life and are essential to the culling of our herds of deer? They are a very honourable corps of men; there may be some ladies among them. I hate the word "stalker" being used as though it is a bad smell.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, whatever the outcome of the deliberations of the Home Office in seeking a solution to the problem, I hope that it will not thwart the innocent activities of our noble friends in Scotland or anyone else who indulges in harmless and innocent activities. However, the heart of the problem is to put something on the statute book which will catch the sort of people of whom we speak.
I have to say to my noble friend that stalking has a very real meaning for some people who have been subject to it. I live very close to a lady who is the subject of a recent case; and I suspect that for that lady her life will never be the same again.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, amid the levity and the difficulties of definition, will the Minister accept that we are referring to areas of profound concern and danger for individuals? The difficulties of definition have been tackled by other countries. Will the noble Baroness be steadfast in considering the issue seriously, given the amount of concern that she has expressed about its consequences?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, because there has been some lightening of the subject I hope that it does not

119
detract from its seriousness. I believe that it is serious in particular for the people whom the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, mentioned.
In America, 48 states have addressed anti-stalking legislation in different ways. In an attempt to have some consistency, Congress produced a model code for an offence. It states,
"purposefully engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury to himself or herself or a member of his or her immediate family or to fear the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her family".
That sounds fine. I suspect that as a Minister for the Home Office I should have some difficulty in persuading your Lordships to put those words on the statute book in this country.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what about "watching and besetting"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am tempted to say, "What about it?". Again, watching and besetting for some people is a wholly innocent activity. For others it would be rather sinister.

EC Accounts: Court of Auditors' Findings
3.6 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in regard to the European Court of Auditors' declaration (95/C.352/01) of 30th December 1995 that it is unable to provide the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers with a statement of assurance, as required by Article 188(c) of the Treaty of Rome, as to the reliability of the accounts of the Community and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the United Kingdom welcomes the publication of the European Court of Auditors' first statement of assurance, a UK initiative secured at Maastricht in 1992. The court's statement will be one of the documents which the Council will take into account in deciding on the Council's recommendation to the European Parliament on the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of its implementation of the 1994 Community budget.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that his rather non-committal Answer gives no cause for comfort to those who have taken an interest in a matter which affects every British taxpayer? Is he aware that the report regarding reliability of the accounts and the regularity of the transactions lying behind them is not a matter which concerns the domestic affairs of individual states but the actions of the institutions and in particular
120
the Commission? Is the Minister aware that the document is a thorough indictment of the irregularity with which large numbers of transactions are carried out within the European institutions? Will he take a far more robust attitude in the Council of Ministers towards the discharge of the budget than his answers have done so far?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks my answers sound complacent. I can assure him that the United Kingdom takes a robust view. As I mentioned in my original Answer, at Maastricht we were much in favour of the kind of outcome which led the Court of Auditors to produce this report. The noble Lord should not perhaps be too extravagant in his condemnation. He will note that the report, after showing the concerns, says at Chapter 4.2:
"The obverse of these statements is that Court's audit indicates that at least four fifths of EC payments should he without serious substantial error with regard to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions".
Therefore, more than 80 per cent. has been given without error. Many of the other questions the court raised are not to do with honesty or dishonesty but with the way in which the procedures are carried out and recorded.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that efficiency as regards the accountability of the European budget would be greatly increased if the auditors in Europe were to copy our National Audit Office? Not only does it audit the public accounts; it also pays special attention to value for money. If value for money was introduced into the European budget, it would surely help all taxpayers throughout the Community.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point about the National Audit Office. One aspect of its work is to look for value for money. The idea behind the statement of assurance, which is the subject of the Question, is along the same lines as the opinions on departmental accounts given in this country by the NAO.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the Select Committee on fraud in the Community recommended strongly that the European Parliament budget control committee should have enough powers and the necessary documents and evidence to complete its task fully and properly, as it would wish. Will the Minister assure the House that the committee will be given those powers to enable it to decide whether or not to give a discharge?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the report before us is not specifically concerned with fraud although it may identify situations where there may have been fraud. However, I can assure my noble friend that we in the United Kingdom are aware of the need to ensure that the amount of fraud in the European Community is reduced to the absolute minimum. One of our problems is that it is for each member state to

121
control the situation in its own country and to make sure that there is no fraudulent abuse of European moneys within its own borders.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that he stated that 20 per cent. of the budget is either fraudulent or "iffy"? If that is what he said—I thought that he said that 80 per cent. was clear; so it follows that 20 per cent. was not—it seems a totally and utterly disgraceful state of affairs.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend did not listen to the whole of my answer. I indicated to my noble friend Lady Elles that the report was not concerned with fraud; quite the reverse. It is far more concerned with the checks and balances in both the revenue and the expenditure systems. I recommend that my noble friend reads the report. The general conclusions in paragraph 3.1 state:
"The Court's examination of the revenue entered in the accounts in respect of traditional own resources did not reveal any significant errors. In respect to the expenditure"—
this is where the point about the 80 per cent. comes in—
"there are too many errors in the transactions underlying the payments entered in the accounts…to be able to give a positive global assurance as to their legality/regularity".
Many of the points raised are to do with the way things were reported and signed off and the timescale in which they were reported. Those problems have rightly been drawn to the attention of the Commission and of member states to ensure that those aspects of the administration are correct.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that he has admitted to the House that one-fifth of the expenditure transactions referred to in the report are irregular, illegal or lack proper regularity within the terms of the Act? He recommended that his noble friends read the document; perhaps we may have the assurance that he himself will read an additional report, No. C/27, dated 31st January. That refers specifically to the European Parliament and the irregularities are extremely detailed. Would it not be unfortunate if the Minister were to give the impression that the United Kingdom did not intend to pursue matters with the utmost rigour at the core of Europe?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought I had given the noble Lord the assurance that we would pursue matters with the utmost rigour. The 14 per cent. of total payments, for example, on which the court could not obtain assurances include items in the United Kingdom such as the data in the prescribed form for the ewe premium scheme in Scotland. It was stated that the court did not have the data because they were not available in the form desired by the required date. I was asked earlier about the National Audit Office. In 1994–95, in its audit of Scottish agricultural spending, it checked 170 payments under the guarantee scheme. That is far more checks than the court would make, and no material errors were revealed in payments to farmers. That is an example of where we have checked and the audit office has put a question mark on
122
it because of timescales. We have checked in greater detail, and there is no reason for concern. That is something the noble Lord should bear in mind.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
3.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITIEES in the Chair.]
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
("PART A1
LISTED EVENTS AND SPORT
CERTAIN EVENTS NOT TO BE SHOWN SOLELY ON PAY-PER-VIEW OR
SUBSCRIPTION TERMS
(".—(1) Section 182 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1) substitute—
"(1) The Commission shall do all that they can to ensure that any programme which consists of or includes the whole or any part of a listed event being broadcast live—

(a) is not reserved exclusively for pay-per-view or subscription television; and

(b) is included in a television broadcast service which is for general reception, capable of being received in the United Kingdom.".").

The noble Lord said: First, I must declare what interests I have which may be germane to the subject. I am a non-executive director of Birmingham Cable Corporation and also Wembley Stadium.
The series of new clauses which I shall be proposing are not purely about the economics or financing of sport, important though that subject may be. They also involve the ethics and the spirit of sport. I hope that the Committee will allow me to indulge myself on those matters for just a moment or two. I have a profound belief in the social purpose of sport. To me it is fundamental in the context in which this debate has to be considered. In essence, the social purpose of sport is best expressed through its spirit, commonly known as sportsmanship, in the way it inspires young people to take up sport, to develop their personalities, to face the challenges of life and to experience the joys and good fellowship which should be at the heart of all sport.
Those precepts are being increasingly undermined by the total domination within sport of financial considerations above all others. No wonder all the arguments put forward to oppose the new clauses concentrate exclusively upon the right to sell all sport to the highest bidder. All the letters we have received and

123
all the statements which we have read deal exclusively with money. The protagonists never rise above the pure material: the price of the product. They have nothing to say about the worth and value of sport in the community. They ignore the 30 million to 40 million people who cannot afford or get Sky. They ignore the elderly and infirm who have supported sport in better days and who are now to be sacrificed apparently to the interests of one man—Rupert Murdoch. The protagonists write off their duty to the young who, in their millions, obtain their inspiration to take up sport, to have a go for themselves, because they see sport in its excellence in their millions in their own homes, on terrestrial television. Nick Faldo said that he took up golf because he saw Jack Nicklaus playing on television.
Nowhere in the letter to us, repeated in The Times today, from the Central Council of Physical Recreation—of which I am a senior vice-president—are those questions addressed which were raised in this Chamber, I remind the Committee, during the Second Reading debate on the Bill. The silence of sport on addressing social questions is deafening.
Though it has to be said that the terrestrial channels have also exercised their monopoly powers in the past and kept their prices down, that has to change. I am pleased that the new chairman of the BBC endorses the view which I put forward at Second Reading that the new digital channel will give an opportunity to the BBC and ITV to provide some form of pay-TV at reasonable prices which everyone in the country can afford if they wish to watch a particular match. Perhaps that is the future way forward, but it is not what we are discussing today.
We have all received a letter from Mr. Ken Schofield, of the Professional Golfers Association European Tour, responsible for the deal between the PGA and Sky, which covered the Ryder Cup. That event between the finest golfers in Europe and America proved to be one of the most sensational sporting events of the decade. Europe won with the last shot on the last green. When Sky was asked why it would not allow the BBC even to show highlights of the event, it inferred that the BBC would not buy them. That was totally incorrect. I have in my hand the licence agreement between Sky and the PGA which covered the Ryder Cup. It states in stark terms:
"For the avoidance of doubt, there will be no BBC transmission of The Ryder Cup".
Sky deliberately set out to stop the broadcasting of highlights and prevent the BBC having any coverage of the event. Mr. Ken Schofield's letter to us all does not even begin to explain why he thought it right to prevent the nation, in its millions, from seeing anything of that great sporting triumph.
Sky tried to do the same about the forthcoming World Cup in cricket, as I disclosed to the House on Second Reading of the Bill. I rejoice that all the odium, and, no doubt, the proposed new Clause 2, which we shall reach shortly, have brought about a change of heart. The right of the BBC to show the highlights of the World Cup at a cost of £1 million, which was refused a month or two
124
ago, was suddenly re-offered to the BBC last Friday and taken up. New Clause 2 has triumphed before I have even moved it!
We must put aside the black propaganda that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will know something about. A spokesman for Sky alleged three times this weekend that the reason our football grounds have all been put in good order has to do with Sky Television money. That is a monstrous assertion. The £200 million spent on football grounds has come from the Football Trust, of which the noble Lord is chairman. It receives its money from the Pools promoters, who have been rather badly treated compared with other organisations such as the National Lottery. The money from Sky has gone to pay grossly inflated wages and monstrously large transfer fees. It has not been put into grounds. I hope that the noble Lord will give further details later.
The case for this amendment is irresistible. As the Select Committee on National Heritage in another place stated in a report in 1994:
"The public policy objective for permitting satellite services is to expand viewer choice…If it leads to the ending of free access to major sporting events, deemed by the public to be part of their birthright, then this is a narrowing of public choice".
As Stephen Dorrell said when he was Secretary of State for National Heritage:
"Sport provides for the integration of young people into society. It allows young people to excel. It provides role models and the opportunity for their admirers to imitate them".
That is not possible on Sky alone.
As David Mellor frankly confessed, as author of the 1990 Act that we seek to amend today, he made a mistake. He should have included subscription television when he prevented pay TV from showing, the eight listed events exclusively. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve today. It does not seek to add anything to the existing situation. It aims to hallow the existing situation but to extend it to subscription television as well as pay television.
Fortunately, the International Olympic Committee last week rejected Mr. Murdoch's millions—£1.2 billion of them—and kept faith with the youth of the world. That is what we ask the Committee to do today. President Samaranch has a wisdom and a sense of duty that we must applaud. He said that the Olympic Games are a vital sporting festival and must be available to the people of the world—in Africa, Asia and eastern Europe, where no Sky dishes are to be found, as well as in this country.
We now have to consider two quite fascinating last-minute developments. The first is the consultation paper issued by the Government for purposes at which we can only guess. The Government need to consult the nation, they tell us. They had no intention of doing so at Second Reading. They had no desire to do so during the past six months while this matter was debated the length and breadth of the land. They did not take the matter up when the newspapers gave it considerable coverage. This is very much a last-minute dodge.
A cynic might believe that the Government wished to bypass your Lordships' House, where they know that opposition is strong. Well, we proceed with our

125
amendments, which declare matters of principle. As our new Clause 6 proposes, when their consultation exercise has been completed and considered they can then come back to us, if they wish, to make any proposals for change at that stage.
Meanwhile they have the results of last week's opinion poll, which I hope they will feed into their consultation process. I hope that the Minister will assure us of that. The survey, by BMRB, disclosed that nine out of 10 people in this country believe that these listed events should be available to the widest audience; seven out of 10 believe that the Government should legislate to protect the listed events; and 66 per cent. of Sky viewers also hold that view.
It is not for me to come to the aid of this Government. However, even they must see that, if the strength of public opinion is against them in such measure and if they propose to deprive 30 million homes of the right to see the crown jewels of British sport, that is a hazardous and monumental electoral undertaking upon which to embark at this stage of this Parliament. However, the Government should not act for those reasons. They should act because it is right to do so, on the justice of the case.
I turn now to today's most extraordinary news. The Director of Fair Trading has become so alarmed about restrictive practices in football that he is to refer the agreement between the Premier League, Sky and the BBC to the restrictive practices court. That is on top of two other references he has before him to Sky. The first is from some of the cable companies. They have taken Sky on board and now find themselves squeezed more and more by Mr. Murdoch as prices go up and up. The second reference comes from the pubs. Mr. Murdoch persuaded publicans to install Sky Television, and now the prices are rising, as I read in one case, by 1,900 per cent. No wonder the publicans have approached the Director of Fair Trading as well! If the Director of Fair Trading believes that there is a prima-facie case to be answered, then our amendments are even more necessary than I previously thought.
Those representing some of the listed sports do not want to leave the BBC or ITV. They merely want to use Sky as a bargaining factor. As I explained, they will be gobbled up. If I may be permitted to say so, anybody who chooses to get into bed with Mr. Murdoch does not get out of bed the same man! Just imagine taking the Derby or the Grand National off television. These are the great betting races of the year. Racing would lose an enormous amount of income if that were proposed—and they know it.
In this amendment, we do not seek to add to the number of listed events. That is another piece of black propaganda that was put out. Nor do we seek to prevent Sky Television showing sport. To declare another interest, I have two Sky channels, one in London and one in Birmingham, and I like Sky Sport. However, that does not mean that 30 million other people should be prevented from enjoying the main sporting events. As David Mellor advises us—and we accept his advice—we must face the logic of his 1990 Act by adding subscription television to pay television. In so doing, we
126
shall keep faith with the millions who have no access to Sky, who cannot afford the £300 that is necessary to plug into Sky and to receive Sky Sport.
In that way, we shall remain true to the heritage of British sport on television, and to millions of young people who need the inspiration of sporting excellence to take up and enjoy sport. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I rise to support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord. I congratulate him on his eloquence and envy him his knowledge and experience in matters of sport. In order to offer some shadow of competition with his knowledge and interest, I have, for the first time in public, dredged into my past. I am sure it will come as something of a shock to the Committee to learn that I was once appointed Minister for Sport. That is one of the very few occasions on which I feel able now to congratulate myself on having behaved with perfect discretion. I did nothing. As the result of masterly inactivity over the first 36 or 48 hours, that awful problem went away. So I do not have that shadow upon me.
Another of my inadequacies is that I am unable to fall back on any great personal experience as to what happens to those who get into or out of bed with Mr. Murdoch. I do not for a moment suggest that the amendment is either an answer to the problems of broadcasting sporting events or to the more general questions raised under the Bill. I very much hope that my noble friend—in fact I am quite sure of it, because I have great respect for him—will not yield to the temptation which sometimes catches unwary Ministers to say that the amendment is inadequate. We know that it is inadequate. But it is a nudge to the Government to produce something better to cope with some very difficult problems.
Indeed, if I may say so with due modesty, I would claim that the amendment, even at this stage, has achieved some modest success. It has prompted the Government into admitting that there is a need for consultation on some very sensitive issues. That should be very much welcomed. At this point I must apologise to my noble friend. Over the weekend I said that I regarded this consultation effort, coming, as it did, late in the day, as something of a grubby manoeuvre. I had suspected that it might have attached to it some unpleasant device for removing the matter from this Chamber's consideration. In that I was quite wrong and I unreservedly withdraw that terrible remark about a grubby manoeuvre.
In the consultation document which has so thoughtfully been provided to us, there appear the immortal words:
"We must proceed prudently and with caution".
Perhaps I may go a little further and express the hope that the Government will accept that "proceed" involves some movement and that that would not be satisfied by a static condition of waiting courteously and politely upon the market. It does not need me to tell the Committee that the communications industry is very important, very fast moving and very much open to

127
abuse. For those reasons I believe that competition has to be encouraged and any pre-eminence in that field avoided.
In sport, as elsewhere, there are conflicts. There are those who are responsible for producing the event but who do not quite own it; there are those who show it; and there those who very much want to watch it. We should do well to remember that there are many million members of the public who would find themselves very unhappy at being denied access to what are major national events simply because they could not afford the gadgetry necessary.
There are a number of points which we should all bear in mind. First, there is the quite unique position of the BBC, whose brief, by the way, I do not hold. The BBC once enjoyed a degree of monopoly and abused it. It ought not to be allowed to do so again but it should not be punished for ever by being shut out from events in which it is very experienced and to which it has some degree of right of access.
It is fair that we should also have in mind the difference in contributions made to the Treasury by the independent television companies and by BSkyB. The independent television companies pay an annual levy of £400 million a year (the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, knows more about that matter than I do). Not only do they pay that levy; in addition, they pay taxes on their profits. The contribution of BSkyB to the Treasury and to the taxpayer is almost negligible by comparison.
I want to dwell on one or two further points. In an imperfect world we still have national boundaries. I doubt whether there is any other country in the world that would have allowed a man who was a non-national to acquire quite the degree of eminence, power and influence that Mr. Murdoch has by his very great ability achieved for himself. This Bill may not give to either BSkyB or Mr. Murdoch all that they would like. But, unless I am very wrong, I suggest to the Committee that it most certainly will considerably enhance the position and power of a man who owes this country no allegiance and does not seem overwhelmed by admiration for its institutions or way of doing things but who finds it a very comfortable and profitable place in which to do business.
Let me go back for just a moment to the point I made earlier; namely, that communications is a very fast moving activity in which no one can foresee tomorrow's developments with any clarity. One thing is absolutely certain. All the arguments and difficult problems will not be settled in this Bill. I do hope for truly effective machinery of arbitration to be set up, so that there is some way for people with knowledge and experience to oversee the affairs of a vitally important industry and bring to bear their influence and knowledge to arbitrate in the very important and frequent disputes that will occur. Without that, I can envisage the balance of advantage going one way or the other or just being tipped over permanently into what the market dictates.
The market—I hope that my noble friend will take careful note of my remarks—is just as foolish as the rest of us and just as capable of making mistakes. But, if the
128
market has any merit, it is very important that there should be—in that overworked and ghastly phrase—a level playing field. That is not the case at the moment.
I feel that my noble friend has an extraordinarily difficult task in piloting this complicated Bill through this Chamber. I have no doubt that he will do it with skill and care. But I ask him to understand that, so far as I am concerned, this amendment is moved with absolutely no malice against him or the Government. At this moment I want to see it on the face of the Bill, with all its inadequacies, because I believe that it will serve as a very useful nudge to the Government, who will be obliged, because of its presence there, to come forward with something better in order to be justified in removing it. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Lord Weatherill: One of the blessed things about your Lordships' Chamber is that, unlike the other place, there is no need to repeat arguments that have already been well made. Now that I am a "free man" and travel by buses and on trains, I am occasionally accosted by members of the public. In recent days I have lost count of the number of people who have said to me, "What are you going to do about the so-called crown jewels of sport?".
I should declare an interest in that I am a non-executive director of United Artists, which is a cable company with a pay-as-you-view channel. Nevertheless, it is because 85 per cent. of our countrymen do not have cable or Sky TV that I attached my name to the amendment.
I am aware of the consultation document produced by the Government. The trouble with consultation is that it takes time. Your Lordships would therefore be wise to consider carefully the amendments on the Marshalled List this afternoon tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and others. They seek to ensure that the majority of people in our country—the old as well as the young—are able to continue to watch the highlights of the eight major events of sport as was envisaged in the 1990 Act. It is for that reason that I strongly support the amendment to which I attach my name today.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I warmly support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Weatherill. In the debates in the passage of the 1990 Bill through this House, I moved an amendment with a similar purpose. But those were the days before Mr. David Mellor saw the light in these matters and my amendment was soundly defeated. It did not at that time enjoy quite the strength of support across the Chamber that has been engendered by this amendment today. I hope that at the end of the debate the Minister will be able to accept the amendment or, if he does not, that the sense of the Committee will find itself in support of it.
Since the 1990 Act the problem has become more urgent with the immense growth of broadcast sport on satellite television. I recognise that that growth is largely due to BSkyB and it deserves credit for widening the

129
range of choice and extending the opportunities available for many of us to see sporting activities on the television screen. I recognise equally that that has brought substantial financial benefits to sporting organisations, which has meant that there are now legitimate conflicts of financial interest between satellite and terrestrial broadcasters and the sporting organisations.
My view—I hope it is not unduly naive; after spending 10 years as chairman of one of the broadcasting authorities it is difficult to retain any naivety about broadcasting matters—is that these conflicts are reconcilable if the Government will give a lead and those concerned show a little less greed and a little more willingness to consider the general public interest; that is, the interest of the viewers and the listeners.
It is sometimes forgotten that BSkyB, for all its enterprise in this matter and for all that it has widened the choice for those of us who are addicts of specific sports, and despite commanding a number of different satellite channels, has only 4.5 per cent. of the total television audience in this country. It is those who use the terrestrial broadcasting system that provide more than 90 per cent. of the television audience. It may sometimes be forgotten when we argue about the pros and cons of subscription broadcasting that the 90 per cent. plus of ordinary people using terrestrial channels are themselves engaged in a form of subscription broadcasting. It is a positive form because they all pay a licence fee and thus they are entitled to have their interests properly taken into account.
I do not believe that those interests can be left adequately to the sporting organisations, despite the eloquent letter in The Times quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. The timing of the letter must have seemed somewhat unfortunate, since it coincided with the announcement by the Office of Fair Trading that it was referring to the restrictive practices court the activities of one of the major sporting organisations in football associated with the activities of BSkyB. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, quoted the rather devastating information that the licence agreement between one of the great golfing organisations—the PGA—and BSkyB specifically excluded any possibility of the Ryder Cup highlights being shown on BBC for the general benefit of the British public.
I applaud the public spirit of the IOC—the International Olympic Committee—in deciding to accept the lower bid of the European public service broadcasting organisations rather than the higher bid of Rupert Murdoch's news corporation, which would have put the Olympic Games, until the year 2008, into the hands of his organisation.
It is the Government's responsibility to define the public interest and then to defend it. I do not believe that in tackling that we needed the consultancy exercise which took us all by surprise at the end of last week. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for whom we have the greatest respect as a responsible Minister in this Chamber, made two good speeches on the Second Reading of this Bill. But I did not hear him whisper in
130
either of them that there was a feeling that this was an issue on which fresh consultation was required. In fact, the Broadcasting Bill, together with the BBC Charter, has been subject to the most intense period of consultation on all aspects of broadcasting policy, including this one.
We all know that the real purpose behind the consultation exercise was cosmetic; it was a way of dealing with a divided Cabinet—divided on the issue of how far it should go down the purely market road in the matter of broadcasting where public interest should he dominant, and perhaps not so divided in its collective funk in facing up to the influence and power of Mr. Murdoch in a pre-election year.
It is important to remember that the listed events that we are discussing in this amendment are, in fact, only a small proportion of total sports broadcasting; but they are a special bit of it. They are not merely sporting occasions; they are national occasions of a special character. The listed events are now 40 years old and represent occasions which, in many ways, help to hold the nation together and give it a sense of being "one nation"—to quote a familiar phrase. There are all sorts of dear old ladies in Monifieth who apply themselves to watching the listed events on the television screen but who otherwise have no knowledge of the sport that they are watching and would not dream of attending a football match or a cricket Test match. They are special events and deserve a special degree of protection from the Government.
It is important to emphasise that in preserving the listed events we do not give to the terrestrial broadcasters—who compete with each other; there are now three or four competing terrestrial broadcasters—the exclusive right to those events. If the satellite broadcasters want to include these listed events in their package, they should be perfectly free to do so—it is important that they should be—or perfectly free to negotiate highlights of them. Banning exclusivity in the broadcasting of sporting events is the essence both for listed events and indeed for the rather wider and perhaps in some ways more important aspects of general sporting events, an area to which we shall come in the next clause.
I heard the Secretary of State today saying that one of her reasons for going through this curious period of consultation was that she wanted to try to ensure flexibility in relation to sporting events. I was puzzled by that because, if ever there was a flexible instrument of government, it is the sporting events. They are entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can recommend adding to them or taking away from them. They can therefore be adjusted to take account of changing circumstances.
I have had a case put to me in the past few days from the Test and County Cricket Board. It was not seeking to be disengaged from listed events but the force of its argument was that test matches are a rather exceptional sporting special event. They go on for five days several times a year and therefore they are quite different from a football match which takes place over 90 minutes. I am a heathen Scot and I hesitate to make remarks about

131
cricket. But I am bound to say that I would be perfectly content to see the longueurs of a Test match on a subscription channel for those who are cricket enthusiasts, provided that the climax of the great games and the highlights were preserved for the general viewer. There might be a case for more flexibility in the definition of some of these special events.
I have some final remarks about the future. In pressing this amendment, all of us are aware that the world of broadcasting is changing fairly quickly. One of the main areas of the Bill that we shall come on to and try to understand is digital broadcasting, with its increased number of channels. It may well be that by the end of the century there will be a need to review this formula. For my part, I should be content if there were some provision for that kind of view. I am reinforced in that by having looked up the debate during which my original amendment on these matters was turned down in July 1990. At that time the Minister responding was the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. In sustaining the Government's position at that time, he set out the reason why the 1990 Act applied only to pay-for-view and did not mention subscription services generally. He said that the only way for the foreseeable future that those channels would be able to show listed events profitably would be by charging for them on a pay-per-view basis. What has happened is that BSkyB has been extraordinarily profitable by offering a general subscription service. This country does not yet enjoy any pay-per-view service, although I understand that BSkyB is thinking about it for a great boxing match that lies immediately ahead of us.
I urge the Government to accept the amendment. They should do so looking forward to the future. They should hold the present position to at least the end of the century and make sure that, while the present situation exists, in which less than 5 per cent. of people enjoy BSkyB offerings and more than 90 per cent. depend on the public service broadcasting channels, the protection of the listed events should be extended and preserved.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I have a curious interest to declare, in that I have long been writing articles in Mr. Rupert Murdoch's newspapers and I own a few shares in News Corporation and in News International. But I had them long before I came into this House and they do not arise from my being a Member of this House or of this Committee. I also have an interest in how racing is affected in this matter. I have been chairman of the Tote since 1976 and I came into this House in 1987. Therefore, although I declare it, I have no interest that arises out of being a Member of this House.
I was afraid that the occasion of moving the amendment would become a Murdoch-bashing exercise. It owes more to that than it does to common sense. I was very sorry that my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Howell, took the extraordinary view that he did. Nearly every person and every organisation connected with sport, including the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which represents 300 organisations, want to be able to see the highest bidder get these great sporting events in order to fructify the sports which receive the money so that they may find the people and train the people who are going to be the great heroes and play for England in the future.
132
The Ryder Cup was mentioned. When the BBC had the Ryder Cup, it did not cover every day. Since BSkyB has had the Ryder Cup, it has covered every day and all of it. That shows how much more dedicated BSkyB is and how much better it is at showing sports programmes than the BBC. There was also a reference to the elderly and the infirm. They are always trundled out on these occasions. Perhaps I may say that more than 30,000 pubs and clubs provide free entry to elderly and infirm people, who can go there to watch free all the sports on BSkyB. So that argument is a non-starter as well. There is also the point that the friends or relations of the infirm may be willing to subscribe for them in order that they may have BSkyB programmes, whether they pay for a particular item or for the whole lot.
We were told that the BSkyB contribution to football stands has been nothing at all. That is not true. It has contributed a good deal to football stands, as have the organisations to which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred.
Then we had the question of highlights. What are highlights? How long are highlights to be? The argument for the showing of highlights concerns how much will be used and how long they go on for. That is what the argument is about. As I understand it, Sky has no wish to stop the selling of highlights, provided it can get an agreement on how much will be used.
Lord Howell: I have read out the contract under which Sky prevents the BBC from showing any highlights.
Lord Wyatt of Weefords: But I have later information than the noble Lord has.
Great play was made with restrictive practices and there were suggestions of a cartel. That has nothing to do with BSkyB. If there is a cartel, that has to do with the clubs themselves. If the matter goes to the restrictive practices court—and BSkyB has nothing to do with it—BSkyB is quite happy to deal with all the organisations involved separately if they wish. BSkyB has no standing in this matter at all. The matter has been raised as a smear against BSkyB to suggest that it will fall foul of the restrictive practices court.
My old friend the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, made an extraordinary statement. He said that Mr. Murdoch was a Canadian and what a terrible thing that was. I am sorry, he said that he was an American. I have got that wrong. I was thinking of Mr. Black, who is the main owner of a newspaper which I thought was sacred to the Tory Party. There has been no complaint about him being a foreigner. I thought it was very xenophobic for the noble Lord to refer to Mr. Murdoch as he did.
4 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like to get this matter absolutely straight because we are on sensitive ground. I do not believe that I ever mentioned Mr. Black and I certainly did not mention the word "Canadian".
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I have already accepted that. He was referred to as an American citizen and Mr. Murdoch was named. That was the xenophobic part.

133
Why is it that there was no reference or smear as regards Mr. Black, who is also a foreign owner in this capacity; namely, a Canadian? He is not a British citizen. It is because he is the promoter or controller of the Daily Telegraph.
Lord Thomson of Fleet, as he was called, said that his ownership and monopoly of Scottish television was a licence to print money, and no one complained at all in the Tory Party, although he was a Canadian. He owned the Sunday Times as well, which in those days was a fervent supporter of the Tory Party. It is rather disgraceful to introduce these xenophobic criticisms into the situation.
So far, less than 1 per cent. of sport previously shown on BBC and ITV has been transferred to BSkyB, so I do not see a great threat of a monopoly in this regard. It is not a monopoly at all. It is a field of intense competition and I thought the Tory Party believed in competition, but it appears that they do not if Mr. Murdoch is allowed to take part.
From the racing point of view, we would like to see every important race such as the Derby, the Grand National, the Queen Elizabeth and King George VI Stakes, the Diamond Stakes and so on, sold to the highest bidder because we have been hit very badly by the lottery and racing deserves to be able to get as much money back as it can. It is very negative of people to say that the Derby has necessarily to he shown by the BBC or whatever terrestrial station it may be. That is a very negative approach. The race should be open to free bidding. It is, in a sense, because it has already been sold to sponsors. I do not believe it is wrong for anything owned by racing to be sold to the highest bidder in order to gain some benefit to counteract the lottery among other things and also to promote the interests of racing. I am sorry that noble Lords take an opposite view. Many noble Lords here today are so determined to blacken Mr. Murdoch that the entire sky is filled with soot and a television could not be seen if there was one in front of us!
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: That is so. This is a ridiculous, concerted attack on one man because he has been more successful than others. After all, he was the person who put up satellites when no one else dared to do so. He showed the way at Wapping so that at last newspapers were able to be printed, which could not have taken place before.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: We are discussing Sky television and television broadcasting, not industrial relations in the printing industry. However, if the noble Lord is willing to table a Motion to that effect, I shall he happy to debate it.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I am sorry to say to the noble Baroness that we have been discussing at length the character of Mr. Murdoch.
Noble Lords: No! No!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Oh yes we have! If noble Lords have not noticed that they must be stone deaf. That is a very big part of the story. Mr. Murdoch has
134
been a great entrepreneur who has freed up competition. He is envied because he has been successful. Many people in this country do not like those who are successful. I am enjoying myself!
A Noble Lord: Dig deeper!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: The BBC forces the elderly and infirm to pay licence fees even if they do not want to watch BBC. In 1994, 763 people were jailed for non-payment of their licence fee, but no one is jailed for taking Sky programmes, whether for sport or anything else. No one is forced to watch those programmes because most people have "turn-off' switches on their television sets. Anyway, I believe that I have said enough.
Noble Lords: Hear! Hear!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I have said enough to show that the whole of this amendment is directed ad hominem, and absurdly, against someone who has done much for television in this country and for satellite television. He has risked a great deal of his own money and nearly went bust in doing so. Therefore, I very much hope that the Committee will reject this amendment.
Lord Barnett: I doubt if the Government—
Viscount Whitelaw: I do not intend to take a very long time over this matter. It is very important to get the measure we are discussing this afternoon exactly right. I personally am just as keen as many other noble Lords who have spoken about the various issues. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said that he did nothing, but that is not quite true. I know what he did at the time and he did quite a lot. It is wrong to say that he did not. He did many things very well indeed and I admired them very much. I do not believe that it is worth his while getting up. He knows that perfectly well.
We have a very difficult decision to make. I do not believe that it is easy simply to say, "I want various sports and 1 am going to have them in this way". I have great sympathy with many Members of the Committee in what they say, including the noble Lord, Lord Howell. But I do not believe that it is right for us to decide at this time that we are going to have a measure of this kind changed. There is a great deal still to be done. Perhaps I am not allowed to call the noble Lord, Lord Thompson, my friend, but he is. He said that he thought that it was very important to get the matter right. I could not agree with him more. It is very important to get the matter right.
How is that to be done? I do not believe that we shall do it by approving this measure at this time. Equally, I accept at once that something needs to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, made some very wise and true remarks. However, I do not want to see the Committee deciding at this moment on the measure before we have the opportunity to talk to more people and discuss it further.
Noble Lord: No!
Viscount Whitelaw: I know exactly what some noble Lords want to do. It is very nice and splendid to get a

135
measure through. But that is not always what is right for your Lordships' House. I have been here long enough to know that very well. We must think carefully so we get the various measures right.
There have been some arguments about what the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, said. I do not agree entirely but I accept quite a lot of what he said. If that is the case, should not this House look again at the measure and try to see whether we can find a sensible arrangement? That would do this Chamber a great deal of good: not to do that would be a great pity.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: We always know when the Government are in trouble. They are lucky to have the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, to present a reasonable case on their behalf when they do not always seem totally capable of it themselves. I differ from the noble Viscount. I believe that he was once chairman of the legislation committee in the Cabinet. Like him, I have sat on many legislation committees. If there is one thing the legislation committee will want this afternoon it is that Members of the Committee should declare their view. The committee will then know that if there is something precise in the Bill, whether or not it is right, it must be handled delicately and completely and a provision brought before the other place which commands support there and also in this House because the Bill will return here in due course.
In those circumstances, there is no doubt about what this Chamber should do. We have been presented with Second Reading. The Government have given us the Bill to consider before it goes to another place. We are right to declare our opinion. It may be that we do not get it entirely right. However, when I consider the number of Bills where we are asked to put matters right that the other place has got wrong, it seems to be absurd that we should not be allowed to declare our preliminary view.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, this is a nudge to the Government to indicate that we intend the matter to be taken seriously. I do not believe that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, will feel that he made the most persuasive speech of his career. It really is not a case of the amendment being about Mr. Murdoch whom I have had the pleasure of meeting only twice. But people are genuinely concerned. I am talking about ordinary people. They have no vendettas against Mr. Murdoch. However, they are concerned that they should be allowed to watch great national events. That is the nub of the question—nothing else. They want to make sure that Parliament decides in its wisdom that they shall not be excluded from watching great national events because the Government forgot about the matter, because some ideology prevailed, or because the power of money was so great.
I agree that the matter will need to be carefully thought out. But we should show the people of this country that we take note of their anxieties and that we have a view. We should send our view to another place and let it be considered there. We should ask another place to bring forward a proposal on which we may reflect. The shape of television is changing rapidly; what
136
we decide today may not be apposite in five years' time. But we wish to see certain safeguards built into the Bill. The only way to do that is by voting for the amendment and sending the Bill, as amended, to another place. The Government can then issue a White Paper, consult on the matter and bring forward a better scheme. For heaven's sake, let us not show ourselves to be toothless on an issue about which the ordinary men and women of this country are concerned.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Barnett: The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, made the only serious case for not deciding the matter today and allowing the other place to do so. I hope that the noble Viscount will agree on reflection that that is not really a case at all. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, declared two interests. He works for Murdoch—I assure him that I shall not blacken Murdoch's name—and he is employed by the Tote. As the noble Lord will know from my brief conversations with him from time to time, I have never agreed with his articles in The Times and I did not agree with his speech today. I am sure that he will not be too surprised to hear that. The noble Lord said that the elderly and the infirm may go and watch Sky Television in clubs and pubs. I do not know how many. We have a few elderly and infirm in this Chamber; perhaps we should carry out a poll. I should like to have a bet with the noble Lord that there would not be a majority of people who go to pubs and clubs, or anywhere else for that matter, to see Sky Television.
I quote something said by an important person:
"Sport is a binding force between generations and across borders. But, by a miraculous paradox, it is at the same time one of the defining characteristics of our national pride. We should cherish it for both reasons".
There is a game going on in another place at the moment at Prime Minister's Question Time. The quote is from the Prime Minister in his introduction to Sport—Raising the Game. How can that be a defining characteristic if 85 per cent. of the population cannot watch sport on television? That is the situation at present.
I declare an interest. I have cable television. I have it because I want to watch sport. I prefer to go to see Manchester United, the best club in the country. They may not win the league this year but that is another matter. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, that the important point is that neither Sky nor sport generally need suffer if the amendment is carried. Sky would still be able to have sports programmes but it would not have a monopoly and would share them with terrestrial television. That is the point of the amendment. At present Sky may secure rights to all key events and so terrestrial television loses out. Surely it cannot be right that only 15 per cent. of the country's population can watch those programmes. That is what the amendment is about. It is not about blackening the name of Mr. Murdoch. I am not interested in Mr. Murdoch. I feel that the whole of the country should be able to watch sport on television if they wish to do so. Plenty of people do not wish to watch sport, but if they do let them see it. What is wrong with that?

137
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, referred to market forces. Of course, as he said, market forces get it wrong from time to time. Let them get it wrong. We should not prevent that. That is the main point, is it not? We are talking about achieving a better balance. We are trying to achieve a balance which ensures that sporting programmes are available across the board on terrestrial and Sky satellite channels. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that the BBC should not have a monopoly. Nobody should have a monopoly. That is what this amendment is about; that is why I shall support it.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: I should like all to feel that everyone, young and old—in particular, the young—should be able to watch sporting events. Like many Members of the Committee I went to the conference centre last week to see Sky's presentation. After listening for quite a while to Sky explaining how clever and wonderful it was and what a good job it had done, at last it said that there were many people who would not be able to afford Sky at the moment—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said at least 30 million people.
That means that masses of young people will be deprived of the opportunity of viewing games and sport, becoming excited about them, and then perhaps themselves becoming players of the sports upon which they are particularly keen. The Government are now urging schools to take more interest in sport and games. In my day they were all called games. It would be disastrous were young people again to be deprived of enjoying hacking their favourite teams and stars. I ask the Government to see what they can do in the Bill to make that possible.
The Marquess of Reading: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the eight listed events are shown on terrestrial television channels such as BBC1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 4. The amendment states that the listed events would have to be shown on channels available for general reception in the UK. They could not be reserved exclusively for subscription or pay-per-view channels. The eight listed events are, of course, the Grand National, the Derby, the FA Cup Final, the Scottish Cup Final, the Wimbledon finals, England's home Test matches, the Olympics and the World Cup finals.
The Broadcasting Act 1990 ensures that those events cannot be shown on pay-per-view channels. However, contrary to the understanding of many Members of this place and of the other place, most could be bought by subscription satellite channels even now. That would mean that the bulk of the population would be unable to see them; 85 per cent. is the figure, I understand, agreed by Sky and the BBC.
The purpose of today's amendment is to ensure that those events would have to be shown on mainstream TV channels which the bulk of the population can receive, but the amendment would not deny the satellite channels the right to show the events. They could show them at the same time as the mainstream channels if they wished, and bring all their ingenuity to bear in branding their own and in giving their viewers unique coverage of the event, with their added distribution capacity.
138
The amendment would ensure coverage by placing a duty on the ITC to ensure the availability of the events on free-to-air channels. We would expect the ITC to ensure that a satellite subscription channel would not be allowed to be the only broadcaster. That builds upon the ITC's responsibility under the 1990 Act, and its duty to prevent their showing on pay-per-view channels.
The live rights to those specific events should be determined by the highest bid from universally available terrestrial channels. Recent evidence of competition for the Cup Final and the Grands Prix between the BBC and ITV shows that there is healthy competition for the rights between the terrestrial channels. Satellite channels would also have the right to buy the rights if they also wanted to show them at the same time as the terrestrials.
The eight events have rightly been called the crown jewels of sport. No doubt some Members of the Committee have been surprised to find that they do not include the Five Nations rugby which we were able to see on Saturday. I am sure that we all have our preferences for different events. We are leaving the Secretary of State's responsibility intact in determining which sports should be included. Today we vote on the principle, not on detail. There is plenty of evidence about what viewers think are the important events, as the survey published over the weekend has shown.
I want to lay to rest one ghost today. We are not trying to extend the list in the amendments. I am sorry that BSkyB has been scaremongering about that in its briefing document which it gave to Members of this place last week. Contrary to BSkyB's briefing, The Broadcasting Bill and listed sporting events, neither we nor the mainstream broadcasters are seeking to add other events to the list. Nor—this is important—are we attacking the sports' incomes, as some sports bodies have claimed in The Times today.
These events form an infinitesimal proportion of the events which sporting bodies are able to sell. They are able to sell live TV rights, live radio rights, and TV highlights. There is a good market here. Some sports have a commitment to ensuring that the widest possible audience watches their events. That is true of the Olympics. I am delighted that the BBC has secured the rights through to 2008. But the International Olympic Committee has a charter that says that it must ensure the widest possible audience for the Olympics. That is true to the Olympic spirit, but that is unique. No one else has such a charter, ethos, and culture, except perhaps the All-England club.
Today the Committee has the opportunity to correct a deficiency of the 1990 Act. In 1990 things were different. In 1990, Sky had no sports channel of its own—subscription or otherwise. It was its competitor BSB which had the Sports Channel. Sky merely offered Eurosport on behalf of the European Broadcasting Union and showed any big sports it bought itself on its general channel, Sky One. A month after the Broadcasting Act 1990 received Royal Assent, Sky and BSB merged. Some would call it a takeover. After that, Sky had its sports channel, and in 1992 it went onto subscription.

139
No one in 1990 could have forecast that today we would have one broadcaster dominating our sports in the way that BSkyB does. So it is understandable that in 1990 different decisions were taken by this place and by another place. But it is interesting to note that the then Minister in the other place has now changed his mind and believes that there should be regulation.
But today's debate is not about BSkyB or any other broadcaster. BSkyB has done well in expanding coverage of sport. The debate is about the ordinary viewer. About one-in-six households subscribes to Sky Sports, but 26 million viewers watched the 1966 World Cup. As things stand, it would be nice to believe that the market will protect the sports, the viewers and the listeners. But, sadly, we already have cases where satellite channels refuse to sell the rights on to more mainstream broadcasters; for instance, the Ryder Cup has been mentioned. I hope that Members of the Committee will have seen from the weekend's press that the contract for that event stated specifically that the BBC would not be able to show any coverage of that on television. Thankfully, the rights were sold to Radio Five Live. There is the cricket World Cup, and I hope that BBC's bid for rights to BSkyB is successful, but BSkyB was grudging in selling the radio rights, and we are still waiting on the TV highlights.
I urge the Committee not to be taken in by any BSkyB propaganda which states that the BBC did not bid for these events. In the case of the Ryder Cup, it was presented with a fait accompli. The contract stated that the BBC would not have rights. In the case of the cricket World Cup, the BBC's original offer was turned down in the autumn. Its new offer, the same as in the autumn, has been under consideration only because this debate is taking place today and the cricket World Cup begins this weekend.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we must be clear about what the amendment states. It purely extends pay-to-view to subscription as regards events on the list. It is nothing to do with restrictions on Mr. Murdoch; it is nothing to do with highlights; it is nothing to do with consultation about what should be on the list; and it is nothing to do with many other issues that have been raised in the debate. It specifically extends pay-to-view to subscription.
It must be an anomaly that under the current law all eight events could be denied from terrestrial television; they could all be on subscription television. The Government have produced an extremely thorough and comprehensive consultation paper which allows the Committee to consider the issues while the Bill is before it. It has extended the debate and has given us the statistics and information which allow us to discuss the matter in a much wider context. I do not believe that we can debate the amendment without considering the complex matters of the right-holders. After all, we are talking about the rights to broadcast, which is the same as copyright and book-right.
140
We should think most carefully before pressing the amendment today because the Government have said that they will come forward with their views. Can my noble friend assure the Committee today that before the end of our debates on the Bill the Government will come forward with their proposals so that we can discuss them?
Lord Annan: There is only one real issue, which is: do we put the interests of the consumers—that is, the viewers—first? I very much hope that the Committee will believe that we should do that. The second point is that if the proposals contained in the amendment were not given top consideration and the amendment failed to be accepted, I wonder how long the licence fee would last. Surely the licence fee exists to ensure that terrestrial television should be able to show all events of this kind.
Lord Aberdare: I had no intention of speaking in the debate but the noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned my name and the noble Lord. Lord Wyatt, took up the point. Perhaps I should put the record straight. My comments are related to the claim by BSkyB that all the £400 million-odd which has been put into building magnificent new football stadia came from its sources. That is not true. My organisation, the Football Trust, of which I am happy to be chairman, subscribed approximately one-third of that money and it is proud of what has been achieved. It is also most grateful to the Government because, indirectly, that money comes from the reduction in the football pools betting duty via the football pools companies. The remaining two-thirds came from the clubs, which are deserving of considerable praise as regards the money that they have given, and no doubt they were helped to a large extent by the money that they received from BSkyB. That is the situation in reality.
Perhaps I may add that I came into the Chamber today not having made up my mind about the amendment but being unconvinced and undecided about what to do. However, from what I have heard I find the case for the amendment very convincing.
Viscount Caldecotes: There is little more to be said in favour of the amendment, but I wish to make one point that has not yet been made. The issue is in danger of being seen merely as striking a balance between the financial benefits to sport and an excessive monopoly which is detrimental to the public interest. However, there is more benefit from sport than money. The public have given enormous support to sport, and without the expansion that the public have helped to generate there would not be nearly so much high-quality sport to be televised. The Central Council for Physical Recreation states in its briefing:
"Attempts to impose new restrictions on the thriving commercial market in televised sporting rights are likely to have a substantial negative impact on British sport".
I do not agree with that. The vital issue is to give the greatest possible opportunity to everyone, in particular the young, to watch sport on TV. That is also in the best interests of sport and of improving the quality of life in this country.
Lord Donoughue: It is not flattering the Committee to say that this has been a marvellous debate and that we have had fine contributions from all sides. As a signatory to the amendment, I believe that nearly all Members—and I almost include the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt—one way or another ended up on our side.
I do not wish to make a long speech, but I shall try to focus on the points that have arisen. As was said in a nutshell by my noble friend Lord Callaghan, the central issue is to ensure that the nation can watch national sports and that no minority monopoly can shut out 85 per cent. of sports lovers. Accordingly, the amendment is based on the 1990 Act. The Minister, putting that Act through another place, stated his support for our amendment.
The amendment is not intended to ban sports from Sky television. It bans monopoly, whether it is Sky or terrestrial television. That is most important. The amendment is not against market forces. I am not against market forces. I believe that I am the only former member of the London Stock Exchange ever to sit on this Front Bench. I am certainly in favour of market forces. All will be free to bid non-exclusively for live coverage, for highlights, for news extracts. A later amendment covers the question of highlights.
The amendment is against monopoly control and its possible potential practices. Action taken today by the Director-General of Fair Trading, which I need not go into in detail, reinforces our anxieties. I should be surprised if the Government wished to extend the listed events into waters which potentially contain such practices. I have a copy of the Ryder Cup contract which illustrates how the public can be shut out.
I am not against sports receiving a fair return from broadcasting rights. A few sports governing bodies—and it is a few—are taking what I believe to be a short-term, money-only view. Not all, I may say. Today I saw that the Football Association made an excellently balanced statement. However, it is not in the long-term interests of sports to offer broadcasters what will ultimately be monopoly rights. It will be a monopoly because, as has been said, if the BBC and ITV do not receive a share of the sports rights they will shrink and will not have the resources to compete. When all the sports are in that monopoly cupboard the payments will be cut, because that is normal monopoly behaviour.
It is not in the interest of sports to shut out 85 per cent. of their supporters; to shut out the pensioners and the unemployed who in good times were able to go to the matches and who might be able to afford Sky television but certainly not the licence, which is 400 per cent. more than the BBC licence. As the noble Baroness said, it is not in the interests of any of us to shut out the youth of this country and to shut out young sportsmen so that they cannot see their good role models.
I now turn to what actually faces us today; namely, the consultation issue and whether to vote. Like the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I must confess that it
142
crossed my mind that the consultation process was a sort of device to bypass this Chamber during the Committee stage. That happened to be my subsequent reaction. But, being a trusting man, it merely hovered a while. It occurred to me that the Bill has been two years in preparation. It was published last year. We had a magnificent Second Reading debate when, as has been said, the Minister made a wonderfully long speech. But there was no time to mention the point of consultation.
Who are they going to consult? Surely they have no need to consult any friends in Sky, or Sky Sport's clients, because their views are fully reflected in the consultation document which has nine quotes from Sky's PR document. In fact, the nation has already discussed the matter and thrashed it out. It has already been consulted and that has shown that 90 per cent. of the nation support our position; as, indeed, do two-thirds of Sky's sport viewers, among whom I am one.
The all-party Select Committee with a Conservative majority has already been consulted and, with that majority, was unanimous in support of our position. MPs in another place were polled over the weekend by MORI. That poll showed that a majority of Conservatives, and an overwhelming majority of all others, support our position. I believe that the Government should consult this Chamber today and not try to avoid it. There is no need for delay.
I wonder why the Government are still apparently siding with a minority monopoly. I would say to the Minister that if he can tell us today that the Government will go away and return with draft clauses or proposals which meet the spirit of our amendments and of what the nation wants, then I am sure that we would sympathetically consider withdrawing the amendment and supporting the Government on Report. Our amendment may be defective, but, as my noble friend said, many defective amendments have been put before this Chamber by the Government.
However, if the Government simply ask us for delay because of some potentially spurious further consultation to avoid the will of this Chamber, then I believe that we should vote to show that we do not like being bypassed; to show our opinion that the nation should have access to televised sport; to show that we are not toothless; and to show that, ironically, on this issue, as on a number of others, this Chamber stands in the mainstream of national popular opinion. I believe that it is our historic role to express our view in Committee and to send it to another place.
5 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: The Government welcome the helpful and high quality debate that we are having on this important issue. Parliament has the last word in this matter and it is, therefore, for Parliament to decide; so a proper understanding of noble Lords' views is essential for us.
This is a topic which quite properly and understandably is of concern to many noble Lords. It is equally so to sporting bodies, to broadcasters, and to

143
the wider public, be they regular viewers of sport on television, occasional watchers, participants, or those children and young people who may be inspired to take part. The Government recognise those concerns and, as I said, we value what has been said in today's debate. We are grateful for the spirit in which the debate has been conducted. Perhaps I may thank noble Lords for their kind personal remarks about me, albeit recognising the fact that they were, normally, a shield for rather more barbed comment about the Government.
I should like to say something about the general issues which are relevant in considering new controls in this area. I shall then turn to the specific amendment that has been moved. But, before I do so, I want to respond to some of the procedural comments made about the Government's position paper which, as has been said, was issued last week.
The Broadcasting Bill before the House establishes new structures for digital terrestrial broadcasting, and sets out a new framework for the ownership of licensed services. Throughout the work that we have done bringing the Bill forward we have deliberately endeavoured to consult widely in respect of the matters that it covers. That process has, I think and hope, been generally welcomed and we intend to proceed with the Bill on that basis because it seems the right way of dealing with such legislation. It has enabled us to be more sure that we have got to the bottom of the issues on which we propose to legislate and that we have taken proper account of the legitimate interests of those affected by them.
The amendments that we are discussing today are entirely distinct from the proposals in the Bill as introduced. They seek to introduce new controls on broadcasting sports rights beyond those in the Broadcasting Act 1990. The issues may look relatively straightforward alongside some of the technical broadcasting matters that we shall debate later in Committee, but, in reality, they are no less complicated for reasons that I shall try to explain. Equally, they affect significantly a wide range of interests.
Hence, just as we did for media ownership and digital policy, we concluded after careful thought that it was right to put out a discussion paper to inform this new debate and to give those whose interests might be affected to their own detriment the opportunity to put their case. Surely that is only fair. It will also improve our understanding of the issues.
We accordingly published a discussion paper last week. It is just that—a discussion paper. It does not advocate any particular proposal. It derives much of its factual content from the Heritage Select Committee Report to the other place in 1994. Within the next fortnight we aim to conclude a series of discussions on it with groups of broadcasters, sports interests, regulatory bodies and bodies representing viewer and consumer interests. In the light of this, the Government will decide on the merits of proposals for possible legislative change. The timetable is compressed. That is because sports rights did not form part of the Bill as introduced before Christmas. We are proceeding with all possible speed, and I plan to make clear the Government's
144
intentions as to how they mean to proceed no later than Report stage. We will clearly need to take full account of opinions aired in this Chamber today, and shall do so. That will provide the basis for plenty of fuller discussion and debate.
I can specifically reassure Members of the Committee that that process is not intended to cut across parliamentary debate, but to assist it. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton for his kind comments in reference to the remark about "a grubby manoeuvre". I was so busy working on problems relating to free-to-air broadcasting that I did not have any time to listen, so I was not actually aware of those comments.
I really believe that what we have done does not raise constitutional issues which damage, demean or in any way impugn the role played by this Chamber. On the contrary, I can assure Members of the Committee that today's debate will be a very significant contribution to our thinking. Noble Lords will have ample opportunity to return to the matter on Report and beyond, and to do so on the basis of fuller information on the implications of action in the area and of the Government's intentions. In short, further consideration of these matters can only increase noble Lords' input on this aspect of the Bill and our scope for influencing this matter for the best.
However, as we all know, there is increasing and understandable public concern that the next stage in the development of subscription television could pose a serious threat to the ability of terrestrial free-to-air broadcasters to provide coverage of key sporting events—those which have a wider resonance than just to the committed fan. In considering how to respond to those concerns, we need to reflect on and accurately and precisely analyse the complex and changing balance between the interests of the sporting bodies, the new cable, satellite and digital terrestrial television services, the traditional broadcasters, the general viewing public's wishes and aspirations and the interests of those who participate. In particular we must ensure the interests of the disadvantaged, the disabled and the least well off are not lost sight of.
It is clear, however, that the development of subscription television for sport alongside terrestrial television, whatever problems it may pose, has had some beneficial effects. Significantly increased income for broadcasting rights has benefited sport at all levels. For example, it has enabled the TCCB, to give but one example, to invest substantial sums in cricket training at grass roots level. More sport is covered on television and in greater depth than ever before because of the development of subscription services which are in turn part of a wider television revolution. Alongside increased provision on subscription services, many major events are still available on terrestrial services. It is worth noting that no listed event covered by terrestrial channels has been lost to subscription television.
There are no easy answers here. If there were, I should already have come to the Chamber with them. We need to find a measured balance between all the interests involved. In doing so we need to assess a number of matters. First, if guaranteed access to sporting events is secured to a particular category of broadcasters

145
through a list as in the 1990 Act, what events should be included in the list, and how should it be altered? Secondly, can guaranteed access to key sporting events on terrestrial channels be secured without undue damage to the ability of rights holders to exploit their rights in the interests of their sports thereby seriously harming the sports themselves?
Thirdly, what might be the effect of any change on subscription broadcasters' ability to develop their industry in the interests of the public at large? This may he an important element in determining the success or failure of digital terrestrial television. Fourthly, how far is any approach compatible with the flexibility needed at a time when broadcasting technology is changing rapidly? Finally, and arguably most fundamentally of all, will any of the suggested changes actually work, thereby delivering the benefits their proponents contend for them? No one should underestimate the legal and administrative technicalities involved, which have to be got right to get it right. That, as my noble friend Lord Whitelaw said, is important. We need to find out more of what are the views of those actually involved and the exact nature, scale and characteristics of the issues and problems involved in order to assess fully and responsibly all the implications for change included in the amendments before the Committee.
I now turn to the amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Howell, Lord Peyton, Lord Weatherill and Lord Donoughue. The amendment is close to one of the possibilities canvassed in our discussion paper and which we wish to see examined in more depth as part of the debate about these issues. In detail we believe the amendment flawed. That does not mean that the idea underlying it is not one which might provide the basis for change.
We fully understand and recognise the concern underlying the amendment. It seeks to give effect to one of the options to which I have already referred. But the issues are perhaps not as straightforward as they appear at first glance. The amendment raises a number of general questions which the debate has left unanswered. It is also not clear that it will work. I am not talking about technical drafting deficiencies—I fully understand the comments made—but about possible major shortcomings leaving loopholes. I cannot see any point in legislation which does not work as it is intended.
Perhaps it would help the Committee if I were to illustrate briefly some of the difficult issues to which the amendment gives rise. It raises major questions as to regulation and enforcement which in turn highlight some general problems. It is proposed that the Independent Television Commission should do all it can to restrict live exclusive broadcast of listed events by pay-per-view and subscription television and to ensure the live broadcast of listed events on television services for general reception. How is the commission to ensure that listed events are included in television services for general reception, not least when it has no regulatory role in respect of the BBC? It has no powers of direction in this field. Nor can it be right that it should have the power to stipulate that a particular channel shows a particular programme at a particular time.
146
It is unclear how any restrictions of the kind proposed are to be made enforceable. Obviously, they cannot apply to sporting events where the rights belong to international bodies and which are negotiated with broadcasters collectively, such as the Olympics. More fundamentally, the controls as proposed could not prevent United Kingdom sports rights holders selling broadcasting rights to companies based abroad and providing entirely lawful satellite uplink services from outside the United Kingdom. That would appear seriously to undermine the value of the proposed restrictions. The amendment would also fundamentally and radically alter copyright legislation in a hitherto unanticipated manner.
As I hope I have made clear, the debate we are having is helpful for the Government, even though the amendment upon which it is hung is one we believe would be positively unhelpful to Parliament in achieving the outcome it wishes. We believe that that outcome can be best achieved by allowing the consultation process to go ahead as I have described. We believe that an amendment of the kind we are discussing can only box the Government in in their efforts to find the best and most satisfactory and workable solution to the difficulties that beset us.
Having heard what has been said this evening, we are now fully apprised of the sense of the Committee and we shall draw that into our deliberations. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that is what the Committee should aim to achieve from this debate.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: The noble Lord has been so helpful in accepting the general view of the Committee that it occurs to me to ask why we should not reverse the normal process in the sense that the Bill has come to this Chamber first. We are the first Chamber to consider it and deliberate it. Why should we not ask another place to act in the way that we are normally asked to act, namely, as a revising Chamber? If there are defects in the amendment, let another place put the matter right after the Government have considered it. Would that not be the sensible way forward if this Chamber is to be given the respect it deserves?
Lord Inglewood: The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, puts forward a sage proposition. It is not inconsistent with what I explained is inherent in our proposals. As I explained, I intend to indicate to noble Lords before Report stage what the Government's position is. That provides opportunities for debate on Report and Third Reading. I am sure the noble Lord is right. This may well be an occasion when it is appropriate for the other place to be the revising Chamber. I am delighted that we seem to be at one on that important point. If those noble Lords proposing the amendment bring it to a vote, I urge the Committee not to support it. We believe that to do so would reduce rather than increase the likelihood of successfully resolving what by any standards is a difficult and far from straightforward conundrum.
Lord Howell: I shall speak briefly because the debate has spoken for itself. I shall say little about the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, except to say

147
that the 300 organisations represented by the CCPR, which he mentioned, were certainly not consulted. The people mentioned in the letter to which he referred were involved in spectator sports. I am grateful to the Minister for his normal great courtesy. Indeed, I am grateful to all the Members of the Committee who have spoken.
The Minister, with his great charm, placed before the Committee what is really a most ludicrous proposition; namely, that he can consult everyone in a fortnight and return to this Chamber with the results of that consultation, not having previously undertaken such consultation. The Ministers's noble friend Lord Astor, who has spoken, was for a long period the Minister in charge of the preparation of the Bill. So why did he not consult everyone before we reached this stage? Why is he only now telling us what we should be doing?
The Minister undermined what he said about consultation over the next fortnight by recounting a long list of matters which he said had to be considered. It is totally impossible to consider all those matters in a fortnight. What about the 30 million viewers who cannot watch sport on their televisions? How are the Government going to consult them in a fortnight? What machinery exists to carry out that extraordinary consultation exercise in a fortnight when that has not been possible in the past 10 years since the legislation came on to the statute book?
I want to say a word about the faulty wording of the amendment to which the Minister drew our attention. If it is faulty, I am sorry to say that it is the fault of the Government because the amendment repeats exactly the wording of the 1990 Act. I was very careful to do that because I thought that I would beat that kind of argument. Whenever I took the field as a football referee, I took care to know what I was doing and who was playing before I went on to the field. That is what we had to do on this occasion.
We are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for being so helpful and charming. However, my noble friend Lord Callaghan wins the day. The sap of the nation is rising. Not only is there anxiety about these sporting events, but there is also profound anxiety about the way monopoly television is going. That is why the nation is asking us to protect its interests and to protest. It is for that reason that we must press the amendment to a Division today.
5.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 223; Not-Contents, 106.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Addington, L.

Abinger, L.

Airedale, L.

Ackner, L.

Aldington, L.

Acton, L.

Alexander of Tunis,E.

148

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Annan, L.

Grenfell, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Grey, E.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hamwee, B.

Attlee, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Bancroft, L.

Hayman, B.

Barnett, L.

Healey, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hertford, M.

Beloff, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Berkeley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Birk, B.

Howell, L. [Teller.]

Blackstone, B.

Howie of Troon, L

Blease, L.

Hughes, L.

Blyth, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Borrie, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Ilchester, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Inchcape, E.

Bridges, L.

Inchyra, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Iveagh, E.

Brookeborough, V.

James of Holland Park, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Caldecote, V.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Judd, L.

Carter, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Chapple, L.

Kimball, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Kintore, E.

Chorley, L

Kirkhill, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Clinton, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cobbold, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Cockfield, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Coventry, Bp.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Craigavon, V.

McConnell, L.

Crickhowell, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Cross, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

McNair, L.

David, B.

McNally, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Marlborough, D.

Desai, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donoughmore, E.

Mayhew, L.

Donoughue, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Merrivale, L.

Downshire, M.

Middleton, L.

Dubs, L.

Milne, L.

Dundonald, E.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Milverton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mishcon, L.

Erroll, E.

Molloy, L.

Exmouth, V.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Ezra, L.

Moran,L.

Faithfull, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkender, B.

Mottistone, L.

Falkland, V.

Moyne, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Munster, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nicol, B.

Gage, V.

Ogmore, L.

Gallacher, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Geddes, L.

Palmer, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Palumbo, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pender, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Peston, L.

149

Peyton of Yeovil. L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

B. Stedman, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Stodart of Swindon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Quinton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Quirk, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Rea, L.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Reading, M.

Templeman, L.

Reay, L.

Terrington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Richard, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L. [Teller.]

Rix, L.

Thurlow, L.

Robertson of Oakridge. L.

Tordoff, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rochester, L.

Varley, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Weatherill, L

Runcie, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Russell, E.

Westbury, L.

Sainsbury, L. St. Davids, V.

Westmorland, E.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Whaddon, L.

Sandwich, E.

White, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Serota, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Sewel, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shannon, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L

Shepherd, L.

Winston, L.

Sheffield, L.

Wolfson, L.

Simon, V.

Young of Dartington, L.

Simon of Glaisrlale, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ailsa, M.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Harvington, L.

Arran, E.

Henley, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Holdemess, L.

Astor, V.

HohnPatricic, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hooper, B.

Barber, L.

Inglewood, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Ironside, L.

Bethell, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Boardman, L.

Kimberley, E.

Bowness, L.

Kingsland, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Knollys, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Knutsford, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Liverpool, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L

Long, V.

Eturnham, L.

Lucas, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Chelmsford, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Coleraine, L.

Manton, L.

Courtown, E.

Marlesford, L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Marsh, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mersey, V.

Dean of Hamtree, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Denham, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Donegall, M.

Mowbray and Stoutton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elles, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Fairhaven, L.

Orkney, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ferrers, E.

Peel, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Goschen, V.

Renwick, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach. L.

Sandford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Seccombe, B.

Halsbuty, E.

150

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Stockton, L.

Trumpington, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Sudeley, L.

Vestey, L.

Swaythling, L.

Vivian, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Swinton, L.

Wakeham, L.

Swinton, E.

Waterford, M.

Tebbit, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wynford, L.

Torrington, V.

Young, B.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
RIGHTS TO BROADCAST SPORTING EVENTS
(". After section 182 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 there is inserted—
"Rights to broadcast sporting events.
.—(1) The Commission and the Radio Authority, as the case may be, shall each have power to direct the holder of exclusive rights for the broadcasting of any sporting event to license rights, on terms that are reasonable in the opinion of the Commission or the Radio Authority, to any person providing a television broadcasting service or a radio broadcasting service for general reception, capable of being received in the United Kingdom for—

(a) inclusion on a sound broadcasting service of a programme which consists of or includes the whole or any part of that event, and

(b) inclusion on a television broadcasting service of a programme which consists of or includes a recording of the whole or any part of that event.

(2) In deciding whether to make a direction under subsection (2) the Commission and the Radio Authority shall have regard to the national and local interest of the sporting event.
(3) If the holder of the rights fails to comply with any direction made by the Commission or the Radio Authority under subsection (2) the Commission or the Radio Authority, as the case may be, shall refer the matter to the Director General of Fair Trading.
(4) Where a matter is referred to him under subsection (3) the Director General of Fair Trading shall determine the terms on which the rights, or any of them, are to be licensed.
(5) In this section—
"national interest" has the same meaning as in section 182; and
"local interest" means interest of persons living in the area or locality of a local sound broadcasting service.".").
The noble Lord said: I am glad to say that Amendment No. 2 will not take up much time. It deals with the subject called "unbundling". I can tell the Committee what that means in one sentence. In negotiations about television coverage the question of highlights has to be divorced from main television. As we have seen as regards one or two events recently, Sky has bought up all the rights, including radio, and is able to stop the BBC from showing highlights. That is wrong. I believe that Sky is beginning to realise that it is a mistake. The issue needs to be dealt with in the Bill. This clause deals with it. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I am somewhat surprised that no other noble Lord wishes to speak to the amendment. As

151
the noble Lord said, it is an interesting subject. As he explained, the amendment brings about an unbundling of broadcasting rights so that a broadcaster with exclusive rights to televise a sporting event of national or local interest will he obliged to license rights to live radio or recorded television coverage to other broadcasting services for general reception if the ITC or Radio Authority decides that it should.
There is one fundamental distinction between this and the previous amendment. The previous amendment might be described as a "bolt-on" to an existing provision in the 1990 Act. Whatever the merits behind the proposal, it is important that we are all clear that this amendment introduces an entirely new concept. It has wide-ranging implications.
We recognise, of course, the concerns with which the amendment seeks to deal. Those Members of the Committee who have read the consultation document will appreciate that the amendment covers what is described by everyone who considers this topic as an "unbundling" approach. It is perhaps a rather loose phrase. However, just as I spoke of a number of technical problems with regard to the previous amendment, similar difficulties of definition, regulation and enforcement apply. The Government were unable to support Amendment No. 1 and, in the same spirit, they are unable to support this amendment either.
If anything, the problems with the amendment are greater because its scope is wider. Indeed, as drafted, all events of national and local interest, actual and potential, are within its scope. By any standards that is fairly all-embracing and it is defined only in the most vague and general sense. I hope that the Committee will allow me to illustrate, rather more selectively than I might have done, some of the problems that the amendment poses.
First, the amendment gives the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority powers to direct holders of exclusive broadcasting rights to license rights to other broadcasters—who may be commercial organisations trading in pursuit of profit for themselves—on terms that the commission and authority consider "reasonable". But what does "reasonable" mean in these circumstances? A subscription broadcaster will have paid a certain sum to a sports rights holder for exclusive coverage. That sum could be considerable. Without exclusivity, the value of the rights to the original purchaser will be substantially reduced. Will he be reimbursed in full? If not, would that be "reasonable"? Could the broadcasters who are to receive radio rights or recorded coverage rights afford to reimburse the original purchaser in full? What would happen if they claimed to be unable to do so?
In the debate on the previous amendment there was quite properly considerable discussion about the place of sport in the national consciousness. However, it is significant that scarcely a mention was made of the financial implications. That matters because, when considering such a subject, they are clearly relevant. Of course the implications were touched on, but how does the market place work? There was no discussion of that.
152
It matters when one goes into the detail inherent in such an amendment and it is at the heart of what we have been debating. The reason underlying the political discussion that we have had is that the terrestrial free-to-air broadcasters, for whatever reason, can no longer afford the price that such rights command in the free and open market.
In any event, how could the commission or authority make an assessment of "reasonable terms"? They are, after all, regulators, with no relevant expertise in the area and there is no elaboration of what might be involved in the proposals. Furthermore, the suggested reference to the Director General of Fair Trading does not seem to us to go far towards solving the problem. His responsibilities and expertise do not extend to arbitration or licensing.
The amendment goes to the heart of copyright law. No longer will a broadcaster be able to dispose of his copyright coverage of an event, he will be obliged to sell that material to someone else. It will be for the copyright tribunal perhaps to settle disputes, but it too would find it hard to define "reasonable terms".
There are further points and one which is particularly unfair in the position of the sporting bodies. The levels and extent of radio and recorded coverage will be a matter of considerable and legitimate interest to the sporting bodies. But the amendment gives them no status in the process whatsoever. In such a state of affairs as we are considering, it would not seem unreasonable for the potential purchaser of exclusive sports rights to be able to establish in advance whether the rights he proposed to acquire might be unbundled. Yet there is no mechanism for establishing that. Surely it is a serious and unjust omission. Moreover, would the provision apply to rights acquired before the coming into effect of that piece of legislation?
I have already referred to problems of definition and enforceability. It would be the height of irresponsibility not to think the issues through carefully before we seek to amend the statute. It has occurred to me that the proposed controls in the amendment could easily be circumvented by a broadcaster who bought up exclusive rights to all but a small part of a sporting event. He could, for example, make available 5 per cent. or even less of an event to other broadcasters on a non-exclusive basis. Then the controls as drafted would not apply. If I, as a comparative layman, saw that possible loophole, surely the broadcasters involved and their lawyers would be infinitely more expert in finding others.
I return to where I started. As I explained, the previous amendment was attached to and inherently connected with an existing statutory provision which has been understood and accepted for some time. What is being proposed here is something quite different and new. We are genuinely entering new territory. The point is relevant; we have been concerned about it and have raised it in the discussion document to which I referred earlier. I urge the Committee carefully to consider the important and fundamental distinction between this proposal and the previous one that we debated earlier this afternoon.

153
We need to think the issues through with great care and to consider their implications fully. In conclusion, I must say that it is somewhat of a surprise that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, moved the amendment so quickly on an important issue, not merely because the amendment is significant in itself in what it might achieve but because of the much wider legal implications that are inherent in it.
Viscount Astor: I believe that all Members of the Committee would agree that recorded highlights are extremely important with regard to subscription or pay-to-view television. We would also all agree that those highlights should be made available to terrestrial broadcasters or any other broadcasters on fair and reasonable terms. That must be common sense. It is a bonus for the subscription channel. Interestingly, at the moment BSkyB currently makes highlights available but the BBC does not always do so. The amendment does not take the BBC into account at all. It seems to me that, if we are to consider this important issue, it must be done in an amendment which covers the whole of broadcasting and not just one part. The amendment covers merely the commission—the ITC—which is not responsible for the regulation of the BBC.
To say the least, the amendment is complicated and the noble Lord did not explain how it would work. He simply said that it concerned bundling. However, it is not about bundling but about unbundling, so far as I understand it. We should not suddenly have the amendment whistled through the Committee on the back of the noble Lord's earlier success. I hope that we can consider it as a separate matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, has raised an extremely important point, but the amendment goes nowhere in dealing with the issue. He should think again and come back to your Lordships' House with one that works.
Lord Elton: One does not often in Committee have to rely on the Government to explain the workings of an Opposition amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will forgive me if I ask him to be a little more specific about what he intends to be the effect of the amendment, apart from the obvious lacuna pointed out by my noble friend.
The release of one of the bundles is directed to,
"any person providing a television broadcasting service or a radio broadcasting service".
Is the intention of that proposal that the authority shall direct that the company that has the licence shall make a sub-licence available to all the other participants in the medium, or is it to a particular participant? In either case, how will the price be decided, since there obviously cannot be an auction? Either it is released to all simultaneously or to one company on its own. Merely to propose this because the Committee is in a good mood with the noble Lord and has approved all that he said before would be a mistake, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said. It is an entirely different matter and I wish to know what the noble Lord is after.
Viscount Chelmsford: As I understand the amendment, it applies solely where there are exclusive
154
rights. Dealing with the previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that his amendment denied any exclusive rights. If the amendment which the Committee passed is correct and there are no exclusive rights, then the whole of this amendment falls. In fact, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, as I tried to say before the Committee voted. It seems to me that the amendment on which we voted contains nothing to prevent a terrestrial broadcaster from obtaining exclusivity in respect of sporting rights. Had I been able to say that, perhaps the Committee might have voted differently.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lyell: I support the remarks of my noble friend the Minister on this amendment. When I examined subsection (1) I was somewhat chilled by the words. Indeed, the Minister covered most of my comments, and quite beautifully.
I too was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, introduced his amendment so briefly. With his memory, above all of the Government, let alone individual politicians, mingling in sport (not to mention the noble Lord's previous great sporting prowess) he will know that the Government's entry into sporting matters did not always meet with enormous success. I recall the dramas of the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. The Government became heavily involved in 1980 in whether the team should or should not go to Moscow, and whether the 1980 Moscow Olympics should or should not be shown. I also recall the events of 1988, which will no doubt be seared into the memory of the noble Lord, Lord Howell—to wit, the proceedings on the Football Spectators Bill. Events in this Chamber and in another place showed that when government tried to become involved in matters of sport, let alone what is shown on television, they got into very great difficulty.
Subsection (1) contains the kernel of the amendment. My noble friend sets out what is "reasonable". He has also stressed the powers given to the commission, which is no doubt composed of reasonable people. Looking at my noble compatriot, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I think that nobody could be more reasonable than he is. Even he might admit that the powers in subsection (1) are pretty draconian. Perhaps they are not intended to be, but their effect certainly would be.
Perhaps the noble Lord, when he comes to speak, or the Minister, might lay my curiosity to rest on one point. Subsection (5) refers to the "national interest". I have not been able to grasp the definition in Section 182 of the original Act. Does "national interest" refer to the United Kingdom?
Perhaps I may explain matters in this way. Let us suppose that a young Scot does extraordinarily well in a skiing event. To my knowledge only one major international skiing race has been held in Scotland. However, given some good skiing weather, there could be events in the future. The young Scot does particularly well, and the rights to that event have been sold to Sky, to subscription television or to a pay-as-you-view channel. Suddenly, along comes the BBC or ITV—

155
terrestrial broadcasting organisations—and says: "There is great interest in Scotland. We want to cover this event". Will that event be broadcast by BBC transmitters covering Scotland? There might well be no interest in England. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister or the noble Lord will explain.
I have mentioned skiing and "Ski Sunday". It is a minority sport. I declare an interest as former chairman of the Lords and Commons Ski Club. I have been a skier for 23 years, together with my noble friend Lord Oxfuird, who is in the Chair, and with other noble Lords. I believe it was 20 years ago that the BBC introduced "Ski Sunday". One evening I took the step of telephoning the BBC to say thank you for what I appreciated was a minority sport being shown on terrestrial television. The BBC took an editorial view that there was sufficient interest in this particular sport to project it at peak time, apparently between "The Money Programme" and "Rugby Special". I am advised that 10 to 12 years ago the viewing figures were 41/2 million for "Ski Sunday" on BBC 2.
I rang the executive producer this morning. We spoke about the fees and the prices for sport referred to in the previous amendment. He told me that the cost to the BBC, thanks to the European Broadcasting Union, has quintupled over the past 12 years. The BBC is happy to pay that. That just shows what is covered by our £86 licence fee—in this case, a minority sport which only in exceptional circumstances can be practised within the United Kingdom under the scope of this Bill. The BBC needs the facility. I am delighted to tell the Minister and the Committee that the BBC is pre-eminent in this particular sport in the United Kingdom.
That said, I really do wonder whether the proposers of the amendment before us realise the draconian nature of the powers set out in subsection (I). Indeed, I wonder whether they mean what is printed there. I look forward to my noble friend's reply and to any corrections that he may wish to make.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I draw the attention of the Committee very briefly to the distinction between the previous amendment, where it is provided that,
"The Commission shall do all that they cart to ensure",
and the powers proposed under subsection (1) of this amendment, whereby the Commission "shall have power to direct". In effect, that usurps in this context the jurisdiction of the Director General of Fair Trading, which may be invoked only if the holder fails to comply with the direction. That is stated in subsections (3) and (4). These are very serious powers of direction. I entirely support the suggestion that we should give further consideration before accepting such a novel type of power.
The Marquess of Reading: I shall be very brief. As I understand it, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, where a subscription channel holds all the rights to a sporting event that does not appear within the group of eight listed events, the rights to TV highlights or live radio rights cannot be hoarded.
156
We all accept that sports will want to maximise revenues. We have set out a very limited list of events which the nation believes must he protected by legislation to show live on mainstream channels. However, there are many other events which, while not necessarily falling into the group of "crown jewels of sport" are nevertheless important events which people want to see in highlight programmes—for example, "Match of the Day"—or perhaps want to hear on live radio. If there is a powerful media player in the field with deep pockets and a virtual monopoly, that player is in a strong position to say to the sports body: "That's what we will offer and we want all the rights for that amount".
This amendment is necessary. It would ensure that, where a subscription channel has live rights, the rights to highlights or radio rights have to be sold on to other channels with a universal audience. The amendment would not be retrospective. There is no question that existing contracts would be hit. It could help the sports bodies to create a new set of secondary sporting rights. There will be live rights on TV, recorded rights and rights to highlights. There will be live radio rights. No large media owner will he able to tell the sports rights holders, "We will negotiate only if you sell your rights to us". They will be able to negotiate in different markets and extract the highest price in each. This amendment works in the interests of the viewer, the listener and the sports bodies. It is the best long-term bet to stop monopolies emerging. The World Cup Final could be bought by a minority channel and tiny numbers would see it. That cannot be right. The amendment is about events that unite our nation and allow us to share moments defining our culture and our heritage. I hope that the Committee will support the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I Wish to make a comment which I hope will be helpful to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I believe that those concerned with the last amendment have won an important argument. I suggest to the noble Lord who proposed the amendment that enough is perhaps enough for the day. If my noble friend on the Front Bench is prepared to say that he will carefully consider all the issues raised by this amendment along with the last one, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will agree to withdraw the amendment. My name is not in fact attached to it. It raises very complicated issues, to some of which my noble friend has referred.
Lord Inglewood: Perhaps I may intervene. I confirm that we are already considering this matter in general terms and that we shall continue to do so. It is part of what I have described as. the general terms of our discussion paper and is inherent in our considerations.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I agree very much with what was said by the noble Lord who spoke a moment or two ago. I deliberately strayed into this amendment earlier. In some ways it raises issues of equal importance in terms of the public interest. Nevertheless, I recognise that we are in an unusual position because of the failure of the Government—to put it as politely as possible—to deal with the sporting

157
issues when drafting the original Bill. It is left to this Chamber to raise issues, well argued in the long preparation for this Bill and the new BBC Charter. As a result we have a series of new clauses which are very much Second Reading matters.
I wait to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has to say. I should not like the matter to pass from the Chamber without some acknowledgement of how much the issues are in the public interest. Certainly we must overcome any technical difficulties in order to ensure that unbundling—that dreadful word—is very much in the interest of the ordinary viewer of terrestrial channels.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Howell: I apologise to the Committee if it thought I was peremptory in moving the amendment. I was trying to help the Committee. It was being urged upon me from all sides. "Get on with the vote." I rise now in a spirit of conciliation. As a football referee, I have never seen the need to play extra time when the match is won. That is the position at the moment.
I must ask the Minister to be more specific. Has no thought been given to the issues? We were told by the Minister and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that there was need for these matters to be thought through. Of course. That is what we have been doing. But it is not what the Government have been doing. We have been thinking the issues through. We have done that because of the Ryder Cup and the cricket World Cup. The knowledge that Mr. Murdoch wanted to prevent the highlights of those events appearing on BBC and put it in the contract should have stimulated the Government, as it stimulated the Opposition, to think the matter through.
I agree the issues are complicated. I was impressed by what the Minister said about the rights being sold overseas and then beamed back to this country. We seek to provide that the rights to live TV coverage, recorded coverage, and live radio broadcasting—it is important to include that—are sold separately and to prevent hoarding of material a broadcaster cannot use himself. That is what happened with the Ryder Cup. It is what was going to happen in the cricket World Cup until we tabled the amendment. As I said earlier, we have managed, in the case of World Cup cricket, to get Mr. Murdoch to sell to the BBC at a price he turned down two or three months ago. That is a significant advance. I do not in any way want to suggest that we should not take note of it.
I am advised that the proper place to decide the price, if there is a difficulty, is the copyright tribunal. I do not feel that the Minister or anyone else could object to the word "reasonable" appearing in an Act. In the 40 years I have been in Parliament I must have passed hundreds of Acts referring to reasonable people or reasonable men. If reasonable people do not agree, they go to the copyright tribunal.
The Minister wants to know the price in the market place. Mr. Murdoch and the BBC decided that this weekend in the case of World Cup cricket. They said that the price in the market place was £1 million. That was agreed. So it is possible for reasonable people to reach a sensible conclusion about the price.
158
I accept what the Minister said. There are difficulties. If he will give an undertaking, in a word or a nod, that at Report stage or on Third Reading he will take on board all the points we intend in this amendment and all the things which came out of the last amendment—in short, that the Government will seek to secure for this Chamber what it wants to achieve—I shall be happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Inglewood: I am sure the Committee will understand that I am not in a position to give the kind of commitment described by the noble Lord. However, I can assure him that I shall come back, as I described in my speech on the previous amendment, and make the Government's position absolutely clear before Report stage.
Lord Howell: That is not very good. However, in the knowledge that we can come back and move the amendment again if the Government are in default on a matter where I judge the whole Chamber is with us, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 3:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
HOLDING OF LICENCES: RESTRICTIONS ON INVOLVEMENT IN
ADMINISTRATION OF SPORT
(".—(1) Sections 5 and 88 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 are each amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a), after "who" insert —
("(i) is involved, or any of whose employees, agents or representatives is involved, in the government or administration of any sport in respect of which he is the holder of any exclusive broadcasting right, or
(ii)".
(3) At the end there is inserted—
"(8) In this section "exclusive broadcasting right" means any contract or agreement providing for the exclusive right to include in a broadcasting service any programme which consists of or includes the whole or any part of a sporting event, or of a recording of that event.".").
The noble Lord said: I shall not trouble the Committee too long. The amendment raises an important principle. I do not intend to press it to a vote, but I want to raise the issue. More and more the question of the executive duties of television companies dealing with subscription channels and the duties of executives dealing with sport are becoming interlocked. I find it increasingly difficult to know whether some sporting executives speak on behalf of their sport or on behalf of Mr. Murdoch. It happens the other way round, too, as we have all experienced in the past week or two.
The amendment seeks to declare what I believe to be a very sensible principle; namely, that the management and representation of television companies when negotiating with sports bodies about television rights should be separated from the management and governance of the sports concerned. That is what the amendment seeks to do. It seeks to assert that principle. Sport should be divorced from television when negotiations are under way; otherwise there is conflict of interest.
Having stated the principle we seek to uphold and in the hope that the Minister will have some sympathy for the principle, if not with the wording, of the amendment, I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has really thought this amendment through. I know that one of the main interests of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is racing rather than sport. The amendment would particularly affect SIS. That is a broadcasting service in which the Racecourse Association is a shareholder. The amendment would prevent that kind of thing in the future and that may be damaging. I do not see why a sporting organisation cannot at the same time have some form of right or share in broadcasting. The amendment seems to me to be utterly unnecessary and ties up the open market with a whole lot of unnecessary regulation.
Lord Inglewood: I am sure that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, seeks to deal with what can be a real problem in certain circumstances. No one can object to the sentiment underlying his remarks. Clearly everybody opposes those conflicts of interest. However, if impropriety occurs, that becomes a matter for the criminal law. It is for the sports rights holders themselves to take adequate measures to ensure that no such conflicts arise for their negotiators, and that is probably not a suitable matter for legislation.
To touch on the points raised by my noble friend Lord Astor, he is right that the amendment may prevent the development of new television services by sports bodies which would profit from the new digital opportunities to provide a wider range and higher quality of coverage for viewers. That is not a fanciful suggestion. I read in the newspaper only a few days ago that that was being proposed. We must therefore be careful, when thinking about such a proposal, that we do not end up throwing the baby out with the bath water; that is, damaging the potential of the digital world into which we are moving while trying to eliminate and excise what is obviously an abuse and indeed a crime where it occurs.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for bringing the matter before the Committee.
Lord Howell: I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that the amendment is necessary. There have been cases, though not in horseracing, when one wonders whether the people making speeches on behalf of sport are in fact making them on behalf of subscription television. That is unfortunate.
I was seeking to find a clear dividing line. The Minister kindly says that he understands what I am trying to do and will presumably ask his advisers, and others, to look at the matter in detail. I trust that he will be in communication with us in that process so that when we reach Report stage we have an agreed approach to the problem. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 4:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR BROADCASTING AND SPORT
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a committee to be known as the Advisory Committee for Broadcasting and Sport.
(2) The Committee shall consist of—

(a) a Chairman appointed by the Secretary of State, and

(b) fourteen members appointed by the Secretary of State representative of the interests of—

(i) broadcasters,

(ii) sporting bodies, and

(iii) viewers of and listeners to broadcast services.

(3) The Committee shall—

(a) review such matters relating to the broadcasting of sport as it considers appropriate, and

(b) consider any matter referred to it by the Secretary of State,

and shall from time to time report and make recommendations to the Secretary of State.
(4) Any report or recommendations made under subsection (3) shall be laid before Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 seeks to help the Government. Under the 1990 Act the way in which listed events are decided is that the Secretary of State must consult and then he can sit down and make an order. The matter does not even have to come back before Parliament. That cannot be satisfactory.
I assume that, from time to time, especially when digital television is in full flow, Ministers will want to make orders. For example, as I said at an earlier stage today, if the new chairman of the BBC thinks it right to go down a pay-as-you-view road with one of the new digital channels, and provided the cost is reasonable to all those whose interests are protected and who cannot afford Sky, then it would be sensible for us to consider the issue again. However, there is no machinery for the Secretary of State so to do and I have just had a cockshy in trying to provide some with the amendment.
Again, I shall understand if the Minister says that I have left out a lot of interests. I hope he does not say that. I have included,
"broadcasters … sporting bodies, and … viewers of and listeners to broadcast services".
That seems to cover everybody, and if everybody can be properly consulted so that the Secretary of State can reach a conclusion and bring the matter before Parliament, that would seem to be an eminently satisfactory way to proceed. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be as conciliatory towards Amendment No. 4 as he and I have been towards each other in the past few minutes. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It seems to me, as a small verbal point, that the first paragraph under which the advisory committee is named, is wrong. It would not be an advisory committee for broadcasting and sport; it would not be an advisory committee for vast areas of sport; it would be an advisory committee for broadcasting sporting events.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his intervention and to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for explaining his proposals. I recognise the spirit in which the amendment is moved.

161
I must admit that I remain to be convinced of the overriding need for an advisory committee and have doubts about the remit and added value that it may have, not forgetting the problems of cost and bureaucracy. However, we are prepared to consider the issue further. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howell: What an extremely helpful intervention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 5:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
CERTAIN EVENTS NOT TO BE SHOWN ON PAY-PER-VIEW TERMS
(".—(1) Section 182 of the 1990 Act is amended as follows—
(2) In subsection (1) after the words "Part I of this Act" there shall be inserted the words "or in any such service which requires payment to receive or view that service".
(3) In subsection (2) after the words "or the Welsh Authority" there shall be inserted the words "or in any such service which requires payment to receive or view that service".
(4) In subsection (3) after the words "national interest" there shall be inserted the words "and importance".
(5) In subsection (4) for the word "subsection" there is substituted the word "section" and after words "national interest" there shall be inserted "and importance".
(6) After subsection (7) there is inserted —
"( ) In drawing up or revising such a list as is mentioned in subsection (3) the Secretary of State shall have due regard to the representations made to him by those he has consulted, in particular—

(a) in relation to a particular event, the representations of the person from whom the rights to televise the event may be acquired as to the financial consequences of being included in, or omitted from, the list; and

(b) whether, in the event the relevant event is included in the list, the whole of the relevant event will be included in any television broadcasting service referred to in subsection (1) or (2)".").

The noble Viscount said: I tabled Amendment No. 5 in an attempt to allow the Committee to consider what events should or should not be on the list. We have had debates already in regard to protecting the list from subscription as well as pay-to-view television and on highlights. However, we have not looked at what should make up the list.
In that regard we are faced with two conflicting problems. I believe that, fundamentally, the Government should not interfere with intellectual property rights, whether they are sporting rights, broadcasting rights, book rights, music rights or any other kind of rights. I do not believe either that the public have some sort of divine right to watch sport on television. It is not a right; it is a service. Having said that, it is true that the service has become an accepted custom; but it is not a right any more than that one has the right to march into a football stadium and watch a match for free.
The Government made the right decision when they established the list under the 1990 Act. There are some events which the public should be able to see on free-to-air television. They are national events in which the nation has a stake. The difficulty is how to define what is a national event. What is it in which the nation has a stake?
Those events should involve a national team—for example, Test matches and football World Cup finals. That does not necessarily mean that any sport involving a national team should be on the list. There are also national events like the Derby and the Grand National that are currently on the list and have nothing to do with the nation competing. The public enjoy watching them. We must consider whether or not they should be included on the list. Fundamentally, it should be up to the racing organisations to decide.
It is important that, where events are to be included on the list, proper safeguards are installed to protect sporting interests. At the very least the Secretary of State should consult the sporting bodies concerned and take account of any possible loss of revenue that may occur as a result of being on the list. Also, an event should not be included on the list unless the whole event cannot be broadcast live. We had discussions earlier today in relation to the Ryder Cup. It seems to me to be distinctly pointless to add such an event to the list because, when it was on the BBC, one saw only a tiny proportion of it. When it was on subscription television we were able to watch the whole match in its entirety. In such a case, it should not be included on the list. However, the BBC should have the opportunity to show the highlights and those problems are then solved.
We have had a good deal of debate about the broadcasters, but I sometimes wonder whether we are picking up the wrong end of the stick. Should we be regulating the sporting bodies and not the broadcasters? After all, it is they who own the rights and they sell the rights. They operate in the best interests of the sporting bodies but that does not mean to say that they necessarily get the right deals. They all have different needs. Not all of them want to sell to the highest bidder. Wimbledon and the Olympic Games are good examples of where the organisations concerned made sure that the event was sold so that it could be seen on free-to-air terrestrial television. Football had a different view and it has done very well out of it. Ten years ago football was getting just over £6 million for its rights. Now it is getting 10 times that amount. However, we must get the balance right.
My amendment attempts to look at how we should define what is on the list. It is purely a probing amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend for publishing the consultation document, which will allow us to consider all these issues in some detail. I move the amendment in order to give my noble friend a chance to reply if he has anything to say to it. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: For clarification, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether he was also speaking to Amendments Nos. 230 and 233, with which his amendment is grouped.
Viscount Astor: They are grouped, but they are not my amendments. I have to confess that I have not read

163
them with as much care as I might. But if anyone else wishes to speak to them with my amendment, they certainly can.
Lord Donoughue: We have not much to say on this amendment because we feel that what happened earlier on this subject rather pre-empts the field. We take that as the position. I was interested in a good deal of what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, had to say. There was a great deal of sense in it. We have to look at the nature of the list. Indeed, on this side, we have already made a commitment that when in government we shall review the list. That is not a commitment to add or subtract, and in a later clause we have a proposal for a committee to be consulted and for the Secretary of State to consult in order to make sure that the sports do not feel they have to campaign on issues like this because they are excluded and are afraid of being there at the whim of the Secretary of State. They will have a right to express their view, as will the broadcasters and the public as well.
There are number of wider issues here which require consideration. However, on the basic issue of national access to national sporting events, the Committee has spoken.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor for raising these points. As he said, and as was reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, these are important matters and they bear proper investigation and inquiry. These are the kinds of matters which we are, inter alia, planning to examine in our process of discussion and consultation.
I concur with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. The Committee has made an important decision on the list and listed events. That has pre-empted a considerable amount of debate that could have been held profitably on my noble friend's amendment. I should merely like to thank him for raising these matters which we believe are important and into which we shall be looking.
The Earl of Halsbury: A suggestion occurs to me after listening to all the debates so far. The sudden upsurge of interest in the amendments before us this afternoon finds the Bill in a rather immature condition. That is why the Government published last week Broadcast Sports Rights: Informing the Debate. It occurs to me that, as an alternative to Report Stage and Third Reading, which are inhibited by the fact that no one can speak twice and so the cut and thrust of debate is not there, the noble Lord might consider that we re-commit this part of the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House after he has had the opportunity to organise the Government's thoughts on it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I support that suggestion. I was wondering how the next stage of the Bill could be taken. It is necessary that it should be taken under conditions of flexibility, with the kind of conditions one has in Committee but not at the later stages of a Bill. As, my noble friend the Minister has undertaken to produce the Government's views in a clear way at the
164
next stage, surely we want to see that the next stage is a re-committed Committee stage rather than a Report stage.
Baroness Trumpington: Great note will be taken of both noble Lords' remarks. However, it is not for me to say. It is a matter for the usual channels. We are of course anxious to get on with the passage of the Bill.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for what they have said. These are important matters. I look forward to the Government's announcement after their consultation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil s had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
IMPLEMENTATION OF PART (LISTED EVENTS AND SPORT)
(".—(I) This Part, except for this section, shall come into force on the expiry of a period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed; but this is subject to the following provisions of this section.
(2) Before the expiry of the period mentioned in subsection (1), the Secretary of State may consult the Director General of Fair Trading and representatives of—

(a) broadcasters, including the BBC, Channel Four Television Corporation and S4C and any holder of a licence under Part I or III of the 1990 Act;

(b) sporting bodies, including governing bodies of sports; and

(c) viewers of and listeners to broadcast services, about the implementation of this Part.

(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report of any consultation undertaken under subsection (2), and the report shall contain details of—

(a) the consultation undertaken;

(b) any representations received as a result of that consultation; and

(c) any proposals which the Secretary of State may have for the amendment of this Part in the light of the representations.

(4) In giving details of the representations referred to in subsection (3)(b), the Secretary of State shall not disclose any information relating to a particular person or business except—

(a) with the consent of that person or of the person carrying on that business; or

(b) in such a manner as not to identify that person or business.

(5) Subsection (1) shall cease to have effect if, before the expiry of the period mentioned there and following the laying before both Houses of Parliament of the report mentioned in subsection (3), both Houses of Parliament resolve that it shall cease to have effect.
(6) If both Houses resolve that subsection (1) shall cease to have effect, the Secretary of State shall, within a further period of three months beginning with the day on which the latter such resolution was made, by order amend this Part to give effect to any proposals made by him under subsection (3)(c).
(7) Any order made under subsection (6) shall make new provision for the coming into force of this Part and shall be subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I have said quite enough in your Lordships' House today. I do not intend to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 1 [Multiplex services and digital programme services]:
Lord Desai Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, leave out line 12.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, 1 wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 20. I shall be very brief. As noble Lords will know, the Broadcasting Act 1990 made a distinction between domestic and non-domestic services. That was made to accommodate Sky, which was then transmitting from Luxembourg whereas BSB was transmitting on a UK frequency. Soon after the Act was passed, Sky bought out BSB, since when BSkyB has been transmitting on a Luxembourg channel and the domestic UK frequencies have been auctioned off to very many foreign transmitters. Although Sky News is sent out from Isleworth, we get it on a non-domestic channel.
My amendment says that to carry forward that domestic and non-domestic distinction into the 1995 Act does not serve very much purpose. Let us have a level playing field and let us abolish the distinction between domestic and non-domestic transmitters. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for expanding on the amendment and for his remarks indicating that he is anxious that the distinction between a domestic and a non-domestic satellite licence should be abolished.
As the noble Lord pointed out, it is the case that the non-domestic satellite licence relates to a broadcaster who may be operating from within the jurisdiction but who is actually broadcasting down part of the spectrum which is not in the UK's allocation. That is a clearly a very different state of affairs from the broadcaster who is broadcasting on a domestic satellite licence where both the business is established within the jurisdiction and the enterprise itself is using a spectrum which is part of the UK's allocated spectrum.
Against that background, there is a fundamental distinction between the two economic activities which are going on because of the fact that in one case the broadcaster is using a spectrum which, if I may put it this way, is within the gift of the United Kingdom while in the other the broadcaster is using a spectrum which belongs to another country; often another member state of the European Community. Where one has a material distinction of that kind there is a very good case for keeping the two categories of licence.
Lord Desai: I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks. I am trying as much as the noble Lord to find my way around these rather technical issues. I made the point that UK frequencies have been sold to foreign transmitters as Sky has already sold the UK frequency on which BSkyB is to transmit, to Swedish, Norwegian and Malaysian interests. The Sky broadcasts that we receive here are on the non-domestic channel.
it may be that we shall need to look at this matter very carefully because in the globalisation of the communications industry the domestic and non-domestic distinction is either redundant or it will
166
have to he made much more carefully. The best thing is to remove the distinction. But pending further thought on this matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Meaning of "independent analogue broadcaster" and "qualifying service"):
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 22, leave out subsection (2) and insert
("(2) Subject to subsection (4), in this Part "qualifying service" means any service which

(a) is provided by an independent analogue broadcaster falling within paragraph (a), (c) or (d) of subsection (1) who has notified the Commission, within the period of one month beginning with the commencement of this section, of his intention to provide a service specified in subsection (3) ("the corresponding analogue service") for broadcasting in digital form, and

(b) as respects the programmes included in the service and the times at which they are broadcast, is identical with the corresponding analogue service.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment 1 shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 12, 60, 64, 77, 78, 186, 200 and 202. My first amendment to Clause 2 is one of a number which, taken together, seek to clarify the remit for S4C on its guaranteed digital capacity. The amendments concerned all relate to Clause 2 except the second insertion to line 31 on page 2 of the Bill, the amendment to Clause 25, the first new clause to be inserted after Clause 25, the amendments to Clause 30, the amendment after Clause 66 and the amendments to Clauses 68 and 69.
We are offering S4C a quarter of the capacity of the multiplex being offered to Channels 3 and 4 for it to broadcast its distinctive service for Wales. The simulcast arrangements for all the other existing terrestrial broadcasters, assuming that they take up the offer of reserve capacity, are very simple. They must broadcast in full and, at the same time, their analogue services. However, that does not make sense in the case of S4C. These amendments clarify what is to be required of them.
As I am sure Members of the Committee know, S4C's service in Wales consists of Welsh language programmes during the peak evening period and at other times during the day. When S4C is not broadcasting the programmes in Welsh, which are unique to that channel, it is required to broadcast Channel 4 programmes. But digital will allow Channel 4 to broadcast a full service for the first time to many parts of Wales. Welsh viewers of digital television will therefore be able for the first time to have a choice between Channel 4 and S4C.
That means that there will be no point in requiring S4C to simulcast its full analogue service. That would result in a duplication of Channel 4 programmes which will in any case he available. It is much better simply to require S4C to simulcast those programmes which distinguish its service from Channel 4—that is to say, its Welsh language programmes. That will provide S4C with the opportunity to offer new programmes specifically tailored to the tastes and interests of the

167
Welsh audience, whether in Welsh or in English, and if they wish to repeat existing Welsh language programmes at times when new audiences might be reached.
That is the purpose of this set of amendments. I can, if desired, explain in more detail the specific effect of each amendment, but at this stage I draw the attention of the Committee particularly to the amendment to Clause 25 and the insertion after that clause, which goes to the heart of the matter. The deletion of Clause 25(3)(d) has been called for by many noble Lords and is the subject of an amendment by Members of the Committee on the Benches opposite, as well as by S4C. I am very happy to remove that provision. It was meant to allow the Secretary of State to introduce arrangements of the kind the Committee now has before it, but I accept that the power it would have taken from the Welsh fourth channel authority and given to the Secretary of State was unacceptable. I can assure the Committee that there was never any intention to do more than make sensible provision for its digital service. The insertion after Clause 25 clearly establishes the nature of S4C's digital service and the requirement to simulcast its Welsh language programmes. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Elis-ThomasI particularly welcome these amendments put forward by the Minister. In particular, I thank the noble Lord for his amendment dealing with Clause 25(3)(d) which, as he indicated, was the cause of some concern. I am aware that it is not the Government's intention to intervene with the independence of S4C as a broadcaster or indeed with any of the other arm's-length principles relating to broadcasting. On that basis I welcome these amendments.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: We, too, on these Benches welcome these amendments and thank the Minister for the way in which he has approached them. There are still a number of other issues about S4C that we shall come to individually as the amendments arise. We certainly welcome the amendments that the noble Lord has put forward.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Since the Minister has had a somewhat "up and down" day, perhaps I may give him a little joy by saying that I join with everybody else in thanking him for these amendments.
Lord Inglewood: I am glad that some things I say meet with the approval of your Lordships.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, leave out line 29.
Lord Elis-Thomas moved Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, leave out line 29 and insert—
168
("(b) the S4C service referred to in Chapter VI of the 1990 Act as amended by section (Television broadcasting by Welsh Authority) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be convenient to speak to Amendments Nos. 173 and 174 although they are not formally grouped. I am anxious to give the Minister a little further happiness this evening. This group of amendments relates to a broader issue, which is the capacity of the Welsh fourth channel to undertake additional services to the specific digital services which are specified in the Bill. I refer in particular to the central section of Amendment No. 173 which inserts subsection (1) in place of Section 57 of the 1990 Act.
I draw the attention of the Minister specifically to the changes set out in the amendment as regards the high quality of reception primarily in Wales. That will technically enable S4C to broadcast on satellite. The other subsection (1A) refers to,
"such other services as may be licensed under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 or 1996 subject to their obtaining the appropriate licence".
Were that to be accepted it will enable the authority to undertake other commercial services under the ITC or the Broadcasting Acts. The purpose of these amendments is to raise the issue of the remit of S4C in terms of the other delivery mechanisms. It may well be the case that digital terrestrial coverage in Wales, certainly in its early period, is likely to be patchy. Therefore, it is important that viewers receiving digital terrestrial services should not be limited to those within reach of the main transmitters.
At Second Reading I raised the question of the 180 separate relays. We do not know the exact coverage. That will not be known until the NTL-BBC-ITC frequency plan is published. Therefore, we need to look at the possibility of a broadcasting authority such as S4C being able to use additional delivery mechanisms such as satellite and cable in order to offer the widest possible coverage of its services. That is particularly important in view of the position of S4C as an authority.
If this amendment were accepted, it would give the authority the right to broadcast on satellite enabling it to reach outside Wales. We estimate that there are more than 300,000 Welsh speakers living in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Indeed, it could enable noble Lords in this House to receive S4C in London should they so wish.
At present S4C is barred from holding an ITC licence which would be required in order to operate through different or additional delivery mechanisms. The amendment would enable S4C to hold such a licence. These issues concern the development of a broadcaster such as S4C in the digital age and the importance of enabling a "minority language" to reach the widest possible audience by the widest possible means. S4C may not wish to hold an ITC licence; it may decide not to take advantage of the satellite broadcasting option. But it is important to have that option available so that S4C does not become merely a terrestrial authority and is able to operate in the broadest context because of its

169
linguistic and cultural remit. There are other issues in relation to capacity and funding to which we shall turn at later stages of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Aberdare: I am pleased to support the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. On this side of the Committee we take great pride in S4C. It was introduced by a Conservative Government and two of our Members played extremely prominent parts, my noble friend Lord Whitelaw who was Home Secretary and my noble friend Lord Crickhowell as Secretary of State for Wales. Therefore, we are very interested in S4C, although I confess that its introduction was supported by all political parties at the time. It has undoubtedly been a very great success. One tends to forget what things were like before it came into being. A great deal of acrimonious argument sometimes broke into violence and civil disobedience. That was all solved by the arrival of S4C in 1980. Since then we have had 15 years of social harmony and a considerable boost to the Welsh language and Welsh cultural traditions. Moreover, a considerable number of independent companies have come into existence around S4C. They make films and television programmes or supply ancillary services. We must be very careful that that development, so favourable to Welsh life, is not damaged by the Bill. It would be a tragedy if the Bill were to affect its future performance or limit its facilities compared with other public service broadcasters. That is what the various amendments concerning S4C, to which I and other Members of the Committee have attached our names, wish to avoid. I am sure that that is supported by all parties. Our one endeavour is to ensure the future success of S4C.
As the noble Lord explained, the amendment is a paving amendment. It amends Section 57 of the 1990 Act. The noble Lord explained it far more lucidly than I could; I content myself with supporting him.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Geraint is not able to take part in this part of our discussions. The winter weather has probably prevented him from reaching us. I am an extremely inadequate substitute. However, I was fortunate enough to be chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority at the time S4C was launched. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in his tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. His active statesmanship in very difficult circumstances was responsible for helping to create S4C. Tribute is also due to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, who played a notable role in its creation.
I can say from my own general experience how much S4C has added to the richness and diversity of the United Kingdom broadcasting scene. A good programming tradition has been built up which has earned an international reputation for S4C and, through S4C, for United Kingdom broadcasting. Therefore, I am very happy to associate myself with what has been said generally about S4C.
From these Benches we support the amendment. S4C is in a very special position within the British broadcasting scene. In the face of very exciting but
170
slightly intimidating technological developments, S4C should be enabled to enjoy on equal terms the possibilities which arise from those developments. As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said, it may not wish to take them up but it is very important in terms of its sense of self esteem that it should feel that it is on equal terms with other broadcasters and that it has available to it those possibilities. We support the amendment and other amendments on the same theme.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: From these Benches we support Amendment No. 11. I am pleased that Amendments Nos. 173 and 174 are being discussed with it because that makes sense. I must confess a previous lack of knowledge about S4C. I have been busily reading therefore the interesting debates which took place on the 1990 Act. I can well understand the need for the heavy lobbying from a small station like S4C. It says that it is doing a good job and, indeed, it is, according to the information I have. Why should it be subject to constraints? It would be sad to hold back S4C. The Bill is about opportunities, broadening choice and taking advantage of the new and exciting facilities which are available.
I wish to speak in particular to Amendments Nos. 173 and 174. Subsection (1A) makes clear that S4C will have to obtain the appropriate licences. It is not asking for a blank cheque to do what it wants. It will rightly have to comply with the provisions of the new broadcasting legislation. But S4C does not wish to be held back or discriminated against. It seeks to avail itself of all the opportunities. It is a small company but it has made a name for itself outside Wales. There is a big question mark as to whether the digital provision made for it is sufficient to allow it to produce the quality of broadcasting needed. If it feels that there is a market for satellite television, it should be able to take advantage of it.
I was pleasantly surprised to be told that although S4C is a Welsh language broadcaster it broadcasts beyond the border. It has been very successful commercially and critically. It has been successful in exporting such programmes as Shakespeare's animated tales and "Hedd Wyn", which was nominated for the best foreign film Oscar. Therefore, it is a small company which has attracted positive critical acclaim and produces good quality television programmes. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the three amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to those Members of the Committee who have spoken so helpfully about the amendment, which, as has been described, would allow S4C to hold licences from the ITC to broadcast extra digital programme services or to broadcast via satellite. I can assure the Committee that I am sympathetic to the need properly to investigate whether anything further should be done to free S4C to exploit the opportunities of digital broadcasting, but that must be done carefully and with due regard to the nature of the remit which S4C has and to the funding relationship between its public service channel and any new service it might introduce.

171
My amendments seek to clarify the nature of S4C's qualifying service, and, as such, meet many of the objectives of these amendments. I am happy to assure the Committee that we shall pursue sympathetically with S4C itself any further issues surrounding S4C's use of digital frequencies. We shall bring forward further amendments if we are convinced of the case. In the light of that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendments.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for the tone and content of his response and to other Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. I well remember the days of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, as chair of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, as it then was, and of the discussions that took place before the establishment of S4C.
As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, emphasised, the issue is a non-party political one, and I am pleased that it is. I am grateful also for the detailed way the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, has pursued the issues of Welsh broadcasting since she has been leading for the Labour opposition on the Bill. I know that that is greatly appreciated. It is matched by the championship of sport by her noble colleague. In the spirit of the Minister's response and willingness to discuss the matter, I shall not press the amendment. We are grateful to him within the authority and the other media organisations in Wales for the way in which his department has continued a long dialogue with the authority and broadcasters. I hope that that will continue, and that it bears further fruit as we progress on the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert—
("(4) If the Welsh Authority notify the Commission, within the period of one month beginning with the commencement of this section, of their intention to provide S4C Digital, S4C Digital shall be a qualifying service for the purposes of this Part.").
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert
("(5) In subsection (2) "programme" does not include an advertisement.").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 65 and 224. My fourth amendment to Clause 2 inserts at the end a new subsection (5). My second amendment after Clause 25 and my amendment to Clause 89 are also part of this story, and I hope that we can take them together.
The amendments are designed to allow the existing terrestrial broadcasters to include different advertisements in their simulcast digital services. We know that getting digital terrestrial television off the ground will be an expensive business. There therefore seems no good reason to stop broadcasters from raising income from the sale of advertising space on their
172
digital services separately from their analogue services, if they should wish to do so. In the early stages of rollout, they may well judge that the digital air time may provide different advertising opportunities for commercials targeted at different groups of consumers. The Bill as drafted would prevent that, and we have taken steps to correct that anomaly.
The amendment to Clause 2 therefore excludes advertisements from the simulcast requirement for all qualifying services. The insertion after Clause 25 provides for Sections 8 and 9 of the 1990 Act (which cover general provisions as to advertisements and the control of advertisements) to apply to any new advertisements included in qualifying services other than S4C Digital, which is covered by the application to it of Section 60 of the 1990 Act by dint of my first amendment after Clause 25. The amendment to Clause 89 simply adds qualifying services, other than S4C Digital, to the definition of a "licensed service". S4C Digital will, of course, be provided without a licence from the ITC by the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority under its powers derived from the 1990 Act. I beg to move.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [General licence conditions]:
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 32, after first ("Act") insert ("or under section 21 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995").
The noble Baroness said: I am moving the amendment in the absence of my noble friend Lord Ashley. It inserts into the Bill a reference to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which went through this place recently. We believe that it is in keeping with the Bill's philosophy of dealing with equal treatment for people. It makes sense to include it, because there is a specific reference to people with disabilities. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I see that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has arrived, and he may wish to support his noble friend.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I wish to support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I have no doubt that she spoke eloquently. She will have explained that the amendment's purpose is to enable the ITC to include conditions which it feels are appropriate in the licences it grants. The amendment draws attention to the duties imposed on providers of services by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It will emphasise to all future ITC executives the need to observe that important Act.
Disabled people have campaigned forcefully for anti-discrimination legislation. They have won some rewards, largely because of the justice of their cause. The Act did not give them all that they sought and all that they desired. We made that clear in this place and another place. It is essential to have something on the statute book to ensure that what is given is acted upon.

173
I hope that the Minister will take that point. That is the main purpose of the amendment to the provisions of that Act. I know that it is an Act of Parliament, but the point of the amendment is to highlight those provisions, especially as they relate to broadcasting.
The key part of the Act is Section 21, which provides:
"Where a provider of services has a practice, policy or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to make use of a service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to other members of the public, it is his duty to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take in order to change that practice, policy or procedure so that it no longer has that effect".
It is important to place that on record in this debate, because we all recognise the importance of broadcasting in our society. I suspect that, if the great majority of people in this country were isolated upon a desert island with their discs, they would choose to take as their luxury item a television set that gave them British television.
Deaf, hard of hearing, and visually impaired people are no different from others. They want to share in the good and bad of television, the serious and the trivial, the sport, the quizzes, the news and the soaps. They want to be part of a world in which what people talk about in the office, pub or shop the following day is what was on television the previous night. Technology now enables them to do that on terrestrial television, thanks to sub-titling, signing and audio description for sight-impaired people.
It is essential that, as technology advances and we move into the digital age, those with a sensory disability advance as well. I wish to conclude by suggesting to the Minister that whether they recognise that the level of provision is deemed "reasonable" is a matter for debate. Later amendments are relevant to that. For now, the principle of equal access for all those for whom it is technically possible should be firmly established. The amendment seeks to achieve that.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for in his customary manner arguing so forcefully the interests of the disabled. It goes without saying that we warmly welcome the Disability Discrimination Act. I am aware that the provisions of the Act, and in particular Section 21, will apply to broadcasters just as they apply to other service providers.
However, I must confess that I see little that would be gained from writing these provisions into the current Bill or into the licence conditions of the ITC's licensees since by definition they apply already to those licence holders. As a general rule, using two statutes where one will do, would seem to be something worth avoiding. I hope that having replied to the matter in the Chamber I have made clear the position and have underscored the rules as they apply to broadcasters. In view of that explanation I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: The Minister will know that deaf, hard of hearing and blind people were anxious for the matter to be raised. The Minister is regarded as one
174
of the most co-operative in the House and in view of what he said I happily beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FAIR TRADING
(".—(1) In exercising any of his powers or duties under this Part the Director General of Fair Trading shall in particular take into consideration whether any situation operates, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest.
(2) In determining for any purposes to which this section applies whether any particular situation operates, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest, the Director of Fair Trading shall take into account all matters which appear to him in the particular circumstances to be relevant.").
The noble Lord said: The new clause is not easy to read but it has great relevance to the issue and is made more prescient by today's developments. It is clear that the Director General of Fair Trading is very important in the regulation of the whole industry in order to ensure, first, that there are no improper practices and, secondly, in order to maintain that the public interest is always secured. That is the intention of the new clause because we are advised that it is not properly secured in the Bill at present.
I do not imagine that it is the Government's intention that the public interest should not be taken fully into account but that is the view of legal advisers and others even closer to the regulatory activities. Therefore, we are trying to help the Government. If they see a way of drafting the provision more helpfully we would be receptive to that.
In order to ensure that the Director General of Fair Trading is legally obliged to consider the public interest in exercising his powers and duties under the proposed legislation it is essential that that should be an express, mandatory, specific requirement of the Bill. That is not to say that the director general will not take into account the public interest. Even without such an express requirement he might decide to do so. Indeed, if the matter went to court it might be construed that it was his duty to do so and was implied.
However, we are advised and believe that it would be helpful to the regulatory authority if the Bill contained an express requirement. All uncertainty would be avoided by making it clear in the Bill that there was a legal obligation on the director general to consider the public interest when exercising his statutory powers and duties.
Requiring him to do that does not mean that he will ignore other relevant considerations. The public interest is only one consideration. Nor does the proposal mean that the public interest will override other considerations. However, as a result of discussions within the industry we are all aware that broadcasting is not an ordinary trading commodity such as hogs or potatoes; it is a special area in which society has a great interest because of the cultural and political significance of broadcasting. Therefore, there is always a public interest and one which might be

175
ignored or betrayed if matters were left only to the market. The market does not have to take into account public interest. We believe that it is not the view of the whole Committee that market forces alone should be involved but that the public interest should be taken into account. We are advised that it is most desirable that there should be an obligation on the director general to take into account the public interest. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. The changes that the Bill presupposes in the broadcasting world, the multi-channel world of digital technology, and the changes in ownership which are also contained in the Bill have created a situation in which the public interest as regards those issues will be significant. At a later stage in Committee I shall seek to move amendments relating to media ownership but I prefer not to lay down percentage rules that are too rigid and to keep as free as possible the circumstances in which the market place can operate. I believe that we should apply to that a rigid test as regards where the public interest lies. In such circumstances, it would frequently fall to the Director General of Fair Trading in the first instance to express a judgment about where the public interest lies. Therefore, it is important to have a description of his duty in the Bill. I do not know whether the wording of the proposed new clause will command the Minister's support but the purpose behind it is important. I am happy to give strong support to the amendment.
Lord Inglewood: I am extremely grateful to noble Lords for explaining their support for the amendment. It is obviously the case that as regards broadcasting the Director General of Fair Trading has no specific duties under the Broadcasting Act. While there might be disagreement about the nuances, there is clear agreement across the Committee that we must deal with this part of the economy in a manner different from the way in which we deal with hogs and potatoes. The Government's approach is that the specific separate controls on broadcasting, the media and so forth, if and when needed, should be policed by the ITC and the Radio Authority and not by the Director General of Fair Trading.
We would be happy to consider any specific proposals supported by argument as to why that might be appropriate. I say that not necessarily holding out hope that the Government might be persuaded that this is a direction in which they wish to move but in order to investigate fully whether there are those who feel that this is a constructive contribution to the way in which the Bill might go. We would like to look at the matter in order to form our own view of the merits of the proposal. It is fortunate for the noble Lord, Lord
176
Donoughue, that we have a consultation process under way and we shall be delighted to hear about the particulars of his case.
Lord Donoughue: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am intrigued to know that one more difficult and technical area of consultation is added to the 132 that have already been taken on board for the next two weeks. I should be grateful if he would pursue the matter. I shall be as helpful as possible and provide him with background material. I think that the provision would be welcome in proper quarters. If the Minister comes back with a proposal at the next stage we will look upon it most positively. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 17:
Before Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
DUTY OF APPROPRIATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY WHEN AWARDING
LICENCE
(".—(1) It shall be the duty of the appropriate regulatory authority when licensing any person or body to operate a conditional access system, network, local delivery service or other service for analogue or digital broadcasting services receivable in the United Kingdom, to ensure that—

(a) there is fair and effective competition in the provision of such services and the access services connected with them, and

(a) viewers and listeners are provided with automatic access to free to air channels and services whether or not those channels and services are broadcast free to air or encrypted.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 18. The future of British broadcasting will be dependent upon the continuing health of Britain's network channels. Network programmes will continue to provide the foundation for Britain's television production industry with the consequent impact for employment and, indeed, for overseas earnings. It will also continue to provide the foundation for audiences continuing to have access to a wide range of high quality output and British programmes being shown on secondary channels. More important, however, is the maintenance of the worldwide reputation of British broadcasting.
The survival of network television in Britain is dependent upon its services being available to a truly nationwide audience. However, in the digital age, programmes and other audiovisual services will increasingly be distributed through a variety of systems. People can now choose whether to buy into the available cable networks. Industry predictions indicate that as many as 30 per cent. of homes will use cable systems to receive television services by the year 2000. In addition, as the use of our telephone system opens up the option of having television pictures down copper wires, more and more viewers will choose to leave the old rooftop aerials and set-top aerials and opt solely for cable and telephony means. Those are healthy developments. We are not trying to push them back. Genuine choice is making many more services available to more viewers. Often the quality of reception is better. We welcome those opportunities. But unless action as

177
outlined in the amendment is taken, both the availability and the future of existing public service channels will come under threat. The erosion of their universality would undermine the basis of the BBC's funding through a universal licence fee and the public service obligations already imposed on ITV and Channel 4.
The issue has been addressed in other countries. The mainstream broadcasters regret that the Broadcasting Bill is silent on the topic. They believe that action should be taken in the UK to ensure that British audiences continue to have universal access to public service channels in the digital age. The proposed amendments reflect a number of important measures. The so-called "must carry" and "must offer" requirements are the ones to which I am talking. They would ensure that access is maintained. The "must carry" measure would apply to public service channels and services on wired systems, and "must offer" would guarantee access to public service channels through gateways such as conditional access —black boxes —on satellite systems.
An interesting situation has arisen for users of cable services in south-east London. Many households have opted to use the cable services provided by Videotron. The area is directly in the shadow of the Crystal Palace transmitter. But local hills mean that the TV pictures received in homes with roof aerials have been of poor quality for many years. Shadowy pictures and poor reception have driven hundreds of homes to choose Videotron in order to obtain good pictures. Up to December 1995, buttons 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the hand control unit enabled people to receive BBC1, BBC2, 1TV and Channel 4, but, in January, Videotron chose to lake Channel 4 off the fourth button and move access to it from within the cable system alone.
Viewers in south London must now find button 40 in order to get Channel 4. Nothing has replaced Channel 4 other than a blank Videotron display card stating that the station is no longer available. That exemplifies the issue. The lack of legal requirements on cable or any other providers to give the mainstream channels priority means that they could drop BBC1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 4 at will and move around access to those channels with no regard to the problems that might be caused for viewers.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 seek to put right a situation which needs clarity and regulation. If the public are obliged to pay a licence fee to receive television pictures, they must have access to those pictures with ease. On Second Reading I alluded to the BBC Charter which obliges the BBC to carry government information at times of war or in a national emergency. That requirement is obvious, necessary and makes sound common sense. If we are to be consistent to that requirement in the charter, then all delivery systems should be obliged to carry and offer mainstream services. The amendments protect the healthy availability of the four terrestrial channels. I urge the
178
Government to accept the principle and the detail of the amendments and to incorporate them in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I support the amendments. They ensure that in a multi-channel environment publicly funded channels are available as a matter of course without viewers having to buy additional equipment. The provision applies to all delivery systems, a most important point.
Two basic truths have prompted the amendments. First, it is far too easy for the legislature to fail to anticipate future developments, especially where technology is concerned. Indeed, some of us are rather frightened of technology; I know that I am. We tend to shy away from it. It is easy for the legislature to look away. Secondly, parliamentary time is by no means always available to remedy omissions. The lesson is that we should play safe on important issues. That is what the amendments are designed to do.
I have to say that the Minister gave a most disappointing response to the noble Baroness when she raised the issue on Second Reading. He said that,
"it is only after an eventual switch-off of analogue that it possible, even in theory, that householders … would be unable to receive the services of existing terrestrial [sets]" —[Official Report, 16/1/96; col. 563.]
The Minister went on to talk about the "strong possibility" of the development of "set-top boxes" which would receive all modes of transmission. Although he said that that was a strong possibility, it is still only a possibility and not a probability. That is an important point. Let us suppose that the development does not take place. Even if it does, what if the owners of cable or satellite decide that it is in their commercial interests to squeeze out the terrestrial programmes? That is very probable because commercial interests come first.
The requirements of "must offer", "must carry" and also of "open access", which are reflected in the amendments, make this a matter of public interest. Such requirements would guarantee that our present terrestrial programmes were available to viewers whatever the future developments and without the need for future legislation. Television has to be paid for in some way or another, but the best bargain of all now —and it is likely to remain so —must be the BBC's programmes when one thinks of the cost of the licence fee. That must remain the basic fixture of television for the foreseeable future. The amendments are about preventing the possibility of any operator squeezing out the BBC, which is the best television bargain in the world.
I know that the Government have not said that they do not want the continuation of current terrestrial programmes. I accept that fact. Nevertheless, the Government are simply sitting on their hands and doing nothing to ensure the future of current terrestrial programmes. I cannot believe that the Government are unaware of the risks. I hope the Minister will look favourably and sympathetically at the amendments.
7 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: As I have added my name to these amendments I wish briefly to express my support

179
for them. They have been admirably explained and I shall not discuss them further. However, I believe it is important to ensure that British audiences can continue to have universal access to public services in this digital age. In the absence of a "must offer" obligation on satellite providers, homes that otherwise are dependent on satellite for digital reception would find themselves paying for, but being unable to view, public funded services. I believe that that matter needs attention.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood in his address at the end of the first amendment talked about a measured balance being required in the competition between the different forms of television. I believe that that is true in this case. I believe that these amendments will contribute to that measured balance for which he is asking and I very much hope that the Government will support these amendments and the principle embodied in them.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The noble Baroness has raised an important matter. I wait with great interest to hear what the Minister has to say. I heard what the noble Baroness said about Sydenham Hill; that is the area from where the television is broadcast that my grandchildren watch.
Something is worrying me that I had not realised could go on. However, I am conscious of the fact that I am in my dotage and that my knowledge of these things relates to the past. I thought the "must carry" rule was firmly applied by the appropriate authorities and I thought that the cable authority was put under that obligation when it was merged into the new ITC. I believed that the "must carry" rule was rigidly applied. I am rather worried by what the noble Baroness said. She has raised an important matter and I hope that the Minister gives us a satisfactory reply to that.
Viscount Chelmsford: I rise merely to ask the noble Baroness where it is stated that the amendments are restricted to public service broadcasting. It looks to me as though they go much wider.
Baroness O'Cathain: My noble friend referred to public service broadcasting. When I considered this whole issue I thought that public service broadcasting comprised just the BBC because that is the body which is publicly funded by the licence fee. However, I realised that the term "public service broadcasting" includes ITV, Channel 4, and will include Channel 5.
Lord Donoughues: We on this side had assumed earlier that this matter would be discussed at a more prime part of the day as it is an issue that we consider to be of considerable importance. I must confess that until the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, spoke on the matter at Second Reading I had missed it altogether. I do not count myself a great expert on the matter but I believe it is an issue of great importance that the "must carry" and "must offer" rules and obligations should be there.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I am troubled that this area might be unsatisfactory and fragile. If we cannot deal with this matter satisfactorily this evening, it is absolutely the kind of issue that we should wish to return to at another point. I hope that the Minister
180
will be able to reassure us. It seems to me that this matter is on a quite different level and scale from many of the important but nitty bitty nuts and bolts that we deal with. This is an important issue.
Lord Inglewood: I wish to begin by making it absolutely clear to my noble friend that the Government are in full agreement with the aims behind her amendment. We want the services of existing public service broadcasters to continue to he available to all of the people of the United Kingdom. Indeed, that is one of the key principles on which our proposals for digital terrestrial television are based. We also want to ensure that the providers of all conditional access, multiplex and other services must provide services in a non-discriminatory manner to all those who seek to use them. This is important because those providers may exercise a "gatekeeping function" whereby broadcasters depend on their services in order to get their programmes to viewers.
I believe that our proposals will achieve both of those aims. If I may, I shall discuss the first of the amendments referring to access to free-to-air channels and to requirements for local delivery service operators to carry public service broadcasters. I shall begin by giving a general exposition of the position and then address some of the particular points that the noble Baroness raised. As I said at Second Reading, analogue terrestrial television services will not be switched off until the vast majority of viewers has acquired digital receiving equipment. Until then, households with television sets will continue to be able to receive the BBC and Channels 3, 4 and 5 in the same way as they do now. Those with digital sets will also be able to receive new services provided via the guaranteed digital capacity which will be offered to all existing broadcasters. And there is, of course, a strong possibility —given the clear consumer interest in such a development I think we may even call it a likelihood —that by the time analogue is switched off the industry will have developed receivers able to receive all three modes of transmission: terrestrial, cable and satellite. Even if that is not the case —and may I remind the Committee that we are probably talking, at the earliest, about the end of the first decade of the next century —and even if some households in the future have access to digital cable or satellite receivers but not to terrestrial ones, there will be every incentive for providers of cable and satellite transmission services to ensure that the public service channels are carried and that no separate charge is made to receive them. In practice, I understood that all cable companies with current franchises currently choose to carry the services of terrestrial broadcasters, without the need for statutory provision. This has been, and continues to be, important for them in gaining customers in their new markets. Indeed, the statutory requirements introduced in the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 were removed in 1990 in recognition of this fact. Certainly, as a deregulatory Government, we would need considerable persuasion to reintroduce that. After all, much more capacity is becoming available on digital cable, and there seems no reason to believe cable companies will not continue to carry the public service broadcasters as long as they continue to produce the quality programmes for which they are renowned. Those channels obviously will

181
be a significant attraction for viewers, so the BBC and other channels have a strong hand. The new cable services will need to carry their programming in order to develop or sustain market share. Indeed, I would not expect viewers to give up their terrestrial aerials unless they are assured by the companies providing other means of reception that they will continue to receive the public service channels. And, in the area of digital terrestrial television, the existing channels will, of course, themselves be given over to multiplex provision.
However, having said all that, I wish to repeat the assurance I gave to the Committee. The Government are committed to monitoring the situation as it develops.
I was most interested to hear what my noble friend had to say about Videotron. I must concede that I am unaware of the detail of the circumstances surrounding this case. I shall obviously want to look into that before returning to that point. If we could follow up that matter it would he most helpful. I have given an assurance that if something appears to require monitoring we should, as a first step, look into what is going on. We start undoubtedly from a position where we are unconvinced by the particular proposals contained in the amendment. However, I hope that the Committee will allow me to look further into the matter that was drawn to my attention this evening.
Lord Donoughue: Before the Minister sits down I hope that he can help me a little more on the matter of the switch-off date. I accept that we are discussing a technology that could take off like a rocket and be with us in no time or could be 20 years in arriving. At some point a difficult decision may have to be taken as regards the switch-off date for analogue. My understanding is that that could happen at a time when a significant proportion of the nation would not have access —or could not afford to have access —to digital services. I understand that the digital multiplexes have varying ranges. Therefore, there may be areas of the nation that were not covered, as it were. Does not that combination possibly lead to a situation in which people will not be receiving these services? All the monitoring that the Minister talks about may not secure those services. Can the Minister assure me that, in view of all the uncertainties, the analogue switch-off will not result in an unsatisfactory situation?
Lord Inglewood: First, in relation to the noble Lord's point about timing and the possible analogue switch-off, we shall come to amendments dealing with that subject later, and therefore I do not want to go into it in detail. However, it is the Government's policy that the matter should be reviewed after five years or when 50 per cent. of households are capable of receiving digital broadcasts, to establish whether that is an appropriate time for a date for analogue switch-off to be determined. I speak from memory, and I hope that I quote policy accurately. It is intended that analogue switch-off will take place only when the same number of households can receive digital broadcasts as can currently receive analogue broadcasts. In general terms, the basic coverage for digital broadcasts should be as extensive as it is for analogue broadcasts.
The noble Lord referred to the fact that some multiplexes will have wider coverage than others. The important point to appreciate within the debate is that
182
those multiplexes which have the widest coverage are those to which the public service broadcasters will be attached. Therefore, it is the public service broadcasters with whom we are concerned in the context of the amendment who will have the widest coverage. Therefore, we believe that the problem that the noble Lord identified will not arise.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I welcome the Minister's assurance about monitoring. However, suppose that in the course of the monitoring the Minister finds that things are going wrong. Can he tell the Committee what he would do and what powers he has to do anything if the amendment is not carried?
Lord Inglewood: The answer to that question depends on what is going wrong. I believe that we can realistically predict with a degree of certainty in this uncertain world that further legislation on broadcasting will come forward with relative regularity. Were it then to become apparent that something was awry, that would be the time to introduce legislation to give effect to the appropriate steps.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank my noble friend for his reassurance that he will look at the matter. He said that if something goes wrong the Government will look at it. I suggest that something has gone awry. Matters began to go awry when the statutory requirement was removed in the 1990 legislation.
My noble friend tried to give me some comfort by saying that the satellite and cable companies are continuing to carry BBC1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 4. However, the Minister conceded that that was what I see as a marketing ploy. That gives me no comfort that that situation will continue. I had discussions with one of the satellite television companies at which I made that very point. When I was asked why I was putting forward the amendments, I said that I was worried about whether the public service broadcast channels would continue to be carried. The reply was, "We will continue to carry them provided we are paid for them". That is not in the spirit of what the Government want.
Monitoring is all very well, but if there were a statutory requirement on the face of the Bill there would be no need to monitor the position because it would become apparent if the requirement was not complied with.
Having said that, I am not in favour of regulation but want as much deregulation as possible. However, I believe that in this case we should have another look at the position. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for saying that he will look at the position again. I hope that he will do so before Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Assignment of frequencies by Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington: It may be appropriate to suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill be

183
adjourned now during pleasure until 8.15 p.m. Would that suit the Committee? We thought that Amendment No. 19 would be moved.
Lord Donoughue: We too thought that Amendment No. 19 would be moved. I believe that we have reached a suitable moment to adjourn. The next amendment to be moved may take a little while. Therefore, it is probably better if, as the noble Baroness suggests, we adjourn until 8.15 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: In that case, I beg to move that the House do now resume and that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.15 p.m.
House resumed.

Agriculture: Health & Safety Responsibilities
7.16 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are the statutory duties of the Health and Safety Executive and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that employers and employees carrying out exclusively agricultural operations are kept informed of, and adequately advised on, matters relating to health and safety.
The noble Countess said: In asking the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest. I have been exposed to organophosphate sheep dip and believe that I suffer chronic ill health as a result.
There are a number of provisions which govern the approval, licensing, advertising, use and disposal of toxic chemicals used in agriculture. The legislation defines the responsibility of the pesticide and veterinary medicine manufacturers, government departments and employers to ensure that those chemicals present no risk to the health of humans, animals or the environment if properly used.
The prime responsibility lies with the end user. It is my contention, and the reason I have tabled this Question, that an individual cannot make a full and proper assessment as required under the COSHH regulations unless he is provided with the information he needs to make that assessment. It is the user's perception of the risk which governs his actions.
OP pesticides are poisons which act on the central nervous system. Of the three which are active ingredients in sheep dips, the World Health Organisation classifies chlorfenvinphos as Class IA (extremely hazardous); diazinon as Class II (moderately hazardous); and propetamphos as Class III (slightly hazardous). Diazinon dips are the most commonly used.
The Farmers Weekly of 7th and 21st May 1965 carried full-page advertisements stating:
"Boots New Diazinon Dip is completely safe",
and,
"Nucidol Diazinon Dip: Proved safe. Proved effective".
When organochlorine dips were found to leave residues in the food chain and the soil, the OP dips which replaced them were promoted as safer and more environmentally friendly.
When MAFF introduced national dipping orders in 1976, farmers were required to dip their sheep once a year until 1985, twice yearly until 1990 and once yearly until the orders were rescinded in 1992. To all intents and purposes they were compelled to use OPs, for of more than 20 MAFF-approved dips only two were non-OP, and they were nearly twice the price of the others.
Farmers' perception of OP dips, conditioned by advertising and articles in the farming press, was that they were safe. Recommendations for protective clothing were minimal. Rubber gloves included in some dip packs soon perished after contact with the phenolic disinfectant. Not until 1994 were manufacturers required to put a skull-and-crossbones symbol on dip containers to warn of toxicity. Dippers instinctively discarded clothing if the weather was hot and wiped sweating brows with dip-soaked arms, for they knew no better. They made no connection between the flu-like symptoms which developed after dipping and the chemicals that they were using, and certainly did not think that the symptoms warranted a visit to the doctor.
When many developed delayed symptoms such as overwhelming tiredness after minor exertion, muscle pain and weakness, joint pain, chest pain with breathing difficulties and sudden mood changes, they began to be concerned. GPs, untrained in chemical toxicology, either subjected patients to batteries of irrelevant tests which proved negative and decided patients were psychosomatics, or regarded them as psychotic. At best they had ME.
As far back as 1951, Solly Zuckerman, later Lord Zuckerman, chaired a working party which investigated the health effects on workers using dinitro and organophosphorus compounds in agricultural sprays. This was before the advent of OP sheep dips. It made a number of important observations and recommendations. These included simplifying labelling and including the words "Deadly poison" in large letters on containers. It said that it was "imperative" that all concerned be thoroughly educated in the dangers and precautions which should be taken when using these compounds. They recognised that there was no material which combined imperviousness to these chemicals while allowing proper ventilation of the body. Most significantly, it found that repeated low level exposures could result in chronic effects on human health.
The Health and Safety Commission is under the duty to,
"make such arrangements as it considers appropriate for securing that government departments, employers, employees, organisations representing employers and employees respectively and any other person concerned with matters relevant to any of these purposes are provided with an information and advisory service and are kept informed and adequately advised on such matters".
Those matters are:
"Health, safety and welfare in connection with work and control of dangerous substances and emissions into the atmosphere".
My first question to the Minister is this. Why did not the Health and Safety Commission consider it appropriate to advise and inform farmers of the inherent dangers of these substances?
The inactivity of the HSC and the HSE in 1988 when a senior employment medical adviser presented a paper to officers of the HSE and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate is unforgivable. This doctor, who encouraged farmers to come forward at a public meeting and through a television appeal, promised to report his findings to the HSE. He described persistent, delayed symptoms in a group of about 40 farmers and MAFF inspectors. He described multi-system involvement typical of OP exposure, uptake and toxicity. He found that a significant route of absorption was by inhalation, as the inspectors would not have had skin exposure. Also, for other toxic substances such as lead and mercury, the HSE correlates uptake with symptoms and does not rely on measurement of an effect in ascribing cause and effect relationships. The measurement of cholinesterase activity, which is affected by OPs, was by this time becoming discredited. Manufacturers' toxicity tests on animals used urine metabolites as a measure of uptake at least since the early 1980s.
Can the noble Lord the Minister tell me why those tests were not recommended by the HSE to GPs and consultants? Much of the literature which discusses symptoms of OP exposure, including the 1980 version of the HSE guidance note MS17, notes the limitations of reliance upon measurement of blood cholinesterase activity to assess uptake.
The HSE again failed to act upon —in fact, it actively suppressed —a field research project conducted by another EMAS doctor, Carol Davison. In 1990 she found that sheep dippers who were wearing protective clothing had metabolites associated with diazinon in their urine after dipping —an indication that the dippers had, despite their protective clothing, absorbed the OP. Both reports were rejected because they relied to some extent on comments made by their subjects, and consequently they lacked scientific methodology. If a patient does not tell his doctor his symptoms or the cause of his injury, how is the doctor to make a diagnosis?
By 1991 there was increasing evidence of ill health in the agricultural community. Self-help groups were receiving numerous requests for help and advice from sufferers and their families. I ask the Minister why no one from MAFF, the Health and Safety Executive or the Department of Health has ever sought to question or clinically examine a group of reported sufferers to substantiate departmental assertions that the symptoms are diverse and attributable to a number of other causes and that there is no evidence that long term, low level exposure to OPs causes chronic ill health?
Further research by the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh in 1992 and 1993 confirmed that OP metabolites were found in dippers' urine whether or not protective clothing was worn. The HSE contracted with the Institute of Occupational Health in Birmingham a study into the neuropsychological effects of long-term exposure to organophosphates in sheep dip. The group had conducted previous studies for the HSE and ICI and
186
its methodology was established. After the contract was made, there were two meetings with HSE staff to refine the protocol. A member of the HSE was on the steering group which monitored progress throughout. This person also represents the HSE on the Veterinary Products Committee. The researchers had no reason to believe that there were any serious reservations about the study by the HSE. I was assured in Written Answers in 1994 that the study was based on good science and that the control group was accepted. The results of this research, published in the Lancet in May 1995 after peer review by an eminent British psychologist and an equally eminent US scientist, received glowing references. The paper has since been accepted internationally.
The researchers found that there was damage to farmers and that there was a dose relationship. Despite all this, the VPC rejected the results of the report in a manner which has been described as disgraceful. Will the Minister state how many members of the VPC have a competent knowledge of neuro-behavioural testing methods and outcomes? Why have the Birmingham researchers not been given the opportunity to defend their integrity in the proper place —the scientific journals?
OPs are now extensively used in agriculture and in domestic situations. There is very little in the literature on the effects on human health of long-term, low-level exposure. We are told that OPs are too toxic to test on humans and maximum levels of exposure are arbitrarily set. We know that different species of animals respond differently to different doses, and yet the results from animal tests are extrapolated to humans. We know that the observed differences in anecdotal reports of human exposure may be genetic or caused by nutritional variations. We know that inhalation is a major route of absorption for many OPs. They are popular because they retain their toxicity to pests for long periods —more than 10 weeks in a lamb's fleece —but we do not know what effect this persistence has on unwary adults and children who may come into contact with them.
We are now in a situation where neither the manufacturers nor the HSE nor the Minister will recommend protective clothing which is both practical and effective. Why is it that, in the face of overwhelming scientific and anecdotal evidence, no government Minister will order that OPs should be available only to licensed users from restricted outlets? Why does the HSE persist in blaming the farmer?
There is a great deal more which needs to be said, but time does not allow. Perhaps I may end with a significant quotation. Dr. T.C. Marrs, senior medical officer at the Department of Health, adviser to Ministers and government committees, and co-author of the current source book Clinical and Experimental Toxicology of Organophosphates and Carbonates said at a meeting of farmers in October 1991, "You don't have to convince me there is long-term damage. I know it". My Lords, why has he not told Ministers?
7.28 p.m.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, I have had brought to my attention recently a number of cases where the Health and Safety Executive does not seem to have conducted

187
field investigations as early as might be necessary to establish the cause of illness which could he associated with misuse of agricultural chemicals. Where it has investigated, there seem to have been attempts to minimise the effect that this misuse might have had. For example, Mr. Richard Bruce of Thorley in the Isle of Wight was ordered by his foreman to empty a spray tank containing what was an unidentified chemical, later found to be pirimiphos methyl which had been standing for several months. After doing this both he and the foreman were unwell and experienced breathing difficulties and severe headaches. Nine or 10 days later, Mr. Bruce was asked to repair the drain in the yard on to which the chemical had been spilled. He worked for a couple of days after that but was obviously so unwell that the foreman told him to stay at home. He has not been able to work since January 1992. His doctors attempted to improve his health, to no avail. They were unaware of the effects of chemical exposure and did not know what tests or treatment should be carried out.
Mr. Bruce contacted the HSE in Basingstoke for advice and information in June 1992. He was told that the new COSHH regulations required the HSE to investigate and that the Employment Medical Advisory Service doctors would help with the tests. At that stage Mr. Bruce did not lodge a formal complaint as he was not absolutely certain that the chemicals were the cause of his illness. Like so many others, he was afraid that he might lose his job and his house. As he had not heard from the HSE, Mr. Bruce contacted PEGS who advised him to ask his GP to refer him to the National Poisons Unit at Guy's Hospital. There, organophosphates were confirmed as the cause of his poisoning and he was advised to complain formally to the HSE, which he did. At no time did the HSE inspectors visit either Mr. Bruce or the farm where he worked specifically to investigate the incident.
There follows a long saga of unsatisfactory contacts extending over three years with the HSE, NPU, the Pesticides Incidents Appraisal Panel, his MP and the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Initially, Mr. Bruce had hoped that the HSE would simply advise his employer how to avoid dangerous practices. He was particularly concerned because the yard was open to the public, including children. When he knew that his illness and inability to work were the result of his exposure to the OP, he felt that he should try to obtain compensation not only for himself but for his family. It is apparent that things started to go severely awry when a High Court writ was issued in November 1994. The NPU withdrew the diagnosis of OP poisoning in a letter to the HSE, copied to Mr. Bruce's GP on 2nd December 1994, while, very strangely, confirming the diagnosis to the Benefits Agency in a letter of the same date. The HSE assured the Ombudsman and Mr. Bruce's MP that they had kept Mr. Bruce fully informed at all stages. Mr. Bruce is a meticulous record keeper and those statements do not seem to tie in with the facts.
Mr. Bruce is now left in a state of limbo. Because his case was not thoroughly investigated at the time when he reported the incidents which led to his illness he has no evidence and is unable to proceed with his claim for damages. He has tried frequently to establish what are the
188
duties of the HSE to investigate and what action it is required to take. He is now in a position where HSE refuses to answer his correspondence.
There is another case of a lady on the Isle of Wight, Mrs. Constance Bradford. In September 1990 she was caught in spray drift and by the evening was feeling very ill. Her GP notes state:
"Sudden onset of Vertigo, tinnitus, vomiting, nystagmus and blood pressure 180/130".
Her GP had her admitted as an emergency case; he thought she might have had a stroke. She was discharged from hospital four days later without any diagnosis. It was only later when she was in contact with spray drift and again felt unwell that she made the association. She contacted PEGS and was advised to report the farmer to the HSE. This she did in early 1994. In March 1995, the HSE wrote to her to say that her hospital notes stated that she had had acute labyrinthitis for three days before admission and that there was no connection with OP exposure. That was clearly an error, particularly in view of the GP notes, but HSE will do nothing more.
I have given just two examples. I understand that there is no legal requirement that HSE advise and inform all those mentioned. The duty of the Health and Safety commissioners to do so and to investigate incidents is discretionary. What is the view of the Government? How serious does an incident have to be before it is thoroughly investigated? What powers do health and safety inspectors and EMAS doctors have to inspect premises and obtain other evidence? If they are all discretionary, is there much point in a worker or member of the public reporting an incident? If not, what is the Government doing to encourage individuals affected by misused toxic chemicals to be aware of their health effects and to report promptly without fear of retribution? And will the Minister look into Mr. Bruce's case to see whether there can be a satisfactory resolution?
7.35 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Countess for having raised this subject once again in a speech which will be a brief if the unfortunate affair trickles on beyond tonight, which I rather hope it will not. It is time that we reached an end.
The noble Countess has been tireless in coming hack to your Lordships' House and asking the Government about the matter. She is absolutely right to do so. Section 15 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 lays down that the Secretary of State for Health has power to make regulations except as regards matters relating exclusively to agriculture. They are in the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I believe that there is a need to clarify the responsibility. We are confronted with at least two government departments which should have some responsibility, plus the various agencies which have been established over a period of time.
As the noble Countess put it, the situation is that we are confronted with many reported cases of chronic OP poisoning. The recent Australian case with damages awarded in a court of law is an added piece of evidence. I do not believe that the noble Countess had time to

189
mention it. The dips are damaging and they should at least be classified as prescription products until the results of the Government's delayed researches are known. The Government's attempt to have a test and certification scheme has been an arrant failure. Scab is on the increase and the cost of alternative treatments is prohibitive.
There are many things that should be done and the noble Countess and my honourable friend Paul Tyler in another place have urged what they are. Ultimately, what is needed is the political will. In all matters of safety, a good Minister takes the bull by the horns and the ewe by the tail and does a hard and tough thing, no matter how much it costs.
The agricultural worker has been on the dirty end for the whole of history. It is time that we ensured that he or she does not suffer in this case any more than he or she has to. It is time that the Government decided not to treat this as something which can be passed from agency to agency, department to department, and research committee to research committee. It needs political will. An injustice has been and is being done, it is endangering people and must be cured.
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Countess for once again raising concerns about the health and safety of workers in agriculture. As usual, she has done her homework and clearly knows a great deal more about the problems than many of us.
In 1994–95 farm working became the number one killer of workers, even greater than the construction industry. Fifty-four deaths occurred in the agricultural sector during that year, 32 per cent. more than the previous year. Many Health and Safety Executive surveys have shown that the vast majority of workplace deaths are preventable; in other words, they have occurred because precautions that management could well have taken were simply not taken. But the deaths from major and minor accidents, many of which are under-reported in agriculture, are relatively few compared with the cases of ill health being suffered by those who work in this sector. Some examples have already been given by the noble Lord, Lord Blyth.
The HSE has stated that four out of 10 farmers reported health problems caused by their work, and one in three agricultural workers had to take time off as a result of health problems. Those problems include: pesticide poisoning, including of course organophosphate sheep dips, to which a number of noble Lords referred; diseases caught from animals, such as brucellosis, ringworm, etc.; breathing and chest problems arising from working in dusty and biologically active environments; noise and vibration injuries; repetitive strain injuries (RSI); back-ache and strain; dermatitis and other skin disorders; problems that arise from working in all weathers; long and unsocial work hours; isolation; and fear of BSE, which has recently arisen. The noble Countess has repeatedly raised in this House concerns about OP sheep dips.
190
The union to which many agricultural workers belong is pressing for the use of the dip to he banned in the interests of the health and safety of farm workers. It is stated that only one in 10 farmers has the legally required certificate of competence to use these sheep dips.
At a recent British Medical Association conference a spokesman for the NFU said that it had members reporting breathing difficulties, nausea, dizziness, and even paralysis. The NFU, he said, found this mounting evidence about OP dips and human health problems extremely worrying. The NFU has also expressed concern at what it describes as the steady reduction in the number of agricultural inspectors. It fears that current levels may be too low to provide an adequate level of assistance. They regard the provision of advice and assistance as crucial, particularly as health and safety legislation becomes increasingly complex. The NFU recently participated with the HE Agricultural Advisory Committee in a joint initiative to produce a model risk assessment for both agriculture and horticulture. Nevertheless, it remains concerned at the level of risk and says it is acutely aware of the increase in fatal accidents reported in 1995.
The Transport and General Workers' Union, representing agricultural workers, also voices its concern about the lack of inspectors. It says that a small farm will be inspected, on average, about once in 30 years. There is also concern about the level of penalties when breaches are identified. There is no prosecution for offences regarded by the HSE as trivial. The average fine for the serious criminal offence of breaking health and safety law is £3,000. That is in general cases. In agriculture, I am informed, the penalty is usually much less. Fines average £500, and are sometimes as little as £100 for serious, life-endangering incidents. The union believes that that is because the magistrates in farming areas are often farmers themselves or the golfing colleagues of farmers.
The union is calling for inspections of agricultural premises at least once a year, and immediately on the occurrence of a serious accident or case of industrial disease. It believes that if health and safety law is seriously broken, prosecution should be taken at a Crown Court and not the local magistrates' court.
Because of lack of union recognition in many agricultural establishments, there are few trade union safety representatives. It is commonly accepted in industry that the presence of trade union safety representatives is conducive to greater safety. The Transport and General Workers' Union therefore believes that the Government should modify the law to provide for roaming safety representatives for non-trade union recognised agricultural workplaces.
The union has also drawn attention to the fact that children often work on farms. Clearly they need special protection. It is felt that perhaps the HSE should initiate a study of children working on farms in order to try to protect them. The same goes to some extent for elderly people, since they often work on farms, particularly on family-owned farms.

191
Tractors and other moving farm equipment should be subject to an MOT. Many accidents on farms are due to poorly maintained moving equipment. There should be more academic research on occupational safety, health and environmental issues in agriculture. It is alleged that what there is at present is under-funded.
It is clear from the information received from a number of sources that much needs to be done to improve health and safety standards in this vital industry. Many employers in it are suffering the effects of pesticide poisoning, and many are dying as a result. They also suffer the effects of poorly maintained equipment, which causes accidents. These risks are in addition to the risk inherent in the industry resulting from contact with animals, weather conditions, and the unsocial hours and isolation that are part of the working environment.
As the noble Countess so eloquently said, work must be done to see that steps are taken to ensure that workers know how to enforce their statutory rights to health and safety protection. Again, I express gratitude to the noble Countess for sponsoring this important debate. I await with interest the response of the Minister.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to reply to this important debate, launched by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I had rather prepared myself to reply to the Question on the Order Paper. I am very glad to find that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, had done so, too. Accordingly, I shall direct the bulk of my remarks to that. I shall certainly pick up some specific points made during the debate but there were far too many for me to be able to reply to all the issues raised. I shall look through Hansard and write to noble Lords whose points I cannot deal with tonight.
The noble Countess knows the answer in some instances because I have replied to her previously. I find myself in disagreement with a great deal of what she had to say. I believe that I have provided her with honest, complete and satisfactory answers to many of the allegations she made. I am sorry that they are not acceptable to her. I shall repeat them in a letter to her in a week or so.
The noble Countess knows our position. After examining all the evidence, we see no clear evidence of chronic effects from non-acute exposures to OP dips or pesticides. However, we are conducting serious and expensive research to find out whether that is true. The noble Countess says we prevented the Institute of Health publishing a rebuttal of the problems we have with its research. That is not true. That is not our intention. We have no wish at all to prevent the Institute of Health publishing anything. I am concerned that the noble Countess has taken advantage of the debate to make a number of specific allegations to which I have no hope of replying and with which I disagree fundamentally.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made but one specific allegation. I suspect that the noble Lord should have known, or at least his colleagues should, that it is entirely inaccurate. The specific case in Australia was
192
concerned with acute poisoning as a result of extremely bad practice by the farmer concerned. It had nothing whatever to do with the long-term chronic effects alleged by the noble Countess and others.
The noble Lord, Lord Blyth, raised a couple of specific cases. As I received no notice of them, I have no hope of replying. I shall certainly look into both and write the noble Lord a comprehensive letter as soon as I am able to. As to the general point he raised, the HSE has complete powers to enter, require information and require the modification or cessation of an activity but it cannot pursue or help with a civil case. I expect that that is an answer on which I shall also have to enlarge, and I will do so.
Health and safety law places the primary duty of care on employers and risk creators. They must make sure they have the knowledge needed to comply with it. But the Government do not leave them to their own devices. They have a major part to play in seeing where guidance is needed and in finding and filling the gaps. Indeed, the Health and Safety Commission has a direct statutory duty to do so, as set out in Section 11 of the Health and Safety at Work Act.
The Government have a number of tools at their disposal. They issue guidance in both written and video form; inspectors give face to face information and advice at the farm, as do the medical specialists of the Health and Safety Executive's medical advisory service. And there are special laws requiring that information is supplied with a range of dangerous products. For two classes of chemicals of particular interest in agriculture, pesticides and organophosphorus sheep dips, there are certificate of competence schemes to ensure that pesticide users and purchasers of dipping chemicals achieve an adequate level of knowledge. That provides the appropriate level of protection and regulation for such chemicals. But, as the noble Countess and other noble Lords know, we keep an open mind on the subject. The Veterinary Products Committee is to review the matter in the spring. We shall pay close attention to what it says.
How do we decide what information to give and how? First, by intelligence about what is actually happening on farms and the problems that are arising. We have accident and ill-health statistics and the observations of inspectors as well as the views of both sides of the industry itself. The Health and Safety Commission's agriculture industry advisory committee is an invaluable mechanism for the transmission of those views. In identifying and responding to the information needs revealed by that intelligence, officials consult widely to make sure that their picture is a shared one.
Secondly, we make use of expert scientific analysis of hazards. Pesticides and veterinary medicines may not be marketed unless they have statutory product approval. The process includes consideration by independent scientific experts in particular of the information about risks and safeguards that must be supplied to the user.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked whether the Veterinary Products Committee had the necessary expertise. Yes. Its medical and scientific panel includes

193
a consultant neurophysiologist, a professor of clinical psychopharmacology and a professor of neurology. We believe that between them they have all the necessary expertise to come to the right kind of judgments. In making decisions we have to get our overall priorities right and make sure that we stimulate attention and effort where it is most needed. We must recognise, for example, that a farm worker is far more likely to be injured by a tractor than poisoned by sheep dip.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, says that there are 54 fatal accidents a year. I do not have the figure with me but I know that that is about right. I do not believe that a single one is due to chemicals poisoning. A very small proportion of overall injuries in farming is due to chemicals poisoning. But we recognise that people have understandable worries about particular risks, even if they are not reflected in the relative level of actual harm that is caused, and have a reasonable claim to information and advice. There are nice balances to be struck in judging what to provide. The agriculture sector has its own culture and traditions to be borne in mind when thinking about how best to communicate. Our collaborative approach is typified by the new pesticides forum announced this month.
Against that background I want to illustrate in more detail what is done in some of the areas that I have mentioned. The range of guidance material available to the agricultural sector is huge. It includes more than 40 free publications ranging from advice on safe handling of bulls and avoiding the transmission of disease from animals to humans to the safe use of machinery and working on glasshouse roofs. Detailed guidance is published for occupational hygienists on biological monitoring for the effects of exposure to organophosphorus compounds.
The results of eight contract research projects have been published, ranging from braking stability on all-terrain vehicles to the ergonomics of cropsprayers. Approved codes of practice give practical guidance on compliance with legislation. The effort made to publicise the material and to raise awareness generally is similarly wide ranging, assisted by the Health and Safety Executive's information and advisory service. Ten videos are available dealing with health and safety in agriculture and BBC2 is currently showing a selection of them. Advertisements are also used to draw attention to particular topics and publications. In 1995 there were no fewer than eight separate national advertising campaigns on agricultural health and safety. Inspectors and other officials attend around a hundred agricultural shows and exhibitions every year at which they give advice and distribute guidance material. Inspectors also have a crucial part to play during visits to farms. They routinely advise on legal requirements, risk assessment and safeguards. They lead employers through a hierarchy of preferred approaches; avoiding risk altogether, controlling it by engineering means, by systems of work and, in the last resort, by personal protection for the exposed worker. They help in the development of management systems and the assessment of training needs.
194
Employees are informed of inspectors' findings and employers are reminded of their own duty to inform also. From time to time special projects are carried out in which a co-ordinated series of visits is directed to a specific topic, for example, sheep dipping or overhead power lines. At a more collective level, inspectors act by advising influential intermediaries, notably trade unions and trade associations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned the TGWU roving safety representative scheme. That has had active HSE support from the start and will continue to have it. It is an excellent example of what unions can do and something of which the unions should he thoroughly proud.
I return briefly to the information that must be supplied with substances and other products sold for use in the workplace, a form of information and advice which the user cannot fail to encounter. The statutory approval regimes for pesticides and veterinary medicines require the provision of label information covering the risks and essential safeguards. Other toxic substances are subject to comprehensive information provision requirements. New machinery must be supplied with information about its dangers and safe use. In this whole field of product information, difficult but important balances again have to be struck —giving information that is technically detailed enough but graspable by the lay person and giving information that is comprehensive but not so lengthy and dense that the reader is deterred.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned NFU concerns about the number of inspectors. I admired her for finding NFU skates on which neatly to turn around the problems created by the shadow Chancellor in not being allowed to suggest that the Labour Party shares the NFU's view.
The Government take very seriously their duty to advise and inform on health and safety matters. I have tried to indicate the range of ways in which they fulfil their responsibility in the agriculture sector and the professionalism of their application of those methods. We are proud of what has been achieved. We do not rest content. We are always looking at the scope for improvement.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, will know from her own experience and researches how much has been achieved over the past 20 years. She should not he surprised when she looks back to discover that current practice is better than it was. That applies equally to safety advice and to scientific techniques. I hope that the House will agree that our effort is comprehensive, balanced and well focused and that it makes an indispensable contribution to the health and safety of people who work on farms and holdings up and down the country.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.58 p.m. to 8.15 p.m.]

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 7 [Multiplex licences]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 35, at end insert —
("( ) specifying a prescribed proportion of education and social action programming to be provided on each digital programme service to be broadcast;").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 21, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 and 30. Amendment No. 22 provides for a single digital programme service to be dedicated to education and social action programming. Amendments Nos. 21 and 30 provide, as a fallback, that each digital programme service shall include a minimum proportion, to be prescribed (as with Channel 4), to be dedicated to education and social action programming.
The importance of terrestrial broadcasting to education and training is the fact that it delivers free to people at the point of use without additional financial cost, in particular to those whose educational and social needs are greatest.
Later this month, on 22nd February, the UK will launch the European Year of Lifelong Learning. I declare an interest as chair of the Education and Training Committee of the Committee of the Regions and I was present last weekend at the European launch of the European Year of Lifelong Learning. It was a pleasure on that occasion, in the presence of the Minister, Mr. Paice, to hear the commissioner responsible for this area of the Commission programme work, Edith Cresson, compliment the United Kingdom on its outstandingly high quality of educational materials from radio and television. These amendments will protect the facilities necessary to maintain and develop those outstanding provisions —in European and world terms —made by educational broadcast makers in the United Kingdom.
Our country is committed to lifelong learning and to the need for building a learning society. Recently there has been agreed a new, ambitious, national training and education targets programme to achieve that. It cannot be achieved without the help of broadcasting and other new technologies. Neither will many of those most in need of more education or training be able readily to afford subscription services. Such services are very good for those who, already knowing what they want, also have the resources to obtain them. But, if we are to equip the population as a whole with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the coming century, it is essential that all groups in society have full access to education and training opportunities, starting with those provided in the area of basic education where it is needed for adults.
Groups involved with the education and training of adults are concerned that there is no requirement in the Bill to place any new education/training obligations on any new digital terrestrial provision other than the simulcasting of existing services. They propose that an
196
education/training requirement should also be written in within the new services, and that those programmes should be available clear to air for all licence payers.
Given that the duration of a multiplex licence is to he 12 years, with a possible extension for a further 12 years, and that this outlasts the current length of arrangements for those channels with public service education obligations —the BBC and Channel 4 —a situation could arise that analogue broadcasting, with its digital simulcast, is withdrawn, leaving no continuing educational obligations in place. That would be a tragedy and would be quite irresponsible, since it is expected that broadcasting will need to play an increased and not a lesser role, particularly in respect of the education and training of adults over the next decades. What is wanted is an extension of channel space which will allow a large number of education and training providers to add variety and choice to the current provision.
It is a pleasure to be able to pay tribute to the work done by professionals in this field. I hope the Minister's response will indicate that the Government are prepared to give serious consideration to protecting its quality and range and providing for an expansion in this vitally important area. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I should like to support this group of amendments. I thought that my name was going to appear on all three of them. In fact, it appears on only two. The amendment I shall speak to more particularly, Amendment No. 22, does not have my name on it. But I do not think that matters very much. It is the most important amendment in the group. It is the one we think is really vital. The other two are fall-backs. Amendment No. 22 is the one I hope the Minister will consider very carefully indeed and agree to support.
The proposal in Amendment No. 22 is that the ITC should be required to license one digital channel as a specialist education and training channel, not to be owned by the BBC or by Channel 4 but to be managed by a non-profit consortium of education and training providers. The task of running it could be put out to tender and awarded to the highest and most efficient bidder. It could house current users, such as the OU and colleges' and schools' programming, broadcasting the types of material which are increasingly being shifted to night-time. We have talked before about what has been happening to night-time broadcasting. The channel could assist in retraining and updating teachers, and in helping parents to help their children to learn. This is an important area and one in which a lot of people are doing very good work, including those who work at City Lit. in London. It is an area which can be expanded and it is one where broadcasting could help very much indeed.
Above all, the channel could house a new user, the University for Industry, which needs to reach, free at the point of use, every home, library, educational institution and workplace if this country is to raise the level of skills and be competitive with other countries, and get anywhere near reaching the national training and education targets which this country has set itself. The channel could target workplaces, colleges and

197
community sites in the day-time and home learners in the evening. North America has several such channels already running on satellite.
The BBC's new agreement requires in paragraph 3.2 (e) that the home services,
"contain programmes of an educational nature (including specialist factual, religious and social issues programmes as well as formal eduction and training programmes)".
Channel 4 is also required to provide a given proportion of programmes of an educational nature for adults. If the new digital terrestrial channels are to be of such significance, then it is in all our interests for the new multiplex arrangements to make a contribution to the education and training needs, and hence to the future, of the country.
The option offered by Amendments Nos. 21 and 30 is to place a certain obligation on all multiplex holders to include some proportion of education and social action programming, following the example of the obligation originally laid upon Channel 4. Channel 4's remit to be distinctive in character, to provide a given proportion of educational programming and to cater for tastes not otherwise catered for on ITV has been carried out to general acclaim and has not prevented the channel being a commercial success.
After the debate on the BBC Charter and Agreement, the Minister wrote to me. He said in his letter:
"We agree that education should continue to form a key object of the Corporation".
I hope that his feelings about education forming a key object of the corporation will also extend to all the new arrangements. I hope that his enthusiasm for education, which seemed to be expressed in his letter to me, will he followed by very favourable consideration of the amendment which my noble friend Lady Farrington moved and of the amendments to which I have spoken tonight. I particularly commend Amendment No. 22. That would be our best option.
Lord Inglewood: I begin by welcoming the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, about the high quality of educational television in this country. The Government are very pleased about that and pay tribute to all those concerned. It is recognised on both sides of the Committee as providing real quality and as being a world leader.
Digital terrestrial television will provide tremendous opportunities for the provision of all types of programmes, catering for the tastes and interest of all types of viewers. Both noble Baronesses have made eloquent speeches about the value of educational and social action programming from which we do not dissent. These programmes are of real value and interest to viewers of all ages, in all parts of the country. They are very important as part of an educational process which can no longer be confined just to early years but which goes on through life. They help us to be aware of a whole range of matters, including industry, social and community issues, and how to respond to them.
However, we do not believe that, merely because something is good and should be encouraged, its attainment must therefore he brought about by statute.
198
I believe that the wisdom of this approach —let us not forget that TV can be turned off, rendering valueless the programme being shown —is well substantiated by experience. Despite the lack of statutory requirements, educational programming is well established on satellite and cable because it is programming for which there is a clear demand. The Discovery and History Channels show that the market at work does not simply produce soaps and game shows, as some would have us believe. And of course the educational and social action programming currently provided by the existing terrestrial broadcasters will all he translated onto digital and thereby be entrenched and be freely available for all, with opportunities for more on the spare capacity they have been offered.
The kind of ideas referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady David, are precisely the kind of ideas that might well have a place on multiplex. The multiplex licensee, in putting together his bouquet of programmes —that is the technical phrase —has to provide as much variety and choice as he can. That is one of the licensing criteria. We must not overlook that the digital terrestrial revolution will be very expensive. It is difficult to anticipate how a multiplexer would be able to provide, in the way in which the noble Baroness rather sanguinely hoped, capacity. However, it is quite possible that these things can be funded either by advertising or sponsorship.
We have made the variety of services to be offered on digital one of the key criteria for the ITC to take into account when awarding the licences. It is clear that to win them applicants will have to provide a range of services catering for all interests. That will include, as I said, educational and social action programmes which, as I have described, hold their own on their own merits. As the number of channels increases there is less and less need to proscribe certain types of programme. With a new and unproven technology, an audience of zero, facing billions of pounds in investment, I suggest to the Committee that in those circumstances to accept this amendment would increase the likelihood of nothing happening at all with digital terrestrial. That would be in nobody's interests and would guarantee that there is no educational and social action programming at all. I know that that may be unwelcome comment to the noble Baronesses, but having heard it, I hope that they will agree not to press the amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It would be difficult to interpret the Minister's reply as satisfactory or favourable. However, it is necessary to take time to read the detail of the reply. It is possible to have a bouquet with variety. but still be missing the English rose. We agree that that the English rose is one of the areas of perfection. At this stage we do not propose to press the amendment, but having read the Minister's reply, we may return to it at a later stage.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may make one comment. I do not believe that the Minister referred to quality. It is important that there should be some stipulation about

199
the quality of what is provided. I hope that will come into the dimension when he is thinking about these amendments.
Lord Inglewood: I do not wish to pre-empt the debate that we shall have somewhat later in the evening, which is specifically on the question of quality. The criteria which apply to the programmes are the same as those which apply to satellite and cable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 7, line 11, at end insert —
("( ) such information as they may require as to the programmes to be included in the digital programme services to be broadcast").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 , 38 and 39.
Baroness Trumpington: Amendment No. 23 stands alone. Amendment No. 24 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 28, 36, 38 and 39. If that is a mistake there have been others in the list this evening. I can only apologise. The noble Lord can do whatever he wants.
Lord Donoughue: We have all been under great pressure on this matter. I am totally sympathetic on that point. I believe that Amendment No. 23 goes naturally with Amendments Nos. 34, 38 and 39. Since we are not going to press any of them to a vote, perhaps at this stage we can take them together. Is the Minister happy with that?
Lord Inglewood: I am happy to agree with anything that the noble Lord wishes at this stage.
Lord Donoughue: Good. Basically these amendments are about set-top boxes in general principle. In our view the Broadcasting Bill, as currently drafted, does not contain sufficient safeguards to ensure that a single set-top box or receiver will be able to access all digital terrestrial television programme services on offer. One way of achieving that is by consensus within the industry. I believe that the ITC is trying to achieve that and we encourage it towards a satisfactory outcome. We need to look at the Bill in order to secure that.
As drafted, the Bill would allow incompatible receiving equipment to be developed for different multiplex services without any obligation on the multiplex providers to share the technical information necessary to enable each type of equipment to receive the whole package of multiplex services available in a given area. We are concerned that we do not end up with people having to buy —which they will be unable to afford —different black boxes if they are to have access. I noticed in a newspaper today that the Germans are very well advanced in the movement towards industry consensus for a single set-top box receiver.
200
We believe that the Bill should he strengthened. We are suggesting the amendments I have mentioned as a way forward. They introduce the need for co-ordination between multiplex providers so that they are co-ordinated and agree on a single box. Under the Bill as it stands, each multiplex provider is treated on a stand-alone basis. There is no provision for modifying proposals made by the successful applicant for one multiplex licence in the light of those made by successful applicants for other multiplex licences.
In practice, certain issues, most particularly the single receiver issue which we are focusing on here, need to be co-ordinated. These amendments are about co-ordination as regards the single black box. The matter needs to be co-ordinated on a system-wide level and these amendments are devised to secure that. Perhaps I may add that they refer at the moment only to the services licensed by the ITC. The participation of the BBC in the co-ordination would need to be secured and presumably that can be done by the Secretary of State. I am asking the Minister to give thought to giving power to the ITC to co-ordinate multiplex providers so that in the end we can have a single set-top box. I beg to move.
The Earl of Stockton: I welcome this package of amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. I take them further because if a person is one of those particularly square-eyed people for whom television is the be-all and end-all of life, one might be in the position of needing not only a multiplex decoder but a satellite decoder and, very possibly, a cable decoder. The reason for its considerable expense is that the multiplex digital decoder unit has a seriously large memory in it. It is to all intents and purposes a small computer. We should be able to persuade the industry, which has adopted a European stance on decoders, that it can provide add-on chips according to which of the services one wishes to take.
If the Government are as determined as they appear to be to persuade us all to go digital as soon as possible, the prospect of the television manufacturers introducing a completely comprehensive set without a box on the top if it has to have five or six different systems is remote indeed. However, if we can write onto the face of the Bill that there has to be a single compatible system (in the same way as the banks have agreed to a single compatible system for their hole-in-the-wall operations, where one uses different cards in a wide variety of holes) I do not believe that we cannot achieve the same technical standard and security, which is one of the issues of interest to the multiplex providers. We are talking about paying for our television and one has to be absolutely certain that people cannot get round the system. Therefore, it must he incumbent on the Committee to try to persuade the suppliers of equipment, boxes and services, to have a compatible system. I hope that my noble friend will look very carefully at this matter before we reach the next stage of the Bill and consult both manufacturers and broadcasters on the issue.
Lord McNally: We were talking earlier today about reasonable men doing reasonable things. One would

201
have thought that manufacturers and broadcasters would do what is reasonable in relation to the consumer, the viewer. But experience shows us that that is not always so. The noble Earl mentioned the experience of the banks. I have some experience of that in the 1980s when we were trying to persuade the banks to agree on EFTPOS. It was not an easy task to achieve any kind of compatibility because individual manufacturers of technology, individual banks and others saw small levels of commercial advantage here and there which worked against compatibility. The same may happen here. It may he thought that, once a viewer has signed up to a piece of technology, he has literally become a captive audience.
Therefore, I agree with the noble Earl and the noble Lord. Lord Donoughue, that it is not sufficient for the Government to take a passive approach. If the Government remain passive, matters will fragment and we shall not achieve the compatible system to which the viewer is entitled.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining how his amendment addresses the issue of a single set-top box for digital terrestrial television. Clearly the amendment would ensure co-ordination between multiplex providers on a single set-top box criterion for the award of a multiplex licence and would allow the ITC to set minimum requirements to be met by all applicants seeking those licences. Of course, implementation of the measures proposed for co-operation would then become conditions of the licence.
I have yet to speak to anyone who sees a successful future for digital terrestrial television involving more than one set-top box. After all, does anyone really imagine that viewers will be prepared to invest in a box which gives them only one half, one-third or one-sixth of the services coming on-stream? That just does not make commercial sense.
It is in the interests of every part of the industry to make digital terrestrial television as a whole attractive to the viewer. For example, last week I was discussing that very point with the Digital Television Group, which is an expanding group of manufacturers, broadcasters, transmission providers and prospective multiplexers. Members of that group told me, with no dissenters, that the only way that digital terrestrial television would get off the ground would be through co-operation. That is happening already. That is the rationale for the DTV group. That group came together spontaneously, not at the behest of government.
I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord about the end result. Again, it is the means to that end which may divide us. There are different ways to achieve a single set-top box for digital terrestrial television: the common interface is one, allowing viewers to purchase cheap add-ons to the basic box to accommodate additional access systems; there is also simulcrypt, which is a system which allows different types of conditional access systems to be receivable through a single box. At this stage, neither we nor the ITC can predict which conditional access arrangements will emerge for digital terrestrial television.
202
We believe that it is for the industry and not for the legislator or the regulator to determine the industry's solution. The industry does not need to he forced to co-operate: it is co-operating. European standards have been agreed and the television standards directive already requires that all services transmitted in clear must be receivable by all receivers. I do not see the need to go further and risk forcing what may he the wrong solution —and a costly solution —on an industry which is already seized of the commercial realities of digital television.
However, I understand the anxiety expressed by Members of the Committee that we should do all we can to ensure that applicants for multiplex licences are looking to contribute to the success of digital terrestrial television as a whole. I bear in mind also the need for multiplex providers to co-operate in implementing their proposals for promoting and assisting the take-up of receivers. Therefore, I am prepared to look again at whether there may be advantage in allowing the ITC, when it considers applications, to take into account the extent to which the applicant's proposals will contribute to the successful launch of digital television. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the noble Lord.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: That sounded helpful. Germany is proceeding in that way and, as the Minister said, there is the European television services directive. I suggest that, if there is no standard as regards set-top boxes, that will both inhibit the development of the market and risk again bringing in a monopoly control. We see that at the moment in relation to satellite. Ideally there would be one set-top box that would cover both digital and satellite. That would be ideal for the consumer, and the service provider would benefit by providing for the use of a smart card or whatever access arrangements may be in place. Is the Minister saying that he is prepared to consider a change to the Bill which will allow —not require —the ITC to take that into consideration in granting multiplex licences? As the Bill stands, it is silent on that issue.
Lord Inglewood: It is important to be clear that, in relation to additional access systems, we propose that it should be stipulated that there should be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access to them. The DTI recently published a consultation document on the subject of conditional access. It is proposed that we should deal with the nuts and bolts of the licensing system as regards access to digital conditional access systems through legislation under the European Communities Act. Many of the noble Baroness's anxieties are dealt with outside the framework of the Bill because we are dealing with the matter in that different way.
I am prepared to look at the criteria that are to be applied by the ITC in determining who might be a successful multiplex licensee. As has already been mentioned by Members of the Committee, the key issue is to get the market to take the digital services. One of the characteristics that we are seeking to identify with

203
potential multiplex operators is the steps that they are taking to ensure that there is a successful roll-out of the system.
We feel that it may be appropriate to outflank some of the anxieties that Members of the Committee have expressed. We wish to meet their anxieties while at the same time ensuring that the market works properly. We do not know which way this will go. It would be extremely foolish to put a corset round the industry which might, with the best will in the world, lead to the industry going down a cul-de-sac. That is one of the surest ways of killing the whole thing stone dead. We feel that it may be possible to help to provide some kind of framework by looking at this matter along the lines that I have suggested.
Lord Donoughue: We are happy with the Minister's approach. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 7, line 26, after ("achieved") insert ("including phasing-in arrangements and considering the potential impact on existing analogue services, especially those currently provided for people with sensory disabilities").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may link Amendment No. 26 with this amendment, because in both amendments we are seeking to link applications for licences to provide multiplex services. A technical plan has to be provided under the Bill with a timetable showing when the planned coverage will be achieved. The amendments highlight the need for existing provision for disabled people on analogue to be maintained until it is certain that equal provision is available on digital, and that disabled people have access to it in a given time to be able to afford digital receivers, and that they are made aware of that.
Anticipating the problems, and preparing to deal with them, are the keys to the provision of successful services. The reason for tabling the amendments is that we want to move from one system to another better one, but we want to ensure that all the advantages of the previous system are not lost. It will not be good enough merely to say that the advantages gained by the move are so great for the majority that it does not matter if there are losses for the minority.
If that loss happened to be a loss of text subtitling for deaf people, or talking teletext for blind people, the consequence would be to deprive them of television if they are severely impaired. So it is essential that the application for a licence should include in it a timetable for the phasing out of present analogue provision and proposals to protect the interests of disabled people. There must be no loss of the valuable text provision for both deaf and blind people.
The second amendment draws attention to the affordability of new systems. Many disabled people have low incomes. When the valuable old systems are dropped, they must be replaced by new ones which are affordable. Otherwise, we shall be benefiting the prosperous at the expense of the poor. I am sure that
204
both sides of the Committee and the Government would find that unacceptable. Nothing can be more confusing than new technology. The enthusiasts love it, but the rest of us just want straightforward information about how it benefits us and what, if any, are the snags. The amendment emphasises the need for that to be provided. It is as simple but as important as that. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the amendment. As I understood it, he spoke to Amendments Nos. 25 and 26. Therefore it might be appropriate for me to telescope my remarks to cover the two amendments. It provides me with an opportunity to give the Committee some assurances regarding the specific point that he raises and more general matters surrounding the future of analogue transmission.
The introduction of digital television will not mean that anyone —I emphasise anyone —loses access to existing analogue services. In the longer term, we hope that the coverage of digital terrestrial television can be increased to levels similar to that of current analogue transmissions. That in turn will open up the attractive possibility that when, and only when, the vast majority of the population has acquired digital receiving equipment, the frequencies currently used for analogue transmission might be released for other uses. The Government intend that to happen as soon as reasonably practicable and will, five years after the introduction of digital terrestrial television or once 50 per cent. of the population has digital receivers, whichever is the sooner, review the scope for setting a date on which analogue transmissions will end. But we do not propose to deprive people of the television services they currently receive by turning off analogue before they have the necessary equipment to receive digital, upon which programmes will be carried in parallel.
There will therefore be no effect on analogue services, including ancillary services such as subtitling, arising from the roll-out of digital equipment. On a minor point, and taking the amendment word for word, the timetable referred to in Clause 7, subsection (4)(b) will, in practice, need to cover any phasing-in arrangements.
I shall now deal with Amendment No. 26. The points the noble Lord makes here are at the very heart of the matter. If digital terrestrial television is to take off, it is going to need to be both affordable and accessible. But I believe our proposals as they stand address these points adequately.
Those who wish to run multiplexes will need to submit detailed licence applications which will be judged on three main criteria. One of these is their technical plan for the roll out of infrastructure. The greater proportion of the population their services will reach within a reasonable time —in other words the greater number of people who will be offered access to their services —the more chance they will have of being awarded a licence. That is a key element of accessibility.
Another criterion is the applicant's plans to remote or assist the acquisition of receiving equipment. One of the key issues here, indeed perhaps the key issue, will be

205
offering that equipment at an affordable price. If applicants can show they will be able to do that, it is more likely that they will get a licence.
There is also, as the noble Lord mentioned, the question of the affordability of any pay —TV services which are offered by digital broadcasters. Of course, as in any market, it will be in the interests of the suppliers of such services to ensure that they are affordable. Otherwise they will not be in business for long. And subsections (4)(c) and (4)(h) of Clause 7 allow the ITC to require information on the characteristics of the digital programme services to be provided and on the applicant's financial plans respectively. Under each of those areas, the commission could require information about the pricing of pay services.
I should mention, too, that the Bill stipulates that multiplex providers' licences will include conditions preventing them from showing undue discrimination for or against particular broadcasters. That will help to ensure that broadcasters pay fair prices for access to multiplexes and, in turn, that viewers pay fair prices for services. The proposals in the consultation paper, The Regulation of Conditional Access Services for Digital Television will introduce similar conditions in the licences to be issues to conditional access providers.
I suggest that it would be over-regulation to seek to impose on applicants for multiplex licences further requirements of the sort mentioned in the amendment, which would largely have the same effect as requirements already applicable. The bottom line is that those entering the digital terrestrial television market need to make their services affordable and accessible to all sections of the community if they are to succeed, and the Government, through the criteria which will be applied for the award of licences, will be giving them the strongest possible encouragement to do just that.
Having said all that, I fully understand the noble Lord's concerns, which closely reflect our own. I hope that my explanation of the way in which the matter will proceed will have reassured the noble Lord.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am most grateful again for the Minister's most constructive response. When I was trying, not very well, to read economics at university, great theorists used to tell me that there was such a thing as perfect competition. When they had explained that at great length, they would end by saying, "Of course you realise that there is no such thing as perfect competition". Having spent months trying to understand perfect competition, I could not understand the great academic minds —nearly as great as that of my noble friend Lord Donoughue —which were trying to explain those concepts.
When the Minister says to us that it is in the interests of the suppliers of the equipment to ensure that the equipment is affordable to everyone —that is a perfect market of course —let us assume that there are some deaf people and some blind people who, despite the noble efforts of the suppliers, cannot afford the new equipment. There are some very poor deaf people and some very poor blind people: what will happen to them?
Lord Inglewood: The point that the oble Lord makes falls into two parts. The first is related to
206
economic theory. In respect of that, I hope that he will look carefully at the remarks I made earlier when I was explaining the macroeconomic framework within which we believe the digital terrestrial revolution —that is what it is —will proceed. In particular, perhaps he will look at that part of it which relates to the criteria by which the multiplex licences are to be assessed and the actions that the applicants are meant to take to secure their licences.
The second point which the noble Lord made is different. It is a problem which always faces society: as long as something costs something, there is a possibility that someone who has less money than the item costs will be unable to afford it.
The right way to deal with the problem identified in the second part of the noble Lord's remarks is to study it in that context rather than in the context of establishing digital terrestrial television. I hope that those remarks are helpful.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 7, line 29, leave out from ("broadcast") to ("areas") in line 30 and insert ("as to the quality of those services, as to the range and content of those services, and as to the regional").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 31, 32, 35, 37, 41, 43, 48 and 53. Amendment No. 27 deals with the issuing of multiplex licences. It provides that the ITC shall have power to ascertain the applicant's proposals as to the quality of its planned services. The subsequent amendments deal with the wish to insert a quality criterion.
A number of criteria are set out, including range and variety, mainly in terms of investment and technology availability. We are most concerned that quality should exist as a criterion. It appeared in the 1990 Act, which provided for a quality threshold. Viewers will expect high quality from digital television as they do from analogue. British television viewers have been blessed with television of the highest quality and they will expect that to continue. However, the Bill does not provide that the new digital services must meet the quality criterion. In our amendment to Clause 8 we require quality in some but not all services. We accept that at the beginning it would be too onerous to expect that in all services.
I can see that, from the Government's point of view, there is a question of balance. One needs flexibility and not too onerous requirements in order to get the whole revolution off the ground. When that happens we want the broadcasts to be of quality. I believe that the difference between the Government and myself is how one adjusts that balance. The Government's inclination is to dilute the quality requirement in the hope that that will encourage and make it easier for digital to get off

207
the ground. We do not want digital television without quality and, furthermore, we do not believe that it will get off the ground without quality.
We are seeking to introduce quality. We believe that the ITC would welcome the requirement that it should seek quality. That would ensure the high quality of the future services, which is what we are pursuing. Can the Minister give the Committee any comfort in that respect or is he saying that provided the new digital service can meet various technological requirements the quality does not matter? We would not be happy with that.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, says that the amendment is about quality. Having looked at the amendments in the group I believe that it is about much more than quality. Indeed, it introduces new aspects into the digital service. Amendment No. 31 provides for,
"high quality, new and original".
How are we to define what is new and what is original? I believe that if digital is to get off the ground we must not have too many thresholds because that will mean that we never have the service. How is the ITC or any other body to judge the originality of a programme? Amendment No. 48 provides for,
"of high quality…new and original…made within the area for which the programmes are to be provided".
That is a most stringent threshold but the most bizarre requirement is the next, which is,
"calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests".
What on earth does that mean? How does one define what is calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests?
We must be clear about the fact that the new channels, whether cable or satellite, have not been able to compete with existing mainstream channels. They have been able to enter new markets dedicated to films and so forth. We all want quality as such, and I believe that one can argue that some of the present satellite channels are of a high quality. However, in the end it is for the viewers to decide, and the purpose of the digital service is that we have choice. The proposal would give the ITC a role which goes further than we have ever considered in broadcasting. When there was a limited number of broadcasters it was possible to say to Channel 4, for example, that such and such was its remit. However, the digital service involves lots of channels and lots of people out there. I believe that the provision is so prescriptive that it will put people off.
Lord Donoughue: Perhaps I may answer the point raised by the noble Viscount. It is true that a number of requirements are made. We might have chosen to take each one separately and debated it at some length. I am not sure how popular that would have been with the Government Front Bench. We believed that at this stage, when we are probing the whole issue, it would be helpful to the Committee in progressing the Bill to put together a group of related matters. They are aspects related to quality, including new and original, even regional.
208
Secondly, in relation to ITV, the ITC already applies a number of criteria; indeed, it has quite strict requirements put upon it as does the BBC. We do not believe that it is appropriate that the digital sector should have significantly less requirements placed upon it. However, as I said, it is basically a probing amendment. We look forward to hearing from the Ministe, with any comfort that he may be able to give us on the matter.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: We are discussing a most important, sensitive and subjective area. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is right to say that one can be too prescriptive in terms of new developments. However, I was rather surprised to note that, as a former Minister of broadcasting in this Chamber, the noble Viscount was astonished by the proposed wording in Amendment No. 48 which refers to the necessity of catering for a wide diversity of "tastes and interests". He said that that was an astonishing definition and that it would be impossible to achieve it. However, I believe that I am right in saying that they are the immortal words of the BBC Charter and of successive broadcasting Acts. Indeed, that requirement has been the duty of broadcasting authorities over the years.
What concerns me in the matter is that, with all the new channels, new problems will develop and one accepts that there will be difficulties. Indeed, there is no doubt about how far one can go. However, if we look back to the proceedings on the Broadcasting Bill 1990, it will be remembered that many of us feared the absolutely damaging process that the Government of the day imposed of bidding for television franchises. That created the great danger of lowering standards in quite a dramatic way. Partly as a result of the campaign which was launched during the Committee stages of that Bill and partly because of the way that the ITC then interpreted the legislation we finally emerged with the quality threshold that was laid down.
Although, in my view, standards in ITV have dropped compared to what they were in the days when I was chairman of the IBA —hut then I would say that —I believe that the ITC performed a great service in imposing in quite a severe way the quality threshold that mitigated what might have been the totally damaging effect of simply giving a franchise to the highest bidder. I draw from that experience the lesson that, in the face of new technology, one has to do one's best in terms of legislation. It is the Government's responsibility to try to get the framework right and to get what might be called the countervailing forces in operation.
I return to an earlier debate this evening when the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, talked about a rather different subject in which I was most interested; namely, guaranteeing the access of public service channels on cable. The noble Baroness is, if I may say so in her absence, a very distinguished free-marketeer. I was most impressed that, as a free-marketeer, she seemed to he singularly unimpressed by the Minister's assurance that all was well because it could all be left to the market and that it would be in the great interests of the cable operators to provide full access to those channels. However, that clearly was not happening on Sydenham Hill.

209
It is very difficult to know where to draw the line. However, the lesson to be learnt is that the Government have a very high responsibility to try to get the ITC of the future (which will have to deal with all these new developments) empowered on the face of the Bill with some sort of strength so as to ensure that quality standards are sustained in the face of what will be very contrary market forces. Getting the balance right is important. It is also most important to give the public authority the necessary resources and legal powers so that it can try to get the balance right.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. I do not disagree with much of what he said. However, I was trying to point out that, if we are to have these new channels, they will not necessarily mirror the channels that we have had before. Therefore, they might not be calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes; indeed, they might be very specific and calculated to appeal to a very narrow band of tastes because that might be the market for those channels. I do not disagree with anything that the noble Lord said about quality, I was merely saying that in my view the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, would go too far.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I should tell the noble Viscount immediately that I entirely agree with what he said as regards a multi-channel situation. A channel may be of high quality but deal with a very narrow area of taste. I fully accept that possibility. It is the totality of the matter that is important.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, I should point out that Amendment No. 27 is grouped with quite a few other amendments to which I believe the noble Lord was speaking, although he did not, in fact, touch upon them in any detail. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I propose to confine my remarks to the generality of what the noble Lord said and thereby keep to a straight and narrow path.
In moving the amendment the noble Lord has shown his concern to ensure that digital terrestrial television provides programmes of high quality appealing to all tastes and interests. He also rightly emphasises the opportunities which digital affords for expanding regional programming and for providing new and original programmes. We share the aspirations of the proposers of the amendments. We share their enthusiasm for the new technology which promises so much. However, I fear we do not share the belief that those concerns can only be met, or even best met, and that opportunities will only be taken, if government decide what is best for the viewer, any more than government can or should with the printed word. Indeed we fear that that would sound the death knell for digital terrestrial television. Of course, if it does not happen, it will not show programmes to anyone.
I now wish to consider quality. One of the things we can be rightly proud of in Britain is our existing terrestrial television channels: the BBC, ITV, Channel 4
210
and, in Wales, S4C, which all produce programmes of great variety and high quality. That is the product of a statutory framework placing specific requirements on independent broadcasters who had a privileged place on the limited amount of spectrum available with regard to quality and diversity of programming —a framework which will also apply to Channel 5 when it is launched.
As the Committee will know, the Bill ensures that these channels with their public service broadcasting characteristics will be safeguarded arid translated into the digital age. Each of the existing terrestrial channels, and Channel 5, is being offered a guaranteed place on a digital multiplex. They are being offered those places on condition that their existing services —or, in the case of S4C, Welsh language programmes —are to be simulcast. All of the positive programme requirements placed upon independent broadcasters now will continue to apply in the digital future to these channels. There is absolutely no relaxation of standards or statutory requirements. The remits for Channel 3, Channel 4 and S4C continue. And, of course, the BBC will get a whole multiplex for BBC1 and BBC2.
This is a real and lasting commitment to quality television. It means that the broadcasters who have brought us "Survival", "The Trials of Life", "Equinox", and "Inspector Morse", "The Animated Shakespeare" and "Wallace and Gromitt" —that programme is popular with my children —all have a core place entrenched in broadcasting in the 21st century. Our guarantees to existing broadcasters mean that public service broadcasting is not merely safe but will be enhanced. But extending quality thresholds to the new services possible on digital terrestrial television just indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening. The whole point about digital is that the context for the regulation of terrestrial broadcasting changes with the increased availability of spectrum.
Our existing framework for terrestrial television is a response to extreme scarcity. There are, after all, only four channels. If one went on using analogue transmission, there would only ever be five channels. With digital there is the opportunity to provide three or four services where previously there was only one. This means 18 or more traditional terrestrial television channels. But the flexibility of the technology allows the multiplex provider to ensure that the spectrum is used much more efficiently, hour by hour and even second by second. This might well mean that at times and depending on the nature of the programme content there could be many more than 18 services being broadcast. Over time, as the technology improves, the possibilities will increase.
The effect of all this is that the introduction of digital technology means a new era for terrestrial television. It is not an era of expansive abundance like satellite and cable where perhaps 100, 200 or even more channels might be available. But it is no longer an era of real scarcity. We therefore need to consider most carefully the nature of the regulatory framework appropriate to the new services that digital technology makes possible.
In considering this new state of affairs, two particular concerns were uppermost in our minds. We wanted to ensure that digital terrestrial broadcasting was a business

211
proposition that added up. If it does not, no one will do it and the public will miss out. We also wanted to ensure that there really is a broadening of choice for the viewer. For digital terrestrial television to succeed, investors need to be able to put on the programmes that people want to watch and will be prepared to pay to watch. If statute and the regulator force them into a tight corset having to meet a galaxy of minimum standards for this, that and the other, they simply will not bother. They will not invest. That means that digital terrestrial television will not happen. It will remain a concept so fine and so pure that no actual service violates it, as there will not be any. The best can always be the enemy of the good, and in this instance, we believe, would slay it.
It is for that reason that the regulatory regime for the new services is light touch. I emphasise light touch, not easy touch. Each and every one of the licence conditions to maintain standards of taste, decency and impartiality are there to be enforced by the ITC just as they are for all broadcasters now, terrestrial, cable or satellite. But we do not think it appropriate to go beyond that and introduce positive programme requirements into licences for the new services. Apart from adding costs, that is, making the viewer pay more —if, as I said earlier, it did not have the effect of strangling digital terrestrial television at birth —it would assume that we know what is best and that viewers who will pay cannot make up their minds about what they want to spend their money on. Therefore, even where quality is guaranteed, all new material must also be passed through a rigorous quality-vetting process deemed unnecessary by Parliament for satellite or cable services.
Competition —and I do not use that word in any emotive sense —will be for the new services on digital terrestrial broadcasting. If digital terrestrial broadcasting does not take off, many of those services will be on satellite and cable channels. If such requirements were imposed, digital terrestrial services would be placed at a clear competitive disadvantage where the existing licensing regime has already proved itself successful in encouraging investment and expansion and in providing new programmes that people want to watch. It satisfies the public and has not engendered widespread moral degradation and corruption the length and breadth of the country.
As I said, the amount of digital terrestrial capacity available will not be limitless. To ensure that there is real diversity and choice for the viewer we have made a variety of programming services one of the main criteria for the ITC to apply in awarding multiplex licences. That will ensure that the proposals coming forward truly reflect the wide spread of tastes and interests of television viewers. It means that digital terrestrial television cannot be all of a kind, with head-to-head contests between rival channels offering the same material to the detriment of choice for the viewer. It means that multiplex providers and broadcasters will need to consider the needs and interests of every section of the television audience —news, entertainment, education, sport, community, local interests and so on.
212
I do not want to go into further detail on that subject because that is covered by other amendments and we have agreed that we shall leave them on one side for now.
I should like to conclude by referring to the telling point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. He said that precisely because digital services will not get off the ground without quality, broadly conceived and approved in general terms by the ITC, it must follow that we do not need to regulate for it.
I very much hope that what I have said has been helpful to the Committee and explains why the Government have taken this position on this matter. I very much hope that the Committee will consider that point, and will conclude that it is not appropriate to seek to press the amendment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The Minister has described the problem fairly and thoughtfully. However, is it not a fact that the ITC has pressed the Government for stronger provisions in the text of the Bill in respect of quality control?
Lord Inglewood: I am advised that that is so.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Have the Government rejected the ITC's advice on this matter?
Lord Inglewood: As is implicit in what I said, we do not agree with the ITC on this matter. We believe that to go down the road along which some siren voices are calling us might jeopardise the very existence of digital terrestrial television.
Lord Donoughue: The Minister has been very helpful. We have secured what we wanted in probing at this stage. The difference between us is that the Government see what we define as quality as an obstacle to digital television getting off the ground while we do not see it getting off the ground without some quality requirement. We say that for the ITC to have that requirement will raise the sights of the initial digital operators. I do not believe that it will in any way raise their costs or that it will deter anyone. In my view, we are well shot of anyone who is deterred by a quality requirement.
We are not talking of lofty cultural ambitions. We are talking about the ITC having the power and authority, and a requirement, to make inquiries and to establish certain basic standards. I still believe that that is a desirable objective. I believe that the ITC would welcome it. It is our experience that the ITC would not abuse such a requirement; it has a great commitment to see this measure succeed.
We may have to return to this matter. We have had a general but useful discussion. We shall consider returning to the issue at Report stage and may have to take the view of the House on it. The debate has clarified matters and has been helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Lord Desai Lord Desai had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 7, insert to following new clause
COMMON CARRIAGE SUBSCRIBER MANAGEMENT SERVICE ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN QUALIFYING DIGITAL MULTIPLEX LICENSEES
(" . —(1) This section has effect with respect to the making of arrangements which—

(a) apply to all independent analogue broadcasters in the award of digital multiplex licences, and

(b) provide for programmes made, commissioned or acquired by or on behalf of one or more of the holders of such licenses to be available for subscription in identical substantive circumstances by all customers of multiplex operators,

being arrangements made for the purposes of enabling digital television (taken as a whole) to be able to compete effectively with other television programme services in the United Kingdom. and in free, fair and effective competition one digital programme service with another; and any such arrangements are referred to in this section as "SMS common carriage arrangements".
(2) Any application from a independent analogue broadcaster for a digital multiplex licence shall, in addition to being accompanied by any such proposals as are mentioned in Clause 8 below, be accompanied by the applicant's proposals for participating in SMS common carriage arrangements made under this section; and where a person has duly made such an application, the Commission —

(a) shall send details of his proposals for participating in such arrangements to the Director General of Fair Trading, and

(b) shall not proceed to consider whether to award him the licence until the Director General of Fair Trading has communicated to the Commission his satisfaction with the proposed arrangements.

(3) If the Director General of Fair Trading is dissatisfied with the SMS common carriage arrangements at any time, whether before licence award, prior to commencement of services, or during the lifetime of the licence, he shall be empowered —

(a) to alter the terms of the licence, or

(b) to revoke it in its entirety.

(4) The provisions of subsection (3)(a) are to be exercised subject to a six months' period of notice, following consultation with the licensee and the Commission.").
The noble Lord said: I am in somewhat of a quandary as regards the amendment. I put it down rather late yesterday. I note that Amendment No. 187 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, my noble friend Lord Donoughue, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, covers similar territory. In order to save everyone's time I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Award of multiplex licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 32:
Page 8, line 33, at end insert ("and the extent to which such services (taken as a whole) may be expected to include programmes of high quality").
The noble Lord said: In our general misunderstandings about groupings, I had grouped this amendment with our discussions on Amendment No. 27. I should be happier if Amendment No. 32 were taken as grouped.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 8. line 33, at end insert ("and to be accessible to persons with a sensory impairment:").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 33. perhaps I may make a few comments on Amendment No. 42.
It is extraordinary that after the vigour and tenacity displayed by disabled people in their fight for anti-discrimination legislation, this vital section of the Bill should have been drafted without mention of access for those with sensory impairment. It refers to the award of multiplex licences. The amendments put that right. The Bill as drafted makes nonsense of the fine words spoken by Ministers on the Disability Discrimination Act when they are compared with the omissions of this Bill.
When the Minister replies to the amendment, perhaps he will tell the Committee whether the question of access to the new broadcasting world for those with sensory difficulties was ever considered. If so, was it rejected; or was it felt to be unimportant? Let me assure the Minister that deaf people now, at last, enjoy television through sub-titling. They would not tolerate its absence on digital television. There would be marches in the streets if they were so deprived. I am sure that the Minister will do all he can to ensure not only that such access is provided for but is extended to digital television. Nor will deaf people tolerate that access being provided on a minority of the many channels that we are expecting.
There is no question that the provision of sub-titling is a matter of primary concern to sensory impaired people and it should be for those awarding the new multiplex licences. Quite frankly, I have the feeling that the people who are applying for the licences have not given this matter a great deal of thought. I am sure that the ITC is aware of it. I am sure that the Minister is aware of it. Organisations for the deaf and blind feel very strongly about the amendment. I have no doubt that many who are familiar with its implications will feel equally strongly.
Amendment No. 42 allows the commission to vary the conditions unless the appeal of the programme to a variety of tastes is unacceptably diminished. That is what the Bill says. However, once again the interests of those with sensory disabilities have been ignored or rejected by those drafting the Bill. The amendment seeks to remedy that. It is important to make clear to those who seek to vary the conditions of their licence —and I am sure they will for all kinds of reasons —that it will be a dereliction of duty to permit a diminution in the access of people with sensory problems to an unacceptable level. That would be intolerable. Accepting the amendment solves the problem. If the Minister can give a favourable response, many deaf and hard of hearing, blind and sight impaired people will be reassured. I hope that he is able to give such an assurance tonight. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: I am sure all noble Lords have every sympathy with the noble Lord's concern to ensure that digital television services are accessible to those who have a sensory impairment. The Government wish to do all they reasonably can to increase access to

215
television services for people with disabilities and also to encourage broadcasters to provide programmes of particular interest to those groups. I shall refer to those with visual or hearing disabilities. I am aware that broadcasting can provide valuable services to people with other disabilities as well. According to the latest figures from the British Deaf Association and the Royal National Institute for the Blind, there are 6.5 million deaf or hard of hearing and over 1 million visually impaired people in Britain —important groups, whose needs should be catered for by the media. Television and radio are a lifeline to some of those people, a large percentage of whom are aged over 60. They may be less mobile and rely more on broadcasting for information, entertainment and access to society. I think I can, in all honesty, say that the Government's record on this issue is a good one. The Broadcasting Act 1990 placed extensive but reasonable subtitling requirements upon broadcasters, and as a result over 50 per cent. of programming on the BBC and Channels 3 and 4 is now subtitled. That proportion will increase substantially over the next few years. The requirements will, of course, apply to their digital simulcast services.
We want to ensure that, where practicable, subtitling is provided for the new digital television services. The Bill therefore requires the ITC to publish a code giving guidance as to the appropriate nature and extent of such measures. Before doing so I expect the ITC to consult the broadcasting industry and groups representing the communities concerned. That will certainly include some of those represented today. I am confident that broadcasters and programme makers will recognise the importance of addressing those groups' needs and that they will look for new and imaginative ways to do so. We shall have a fuller opportunity to discuss the code in the context of the noble Lord's later amendments.
I spoke about subtitling. I am very much aware that subtitling, while invaluable to many, is less helpful to those deaf or hard of hearing people who, for reasons connected with their disability, do not have the fast reading skills necessary to read captions which may appear on screen only for two or three seconds. For many of those people, access to many programmes can he further improved by the provision of on-screen sign language interpretation which is already provided for some special interest programmes and which will be facilitated by digital technology. I hope very much that broadcasters will take advantage of this. Again, it will be within the scope of the ITC's code.
Technology known as Audetel is currently under development. By providing a narrative sound track allowing them to hear descriptions of scenes and action at times when there is no dialogue, this could significantly enhance the ability of visually impaired people to enjoy television. Digital technology will allow a programme to be broadcast with more than one sound track and this may provide added potential for such a service to be offered. I understand some existing broadcasters are studying the scope to do so. I am sure the ITC will take account of this in drawing up the code
216
of practice for digital television broadcasters to which I referred and more widely in carrying out its licensing remit.
I must, however, sound a cautionary note. The Government, the ITC and the broadcasters have taken a firm but gradual approach to the expansion of subtitling services and this has paid dividends. We have been able to work together to achieve a level, and quality, of service of which the broadcasters are justly proud, and we shall be building on that success to increase still further the percentage of programmes which are subtitled. Throughout this process we have had to hear in mind the cost of these services, and the need to train people to provide them. It would have been counter-productive suddenly to impose, out of the blue, onerous requirements on broadcasters. Similarly, we must bear in mind when looking at the new digital services that, if these services are to take off, enormous, and risky, investments will have to be undertaken by broadcasters and multiplex providers.
As I think everybody agrees, there is therefore a balance to be struck if we are not to risk holding back the development of digital terrestrial broadcasting. So far as hard of hearing and visually-impaired people's interests are concerned, the requirement in Clause 19 for the ITC to issue a code of practice is a good way of striking that balance. It would be in nobody's interests to place, from the start, obligations on new broadcasters so stringent that, combined with the need to finance new transmission infrastructure and to make receivers available at an affordable price, those obligations detracted from their ability to make programmes people want to watch, or indeed, discouraged them from investing in digital at all. I believe a similar effect would be occasioned by including, as a criterion for judging applications for multiplex licences and as the amendment proposes, the applicant's proposals for providing services for hearing or visually impaired people. Meeting such a criterion from the beginning, as well as being a significant additional cost which might detract from programming, would mean a departure from the principle that terrestrial broadcasting licences should be granted on the strength of programming proposals and on the capacity of the applicant to sustain the necessary expenditure to provide the service as widely as possible. Moreover, the money that licensees spend on, for example, subtitling might he money they cannot spend on keeping down the cost of receivers, or on rolling out transmission infrastructure. No amount of subtitling of digital programme services will be of use to the deaf viewer if he or she is not reached by the digital transmission signed or cannot afford a digital set.
Let me add that, once digital broadcasting has taken off and broadcasters and multiplex providers are showing a profit, it would be reasonable to expect them to increase their obligations towards people with disabilities and other disadvantaged sections of the community. I expect the ITC to take into account the profitability of digital terrestrial broadcasting every time it updates the code, which it will do regularly. I believe that taking this long-term approach will in the end result in a better service for those concerned than would asking broadcasters to do everything at a stroke.

217
Moving on very briefly to the amendment to Clause 11, referring to conditions on which the ITC will agree to variations in licences, subsection (3) of that clause is drafted with the intention of achieving a balance between multiplexers' and broadcasters' need for some flexibility in determining the nature of their programme services, in particular in order to react to market signals, and the ITC's need to ensure that licensees do not depart too far from the proposals contained in their licence applications.
Clearly, in assessing whether a particular variation in licence conditions would unacceptably diminish the capacity of the digital programme services broadcast to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests, the ITC will have regard to the tastes and interests of those with a sensory impairment. A multiplex provider will certainly not be able to get away with including in his licence application proposals to provide particular programmes or other services to particular groups, only to drop such commitments once he has safely been awarded a licence. However, I have set out why I do not believe it would he sensible to compel applicants for multiplex licences to include specific proposals for services such as subtitling in those applications or for applications to he determined according to that criterion.
I have deliberately taken time to set the scene, to give a clear picture of what we believe is the appropriate state of affairs. For the sake of completeness I should add that the Disability Discrimination Act already applies to broadcasters. What is proposed here is in a sense an additional tier of specific obligation and responsibility over and above that applied by the general law.
I very much hope that in the light of my remarks the noble Lord will feel reassured by hat we believe will happen.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: The noble Lord has taken a great deal of trouble, and I appreciate that. I do not intend to respond to him now, as he took us over ground to be covered by the next batch of amendments, which I shall move in some five minutes' time. Then I shall ask for specific figures to take the matter further. The Minister refers to a code of guidance, whereas we want a code of practice. He speaks of sign language and I shall go into detail on that. He spoke about audio description, which is also mentioned in the next batch of amendments. Therefore, I will not deal with those matters now.
The noble Lord spoke of the cost of subtitling. I should like him to bear in mind that for totally deaf people there is no television without subtitling. Unless they have wives as wonderful as mine, they simply cannot follow television. They must have someone to make notes and explain to them. When they do not have that, and if they are totally deaf and there is no subtitling, television does not exist for them. It is as simple as that. It is unbelievable that television in the 1990s does not exist for deaf people unless there is subtitling. That is the cost to deaf people. To speak of costs to people who are multi-millionaires is a little out of focus. I hope that the noble Lord will bear that in mind.
218
The noble Lord said that when digital takes off there will be an increase in subtitling. Perhaps I may tell him that today there is very little subtitling on satellite television. It has nothing like what is done by the BBC and ITV. Sky television has taken off but it does not do as much subtitling as others. The Minister does not put forward a very powerful case. I know that he presents it in good faith and I respect his views very much, but I should not like him to be misled into believing that everybody acts in that same good faith. In view of what he said, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman (Lord Skelmersdale): I understand that the following amendments are not to be moved. If I am wrong, I am sure that I shall be stopped at the appropriate place. The amendments are Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36 and 37.
[Amendments Nos. 34 to 37 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Conditions attached to multiplex licence]:
[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 11, line 4, at end insert —
("( ) that, while the licence is in force, digital capacity is available on favourable terms to encourage local, regional and national digital programme services and that these terms are to be published").
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. Under Clause 11 there are provisions for conditions attached to multiplex licences, and those conditions are listed. The amendment seeks to ensure access for small screen regional and local digital services so that they are not marginalised and so that we do not see undue pressure coming from the large screen service providers.
We all know a little about this Bill now. We know that wide screen provision takes up far more space than small screen provision. That is the top of the range that will be sold to the public. That will be the area that will attract a lot of resources. We are concerned that the broadcasting system in the United Kingdom should not lose the availability of local services —getting local services off the ground —as well as regional services, and that they are not marginalised.
I suggest that the Bill encourages large media companies. That is said quite overtly. The reasoning behind it is that they need to compete. In order to he able to compete in this new information world of entertainment and information education, the ownership of broadcasting companies needs to be allowed to expand. Understandably, there has been very strong concern expressed not only from these Benches but elsewhere that that might mean —though not intentionally in the Bill —the loss of the small local companies.
This amendment provides that it he a requirement of the ITC when looking at conditions attached to multiplex licences to require favourable terms to

219
encourage local, regional and national digital programme services and that those terms themselves are to be published. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the nature of the amendment. She referred at one point to something akin to regionality. With the agreement of the Committee, I shall leave my comments on that until we reach Clause 63.
The amendment relates to a wish to ensure —or rather to ensure —more programming that reflects the interests of communities, local, regional or national, which in turn will be subsidised by the multiplexer and hence indirectly by the public and the other channels to be broadcast. I have three specific worries about the approach reflected in the amendment.
First, I fear that requiring multiplex providers to offer favourable terms to particular types of broadcaster would be to interfere far too much in matters which should be left to the commercial judgment of the multiplex provider and of the broadcasters with whom he is collaborating. I believe that there will be plenty of opportunity for all sorts of programming to be part of a multiplex. The variety criterion which we introduced will ensure that that is the case. I have not the slightest doubt that, quite apart from the activities of the public service broadcasters in this area of activity, local, regional and national programming will emerge naturally alongside many other types of service catering for all tastes and interests. There is no need to require it and so risk discouraging multiplex providers from applying for licences because they find the terms offered are so circumscribed and rigid that they feel it better not to get involved at all.
Secondly, it is unrealistic to expect every multiplex provider to find space for any one specific type of programming, which is the implication of the amendment. Indeed, that seems to work against the growth of diversity and variety which I believe all Members of the Committee hope to see in the digital age. In the future, I anticipate that multiplexes of a regional or local nature may well become available in addition to the six multiplexes currently planned. Those will be particularly appropriate for local, regional or national services.
Thirdly, the amendment is at odds with Clause 11(1)(f) which requires multiplex licence holders to show no undue discrimination against, or in favour of, a specific programme service or additional service providers. Members of the Committee apparently welcome that provision, yet we now see an amendment which cuts right across it. In that regard there appears to be some inconsistency. I hope that I have explained our thinking and that the noble Baroness finds my remarks helpful.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I thank the Minister for sharing those worries with us. This is a probing amendment. We do not see the inconsistencies referred to by the Minister. But life is full of inconsistencies and we manage to live with them.
220
The Minister referred to matters of commercial judgment. I have seen commercial judgment operate sometimes to shut the small player out and ensure that the large operator has a ring fence for its own systems and services —in this case programmes. I listened carefully to all that the Minister said and will read his remarks tomorrow in Hansard. This is a probing amendment; we may return to it at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 not moved.]
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 11, line 20, leave out subsection (6) and insert —
("(6) No order under subsection (5) shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I can be brief. Basically, the amendment concerns the powers of the Secretary of State to unaccountably alter the whole nature of the Bill. The Committee will be aware that at the relevant point in the Bill, Clause 11(1)(j) says that,
"at least 90 per cent. of digital capacity on the frequency or frequencies to which the licence relates is available for the broadcasting of digital programme services or qualifying services".
That is important. Subsection (5) says:
"The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1)(j) by substituting for the percentage for the time being specified there a different percentage specified in the order".
That may be 3 per cent. We suggest that no order —for example, changing 90 per cent. to 3 per cent. —should be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. In this House that is not a major constraint, but it is a protection. Several similar amendments are tabled and how we approach those will be conditional upon what the Minister tells us now as to whether the Secretary of State is exercising rather wide powers. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, commented that the Bill contains a number of order-making powers. That largely reflects the continuing technological and commercial uncertainty of what is a fast changing world.
I was pleased to see that in its report on the Bill your Lordships' Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee concluded that it was in general satisfied that the powers delegated by the Bill were appropriate. This order-making power was one in respect of which the committee concluded that, on the material available to it, the negative resolution procedure appeared to be appropriate. Our rationale for providing that in the Bill was that the likeliest reason for using it was technological change altering the amount of spectrum needed to deliver services of various kinds, so that weighty policy issues would not be involved. Nevertheless, I accept the noble Lord's argument that an order which reduces the extent to which the broadcasting spectrum is actually available for programme services might well raise substantial issues, for which the affirmative resolution procedure would he justified.

221
If the noble Lord will forgive me, I should like to refrain from definitively agreeing to his amendment this evening. I should like rather more time to consider its ramifications. But I am in principle disposed to agree to it and to bring forward a later government amendment accordingly. On that basis, I hope he will agree not to press it today.
Lord Donoughue: I thank the Minister for that very positive reply. I shall indeed accept what he says and that will he my approach on other similar amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Duration and renewal of multiplex licences]:
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Duration and conditions of digital programme licence]:
[Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.]
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 18, line 11, at end insert —
("( ) that in each year not less that 10 per cent. of the programmes are presented in British Sign Language").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 50 to 52. All parliamentarians know that there are well-intentioned policies in the clauses of any Bill but without precision and detailed targets they can be meaningless generalities which can easily be evaded. I regard these points as among the most important that I am able to digest in the Bill.
The deaf and hard of hearing and visually impaired people do not want a Bill exuding goodwill and glowing with good intentions. They want one that guarantees beneficial action. This amendment seeks to do that. It is undoubtedly necessary, especially in view of the Government's initial regrettable willingness virtually to bypass in the Bill the interests of sensorially disabled people. The Government have yet to show that they intend action to protect and promote the interests of sensorially disabled people, despite the welcome assurance from the Minister tonight. We know from experience that targets are essential. They are virtually the only way to get action.
Before the 1990 Act television was a nearly barren area for deaf people. Ninety per cent. of programmes were not subtitled. I pay tribute to the Minister involved, David Mellor, who was marvellous throughout the discussions on the Bill. That Act required Channel 3 to subtitle 50 per cent. of its programmes by 1998. The BBC and Channel 4 are conforming and Channel 5 will follow.
We now have 32 per cent. of programmes which are sub-titled, and next year it will be 37 per cent. The broadcasters are clearly following what is prescribed in
222
the Act —no more and no less. Nevertheless, it is progress. It is too slow, but it is still exciting for deaf people. It has already made a vast difference to them. There is now tremendous expertise in sub-titling and I congratulate the BBC and ITC under David Glencross for raising the quality of sub-titling for news and current affairs programmes to really splendid heights.
But the sub-titling of other programmes should he greatly expanded. The purpose of these amendments is to lay down targets for digital television. We should he clear —I hope the Minister will agree —that if no targets are specified in the Bill there will be no duty at all to provide sub-titles. It is essential not only that there is a duty, but that it is laid equally on all broadcasters, because sub-titling, as he said a few moments ago, imposes an additional cost. Therefore, logically, it would be quite unfair for some television people to bear that cost and others to evade it. I look forward to the Minister assuring the Committee that everyone who presents television programmes will be taking his fair share of the burden of the cost of sub-titling.
The target is for 100 per cent. sub-titling. The technology is available and the target of 100 per cent. is not unreasonable because it is only by that figure that we shall have equal access. Basically, that means equal opportunity. I recognise the need for phasing. We are not demanding that kind of figure overnight, but, unless that figure is in the Bill and phasing is understood and recognised, we shall get nowhere.
Digital technology will also give new opportunities to the more than 60,000 people born profoundly deaf and who rely on sign language. At present there is only one hour of sign broadcasting a week. I recognise that one reason why hearing viewers object to signing on screen is that it is visible to them and they do not need it. But, with digital technology, it is possible to have "a channel within a channel" so that the signer is only visible to those people who need it. This opportunity to give signing deaf people access to the television world should be taken. The 10 per cent. specified in this amendment is, if anything, too reasonable a figure and we should build on it.
The second amendment calls for up to 50 per cent. of output to be made available through audio-description for those with a visual handicap. It is now technically possible to provide a spoken explanation, as the Minister mentioned a few moments ago, during the gaps of dialogue and the actions of people in the scenes on television. That effectively makes the visual world of television meaningful for blind people. This method of audio-description is marvellous for blind people. It is wonderful, very simple and subtle and also very helpful. In giving a figure of up to 50 per cent., I again believe that we are being far too modest, but as a modest person, I am only asking for something which is very reasonable. I am tempted to believe that the Minister will condemn me for being far too modest. I hope that he will build on it and add to what I am suggesting.
I conclude by saying that Amendment No. 52 has a very simple and straightforward intent: that is, to give backbone to the code dealing with provisions for deaf and blind people.
We all recognise and agree that codes are very slippery, like eels, and they can very easily wriggle away. Their value in establishing and publicising what can be done can he debased or destroyed if there is no commitment and no sanction. Just one major evasion of a code can lead to it losing all value because if one evasion is allowed, others will very quickly follow.
I am sure that all new licence holders will profess dedication to the cause of access for those with sensory disabilities. I hear them say that already. But I am sure also that they will testify dedication to other causes —for example, profits —to which they may give priority. The cause of the sensory disabled can be protected only by Parliament ensuring that a licence condition requires adherence to the code of practice. Licensees will take note of licence conditions. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond constructively to those positive amendments. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My understanding is —no doubt the noble Lord will correct me if I misrepresent his intentions, and if I do so, it is unintentional on my part —that his amendments will require all digital television broadcasters to subtitle their programmes using close caption subtitles. Sign language interpretation would be required for another 10 per cent. and up to 50 per cent. would be accompanied by audio description. I shall deal with the amendments as a group because the same fundamental issues apply.
It goes without saying that the Government welcome the recent significant increases in the proportion of television programmes which are accompanied by Ceefax and Teletext subtitles. Those improvements are as a direct result of the provisions in the 1990 Broadcasting Act. I believe that they are an excellent illustration of what can be achieved by a sensible and gradual approach undertaken in full co-operation with the broadcasters. The virtues of such an approach are reflected in the proposals in Clause 19.
Those proposals require the ITC to draw up a code giving broadcasters guidance on promoting understanding and enjoyment of programmes by people who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted. Interested groups of viewers as well as broadcasters will be consulted by the ITC before the code is drawn up. That will provide an opportunity for full and frank discussion on exactly how the interests of people with sensory impairment can best be served.
I am sure that the Committee will agree that real achievements have taken place as a result of the codes and the work that has been done in connection with them. We believe that to state on the face of the Bill percentages of the sort proposed would be both arbitrary and inflexible. The great characteristic of the code is that it will be drawn up after extensive consultation and will he flexible in the light of technical and commercial developments. For example, if automatic voice-activated stenography were to be feasible in the future and adaptable to sub-titling technology, live sub-titling will become easier.
224
The noble Lord's next set of amendments affect the status of the code as regards whether it is to take the form of guidance or whether it is to be mandatory. That is obviously a crucial matter. But the achievements of the codes in the past give rise to great optimism. We believe that the code will continue to be an effective, flexible and adaptable device for achieving the kind of results which the noble Lord seeks.
I hope that he will agree also that, pending discussion, it is not appropriate at this stage for percentages of the kind which he suggests to appear on the face of the Bill. We believe that the way in which we are approaching the matter will best serve the interests of those who are suffering from sensory impairments. I hope that that will give some indication of the way that the Government's mind is working in that respect.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I feel strongly about these figures and targets, but the Minister is being constructive and I appreciate that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 53 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Code relating to provision for deaf and visually impaired]:
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 19, line 15, after ("review,") insert ("following consultation with persons who have sensory disabilities").
The noble Lord said: It may he for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 55 to 57. In view of the lateness of the hour, I propose to do so in 60 seconds. The purpose of the amendments is, first, to strengthen the code by making it a code of practice rather than one of guidance. Secondly, they call for the code to be in such a format that those whom it is intended to help —deaf and blind people —can read it; and, thirdly, they propose that in the drafting and reviewing of the code there should be consultation with those whom it affects.
This is a simple and straightforward group of amendments. I hope that the Minister can accept them. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I understand that some amendments may have been grouped with Amendment No. 54, but, as the noble Lord spoke to that amendment, I shall take it by itself. I have already made clear in a speech to the Media Trust that I expect the ITC to consult organisations representing the sensory impaired as well as broadcasters before drawing up its code. I am happy for that requirement to go on the face of the Bill if that is what the noble Lord would like to see happen.
I defer also to the noble Lord as regards the terminology to be used to describe those people with reference to whose understanding and enjoyment the ITC's code will be issued. I am therefore prepared to accept in principle, subject to full consultation with

225
lawyers, the inclusion of the term, "persons who have sensory disabilities". I hope that the noble Lord finds that encouraging.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am very grateful and delighted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 55 to 57 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 24 agreed to.
The Earl of Stockton The Earl of Stockton moved Amendment No. 58:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause —
CESSATION OF ALL ANALOGUE TERRESTRIAL TELEVISION TRANSMISSIONS
(". —(1) The BBC and independent broadcasters shall cease all analogue terrestrial television transmissions fifteen years from the commencement of digital terrestrial transmissions.
(2) The BBC and the Independent Television Commission shall report to the Secretary of State on the progress of and prospects for digital terrestrial television every five years from the commencement of digital terrestrial transmission until analogue transmissions cease.
(3) Provision shall be made for the use of public funds to assist in the supply of digital decoders to such individuals or groups of individuals who can demonstrate financial hardship that would preclude them from purchasing such a decoder.").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62.
This new clause seeks to assist the Government, the broadcasters and the manufacturers by fixing a firm date at which the frequencies currently reserved for the five analogue channels can be released to allow the issue of additional multiplex licences and the provision of other services on the expanding digital network.
In framing the amendment I have had consultations with the principal broadcasting organisations, and with BREMA, the trade association of the equipment manufacturers. They endorse the Government's stated objective to bring about the transfer of television and radio broadcasting to the digital system as rapidly as possible. Like the Committee, they applaud the decision to act now, which will mean that Britain is in the forefront of the new technologies in this area, some years ahead of all our competitors in this growing field.
On 15th December last year, my right honourable friend the Member for Surrey South-West announced that she would be reviewing the date for switching off analogue frequencies once 50 per cent. of UK households were able to receive digital television, or after five years of the first multiplex licence period, whichever was the sooner.
The merit of that approach is that it recognises that digital transmission is a desirable long-term objective, since analogue transmission is an extremely inefficient use of the spectrum. For instance, it requires 16 separate frequencies for BBC1 alone to cover the UK. This transition from analogue to digital is more significant and of greater benefit to the public than the previous move from black and white to colour.
The drawback to the softly-softly approach is that it does not, in itself, bring about a more rapid transition to all-digital television transmission. It prolongs the
226
inefficient use of scarce spectrum resources, and defers the economic boost to the UK manufacturing, transmission and telecommunications industries that the Bill places in an enviably advantageous position. It also involves the broadcasters in prolonged increased costs from dual-running their transmissions on the two systems.
Perhaps of greater interest to my noble friend the Minister is that it also delays significant revenue streams to the Government from licensing alternative uses of the spectrum for new national, regional and local broadcast services, wireless, telecommunications and data broadcasting. Even if his own department may he cautious on the issue, were he to agree to these proposals he would find himself basking in the warmth of the Treasury's approbation, which is not, I imagine, an every day occurrence.
In welcoming the decision to go digital, the manufacturers and broadcasters have expressed concerns about the seriousness of the Government's intentions. They need to be sure that digital terrestrial television is going to happen and preferably within a time scale that allows for investment planning if they are going to make the very large financial, planning, design and marketing commitments required for set-top boxes, digital television sets and associated equipment. In developing their services and their distribution strategies for the next millennium, the broadcasters also need certainty and an assurance that they will not be bearing the duplicate running costs of simulcasting for an indefinite period.
To them, and to me, the disadvantage of the proposals announced by the Government, and not to be found on the face of the Bill, is that they merely put off the evil day. Indeed, it may be that the end-date may not be any different from that suggested in this new clause, but there will be an ugly rush as D-Day (D for digital) approaches. I would, for instance, encourage manufacturers to label products with a warning that the equipment will not be able to receive digital transmissions after a certain date; a sort of sell-by-date. There would be justifiable outrage if people bought analogue sets and then found the Government subsequently announced an end-date to occur during the life of their new television set.
Members of the Committee will share my concern that the closure of analogue broadcasting may potentially deprive those who are unable to afford the upgrade to digital reception equipment. This, I believe, may not be such a major problem. With a firm end-date the manufacturers will have an interest to go into mass production and marketing as soon as feasible with inevitably a considerable reduction in price. A closure date of 2012 gives plenty of time for most households to change sets as they would in the normal course of events. The industries assure me that the average life of a set is between 10 and 12 years. Lower income groups, who are the most intensive television viewers, have already shown a willingness to upgrade equipment, as evidenced by the penetration of satellite dishes and by the fact that more than 80 per cent. of UK households now have a video-cassette recorder.
By the latter part of the period there will be an active second-hand market in set-top boxes, released from households as they gradually purchase digital television sets. This pattern was one of the features in the transition to colour receivers of a few years ago. I am also certain that a number of charitable and community projects will assist exceptional cases by recycling digital receivers and set-top boxes.
The penetration of new technologies is not easy to predict. If the take-up of digital terrestrial television is rapid, then there will be the need to consider bringing forward the termination of analogue transmissions. If, on the other hand, the take-up is much slower, then the Government would reserve the right to postpone the analogue end-date. This is why I have suggested setting two review dates after the introduction of digital terrestrial broadcasting. The Secretary of State would require the BBC and ITC to report on the take-up of digital receivers. This is work that they will be doing anyway as part of their audience research and programme planning.
There may be certain areas of the country where the transition to digital needs to receive special funding. An example would be areas of Wales where, because of the topography and the need to carry Channel 4 and S4C, there is already a shortage of frequencies to carry planned digital broadcasts. In my Amendment No. 62 the Secretary of State for Wales would be empowered to permit householders in those areas to be converted to digital reception on condition that they did not lose any of the services currently being received and that all the conversion costs were borne by the commercial beneficiaries; for example, the multiplex operators and new users such as data distributors and mobile telephone companies. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to my noble friend for the way that he has moved his amendment. I should like to explain the Government's position briefly now and subsequently write more fully on the matter to my noble friend. We are certainly happy further to consider the issues that he has raised, with the possibility of bringing forward a government amendment. We have already announced our intention to review the prospects for analogue switch-off in five years, or when the household market penetration of digital terrestrial receiving apparatus reaches 50 per cent.
First, I believe that it is a mistake to set a firm date for switching off analogue transmissions at this stage. Secondly, it is our view that the timetable for reviews of progress needs to have explicit regard to the rate at which viewers, of their own volition, acquire additional digital equipment and to give an adequate notice of the proposed switch-off date.
Finally, Clause 15(4) of the Bill explicitly empowers the ITC to require multiplex operators seeking to review their licences to furnish a revised technical plan. The Government are not convinced of the case for
228
subsidising the take up of digital receivers from public funds or from the funds of those who might then use for other commercial purposes the spectrum which analogue switch off would release. However, I have indicated in my response to my noble friend that we are prepared to consider the matter further and, as I said, write more fully to my noble friend in that respect.
The Earl of Stockton: I thank my noble friend the Minister for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Provision for broadcasting of services provided by independent analogue broadcasters]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 23, line 27, at end insert —
("( ) In exercising his power to issue a direction under subsection (2) the Secretary of State shall ensure that S4C Digital shall at no time be disadvantaged compared with other broadcasters in Wales; and before making such direction the Secretary of State shall consult with the Welsh Authority.").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Cledwyn has asked me to move the amendment. He regrets that he is unable to be in the Chamber at this late hour. The Minister will know that with this amendment we arc returning to an issue that we raised on Second Reading. It remains one of the principal concerns of S4C that it should be able to offer viewers programmes which are technically as attractive as any offered by their competitors. However, it is our understanding that the present arrangements, which are obviously not in the Bill but in the White Paper, fail to do just that.
I understand that S4C is advised by its engineers that the one-quarter multiplex solution will not allow S4C, or Channel 4, to deliver services in Wales to an acceptable standard. When the Minister dealt with the matter on Second Reading he was sympathetic up to a point. He said that the Government would,
"not fail to take any future opportunity to increase the [digital] capacity available to S4C and Channel 4 in Wales should a practical possibility present itself". —[Official Report, 16/1/96; col. 562.]
Those words are loaded with qualifications. If one studies that response carefully it does not even promise that a practical possibility will ever be available. Does that represent the best engineering advice available to the Government? Alternatively, can the Minister give us an approximate indication of the later stage when the additional capacity can be made available? Perhaps I should say not necessarily "made available", but we would like a commitment that it would be available to S4C when the first practical opportunity presents itself. The word "first" is missing from the Minister's Second Reading response.
If S4C is not to be given a first opportunity, I should like to know why. Why is it not to be given a first priority? Is it correct that when the extra capacity becomes available it may be given to new channels before the needs of S4C and Channel 4 in Wales have been fully satisfied? Those are the concerns which have been expressed by S4C. I appreciate that the amendment
was not tabled until yesterday and that therefore we may well have to return to the matter at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: In view of the lateness of the hour I do not wish to speak for long. We believe that what we propose is the best compromise available to us in the circumstances. We are providing guaranteed places for S4C and Channel 4 in Wales. This will bring both services to more people. S4C will be able to add to its schedule once it is free of the need to broadcast Channel 4 programmes. I am extremely happy to give the noble Lords who tabled this amendment my assurance that we shall look carefully at the results of the frequency planning exercise, and review the position should it not turn out as I have indicated. I am also happy to assure them that we shall continue to keep S4C's position
230
under review should extra capacity become available in the future. I hope that that will provide appropriate reassurance for the noble Lords.
Lord Prys-Davies: In the light of the Minister's response today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 23, line 42, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 44.
[Amendments Nos. 61, 62 and 63 not moved.]
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past ten o'clock.