My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the report to which the noble Lady refers is not a Government report. It is an independent discussion paper which has been passed to the expert panel set up by the Chief Medical Officer's Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy. The panel is expected to report later this year.

My Lords, when the panel has reported would the DHSS consider publishing a brief pamphlet setting out its recommendations for circulation to general practitioners and to health and education authorities with a view to improving meals in schools, hospitals and other such places?

My Lords, the Government welcome the paper to which the noble Lady has referred as a contribution towards the discussion about diet and health. The James advice regarding the direction in which people should change their diet is very similar to the department's advice given in a pamphlet called Eating for Health. The definitive body is the body to which I have referred in the original Answer. We shall have to await that before we can decide whether or not to publish any pamphlet such as she suggests.

My Lords, in his further consideration of these matters will the noble Lord bear in mind that, if he were to heed the advice of all my medical colleagues about what not to eat, he would come to the conclusion that the only way to stay absolutely healthy would be to starve to death? In that connection, would the noble Lord the Minister bear in mind that the positive advice in the James Report regarding what to eat is of much greater importance than the view that if we all ate a great deal more fibre we would all be a great deal fitter?

My Lords, I certainly share with the noble Lord the feeling that if we paid attention to every single comment that is made on health we probably would all end up in the way he described. As far as fibre is concerned, the Government entirely share his view.

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that one encouraging thing revealed in the James Report is that, whereas we have had for a very long time great disagreement in the medical profession about what is a balanced diet and what is dangerous and what is not, we now seem to have agreement with the medical profession, with dieticians and the rest? I wondered why the Government do not themselves feel that they themselves should publish this report; and, secondly, whether it would not now be wise, since there are so many dangers, for the Government to launch a campaign so that the public have a better understanding of what are the recommendations in relation to a balanced and wise diet.

My Lords, as I have said, the James Report was an ad hoc piece of advice to another committee. We are concerned about the degree to which people should change their dietary habits, but I have to say that we think that in some respects—and this, I think, was borne out by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley—there is a great deal of discussion among the experts as to what is right. We think that James perhaps goes further than can be justified in the present state of scientific knowledge. But it is up to the committee to which I referred to produce the definitive answer.

My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree at this time that the addition of leek to the diet would be beneficial to the nation?

My Lords, on a day like this how could I possibly say otherwise?

My Lords, would the Minister not agree that nutritional standards could be advanced considerably if the Government were to campaign to encourage people to grow their own fresh vegetables?

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is entirely right and I know of his particular interest in this matter.

My Lords, can the Government make this report available to all Members of the House since quite obviously many of us on these Benches are under-nourished?

My Lords, the noble Lord looks very well to me, but if he has any complaints I am sure that somebody will be able to look after him.

My Lords, do the Government realise that an improvement in the nation's health would result in a reduction of disease so that the DHSS would save a great deal of money?

My Lords, yes, I daresay that the noble Lady is right, but I would still ask her to await the definitive result of the report to which I referred.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, as quickly as possible after the evaluation report has been completed. Our intention is that it should not be later than when the House rises for the Summer Recess.

My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Is the noble Lord aware how tantalising the Government have been to those of us who told them in the first place that this measure was wrong-headed and who cannot wait to be told that we were right? Is the noble Lord aware that we were first promised a date by the right honourable gentleman Mr. Brittan in 1950; we were, secondly, promised a date in 1951 when the promise was made by the right honourable gentleman then Mr. Mayhew, and thirdly, the noble Lord himself at the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill promised us a date in 1982. Lastly, the honourable gentleman Mr. Hurd gave us the final date, we thought, which was early in the new year of 1984. Would the noble Lord agree that February 29th is the latest time which can be described as "early in the new year"?

My Lords, on the basis that all the noble Lords' references were to the present decade, I freely admit that we have been over-optimistic—and I impute this to myself in the statement that I made in this House. The work to be done has proved much more intricate and more extensive than I had supposed but, in view of the exchanges on the last Question, your Lordships may think that a few of a Minister's words are a good part of his diet.

My Lords, has the noble Lord the Minister seen the report, certainly from one of the centres, that the short, sharp shocks introduced at detention centres have been more shocking for the prison officers than for the boys they are supposed to reform?

My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord is probably referring to the West Yorkshire Probation Service Study, in which case I can say that we are aware of that study. I understand that the report on it is not yet complete. Whatever its conclusions may be, of course, they will be a good deal narrower than what is clearly becoming the very extensive work that we are engaged on ourselves.

My Lords, can we be assured that the report, which we await with great interest, will be published before the events in the second week of October in Brighton this year?

My Lords, I am afraid that I did not get the reference or the implication of the date in the noble Lord's supplementary question.

My Lords, I was asking whether we could have an assurance that the report will be ready before the conference in Brighton in October.

My Lords, I presume the noble Lord means his conference rather than ours. I have already said when we expect the report to be. It is not in our control and it would be quite wrong for us to force statisticians to publish figures before they were content with them. The analysis is now being written up; the whole of the results will be published; the report will include an account of the techniques used to arrive at its conclusions, and it will be supported by all the necessary statistics. The whole of this is being overseen by a committee which includes two eminent and independent professors.

My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill 1982 concern was expressed by a number of people at the number of boys being sent to these centres undergoing this experimental regime who were subsequently found to be unfit and had to be returned whence they came? Is it not a fact that, as at September 1982, more than 100 boys were found to be medically unfit on grounds of mental or physical handicaps and had to be sent away? Could he assure the House that something has been done since, and ahead of the publication of this report, to rectify that very unsatisfactory state of affairs? May I put another question? Would he not agree that this form of treatment, if appropriate, would be appropriate for acts of vandalism, hooliganism, muggings and other forms of violence by young people? Would he accept that my information is that the great majority of boys being sent to these centres are found guilty of taking and driving away vehicles, and of theft?

My Lords, on the noble Lord's first question, the step which has been taken to ensure that nobody is sent to these centres for whom such a régime is not medically suitable is that they shall be medically examined on arrival and before they are committed to the régime. Therefore the numbers mentioned by the noble Lord refer I think to those who have not actually embarked upon the régime at all; but I will of course look into that. As to the second of his questions, as a layman I have a view of course as to which of the offenders is the most suitable for this treatment. However, it is not for me, as a member of the Government, to instruct the court what sentence to give in any case.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, regulations enable bus operators to enforce a ban on smoking in any part of a public service vehicle. But it is a matter for the bus operators, taking full account of public opinion, to decide whether they will implement such a ban. The Government welcome the trend towards further restrictions on smoking in buses.

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that helpful answer, may I ask whether he is aware that whereas it is St. David's day today, yesterday was a national no-smoking day? Is he aware that certain unnamed Members of this House seemed blissfully ignorant of that fact? Also, in the case of London's double-decker buses where people are allowed to smoke on the upper deck, the travellers face serious hazards. First, there is the danger of being asphyxiated in the rush hour; secondly, there is the problem of ash all over the place because there are no ash trays; and thirdly, in the crush to leave the bus there is the danger of holes being burnt in one's clothes.

My Lords, regarding yesterday's day for no-smoking, I certainly congratulate the organisers; but it is too early of course to say whether it has been a success. So far as Members of your Lordships' House who smoke are concerned, I certainly would not like to be the person who turns, for example, to my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip and says that he has just smoked his last cigar.

As to buses, as my noble friend says, London Transport completely, prohibits smoking on single-decker buses and on the lower decks of double-decker buses. In the latter case, smokers are asked to sit at the rear on the upper deck. It is a matter, as I have said, for the bus companies to decide on these arrangements and I am sure that they will take note of his remarks. My noble friend also made a specific reference to the passive smoking factor, in that others in the same environment pick up smoke. He used the word "asphyxiate". On present evidence, this situation is not likely to cause any great harm to healthy adults, but of course the Government are keeping the matter under review.

My Lords, I should be the last person in your Lordships' House to prevent any Member asking questions—that is the very last thing I would think of—but really I am becoming a bit aggravated by questions which aim at interfering with a civilised existence.

Hear, hear!

Only the other week they tried to prevent members of the police force having a drink occasionally, and now they want to stop smoking on buses. I have never travelled on a bus—I have the opportunity of using a car—but really this is going a bit too far. Are we going to stop everything? Some people want to stop this place going on—and that is another example of aggravation. With great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who often asks very sensible questions, I am sorry but on this occasion I think it is completely uncivilised.

My Lords, would it be out of order, since the Minister did not immediately leap up to reply, to ask this question. Is not the principle concerned involving not those who smoke pipes and cigars but those who smoke cigarettes? Is not the evidence that was quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, quite correct—that there is increasing medical evidence of the effect on non-smokers of those who are smoking? This is a new factor, which is better understood now as the result of the third report of the Royal College of Physicians. Is it not right that the Government should seek to use their influence, as was suggested by the noble Lord?

Yes, my Lords; the Government will do their best to discourage people from smoking, for the reasons which I think I have made quite clear and which were also made clear when a similar Question was asked two or three weeks ago. So far as bus passengers are concerned, surveys seem to suggest that comparatively few people consider smoking on buses to be a serious problem or a serious deterrent to travelling by bus. I dare say that if long-distance bus operators were to ban smoking on their buses then they probably would not get all the customers they want.

My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Government are considering increasing taxation by putting up health service charges in order to make up for the loss of revenue on tobacco duty?

My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, that question would be better directed to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I certainly do not propose to be drawn into answering it now.

My Lords, would not the House and the Minister agree that the concluding question on this subject might well be to follow a recommendation of the Wolfenden Committee—of which I was proud to be a member—namely, that smoking should only be allowed between consenting adults in private?

My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had been involved in that committee; but I take the point that he makes.

My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would agree that the "upstairs, downstairs" system on the buses has now been running for a very long time and has worked extremely well. Is it not really an excellent example of freedom of choice which I understand this Government are very keen on?

Yes, my Lords, of course the Government are keen on freedom of choice. However, it is a matter for the bus companies to decide for themselves whether it is appropriate to ban or discourage smoking in any particular part of a bus because there are those among the public who do not like smoking as much as others.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the question addressed to him by my noble friend Lord Mishcon is not contained in the Labour Manifesto? Is it not improper that a member of our Front Bench should raise an issue which is in violation of decisions taken by our annual conference year by year?

My Lords, I would hesitate before getting into the middle of a discussion between the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and his noble friend Lord Mishcon; but I can tell him that this is not in our manifesto either.

My Lords, although my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has incurred the formidable censure of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, by his suggestion of banning smoking in buses, is not the practice followed in London a reasonable compromise between safeguarding health and individual liberty? Would my noble friend consider commending this example to other companies throughout the country?

My Lords, if it is successful, as my noble friend suggests it is, then I have no doubt that other bus companies will follow. There are other examples which I could give but I do not think it would be appropriate necessarily to compare those bus companies outside London with those bus companies within it. The message is much the same.

My Lords, would my noble friend agree that in places like the Underground one does not have the choice of going upstairs or downstairs to smoke? Would not the advice of the Government in such a case as that to the London Transport Board perhaps be advisable?

My Lords, as I understand it, on the Underground one has the choice of going into a smoking or a non-smoking compartment.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am a little shocked at his suggestion that just because a man owns a bus he should thereby he entitled to correct another man's faults?

My Lords, he can do that only if he owns a public bus and uses it for public transport.

My Lords, does the Minister not think that people should be left free to smoke or not to smoke as they please? I ask this question as one who gave up smoking 40 years ago.

My Lords, of course individuals are entitled to do what they please, but the fact is that, as I said in answer to a Question a couple of weeks ago, a great deal of money and a great many working days are lost as a result of smoking, and I do not think one can escape those facts.

My Lords would the noble Lord—

Next Question!

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the submission from the Public Transport Users' Groups is currently being considered along with other submissions received.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that this is a submission from some 20 or more official Passenger Transport Users' Groups in Greater London and the metropolitan counties? Will he also recognise that the submission is highly critical of the proposals in the Government's White paper; that it is concerned that there may be an erosion of the progress made in passenger transport development since the metropolitan counties were established; and that it is concerned that the question of passenger transport will be divorced from other important subjects—not least, strategic planning? As almost every report dealing with Streamlining the Cities is critical, is the consultation really genuine and will the Government consider revising their proposals?

My Lords, I can confirm that the submission is from a number of transport users' groups. I have to refute nearly all the first set of points which the noble Lord embraced, in that we do not see the submission as particularly underlining a need for a reversal of public transport policy, nor do we see it as underlining a departure from the consideration of social and other needs and so on. So I cannot agree with what the noble Lord is suggesting. So far as consultation is concerned, this is a submission and I said in my original Answer that that submission is being considered.

My Lords, I must ask whether the Minister has really read the submission. I have a copy here and my two extracts are only two of seven submissions, all of which are in line with what I said.

Yes, my Lords. I have read the submission. I, too, have a copy here and I also have a summary in front of me and I cannot accept what the noble Lord says.

My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister tell us how many of the voluntary organisations—those for the disabled, the elderly and so on—have put in submissions in this field?

I regret, not without notice, my Lords.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are not only concerned with transport, and that every public organisation concerned with practically every aspect of public policy, and of whatever political party and none, has made submissions to the Government opposing their proposals?

My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper deals with the submission from the transport users' groups and I certainly do not have at my fingertips any information about any other submissions.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the behaviour of English soccer fans in France. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Aerospace Industry. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Belstead who will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 27th and 28th February.

It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Cable and Broadcasting Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment the Third Reading of the Orkney Islands Council Order Confirmation Bill, consideration on Report of the Western Isles Islands Council (Kallin Pier, Harbour Jurisdiction) Order Confirmation Bill and the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1984 will be taken.

My Lords, I beg to move the privilege amendment.

My Lords—

My Lords, I think that if we are to have a debate it should be on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. Will that be suitable to the noble Lord?

My, Lords, the Motion that I heard was that the privilege amendment be agreed to. Does the noble Lord rise to speak on that?

My Lords, I wish to speak on the Bill.

My Lords, I think there will be an opportunity. I have only the privilege amendment in front of me at the moment.

On Question, an amendment (privilege) made.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

My Lords, this is a very useful Bill, and it brings up to date the legislation necessary to keep up with the present situation in agriculture, where we have developments in animal breeding, in the keeping of animals and, of course, in the rights of veterinary people to collect material that may be required in the control of diseases. I know that my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby may have liked to go a little further than the Bill has gone, but, so far as we are concerned, it fills a useful gap because of the developments that have taken place in the keeping of animals, in the slaughtering of animals and in the control of diseases, and we give it our blessing. I am glad that the Minister was able to say that he would make exceptions in the slaughtering provisions so as to allow housewives to kill their Christmas turkeys without a licence.

My Lords, having taken rather longer on the Committee and Report stages of this Bill than is customary for a Bill of this kind, I ask leave to make a few comments before the Bill finally passes through your Lordships' House. This is a useful Bill, and we have improved it slightly in the course of its passing through the House. It is not a criticism, but it is a disappointment that I have that the Bill does not contain a great deal more along the line of reform of the conditions under which animals go to slaughter. Clauses 4 to 7 are a distinct advance on present conditions, and we look forward to the regulations and the codes of practice which will be issued under the provisions of those clauses.

But the main problem here is that we are never going to catch up. At the present rate of progress, old problems will take too long to remedy and new ones will be looming up while we are still dealing with past practices. The Government should make up their minds to make speedier progress with the changes which they must know are overdue, and which I thought were implicit in the undertakings given by the Conservative Party as long ago as the election of 1979. I fear that Ministers express hopes about doing things during coming Sessions and during the lifetime of a Parliament, but find that the processes of administration, consideration and consultation all drag down the hopes of the Government, month after month and year after year. Even though we are dealing with a Bill which relates principally to poultry going to slaughter, there is still the problem of the battery hen in the background to be dealt with, a problem of probably 25 years' standing which is giving rise to increasing concern among members of the public about the conditions under which poultry are kept.

I have stressed more than once that new problems need to be identified very early before they rapidly change into considerable enterprises and industries, with very large amounts of capital invested in them. In this connection it is very important that when the Farm Animal Welfare Council undertakes an investigation and a report there should be the least possible delay in implementing the recommendations which the Government feel able to adopt, otherwise the Farm Animal Welfare Council goes through the whole process of consultation and the department then goes over it all again and gives more time to express views to people whose views have been expressed much earlier to the Farm Animal Welfare Council. This happened in relation to the recommendations which are embodied in Clauses 4 to 7 of the Bill.

One problem which is looming ahead and which I hope will be dealt with speedily is that of the slaughter of deer. A new farm animal, the red deer, is now the subject of intensive husbandry and a new element in the meat market. There is no doubt that there is considerable concern about it. I noticed that on our menu the other evening there was venison. Where did it come from? How was it slaughtered? Was it shot in the open by high velocity bullets, or was it slaughtered in an abattoir with a captive bullet? The deer is not yet a farm animal which is protected under the slaughterhouses Acts. It is very desirable that we should deal with a problem which is far different from that of the domesticated cow, bullock, sheep or pig. These are wild animals—much nearer the wild than the domesticated farm animal. It is important that we should look at this problem before it becomes a matter of serious public concern.

There are other aspects of the problem which it would not be suitable for me to go into at length on the Third Reading of the Bill. In the case of a Bill of this kind one must stay within reasonable boundaries of discussion. However, I should like to make one point before I sit down. It relates to the role of the consumer. Throughout the different stages of the Bill we have been dealing with the slaughter of millions and millions of birds for the table: poultry, geese, ducks, turkeys. And at the end of the Report stage we added quails.

When I read the evidence that was given some years ago to the Select Committee in another place, consideration of which was the forerunner of certain parts of the Bill, I kept on reading about "consumer demand", as though consumers were making imperative demands upon producers which somehow had to be met, on pain of public anger. The consumer may have preferences and choices but I do not believe that it can be called "consumer demand". There is a tendency to regard the consumer as a kind of automatic shopping basket. But the consumer is a human being and a whole person, with feelings and intelligence about the factors and conditions which lie behind what is being bought in the shops. When, therefore, we consider animal welfare, since we are told that birds and animals must come first, I hope that we shall not raise the status of consumer demand to a kind of religious text. It is nothing of the kind. I hope that the divide between producers and consumers in this context can be narrowed.

It is distressing to read of the venom expressed by some spokesmen in the context of the production of food animals and livestock in relation to those who are agitating on behalf of welfare societies. But so-called "welfarists" are just members of the consuming public, like everybody else. I wonder whether or not some of the animal welfare societies would do well to convert themselves into a kind of consumer association in order to express their views as consumers rather than as those who care for animals, without full regard to their own involvement in the treatment of animals about which we now complain. There is need for a closer relationship between consumers and producers so that the interests of both can be looked at with a greater degree of harmony and understanding than is the case at present.

Another aspect of this matter is the use of the boycott. I hope noble Lords have not overlooked the fact that Tesco have said that the protests they have received from their own customers about the culling of seals in Canada have been so strong that they have decided, as a matter of company policy, to ban the future purchase of fish products from Canada, so long as the culling of seals continues. That is a very courageous and very unusual decision. We might devise something of that kind as between consumers and producers in other branches of production if the gap of misunderstanding and hostility which exists between them is widened still further. That is why it is very important that we should not regard the producer as our enemy. Nor should the producer regard the consumer as his enemy. The consumer is acknowledged by the producer to be in command in the shops. Therefore producers should try to come to terms with the consumers, who have views about the way in which animals and birds are produced and slaughtered.

I shall not detain the House any longer. However, this is an opportunity which rarely occurs. I am glad to see that animal welfare, which is usually the last business of the day, today happens to be the first. I am grateful for that.

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have responded to the Motion, That this Bill do now pass and who have contributed to the debates we have had on the Bill. When the Bill was introduced it was a good Bill, but due to the very hard work which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and other noble Lords have done on it, we have made it even better. I am always full of admiration for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is able to talk about enormously interesting subjects which do not necessarily always fall within the scope of the legislation which is being discussed.

It has been a great delight in the last few minutes that on a Bill which deals with farm animal disease, poultry slaughter, veterinary drugs and the artificial breeding of livestock, the noble Lord has taken us to Canada to have a look at seals and has referred to the very acrimonious debates which took place in this House a few years ago on the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, which is a matter for the Home Office and a different kind of legislation. However, the noble Lord made various points to me. I am not saying that the points to which I have referred are not serious—of course they are—but the noble Lord made other points to me about the Bill.

Briefly, on the subject of deer, we in the Ministry of Agriculture are awaiting a report from the Farm Animal Welfare Council about the slaughter of deer. So far as getting on with things is concerned, we are aiming to introduce very soon proposals for regulations under Clause 6, which is the clause dealing with codes of practice, with a view to making regulations as soon as possible after the Bill enters upon the statute book.

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

My Lords, with permission, I will repeat the Answer which has been given to a Private Notice Question in another place on the behaviour of English soccer fans in France. I believe that my honourable friend Mr. Macfarlane gave the Answer, which was as follows:

"Mr. Speaker, no-one in the House can feel anything but a sense of shame, disgrace and revulsion at what occurred in France before, during and after the international soccer match in Paris yesterday.

"I am currently awaiting further details from my and other officials in Paris, but early reports show that 30 English fans were arrested following violence in the stadium: 26 have been released and four are still being held. My officials will be holding further discussions to assess the extent of the damage caused by the disturbances.

"It was in the light of previous incidents caused by English football supporters abroad (notably in Luxembourg in November) that pre-match planning for this game, on the part of Government, the football authorities and the French football and law and order authorities, was particularly extensive.

"Considerable efforts were made to implement the measures agreed by European Ministers with responsibility for sport at our meeting in Rotterdam in November. The initiative for European agreement on these measures to combat football-related hooliganism was taken by me in January 1983 when I met European Ministers in Paris. The paper agreed by European Ministers for sport contains a number of recommendations for action by Governments and by football authorities. Two in particular—control of ticket sales and crowd segregation—would enable a considerable reduction in the opportunities for crowd disturbances.

"In addition to my visit to Paris in January 1983, I met the French Minister with responsibility for sport again in Paris in September 1983 and discussed football hooliganism and the great importance of co-operation between European Governments. I also wrote to the French Minister on 10th February 1984 stressing the need for adequate policing within and without the stadium and the need to deter offenders by resolute action by the police and the courts.

"Representatives of the English Football Association (including their overseas liaison officer—a retired senior Metropolitan Police officer) visited Paris on 9th, 10th and 11th January 1984 and met with representatives of the French football authorities, the French police and our embassy in Paris. Arrangements were made regarding control of ticket sales, crowd segregation, sale of alcohol, supporter travel routes and policing.

"The European agreement is a major and constructive document reflecting the positive action and intention of government to do all within its power to combat hooliganism. We are confident that proper and effective implementation of the measures contained in the agreement would greatly reduce the problems.

"I am in touch with the French Minister for Sport requesting a full report of the incidents, and will also be meeting the chairman and secretary of the Football Association tomorrow afternoon for discussions.

"Mr. Speaker, I shall be conducting a full appraisal of the incidents with the parties concerned. I shall need to establish whether the measures agreed by European Ministers were fully implemented on the day. I fully intend to continue to urge all concerned to do everything possible to rid the game of these mindless louts and to urge European countries to use stringent penalties against convicted offenders to act as a deterrent".

My Lords, that concludes the Answer to the Private Notice Question.

My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the Answer he has just read to us. We on these Benches echo what his honourable friend feels about the assault on the reputation of this country as well as on that of football when events such as this take place. Unfortunately, it does not come as such a surprise as one would have hoped, because this has happened in the past two years, not only in Luxembourg but also in Denmark, Holland, Italy and Switzerland.

We feel that it is no longer a question for the Department of the Environment, who have done their best to wrestle with this problem both in the last Government and in this one. It is no longer a matter of sport, because the football authorities have done what they can. They have sold tickets only to registered fans and through reputable travel authorities. We believe that it is a law and order problem. It is well known that drunken fans were fighting on the train. They boarded the ferry drunk, and were fighting. May I ask the noble and learned Lord these questions? What were the special arrangements for the role of the county police in Kent this time? What part did British Rail police play? What part did the harbour authority police take in this? And what happened in respect of the passport authorities at Dover when fans got off the train, as I understand it, already drunk but able to obtain duty free alcohol on the ferry across?

Is it true, as we have been led to understand, that the National Front was behind much of the ugly violence and organised its members to attend the match? As the noble and learned Lord has told us, 30 fans were arrested and 26 have been released. Is it not true, and also understandable, that other countries want to get rid of these people, and that they do not want to keep them in their prisons, at their expense, in their countries?

It must surely be apparent that new government initiatives are wanted in respect of this whole question, because all the old initiatives have now failed, with the increase in intensity of the violence. We must find a way of exercising some form of passport control. There must be tougher controls to protect both other passengers who are travelling and the people of the countries abroad which such fans visit. Is it not now an urgent matter for the Home Secretary and for the forces of law and order?

My Lords, I also thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating the Answer which covers that shameful event and which I think everyone in the House will have blushed to hear. Having not had the chance to read and consider the Answer, I can only say that it sounds as though a great deal was done to try to prevent this sort of thing happening and it was entirely unsuccessful. Therefore, as a whole, we must think again. I have only one suggestion to make and that came out of the Statement. I understand that over 30 fans were arrested, and I believe 24 were then released and sent back. I should like to have a bilateral arrangement when these matches take place that the fans are sent back under arrest and not released. At least we could then deal with them here. I withhold any further comment from these Benches until we have had time to discuss the matter; but we deeply deplore anything so shameful to our nation.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for the way in which they have treated this Statement. There is no difference in the House either about our feelings on this subject or about the seriousness with which we treat outbreaks of violence of this kind. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that there is what I might call a law and order dimension in this—and I apologise for the English of that—but it is at the moment a matter of international agreement between Ministers for sport. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will agree that in this country his responsibilities are closely involved, as indeed are the responsibilities of his appropriate counterparts in France and other countries where these matches take place.

I am informed and believe that alcohol was not available on the train in Kent. I believe the train was escorted by the British Rail police and that the bar on the ship, which was a French ship called the "St. Eloi", was not open. Therefore that has been dealt with. British transport police were on the ship at the request of the French owners.

The movement of citizens is of course a legal right and a legal right guaranteed within the Common Market. I think it would require rather stringent changes in our legal system to restrict the free movement of individuals in that respect. I note the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, about persons being sent back here under arrest. I think I should refer that to my right honourable friend because it would probably require some kind of primary legislation and agreement between the authorities involved in both countries. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord further on the subject. I think I had better leave it there for the moment.

My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether it is not time that on these occasions we stopped referring to these people as football fans since it is perfectly obvious that their interest in football matches is minimal? They are simply looking for an excuse for a violent foray against persons and property.

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend's suggestion. I did not read the word "fan" with any great enthusiasm when I repeated the Statement. I noticed other expressions such as "hooligans" and "mindless louts" were also used. I rather deprecate the use of jolly expressions about people who misbehave in this way. They are offending against the criminal law of any country in which they perform. Some of the offences are undoubtedly punishable by imprisonment and would be covered by the extradition Acts. I take the same view as my noble friend. He is quite right in expressing our feeling that to describe them as just friendly supporters of the side playing away is not quite enough.

My Lords, is it not a particularly disturbing and deplorable feature of this grave matter that unfortunately the British hooligans are the worst, so far as one can see from the reports of what has been going on? They bring a shame upon this country and do great damage to us. One is glad to detect that a fresh look is being applied to the scene. The recital of the international conferences and discussions has apparently produced nothing—at least nothing to stop events like those which took place yesterday. I ask one factual question. One gathers that a great deal of criminal misconduct happened from this howling mob before it ever got to France; apparently on the train, ashore, and on the boat. What prosecutions are to be brought and what arrests have been made for offences committed within our own jurisdiction? If we started there it would give some example. It is a grave situation which is doing our country grave harm.

My Lords, I can only agree with the noble and learned Lord. I have no idea whether our miscreants are the worst. Whether they are the worst or not, they bring grave discredit upon Great Britain. I gather that these were English and I notice that the noble and learned Lord is wearing a daffodil today.

My Lords, if I may interrupt, it never happens at Welsh rugby football matches.

My Lords, it did not happen yesterday, at any rate. However, the miscreants bring great discredit on the sport and on our nation. I cannot give the noble and learned Lord any information with regard to arrests within our jurisdiction; but I note what he says. There was a certain amount of damage on the train and I think that the other damage was either on the French boat or in France.

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can cast his mind back to 1921 when we attended the Eton and Harrow match at Lords, after which, wearing our top hats and wielding our sticks, we descended upon the pitch in order to wreak vengeance on the Harrovians. The police, with the utmost good humour, intervened and suppressed it. They suppressed it not only for 1921 but, in spite of a 60-year presence, they suppressed it altogether and it never occurred again. Can we look at that remarkable example of deterrence and see what was the deterrent used, how it worked and try to repeat it?

My Lords, I remember 1921; but I think the noble Lord should have used the first person singular rather than the first person plural about what took place. I was a perfectly innocent witness on that occasion. So as far as I remember, the worst that happened was that top hats were smashed and jumped up and down upon. I do not think there were many casualties. My own view about what did happen then—which I think he was right in saying was the last, or almost the last, of such occasions which had hitherto become almost a tradition—was that the force of public opinion made people realise that there was no justification for such behaviour and that it brought great discredit on those who participated and those who were associated with them. The parents of those concerned and the school authorities conveyed that message quite sharply to those who could be identified.

My Lords, may I be permitted to correct one thing in my observations? If I referred to British hooliganism, on this occasion it would appear to have been an English excrescence.

My Lords, so many attempts have been made to eliminate this pestilential nuisance without a great deal of success. Does the noble and learned Lord think that something really drastic could be done in the way of threatening, should there be another outbreak, to ban all professional football matches for the space of one year?

My Lords, that would depend, of course, upon Parliament, but I fancy that some Members of Parliament might think that this was rather drastic action to take. I must say that it is a very serious matter, but curiously enough it reminds me tremendously of what took place in ancient Rome between the Blues and the Greens.

My Lords, while I share the general revulsion at this behaviour, I was a little uneasy about the last few words of the original Answer, if I heard them aright. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord this question. Whatever else may happen in the rest of Europe, it would be wrong, would it not, for the Government in this country to urge the courts to impose more severe penalties for a particular type of offence?

Curiously enough, my Lords, the last words of the Answer read as follows:

"I fully intend to continue to urge all concerned to do everything possible to rid the game of these mindless louts and to urge European countries to use stringent penalties against convicted offenders to act as a deterrent".

My Lords, I had always thought that we were European.

My Lords, I rather gathered from the original Answer that my honourable friend the Minister responsible for sport was contemplating urging European countries to impose stringent penalties upon British hooligans if they misbehaved abroad. The courts in this country do not have jurisdiction to impose penalties of any kind on foreign offences, except murder.

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that sending the football hooligans out of the country where the offence has occurred, except where there have been very serious assaults, makes it extremely difficult after they get home to bring charges, and that for the most wanton damage and vandalism people get off scot-free? Would it not be possible, by mutual agreement with the host country, to hold and charge these people where the offence has occurred? Would not a period in a foreign gaol be far more effective than all our cries of woe?

My Lords, I have no doubt that the French authorities will take careful note of what my noble friend has suggested. I do not think that we could compel them so to act if they did not want to.

My Lords. I rise to say how much this incident has upset me. When I saw on the television these disgraceful scenes I was greatly upset. I was even more upset to read in the newspapers this morning what a good thing it is that Britain was not successful in the European Cup, and therefore will not be playing in France this summer. That, I think, is a condemnation of the sporting instincts of certain of the British football supporters. No solutions have been posed by your Lordships, and I have none. There could be more stringent penalties; but I think that we have to take into account what my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale has said, and must be careful not to have more severe penalties in this connection than in others. I think that the law has to take its course. I believe that a great responsibility rests on the police. They are doing a good job, and I think that we have to support them. The Government must try to find some way out of this, and I am sure that in their discussions they will have the full support of the House.

My Lords, I do not know quite how to comment on that. I do not think that the noble Lord could have complained about the tone of the press this morning, which was universally condemnatory of what took place. As regards the British Government dealing with such disorders in this country, it is of course our responsibility, but it is not our responsibility to punish offenders abroad. Speaking generally and from the point of view of the general jurisprudence of Europe, of course the offences themselves are not classed as hooliganism, or football hooliganism: they are classed as assaults, criminal damage, offences against Sections 18 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and so on, and the equivalent offences abroad. The offenders must be punished for the offences which they commit, which are that class of offence. The penalty must suit the crime and the record of the offender.

My Lords, may one take it, by virtue of the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is dealing with this PNQ and Answer, that he together with the Law Officers will be consulting on this matter and the very serious situation in regard to it? May I also ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would agree that the one positive contribution that could be made here is by the youth clubs of this land, which at the present moment are getting very little support indeed and which very much need encouragement?

My Lords, I do not think that I was asked to repeat the Answer of the Minister with responsibilities for sport in my capacity as Lord Chancellor. I think it was probably because I had once been a Minister for Sport myself. I should probably not be consulted about law and order problems. My function as Lord Chancellor is to administer the courts and to deal with the judicial side of matters of this kind. I studiously avoid saying anything about prosecutions. Whether the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General should be called in I think would be a matter for my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary, who is principally responsible in this country for law and order. I suppose that in France, although the distribution of offices is somewhat different, it would be the Minister of Internal Affairs.

My Lords, it may help if I remind your Lordships that before I was so politely interrupted last Monday I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 36, 39 and 43.

Your Lordships will now have had the very considerable advantage of having had 48 hours in which to consider what I said and to decide what was wrong with it, or, as I hope, what was right. In the interval I, too, have had time to reflect on the difficulties of handling under the rules of procedure for Report stage—which do not permit noble Lords to speak more than once, except when moving an amendment—groups of amendments addressing the same problem. May I suggest that after I have briefly summarised my wares, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, might speak to his Amendments Nos. 44 and 45, so that your Lordships can see the alternative shapes in which the Government amendments might reach the statute book? Thereafter, if my noble friend Lord De La Warr wants to comment on them and advance the claims of his solution he might do so; the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, can do likewise with his; and your Lordships will then have the full range of proposals before you. After any further discussion, it would then be open to me, by leave and by convention, to reply to the whole debate. If your Lordships are broadly content with that, perhaps I should very briefly recapitulate the points that I sought to put before your Lordships on Monday night.

In summary, the effect of Amendments Nos. 36, 39 and 43, taken together, is as follows. First, the amendments re-label the events covered by Clause 31 which are to be kept on a list maintained by the Secretary of State. They become "listed events". Secondly, we are proposing for the first time a label for the events covered by the restrictions in Clause 13(2) on pay-per-view and restricted services. These events will become "protected events". Thirdly, the amendments provide that the term "national interest", which is referred to in connection with listed events, includes interests within the four parts of the United Kingdom.

Fourthly, the amendments provide a new definition of the events covered by the restrictions on pay-per-view showing—that is, those events we are now to term "protected events"—rather than referring to events of a class of description which your Lordships thought in Committee might go too wide. The new definition talks in terms of an event which,

"is one of a series of similar events which it is the practice of a broadcasting authority to broadcast".

We believe that this effectively narrows the scope of the restriction and makes it clear that to qualify for protection an event must in some way be a continuation of something which the broadcasters have previously shown.

Finally, the amendments provide a definition of "listed event" to tie in with the re-labelling of these two categories and provide a technical revision of the expression "pay-per-view". We believe that these changes will considerably improve the operation of Clause 13.

I shall be replying to points your Lordships will make in my wind up—which, I am afraid, will be longer than this because I shall be replying to four groups of amendments—but I believe, as I say, that what your Lordships have before you now is an improvement on what was before your Lordships at Committee stage and I commend these amendments to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.

My Lords, I am very grateful for having been invited to take this opportunity not to move but to speak to my two amendments, Nos. 44 and 45, which are amendments to the Government's amendment No. 43. These are amendments which relate back to subsection (2). Subsection (2) is the one whose message is that events which really belong or have belonged to the BBC or to the ITA shall not become available to Cable. I think that is a sort of shorthand description of subsection (2).

May I take this opportunity to say that for myself I am very grateful to the Government for the amendments to subsection (2) that they have put down to narrow it, because I think it is conceded by all of us that subsection (2) as it stands is far too widely drawn and is much too big a net and would be hopelessly unfair to cable if it went through unamended.

Subsection (2) refers to protected events. To see what that means we have to look at the Government's Amendment No. 43, which says:

"'protected event' means … one of a series of similar events which it is the practice of a broadcasting authority to broadcast".

I think, if I may say so, that that definition is quite satisfactory if what you have in mind is what I believe the Government had in mind when they drafted their definition; that is to say, a series of single events which come round probably year after year. But there is another situation which can be described by the expression,

"one of a series of similar events".

To give an example of this, let me take a series of qualifying horse races which take place throughout a single season. The heats are run on different race courses at different times during the season and they lead up to a final at the end of the season between the horses that have qualified by winning the heats. Some of these heats, or qualifying races, will have taken place on Saturdays on race courses with which either the BBC or the ITA have long-standing arrangements. But other heats are likely to be held either in midweek or upon other race courses with whom neither the BBC nor the ITV have arrangements. I do not see why those other events should not be broadcast by cable if cable would like to broadcast them, and I do not believe that the definition of "protected events" is satisfactory to deal with the events that I am describing because I do not believe that the Government had those events in mind when they drafted their definition.

But my two amendments to the definition "protected events" seek to make it clear that in the kind of situation that I am describing the events which the BBC and ITV do not regularly broadcast shall be open to cable to broadcast if that is what they would like to do. That is the purpose of my two amendments.

My Lords, before I speak I must once again declare my interest as being a member of a cable consortium. It was brought to my attention that I failed to do this last time and in retrospect I would like to apologise to your Lordships for what I regard as having been a serious omission. I am very grateful, as I was before in Committee stage, to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for the things he has said, because he has in a very large measure covered my arguments.

I have taken the view, after the very careful consideration which we have been allowed during the 48 hours that have elapsed, that the amendments that the Government have made are helpful. I am very sensible of the trouble that my noble friend has taken. So it is with a certain amount of grief that I have to say that, though they are helpful, I do not believe that they go nearly far enough.

In order to explain to your Lordships why not, I think that it might be helpful if I went back, not for the first time, to the White Paper. I am going to quote a few lines from paragraph 115 which is to be found on page 49. That is from the chapter that deals with pay-per-view, where it says as follows:

"The Cable Authority will therefore have a duty to ensure, by means of the conditions attached to the operators' franchises, that no programme shall be offered on a pay per view basis if an event customarily shown on one of the existing public service channels would, as a result, no longer be available on such a channel".

Although that sentence contains double negatives it is in fact a very positive sentence and it accords exactly with what I am after and with what I believe the cable operators would find to be very satisfactory, because they are in no circumstances looking for any exclusivity for themselves. Under no circumstances are they looking to show anything or to do anything which denies the broadcasters the right to do what they have done in the past; and by definition this means that there can be no question that they would have the opportunity in any way to outbid.

It was because of that situation—and at the Committee stage I made a suggestion which was not found satisfactory, and I can well understand why—that we objected to Clause 13(2), and in particular to the phrase,

"is of a class or description which has been regularly broadcast by a broadcasting authority".

We objected because, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, the phrase was so wide and so indefinite that it would by definition almost entirely exclude the showing of important sporting events on a pay-per-view basis.

The Government were good enough to say that they would have a look at the point and it is as a result of that that these amendments come from my noble friend. Having just read out the important words in Clause 13(2), like my noble friend I now want to read out the words which it is proposed should appear. Instead of the words,

"is of a class or description which has been regularly broadcast by a broadcasting authority",

we are invited to accept,

"is one of a series of similar events which it is the practice of a broadcasting authority to broadcast".

I think that we are getting dangerously into the realm of semantics because it would be possible to take the view that there was very little difference between these two sets of words. Certain it is that neither of them satisfies what I understand was the Government's intention which was so clearly set out in the White Paper in the terms which I have just read out to your Lordships.

To me the phrase is still highly restrictive. It denies the objective that we have, which in many cases, because of the multiplicity of channels, is the opportunity to put out the whole of an event, whereas the BBC or the contractors, due to the limitation on their time, can put out only part of it. I submit that the phrase falls far short of the White Paper, and I hope that, if he agrees that it does fall short, my noble friend will explain why the Government have decided to make the change.

That deals with the failing, in my view, of the amendment to give cable the total freedom that it wants, subject only to the condition that it can never stop the broadcasters putting out what they want and can never therefore affect the price that they have to pay for doing so. Let us go on, if we may, to deal with the question of the meaning of the word "series", because we have really got down to the meaning of a single word. What does the word "series" mean when it is applied to sporting events?

The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, dealt with this question, too, and he used racing as an example. Perhaps I may use the example of football. Most of the major club matches are either part of the lead-up to the League Cup or heats in the lead-up to the Cup Final. Are they then series? Let me take an example. Let us suppose that in the fourth round of the Cup competition Liverpool are playing some other club and the cable system that is to be set up in Liverpool (which is called Merseyside Cable) wants to show the match. Will it be denied showing it because it is regarded as part of a series?

The same would apply, I suggest, to Wimbledon. A cable channel could be devoted to Wimbledon for a whole day, showing all the important events that are taking place on the subsidiary courts. Would that be part of a series leading up to the great Friday and Saturday when matters are decided? The same could apply to the snooker championships, the darts championships, or, if I may for a moment go perhaps a little up market, the three days of the Badminton horse trials.

This is quite a different exercise from the request to justify the restriction at all, which I maintain is away from the White Paper's intentions. Can my noble friend help us by giving us an interpretation, which will be very important in that it will appear in Hansard and people will take account of it in days to come? Can my noble friend give us an interpretation in specific terms of what he means by the "series" which cable would be prevented from showing?

I fear that I have laid rather a heavy burden upon my noble friend, but he will appreciate that this matter is an absolute cornerstone in terms of the prospects for the new cable operators—possibly even their chances of surviving—in the early years. On my own admission I am a cable operator, speaking for cable operators, and I ask my noble friend very urgently whether he can help us in this matter. At the same time, I am sorry to say, I must tell him that in any case I find his solution, at which he has worked so hard, to be generally unsatisfactory.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, looked around the House to see whether I was in my usual place to move my amendment. Bearing in mind where I am at present standing, I would say that I am not intending to try to dominate him by height on this occasion. It so happens that the Bench on which I usually sit was rather full. We are discussing a rather complicated, interlocked series of amendments, and if by mischance I move slightly astray from what is strictly germane to what we are supposed to be discussing together, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me.

The situation is complicated further still by the fact that we have redefinitions of what are "events"; redefinitions which are intended, quite properly, to secure a more accurate definition of what is protected, what is listed, and so on. On the whole, I think that we should congratulate the noble Lord on bringing forth amendments which make these matters clearer. In particular, I would like to thank him for accepting a point that I raised in relation to England, Scotland and Wales and for neatly incorporating it into his own amendment and for having the courtesy to write to me to the effect that he was doing so.

I shall go straight to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. The amendments go to the heart of the matter. The Government, in the Bill originally and in their amendments, have striven as hard as they can to strike a fair balance between the broadcasters' interests and the cable operators' interests. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, so far as I can make out, appear to narrow down that definition quite considerably in that they qualify the event. The amendments would seem to exclude—if I am wrong, I shall no doubt be told—any event even if it was of a kind that a broadcaster would normally broadcast. The event would be broadcast against pay-per-view only if it itself has been broadcast before.

Similarly, in Amendment No. 40 there is a narrowing down. A prohibition of pay-per-view would not apply if the broadcaster was able to secure nonexclusive rights in the event or any part of the event, in a wider category. Here we come to the crux of the matter. This may seem to be nitpicking. If, however, I am right, the principal weakness of the amendment would appear to be the possibility of abuse through the organiser—I stress the word "organiser"—offering to the broadcaster broadcasting rights not in the event but in "any part thereof". What is a part? Presumably, a sequence, however short, however unimportant, could be a part. Such protection as the amendment affords could therefore readily be frustrated by making available unnecessary and very boring bits of the event that would be of no use at all to broadcasters.

I have tried to deal briefly with the amendments because we discussed these matters at great length in Committee. I am not anxious to delay your Lordships any longer than necessary. I shall therefore proceed to speaking briefly to my own amendment in which I propose that the Secretary of State should have reserve powers, not necessarily ever to be exercised, to prevent the making of exclusive arrangements for the broadcasting or cable transmission of sporting or other national events which are on the Secretary of State's list. There was a weakness, I am conscious, in the amendment that I moved at Committee stage. It was a weakness that I freely acknowledge.

The purpose of the powers now proposed, which I hope I have got right this time, is to encourage the various interested parties, that is to say, the organisers of the event, the cable authorities and the broadcasters, to work out satisfactory arrangements on an informal basis. I am sure that this is the key to success in the endeavour that all of us are making. We should have informal discussions and work out satisfactory answers without having to bring into play the powers of the Secretary of State. But it is unlikely that those informal arrangements will always be satisfactory unless there are reserve powers to back them up. This has been found in other fields. I must not refer to other Bills before your Lordships' House. But the very existence of reserve powers concentrates the mind wonderfully—like the prospect of being hanged the next day.

The purpose of my amendment is strengthened by news that appeared, I believe, in today's newspapers of the surprise coming together of two different sorts of cable-providing consortia. There is the coming together of Home Box Office and other people who propose to provide films. There is also the report that, again, I read rather hastily in the newspapers this morning, of the coming together of two companies that have been set up to provide sporting events to cable companies.

To return to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, I think that he chose a particularly unfortunate example in order to illustrate his question about a series of events. Wimbledon is one of the few events covered virtually from beginning to end, very often on two channels—not on 24 channels which could happen on cable—by the BBC. ITV has chosen not to do so, although it occasionally shows excerpts of matches. There are other series events that might have provided better examples. I agree that it is essential that we have some kind of definition at least of what the noble Lord in charge of the Bill believes to be a series of events.

My Lords, this is getting more and more complex as we go along. It is a very difficult subject. The Hunt Committee took one view of it, and the White Paper took a more generous view. From this side on Second Reading, there was cautious endorsement of pay-per-view on the ground that it would raise the level of cable television. I do not think that anyone really believes this is another licence to print money. I was lunching today with a Commonwealth citizen interested in pay-per-view who says that, in his part of the country, it has been a complete flop and that people who are presented with new films would rather see excellent not-so-new films "for free" on the ordinary broadcasting service. So pay-per-view is running into grave difficulties.

When we suggested that there was something to be said for pay-per-view, the proviso was that there should be no deprivation of the person who lives in an uncabled area or of the person who lives in a cabled area who cannot afford to subscribe and, even if he can afford to subscribe, says that the broadcasting services that he has long enjoyed are good enough for him provided that they endure. We have sympathy for such prudent, perhaps parsimonious, citizens. We feel, in short, that the people of this country should enjoy all those events that they would have enjoyed on television if cable had never existed. We insist that those people should not have the programmes that they are accustomed to receiving sold over their heads to wealthier or more free-spending citizens.

We are grateful to the Government for getting the events in question into orderly categories. First, there is the protected event. The events which the authority believes to be a series of similar events seem to be absolute sacred cows. I must say that, although the category looks to be useful, it does require further and better definition. One assumes it includes the Cup Final, the main contests at Wimbledon, the Rugby Union internationals, the highlights of Test cricket; and I suppose the non-sporting events such as Trooping the Colour or the Royal Opening of Parliament.

The proposal is that in no circumstances should any part of these be sold on pay-per-view cable. One agrees with that, but perhaps before the Bill is completed the Government could issue the protected list—it exists; it belongs to the past—in the interests of clarity, and to provide us with the necessary reassurance.

We come to the listed events. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, is not content with the great concessions that have been made on listed events. He also wants a bite at the cherry of the protected category. He wants permission to include on pay-per-view protected events if the authority believe it will not adversely affect the terms on which the broadcasting authority is able to acquire a non-exclusive right to the event. I can see a certain logic in this. It would obviously make sense on an all-sports channel to make a bid for the whole of Wimbledon, including the bigger matches which the BBC would continue to broadcast on the usual terms. I can see the logic of this, but what I should like to know is this: the cable operator under the must-carry rule is already carrying those important Wimbledon matches—this is an obligation; does he also have freedom to carry those matches on another channel as well? Because if he has, then the problem which the noble Earl suggested is solved. I am a little worried about the—

My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord would give way for a minute? He did say: "then the problem is solved". Indeed it is not, because under the must-carry rules all the cable operator can put out is such (I use the word) snippets—where they are snippets—as the broadcaster has time to do. It is not solved for him if what he wants to do is to use one of these channels to give the whole thing.

My Lords, what I am suggesting is that he can perhaps have all the events leading up to the protected events; a "protected snippet" as it were.

I ask: as he has an obligation to give that protected snippet on one channel, on his BBC or ITV channel—he has an obligation to do that—has he got the freedom to present that snippet to conclude the matches which he has given on his pay-per-view channel? He is not charging for that. People get them free. Can he sell preliminary matches and still complete his programme and make it sensible by adding these snippets which his viewers could see anyway if they were to switch over to the must-carry channel?

I am a bit worried about these restricted national events. I should really like to know what they are. We can understand that the protected events relate to the past; these are historic. But the restricted events are current events and they are future events. I can see that some of those events will be so highly saleable or so highly box office that pay-per-view could exact quite a good fee from their viewers and pay a very high fee to the promoter of them.

What are the broadcasting companies to do? If cable had not existed, the broadcasting companies might well have made a modest bid for one of these events—which are now classed as restricted—and they would have given it freely to the viewers. But suppose they are faced with the competition of cable which is in a position to pay a much higher fee. The noble Lord suggests that cable does not want anything exclusive; they will be quite willing to share with the BBC or ITV; but the question is: at what price? Do they all get together and agree a price? I think the promoters will be very upset if they get together and agree to pay a minimum price. Or is the leading bidder going to get the exclusive rights? Or is the one who gets the exclusive rights going to be able to sell it on at a reasonable price, or just want the exclusivity?

All these questions are very difficult and very detailed. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be able to answer them all, but quite obviously during the course of this Bill very profound thought will have to be given to the question of pay-per-view and fairness to the average viewer.

My Lords, perhaps I might briefly support my noble friend Lord De La Warr on one point only. In reading what my noble friend the Minister said last time—and it has been very helpful—I came up with two points. The first point was that it seemed to me that his amendments—which he has already spoken to—were helpful in that they clarified the situation, but I was left with the thought that Amendment No. 39 in particular did not really relax the severity of subsection (2). I think, from what other noble Lords have said, that probably he will be addressing himself to that when he comes to reply, but it really does seem to me—I believe this is what my noble friend was saying, and giving good reasons for it—that subsection (2) newly amended by Amendment No. 39 is still very severe.

It was interesting to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, had to say about his discussions at lunchtime because I get the feeling that there is not going to be an enormous amount of money in this cable operation business. There might be one day, but I do not know that the financial competition is going to be as fierce as people fear. Obviously there has got to be a degree of control, and that is where I think the sort of things that are said in our Amendment No. 40—which give authority to a Cable Authority to use its discretion, if you like, rather than the great severity which is forced upon us even in the amended subsection (2)—are perhaps a better way through.

My Lords, in following the scheme of handling on which I think we are all agreed with these amendments, I turn first to those numbered 44 and 45 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and will try thereafter to follow a labyrinthine path through my notes on the amendments. The question of what constitutes an event in Clause 13 is going to be difficult however we define it. Under the scheme of Clause 13(2), whatever descriptive terms or definitions we do use, it will be for the Cable Authority to take a view as to what is a protected event and what is not. In so doing they will, of course, also have to decide what constitutes "an event", and that will involve using their collective common sense.

The noble Lord's intention is quite probably to try to make it clearer both to us and to them what that decision should embrace. That is a task in which he has my sympathetic interest and evidently that of my noble friends and all noble Lords. There do, unfortunately, appear to be two weaknesses in what he proposes and one of them, I fear, is fatal.

The first difficulty is that in narrowing the criteria the noble Lord may have made it a matter of no difficulty to evade the effects of the clause. The test we propose is only that the event shall be one of a series of similar events that have habitually been broadcast, and to this the noble Lord's amendment would add the test that the event itself should have been habitually broadcast.

If we apply this new definition to the example which the noble Lord gave in Committee, then if last year's "Baked Beans Handicap" goes under the illustrious title this year of the "Golden Cigar Handicap", and even if all other aspects of it remain the same, it would be open to anyone to argue under the noble Lord's amendment that this year's race is a different event which it had not been the practice to broadcast and which could therefore be offered on pay-per-view terms. That is contrary to common sense, I readily agree, but it would not be contrary to the law as it would stand if this amendment were accepted. This could be a real difficulty. For example, when the sponsorship for the one day cricket championships changes, as happens from time to time, it would—would it not?—be most unfortunate if the broadcasters, and thus the viewing public, were deprived of all protection.

So it would seem that the noble Lord's amendments open the way both to deliberate evasion of the intended effect of the clause and also to its effects automatically lapsing under circumstances which could not be avoided and which, I should add, common sense suggests did not amount to discontinuity at all. So at least it could be argued in court, and that would be a weakness.

But there is another argument which could be made which would be far more worrying and which, I believe, does contain a fatal weakness. We are, after all, dealing with strict definitions on the basis of which decisions of the authority could be challenged in court, and it could perfectly well be argued that any event and every event is a unique occurrence which occurs at a single point of time and can never be repeated. The England/Wales Rugby International of 1982 was not the same event as the England/Wales Rugby International of 1983; it was played on a different ground, by different players, on a different day, in a different year and with a different result—a result, I may add, that I hope, even on seeing the daffodil on the Bench in front of me, may be different again in a fortnight's time!

Although we tend to think of the England/Wales match and the Cup Final as "an" event, they are really a series of events, one of which happens every year.

That is why the Government have plumped, after some agonising, for the wider formulation of,

"one of a series of similar events".

It is less susceptible to this kind of perverse but nonetheless powerful argument.

I cannot, of course, draw for your Lordships a precise dividing line between an event which is similar and one which is the same, but this is not a distinction that has to be made under the Government's definition. Under the noble Lord's amendment this difficult distinction has to be addressed and could lead at best to litigation and uncertainty, and at worst to rendering the whole clause completely ineffective. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will let us have our amendment without his amendment.

But I cannot leave the subject without giving to my noble friend Lord De La Warr the clarification for which he asked, of what exactly a series of events might be. My noble friend, among others, was concerned about an event which might change its name. However, my noble friend was more particularly concerned with the different rounds of the FA Cup or of a snooker competition and so on. His question—if I can paraphrase it—was whether the fact that the broadcasters always showed the finals and some matches from the earlier rounds meant that cable would be precluded from offering anything from that particular competition on pay-per-view. I can see the close attention which my noble friend is paying to my reply. I have to tell him that I fear that there is no cut and dried answer to this, and nor do I think we can hope to resolve these matters with absolute precision on the face of the Bill. It will be for the authority to determine whether any particular event which cable might wish to put on pay-per-view, is similar to a series of events which it has been the broadcasters' practice to show.

The important thing is whether on the facts it is clear that the broadcasters have actually covered that series of events. Let us take the example of the FA Cup. The broadcasters have always covered the final, and so that would clearly be protected, in addition, no doubt, to being a listed event under Clause 13(1). Equally, the broadcasters have never covered the qualifying rounds, when the more romantically named teams like the Corinthian Casuals and Marine are locked in combat, nor even the first two rounds proper—if I can say that without giving offence—when the third and fourth division teams come in; but not their senior colleagues from the first two. So the broadcasters could not reasonably seek protection for those matches. Where there would obviously be more scope for argument is in the subsequent stages up to the semifinals where the broadcasters do show some games, but not others.

We shall certainly reflect further on what has been said by my noble friend, because I would not claim to have got a perfect definition—in fact, I doubt if there is one. But if it is possible to get closer to it, then of course we shall continue the attempt. I would not offer too much hope, therefore, that the definition will be perfect. It is now narrower than it was (it may not be quite as narrow as my noble friend would like) but for the reasons I have given, I think that it may well prove to be the best that we can do.

My noble friend suggested that Clause 13(2) and paragraph 115 of the White Paper are at variance. That is certainly not our intention nor, indeed, our understanding of the effect of the clause. The White Paper talked of "customarily", and in statutory language that has come out as what is the practice of broadcasters. So far as a series of events is concerned, the White Paper was able to talk as if the Cup Final or the Grand National was a single event, whereas in strict statutory terms each event, each year, is a separate one. It is not possible to get an exact coincidence of statutory and colloquial language. We have attempted to get as close as is feasible. I will obviously look at his strictures before I put my hand on my heart and say that they are exactly the same in the result.

I should like now to turn to Amendment No. 40 which stands in the name of my noble friend. I apologise for the length of my reply, but I must answer all of your Lordships. This amendment is similar in form to the one moved by my noble friend at the Committee stage. Clause 13(2) as it stands provides a protection for the viewer of regularly broadcast events by seeking to prevent the coverage of those events by the cable operator on a pay-per-view basis. The subsection is designed to prevent the cable operator from using the special purchasing power of pay-per-view effectively to exclude the broadcasting authorities from the market. My noble friend's amendment would waive that protection afforded by subsection (2) where the Cable Authority was satisfied that the terms upon which the broadcasting authorities were competing for the rights were not adversely affected.

The Government accept that cable companies should not be subject to unnecessary restrictions and we have already proposed a reformulation of Clause 13(2) which meets a number of the concerns expressed at the Committee stage. The further modification of the subsection which this amendment proposes assumes that there will be circumstances where the coverage of these events on pay-per-view will not adversely affect the competitive position of the broadcasters in the market place. But I think it is in the nature of pay-per-view that the broadcasters' position will be adversely affected. That at least is the conclusion that was reached by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, in the report of his inquiry into cable when he suggested that there should be no pay-per-view on cable. The restriction in Clause 13(2) is far less restrictive than that, but it is founded on the same presupposition that pay-per-view will inevitably put the broadcasters at a disadvantage when they are interested in covering the event. It would be unrealistic to impose upon the Cable Authority, as this amendment would do, a duty to weigh up the effect of every proposal to put an event on pay-per-view upon the competitive position of the broadcasting authorities, when the working assumption must be that their competitive position would be adversely affected.

The second assumption made in the amendment is that there will be circumstances where a cable operator is prepared to cover an event on a pay-per-view basis at the same time as it is covered by the broadcasting authorities. I may, perhaps, be less puzzled by this than I was, because it seemed to me, on the face of it, odd that somebody should wish to provide for money a service which was already available to the same audience free. But the noble Lord has now, I think, made clear that he is suggesting that it might happen that the broadcaster would wish to produce coverage of prime time and prime events, and that the cable might want to go wider. That is a very difficult issue.

I do not want to create confusion between pay-per-view and other forms of cable, but this is a proper moment to say a few words about Wimbledon because my noble friend has used it as an example and I know that there is some anxiety about this. In clarification of that issue I should say, first, that this clause applies only to the inclusion of listed and protected events in cable services in this country. I understand that Wimbledon is sold for showing on cable in the United States, and there is, of course, nothing here which bears on that.

Secondly, when it comes to offering the rights to broadcasters and cable companies, it is for the rights holders to decide how to package them up. To take a lengthy event such as Wimbledon, the organisers might decide to set a price for a number of separate packages. There is nothing in Clause 13 to prevent that. As regards listed events, Clause 13(1) ensures that the broadcaster has the opportunity to buy each of the packages. The third thing to elucidate is that the 24-hour rule means that none of the Clause 13 restrictions applies for more than 24 hours immediately after the recording has been made. So, to change the example, in the case of a Test Match there would be no restriction on cable showing on the second day highlights from the first day's play.

My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I suggest a better example to him? Suppose the Seven-a-Sides are being held at Twickenham, which start at about one o'clock and continue until six o'clock at night, and that an all-sports channel decides to broadcast all those rounds right to the final, which will be broadcast on BBC. The question I ask is: could they include that final in their package—they are not selling it—instead of saying to their viewers, "We have now reached the final, switch over to the BBC channel in order to watch it"? Can they broadcast it on the same cable channel?

My Lords, I am loath to be drawn into too specific detail, but the Bill as drafted imposes a delay of 24 hours on the transmission of what is on the tape. I think that that is sufficient elucidation to the noble Lord, although what the announcer would say under the circumstances I do not think would be exactly what the noble Lord has said.

My noble friend was intending the coverage of part of an event on pay-per-view terms, but I have reservations about that, and I had just given one of the reasons in answer to the noble Lord when he interrupted me. The truth is that with many of the larger sporting events, such as the Test Matches and Open Golf Championships, the broadcasters already give a very comprehensive coverage and I doubt whether in those cases there are large extracts which they do not include and, judging by the length of the extracts that I have seen, which therefore could be offered by cable on pay-per-view.

Even with very large events, such as the Wimbledon championship or the Olympic Games, where the broadcasters cannot cover every minute of every day, they make it their job to give the viewers access to the main matches and competitions. That could well leave room in the periphery, as it were, for conventional cable; but however modest their declared ambitions, to make pay-per-view attractive the cable companies would inevitably want to acquire an even larger slice of the best action for themselves. Your Lordships can see the conflict of interests involved in that.

I well appreciate the desire of the cable interest to gain more of the action in this field, and for that reason in the Government amendments tabled on Clause 13 we have attempted to make the definitions less restrictive. I should add—and this may perhaps reassure my noble friend—that we are talking here only about pay-per-view and not about other forms of pay television. I understand that in the United States pay-per-view is still an extremely limited phenomenon compared with pay-per-month, and although the use of switched star technology may increase the attractiveness of pay-per-view over here, it still remains to be seen how popular it will be.

There is nothing in Clause 13(2) to stop cable operators bidding to show these events on a subscription or an advertising-financed channel, and I am talking only about pay-per-view. I do not pretend that what I propose is perfect I think that it is nearer to perfection than it was. I hope that your Lorships will prefer it to what has been offered in the alternative.

I have said that my notes are labyrinthine and I must speak to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, and then I can promise my patient friends that their ordeal is nearly over. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, is an extension of that which he moved in Committee. It provides a reserve power for the Home Secretary to make regulations preventing the making of exclusive arrangements for the broadcasting or showing on cable of a major national event; that is, what we now propose to call listed events. This follows from the existing provision in Section 30 of the Broadcasting Act 1981.

When preparing the Bill, the Government gave careful thought to the possibility of taking a regulation-making power in this context, but we came to the conclusion that this was not a promising approach. Regulations have never, in fact, been made under Section 30 of the Broadcasting Act, and I noted that the noble Lord said that his amendment might never actually come into service, but that it would hang behind the door like the headmaster's cane. It is far from clear how a comparable power might operate in the case of cable, particularly if it were directed, as it would be under the noble Lord's amendment, against the rights holders. However effective or otherwise Section 30 might be as between the BBC and independent television, we ought not to read it across into the very different situation which cable will create unless we are confident both that it is an appropriate power and that it would work.

The Government have doubts on both counts. We have to remember here that we are dealing with the freedom of sports organizations, such as the Football Association, and the Test and County Cricket Board, to decide who they want to let in to televise their events and at what price. We have to be very careful before attempting to place any restrictions on their ability to take the normal commercial decisions which they judge to be in the best interests of their sports. Television must not become a burden on sport; Her Majesty's Government must ensure that it does not. The Government also have a responsibility to the ordinary viewer, as do the broadcasters. That is why we have built two specific safeguards into Clause 13. Under Clause 13(1) we have ensured that the broadcasters must always be given the opportunity to acquire the rights to major national events on comparable terms, and under Clause 13(2) we have ruled out pay-per-view for those and, indeed, a wider range of events.

I shall read very carefully the observations that your Lordships have made about the piecemeal protection within those categories to which my noble friend and others have drawn attention, but what we have not felt able to say, as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, does, is that if these events are to appear on television at all, they must be covered by the broadcasters. In our view, that would give the broadcasters an unreasonably strong position in the negotiations over price.

So far as practicality is concerned, I would only say that powers without proper sanctions are never particularly effective, and it is far from clear to me at the moment what sanctions could be operated appropriately in this area. For those reasons, therefore, we think that Clause 13 offers the most sensible approach and that the noble Lord's amendment is not as helpful as he would like us to think.

During my necessarily lengthy speech I hope that your Lordships have been able to weigh up the merits of the different approaches here proposed. I believe that what Her Majesty's Government propose represents the best solution, both to the tricky question of definition and to the equally tricky problem of access. I shall, of course, look with great care before the next stage at any new ideas that have been put before me, and there have been some this afternoon. I shall not recapitulate what I have said—your Lordships could not possibly take it. Your Lordships have been most patient and I hope that you will allow these amendments to be incorporated in the Bill at this stage.

My Lords, as I do not intend to move my amendment, with the leave of the House, I should like to make three brief remarks. First, in spite of all the help that we have had from my noble friend, I want to leave it on record that his amendment falls far short of what the White Paper suggested and of what is suggested in my amendment; that we believe that my amendment, but more importantly the White Paper's suggestion, is absolutely fair and totally protective of broadcasters. Secondly, I take great comfort from the offer that my noble friend has made to have a look at everything that has been said with a view to further consideration at the next stage or even with a view to this matter being dealt with in another place.

Finally, with respect, I think it became apparent that the meaning of the word "series" had not been fully thought out, and perhaps that is what my noble friend meant when he said that he would have another look at it. The interpretation of the word "series" as it will be, I expect, in the Bill, will be crucial. Whether my noble friend wants to see it still in the Bill or whether he is content, as he suggested, to leave it to the Cable Authority to sort out—and I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, suggested that this could largely be settled by discussion—in the terms that they think are most sensible, I do not know. As it stands, "series" is a word that lacks definition, and if it is to stay there it must have it. Having said that, I am obliged to my noble friend for all the trouble he has taken on this matter.

My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I will just say that of course the definition is something we will look at. Whatever we come to in the end, the interpretation is going to rest with the authority, and we are not producing something which is totally watertight. I beg to move.

moved Amendments Nos. 37, 38, and 39:

Page 12, line 21, leave out from ("that") to ("been") in line 23 and insert ("both broadcasting authorities have")

Page 12, line 25, at end insert ("; and for the purposes of this subsection an opportunity given to the Welsh Authority, the IBA's subsidiary or a programme contractor to acquire broadcasting rights in respect of a listed event shall be treated as given to the IBA")

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which has already been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the Government's policy towards the aerospace industry. The Statement is as follows:

"Last November the Government announced launch aid of £ 70 million to assist with the development of the E.4 version of the Rolls-Royce RB.211–535 now powering all Boeing 757s in airline service. Earlier this month I informed the House that approval had been given for Rolls-Royce to participate in the V.2500 project, and to collaborate with General Electric of the USA on larger civil engines. These programmes represent the core of a civil engine strategy based on international collaboration and dedicated to commercial success. The House will be informed when launch aid arrangements for the V.2500 are finalised but as with the E.4 scheme the Government will expect a real return on the taxpayers' investment.

"In September 1982 launch aid of £ 41 million to assist Westland was agreed for their W.30 civil helicopter, and last month the Government announced £ 60 million in launch aid towards Westland's civil costs in the anglo-Italian EH.101 project for a helicopter for civil and naval use in the 1990s and beyond. These investments will help to bring Westland into the expanding civil market and will be repayable with a return in real terms by a levy on sales.

"British Aerospace have now decided to participate in the A.320 and to launch the ATP. The Government have reached agreement with British Aerospace on the terms of launch aid for the A.320. Launch aid of up to £ 250 million repayable on terms designed to yield a return in real terms on the Government's investment has now been agreed. As a result of our agreement I understand that the company will now join its partners in formally launching the A.320 programme. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Industry will be meeting his French, German and Spanish colleagues shortly to endorse this. British Aerospace will also proceed, without Government assistance, with the ATP aircraft. I am sure the House will join me in wishing these projects every success.

"Taken together these decisions express a clear commitment by the Government to support the efforts of the aerospace sector to maintain its position as an internationally competitive industry for the future. I believe the House will welcome our determination to see this sector of British industry, management and production workforce alike, given the chance to succeed".

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. In general from these Benches we welcome the various decisions as set out in the Statement and join in wishing success to all the projects. I shall deal with only two of them. When your Lordships debated the question of the A.320 Airbus on 25th January there was general support throughout the House for British participation. Therefore, we welcome the support that is proposed for this project. But the launch aid of £ 250 million falls well short of the £ 437 million which I understand Aerospace had requested. Are the Government satisfied that the company will be able to raise the difference and meet any costs that may be involved?

Also important is the approval, previously announced, for Rolls-Royce to participate in the V.2500 engine project. There appears to be general agreement that this development will enable Airbus Industrie to offer its customers for the A.320 an alternative engine, which is obviously in Britain's interests. Is the Minister able to say what figure of launch aid is in mind for this Rolls-Royce engine project?

Although, as I have said, from these Benches we give general support to these various projects and the assistance being given, it is obvious that particularly in the case of Rolls-Royce and Aerospace some of these projects can only be embarked upon with public financial help. It therefore appears rather tragic that we are not leaving the aerospace industry where it should be, in public hands.

My Lords, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement, may I come to the last part first. We on these Benches have been waiting anxiously for a Government decision on the A.320 Airbus. It has always seemed to us an excellent proposition from many points of view: for the workforce it will keep together; for the cooperation with our European partners; and, above all, for the excellence of the Airbus family.

While wishing that the launch aid could have been more than £ 250 million—I gather from the Statement that agreement has been reached with British Aerospace about this—we are glad that the company will now join its partners in formally launching the A.320 programme. We wish it well and we hope that this very fine aeroplane will fulfil all expectations.

In addition, may I say that in so far as Rolls-Royce is concerned everyone will welcome the approval given for the company to participate in the V.2500 project and to collaborate with General Electric of the United States of America on larger civil engines. We look forward to a further announcement on these points when launch aid arrangements are finalised. On these Benches—and I am sure throughout the House—we hope that the new Rolls-Royce engine may be ready in 1988 at the same time as the launch of the A.320 Airbus. In noting all the decisions contained in the Statement, we believe that the Government have indicated a clear commitment to the aerospace industry, and we appreciate the action taken.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, for their response to this Statement. In reply to the questions put to me by the noble Lord, may I say that it is indeed the case that the amount that has been agreed with British Aerospace is rather less than that company originally sought by way of launch aid for this particular aircraft project. However, I can tell the noble Lord that the negotiations have been conducted in the best of spirit. There has been give and take on both sides, and the Government too have given way in some particular aspects of the discussions, particularly with regard to the rate of dispersement of the funds which we were able to agree to more in line with British Aerospace's requirements. Thus it was that we were able to reach agreement on the sum of money referred to in the Statement.

The noble Lord asked whether I could give him a figure for the launch aid for the V.2500 engine. Negotiations are still in progress on this matter. I cannot therefore give him the figure that he asks for, but an announcement will be made in due course when agreement has been reached. Those, I think, were the principal points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. I hope I have covered them adequately, but if there are any that I have omitted I shall be happy to rectify the position.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister, first, to give us a little more information as to why it took so long for the Government to come to a decision, and, secondly, why the figures are so much below that which, as I understood it, British Aerospace thought essential? Is he not aware that all these hesitations and reservations put us in a very bad position with our partners in Europe and raise doubts as to whether this country really wants to sustain and continue a viable civil aircraft industry? If we do not do this, I think he is well aware that, in terms of major civil aviation, we shall no longer have a stake. Would it not be more feasible to give a more generous and more rapid response, and to do as we did when I had some responsibility in the matter; that is, to have arrangements whereby, when the project was a success, we received a payback according to the profits that were earned? Would not that kind of partnership be more satisfactory than what seems to be a very lengthy and not at all satisfactory approach to the problem?

My Lords, the reason why it sometimes takes rather a long time to reach a conclusion in these matters is that the Government have to be very clear indeed that the project that they are backing is a project that will in due course come to a profitable conclusion, because (as was not, I think, referred to in the Statement, but which I am happy to say now) in fact the money is by way of launch-aid. A certain proportion of the money will be repaid on a fixed schedule, but the remainder of the money will be repaid by means of a levy on sales in due course. It is necessary for the Government to take a very careful approach to these matters to make sure that the forecasts of the company, particularly with regard to sales of the aircraft and the likely size of the market, are proper estimates. The Government have done that and have reached these conclusions.

My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can tell us a little more about the raising of the balance of the money that British Aerospace were seeking. Are we to understand that there will be no question of a Government guarantee for raising these funds? If it is possible for British Aerospace to raise £ 180 million-odd for the Airbus project in the City without Government guarantees—and presumably the Government are themselves satisfied as to the prospects of a return on the project—why cannot the whole of the sum which British Airways have sought be raised in the same manner? Finally, could my noble friend tell us whether it is the case that British Aerospace have effectively written off £ 240 million in the last two years on its civil aviation projects? And is my noble friend satisfied that British Aerospace can finance that part of the cost of the Airbus project that it is expected to produce from its own return in profits without undue strain?

My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that these matters were very much in the Government's mind when we conducted these negotiations with British Aerospace, but I must tell him that the answer as to where the rest of the money will come from must be provided by British Aerospace and not by the Government. British Aerospace are now a private-sector company. They have the responsibility for these matters, and the Government are satisfied that they are in a position to do that. We would not have proceeded in the way that we have if we had not been so satisfied. I might add that the sort of proportion of the launch funds required which we are providing in this particular instance is very much in line with the proportions that we have provided in the past, save for one particular case, and that was Concorde, where the Government provided a much larger proportion—virtually all, in fact—of the money that was required. This, however, is a wholly different project, essentially within the range of existing technology, whereas Concorde was pushing the frontiers of technology considerably further back. I think that the Government are right to proceed along these lines, providing about half of the launch money required by British Aerospace. I believe it will be a successful project.

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Council of Agriculture Ministers which took place in Brussels on 27th and 28th February. I represented the United Kingdom Government with my honourable friend the Minister of State.

"Most of the time of the Council was taken up in detailed discussion of the Commission's price proposals and adaptations to the common agricultural policy. No decisions were taken. But there was further clarification of individual national positions on the various commodity sectors and other issues. These negotiations will be resumed at a further Council meeting next week.

"The Council agreed that the existing structures directives should be extended with effect from the beginning of the year until the end of June. Under this agreement, FEOGA will contribute in the normal way to payments made since 1st January under the Community schemes for capital grants and hill livestock compensatory payments. Aids to dairy investment are not included in the roll-forward. This means that no application for development plans under the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Scheme which include dairy investments will be accepted from today onwards. Nor will claims be accepted under the Agriculture and Horticulture Grant Scheme on dairy expenditure incurred from today onwards.

"I am pleased to tell the House that the Council agreed to the extension of the less-favoured areas in the United Kingdom. This is an important decision for farmers in our marginal areas. As foreshadowed in my Answer to my right honourable friend the Member for West Devon and Torridge on 30th November, it enables the Government to make arrangements for paying enhanced rates of capital grant in the marginal areas and to consider in the autumn review appropriate intermediate rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances to be applied in 1985.

"The Council also agreed that the present import arrangements for New Zealand butter should be extended for a further month so that 20,750 tonnes can be imported during the first three months of 1984 pending a decision on the proposal which the Commission have made for a five-year agreement".

My Lords, we must thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. I may say that it is like the curate's egg—good in parts. I note, under the first section of it, that the next meeting is next week. We have been promised year after year that a decision will be taken by the end of March, by the beginning of the farming year. Farming is a long-term business, and I should like to ask the Minister whether, this year, there is any chance of this decision being taken in time. We know there will have to be considerable cuts and changes in agricultural production, and we should have adequate warning about what is to be done. The Minister mentioned in the Statement the individual national positions. What are those individual positions? Are some of the countries not agreeing? Does he know that? As we all know, the Council of Ministers put forward the question of phasing out MCAs, which is an important thing for the British farmer. I wonder what the position is there?

Giving, from today, no notice at all to the dairy industry—although I think they had been warned; I have to admit that—about the question of no further aids to improve dairy buildings and to improve anything in the dairy sector, seems a little hard. I wonder whether it would not have been possible to detail this a bit better and to keep the grants for something which improves efficiency but does not improve production; in other words, no extension to a yard to bull more cows but something to help the efficiency, probably transferring cows from a yard to slats or cubicles, or something which does not increase the farmer's herd but increases his efficiency. I should like to ask what the Government's ideas are here: whether they are in favour of a price freeze or a price reduction, for that matter, or a sugar levy or quotas. If the dairy farmer is faced with all that, I think it is a little hard not to allow him something to improve his efficiency.

It is good to see that New Zealand is to be considered. In earlier stages of negotiations, in 1972–73—and I believe agreement was reached in 1975—we gave New Zealand a long period when the reduction of the butter supplies was agreed on. I hope that agreement will not be broken.

As regards the less favoured areas, there are difficulties. I have looked at some of them recently, notably in Ireland, I also saw some in Scotland during the last harvest that I looked at when I was a member of an AEC during the war, when they were given hill cow and hill sheep subsidies. I was amazed to see that land growing wheat today. If that is the case, what is to hinder these less favoured areas improving their pastures to such an extent that they can grow wheat or keep dairy heifers for dairy farmers?

It is a very real problem deciding about these things. I am sorry to ask so much of the Minister but this is a very important Statement, and I would reiterate once again the importance of getting decisions in time for farmers to alter their plans for next year, when they can do it, and not a year later.

My Lords, in the temporary absence of our own most respected farmer, my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, it falls to me to make a few observations, and I can only hope that they will be considered moderately relevant. First, it must surely be obvious that on what I might call the overshadowing question of the reform of the common agricultural policy very little progress has been made. Final agreement, if it is ever reached, will have to be reached at the next European Council meeting (not at the next agriculture Ministers' meeting) at the end of March—perhaps as a result of some bargain which none of the agriculture Ministers will find acceptable or even agreeable.

For the rest, unless I have misunderstood the Statement it looks as though, for the time being at any rate, our hill farmers and farmers in marginal areas, to say nothing of the New Zealanders, have reason to be moderately happy and our dairy farmers rather less happy—although not so unhappy as they probably will be when there is general agreement, as there will be, substantially to limit the production of dairy goods in the EEC as a whole. I imagine that we must, while being thankful for small mercies, go on hoping that general agreement on the future of the CAP will be forthcoming before the money runs out and members of the committee have to take measures which might not be consonant with the continuance in being of the EEC itself.

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their response to my right honourable friend's Statement. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, expressed the very strong hope that it would be possible to get agreement on the price fixing, from the point of view of farmers knowing where they stand for the forthcoming year. The Government most certainly agree with the noble Lord in that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, pointed out, the final decision on this by the agriculture Ministers will have to take account of the next full council meeting, which falls later this month. Her Majesty's Government will certainly be working hard to achieve the objective which I know the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, wishes us to be able to achieve.

The noble Lord asked me about the different national positions on these matters, and although I have expressed the wish of Her Majesty's Government to see these matters of the price fixing and, indeed, the future of the budget resolved, there are presumably different national positions. I do not think that either noble Lord would feel it appropriate for me to go into details now; but as your Lordships will know, Her Majesty's Government are looking for action to contain the cost of surplus production and to reduce the actual surpluses which exist. We shall certainly continue to stick to that line through these lengthy negotiations.

The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked me specifically about the MCAs. I should like to make it perfectly clear to your Lordships that my right honourable friend considers that there is no justification whatsoever for the Commission's proposals to revalue the green pound. We believe that these proposals do not take account of the United Kingdom's position in having a freely floating currency, and hence a variable MCA.

The noble Lord also asked why it was that the dairy farmers appeared to have suffered as a result of the meeting of the agriculture Ministers whereas other sectors—for instance, cereals—had not. I would only say that it has been generally recognised—and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, recognised it in his remarks—that the key surplus area at the moment is milk. The agreement in the council is an important element in the Community's aim to reduce that particular surplus.

Having said that, I of course recognise, along with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that cereals are also very much in surplus. Her Majesty's Government have been pressing for several years for price restraint—and not without success, because the price of cereals, having regard to average price increases, has increased by a lower amount. Perhaps I may just add that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, will remember that only last year the Government significantly reduced the grants for cereal drying and storage.

The noble Lord also asked what our policy was so far as the milk surplus is concerned. Our view remains that a substantial cut in support prices in order to bring the milk market into better balance is the way forward. We are prepared to discuss proposals for a supplementary levy, but we have made it quite clear that any measures concerning a levy that are taken would have to be fair as between producers in the member states and without exemptions or exceptions which would allow some producers to keep on increasing milk production while others did not. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, also put to me the apparent contradiction of trying to reduce surpluses while giving help to the marginal areas. I am sure that the noble Lord, who is characteristically generous as well as wise, would he the first to say that there must be a balance in agricultural matters, and we must try to keep a healthy agricultural industry in the hills.

Our application to the European Community for an extension of the less favoured areas and the marginal areas was in recognition of the special difficulties of farming in these areas. I believe that the success of our application will give great confidence to those areas, and I am very glad that the application has succeeded. These are complicated matters, and I should like to end by expressing my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, for having given me notice of the questions he was going to ask.

My Lords, would my noble friend please do the very best he can to give farmers an assurance that the Government are sensible of the agonising uncertainty through which the industry is going at the moment? Perhaps, as he has mentioned milk, it is all right for me, as a dairy farmer, to talk specifically about milk.

Will he tell us that he realises that there are many farmers—most of them small farmers—who just do not know at this moment whether they will have a livelihood within the next year? Does he fully realise that the suffering at the moment is the suffering of real anxiety for their way of life and for the livelihoods of them and their families? Does he realise that they are not squealing about any burdens with which they may be hit, but they are squealing about the length of the uncertainty? Finally, will he take on board that the publicity which has recently been given to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's working party, which is to have a look at the benefits that are alleged to be given to the farming industry, has caused a further shiver to go down the spine? It is really much more than a shiver; it has struck terror into the hearts of many who feel, perhaps unjustly, that this is another blow aimed at their livelihood.

My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend Lord De La Warr has underlined the enormous importance of the agricultural industry to this country. In the last decade, it has saved this country literally millions of pounds in foreign exchange and it will be a bad day when this country ceases to recognise the importance of British agriculture. I say that because my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was very ready to recognise the importance of the agricultural industry in this country.

As I think my noble friend is aware, on 23rd February this year, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister recorded that we are determined to reduce farm surpluses, which is likely to be painful, and that the Government are very well aware of the difficulties which face certain sectors of the farming industry. But, at the same time, my right honourable friend said that people in Britain realise that there is a need to support our agriculture, and that support is offered by every Western industrialised country to its agricultural services. My right honourable friend ended that passage of her reply by saying that we need a healthy agricultural industry. It is, therefore, in this difficult context of surpluses, which we have in the Community at the moment, that those words which my right honourable friend spoke stand.

moved Amendment No. 41:

My Lords, all our discussions have borne out the assertion that most of us have made, that the definition of the events which, under Clause 13(2), would be excluded from a pay-per-view cable service in order to safeguard the interests of the viewing public is very difficult to draft. Nor is the interpretation of a clause drafted to achieve this result of its nature easy, either. It is to that that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has addressed his careful attention, though I do hope that Amendment No. 43, to which I have already spoken and which I hope I have persuaded your Lordships to agree, will go some way towards clarifying it. Therefore I appreciate why the noble Lord has tabled the amendment, which provides for a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against a decision of the Cable Authority that any particular event is or is not one which should be protected under Clause 13(2) and therefore should be excluded from showing on pay-per-view.

But the involvement of the Secretary of State in decisions of this nature runs counter to the general philosophy of the Bill, which is to let the Cable Authority regulate the new cable services without undue interference from the Government. Moreover, I find it a little difficult to see, on this particular issue, how the Secretary of State, who is not running the cable administration from day to day, is going to be any better placed than the Cable Authority which will be running it from day to day. The Cable Authority will be concerned with these and similar matters on a regular basis. They will have the chance to develop an expertise that my right honourable and learned friend will inevitably lack.

So my first reaction to the noble Lord is that he is suggesting that for the opinion of the Cable Authority, when it does not suit somebody to whom it is applied, there should be substituted the opinion of the Secretary of State, who will not necessarily be any better placed to have a sound opinion than the Cable Authority. The Bill sets out a test for the authority to apply. We believe that the best course is to let them get on and apply it. I do not believe that issues to be decided under Clause 13(2) require an elaborate system of appeal. In other parts of the Bill we are trusting the Cable Authority to take equally important decisions. In the case of Clause 13 we should also trust the Cable Authority to exercise their powers both completely and fairly.

The noble Lord suggested that the Cable Authority might be too closely involved, but these are not questions which the authority will have an unfettered discretion to determine at will. This is very different from the kind of determination procedure under Clause 12(3) which concerns the financial arrangements for the relay of DBS services. There, in our view, it would have been wrong to leave the authority with the last word because there is no clear objective test which can be applied. Here the authority will have to apply the terms of the statute which set out a particular test to be followed in each case. Certainly the authority's judgment will enter into the equation, and certainly the equation will be a difficult one, but it will enter into it only to the extent that it involves a reasonable assessment of the broadcaster's actual practice.

I am advised (here I come back full circle to the noble Lord's first point) that although the opinion of the authority is involved in the Bill—though not now, if your Lordships accept our amendment, in the way that it was before the amendment—nonetheless the authority has to exercise its opinion, whether or not it is written into the Bill. The question as to whether or not it has exercised it reasonably will, I am advised, be justiciable, so there will be an escape to the courts.

My Lords, I was not suggesting that the Home Secretary would be any better qualified than the authority to answer these difficult questions. What appealed to me was that he would he seen to be completely impartial and that, however impartial the Cable Authority tried to appear to be, inevitably, in a dispute between the BBC and a cable company, there would be people who would question the impartiality of the Cable Authority. I can only say that if I were a member of the Cable Authority I should be thankful not to have to be the final arbiter of a matter in which my authority was so closely concerned. I should be thankful that the impartial Home Secretary would be the final arbiter. However, I have not had resounding support for this amendment and the Minister does not like it very much, either, so I beg leave to withdraw it.

My Lords, does the noble Lord. Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, wish to move Amendment No. 42?

My Lords, yes.

moved Amendment No. 42:

My Lords, at an earlier stage I spoke at some length to this amendment—length which your Lordships were good to put up with. But the House will not wish me to repeat the arguments against the amendment. I trust that the noble Lord, having begged to move the amendment, was only seeking an opportunity to withdraw it. If not, I shall lobby your Lordships very powerfully against what the noble Lord proposes.

My Lords, indeed I was merely seeking an opportunity to say a word or two legitimately about this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 43:

My Lords, before we agree to this amendment, there are two amendments to it standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.

My Lords, these amendments are not moved.

My Lords, I take it that this is Amendment No. 43 as not amended.

That is correct, my Lords.

In that case, my Lords, I am happy to beg to move.

moved Amendment No. 46:

Page 13, line 7, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Broadcasting Complaints Commission")