Communications Bill

Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2003.

Standing Committee E

Clause 276 - Programme production

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I beg to move amendment No. 538, in

clause 276, page 243, line 15, leave out 'that OFCOM consider appropriate' and insert

'(if any) that OFCOM consider appropriate in the case of that service'.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 395, in

clause 276, page 243, line 17, leave out from first 'that' to end of line and insert 'a substantial and significant'.

Government amendment No. 539.

Amendment No. 352, in

clause 276, page 243, line 17, leave out from 'a' to end of line 19 and insert

'substantial and significant proportion of Channel 3 programmes made in the United Kingdom are programmes made in the regions and nations of the United Kingdom outside the M25 area'.

Government amendment No. 540.

Amendment No. 353, in

clause 276, page 243, line 22, leave out 'suitable' and insert 'wide'.

Government amendment No. 541.

Amendment No. 396, in

clause 276, page 243, line 24, leave out from 'that' to 'proportion' and insert 'a substantial and significant'.

Amendment No. 354, in

clause 276, page 243, line 24, leave out 'suitable' and insert 'substantial and significant'.

Government amendments Nos. 542 to 545.

Amendment No. 355, in

clause 276, page 243, line 42, at end add

'and means both network and regional programmes'.

Amendment No. 357, in

clause 278, page 246, line 9, after first 'the', insert

'regions and nations of the'.

Government amendments Nos. 546 to 548.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

it is a pity that we did not have enough time on Tuesday to discuss clauses 269 and 270, as the Government amendments to those clauses were a key component of our implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Television Commission's review of the programme supply market. The Government amendments to clauses 276 and 278 also implement the ITC's recommendations,

and I wish to say a little bit about the review before we get into the detail of them.

As hon. Members will know, the Government asked the ITC to undertake that review in response to concerns expressed during the consultation on the draft Bill about the overall economic health of the programme supply market and the position of independent producers within it. I was very concerned about that, as were other hon. Members. We wanted to establish the facts and to consider ways in which the market might operate more efficiently and a strong UK production base could be encouraged.

The ITC's authoritative and incisive report was published in November, and it commands the respect of the whole industry. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced that the Government had accepted all but two of the ITC's recommendations. As a result, we have tabled a substantial body of amendments. They require all broadcasters to draw up and agree with Ofcom codes of practice for their dealings with independent producers.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Although this question might not be strictly in order, does the Minister agree that it is as important to have independent production in radio as it is to have it in television? In replying, he might prefer to make a philosophical comment than to offer a firm commitment.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

We will deal with radio later, but I agree entirely. First, independent production is a great impetus to competition; secondly, on the television side, it has dramatically illustrated the talent and creativity that is out there, and the quota system has guaranteed that that creativity continues to be tapped. The ITC's authoritative and incisive report, which was published in November, dealt with much of that.

Our amendments will also give Ofcom the power to measure the independent productions quota by value as well as by volume, if that is appropriate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that we will allow the independent productions quota to be measured separately on BBC 1 and BBC 2. We will also require Ofcom to review periodically the way in which the quota is working and to report to the Secretary of State. We will give Ofcom the power to require broadcasters to make up any shortfall in the quota in subsequent years, and we will give it greater powers to review licence obligations on change of control of Channel 3; to extend those powers to include Channel Five; to give Channel Five targets for programme making and investment in the regions; and to give Channel 4 a new target for investment in the regions to sit alongside its existing regional programme-making obligations.

We will discuss the amendments relating to the codes of practice when we consider schedule 12, and the amendments relating to change of control when we come to clauses 339 and 340, but the amendments that we are discussing today are those that relate to regional programme making.

Amendment No. 543 gives Channel Five a new requirement for programme making in the United

Kingdom outside the M25 area. Ofcom will include licence conditions to secure that

''a suitable proportion of the programmes''

representing

''a suitable proportion of the expenditure of the provider of Channel 5''

will be made at

''a suitable range of . . . production centres.''

Amendments Nos. 538 to 540 are drafting improvements to clause 276(1) to clarify the programme production conditions to be included by Ofcom in the regulatory regime for every Channel 3 service. They make it clear that, although quotas for regional production will be met by looking at Channel 3 as a whole, that will necessitate individually tailored conditions in each licence. The amendments make clear Ofcom's power to do that.

Amendments Nos. 541 and 542 require Ofcom to ensure that regional programme production by value takes place at a suitable range of production centres in the UK outside the M25 area.

Amendments Nos. 544 and 545 define terms used in clause 276. In amendment No. 544, Channel 3 programmes are defined as networked programmes on regional Channel 3 services and any programme on a national Channel 3 service that is not a regional programme.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

My understanding of amendment No. 542 is that it introduces the concept of different production centres outside the M25 area. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the amendment reflects concerns expressed to me, especially by companies such as Yorkshire Television, that they did not want the quota to read simply ''outside the M25'', which could be interpreted to mean ''in the home counties just outside the M25''. They want Ofcom to be able to require good production centres in Leeds, for example.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes, and I hope that I made my views abundantly clear in debates on clauses earlier in the Bill. The issue is important not because of some nit-picking regulation, but because that is how successful programmes are made-how the products that people want to watch are created.

Amendment No. 544 defines ''expenditure'', to eliminate any doubt that things such as overheads and capital investment that are not attributable to a particular programme, and expenditure on buying programmes should be regarded as expenditure. ''Expenditure'' replaces ''investment'', which could be given a narrower meaning than we intended-capital expenditure, for example. Amendment No. 545 provides a definition of a ''regional programme'' for a national Channel 3 service, and is consequential to amendment No. 544, which uses the term.

Amendment No. 547 will require that in addition to the requirement on Ofcom to set licence conditions for regional programme making for Channel 4, Ofcom is to secure that

''a suitable proportion of the expenditure of C4C''

is spent

''on programmes made in the United Kingdom''

at a suitable range of production centres outside the M25 area.

Amendment No. 546 is a minor consequential amendment. Amendment No. 548 defines the term ''expenditure'' as it applies to the new Channel 4 requirement on the same basis as under clause 276 for Channel 3 and Channel Five.

The amendments strengthen the requirements for regional programme production that we have set out in the Bill and reinforce our commitment to the regional dimension to public service broadcasting.

Amendments Nos. 352, 354, 395 and 396, would remove the word ''suitable'' and replace it with ''substantial and significant'' as that relates to Channel 3's requirement for programme production and investment in programme making in the United Kingdom outside the M25 area. They would also include in the clause an additional reference to production ''in the nations and regions''. We had a long and interesting debate on that topic on Tuesday, and we have discussed it in earlier sittings.

The production requirements set out in clause 276 are designed to strike the right balance between ensuring the continuation of high-quality regional output, maintaining strong regional production centres, and avoiding unreasonable interference in the broadcasters' management and scheduling decisions. There is no reason why a ''suitable'' amount could not, in some circumstances, be regarded as ''substantial and significant''. The current wording, however, provides for flexibility, so that targets can be maintained at what Ofcom might consider to be appropriate levels.

Ofcom will be able to secure a suitable portion of the Channel 3 investment in radio production centres in different parts of the UK outside the M25 area. That represents a firm requirement for regional production that will meet the needs of different communities and cultural interests, and it will help to develop creative talent and production skills in the regions. We do not, therefore, consider that the non-Government amendments are necessary and I hope that hon. Members will consider not pressing them.

Amendment No. 353 proposes that the Channel 3 programmes made in the UK outside the M25 area, when taken together, should constitute a ''wide'' range of programmes rather than a ''suitable'' range of programmes, as is currently required. Ofcom must, as I have just mentioned, be able to secure the appropriate licence conditions for each service. In some cases, a ''suitable'' range of programmes could indeed be a ''wide'' range, but Ofcom should be given the necessary flexibility to set the right target for each individual service. I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) will not press his amendment.

Amendment No. 355 proposes that Ofcom should consider

''both network and regional programmes''

when it requires that a suitable proportion of Channel 3 programmes is made in the UK outside the M25 area. The hon. Gentleman will wish to note that the clause only includes regional programme production as a proportion of networked Channel 3 programmes, because suitable targets for the regional production of regional programmes that should be included in a Channel 3 service are covered in clause 277. We will turn our attention to that clause shortly and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.

Amendment No. 357 to clause 278 seeks to secure a target for Channel 4's programme production in the nations and regions of the UK when it applies the target for programme production outside the M25 area. I sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, but I believe that the requirement that we have just introduced for Ofcom to set Channel 4 a suitable investment target in a range of production centres within the UK outside the M25 area is the most appropriate response. I pay tribute to Channel 4, which has been involved in some tremendous projects throughout the country in terms of commissioning productions and being at the centre of initiatives in the creative industries sector that are valuable to the regions and the country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

We welcome the Government amendments, especially when we reflect on our debate on Tuesday morning about the core issues regarding the extent to which we can place obligations on a commercial channel whose revenue stream is unpredictable. We have to seek a sensible balance. The ITC review concludes that the amount of regionally produced programmes for the ITV network has reduced. There is clearly a good opportunity for not only Channel 3, but Channel 4, Channel Five and the BBC, to strengthen their regional production for network television. I am inclined to agree with the Minister that his proposed overall structure probably achieves the necessary flexibility while also giving powers, and teeth, to Ofcom to ensure that the trend to which I referred is checked and, if possible, reversed.

One element of the future arrangements could still be reconsidered. Unfortunately, Mr. Atkinson, on Tuesday we were not able to discuss the role of independent producers. The relevant clauses were passed without discussion because of the guillotine. We accepted that, but Mr. Gale suggested that, when we came to other clauses that touched on matters that had not been discussed, we might try to work in a comment or two about them.

The Government and Ofcom have room to go further in respect of independent producers. Although we now expect ITV/Channel 3 to come under a single ownership regime, it will still have 15 different licences and 15 different regional production centres-that is, 15 different centres of excellence that are capable of making programmes for network television for Channel 3, Channel 4, Channel Five, the BBC and channels that are not delivered terrestrially other than digitally.

Tyne Tees Television is located in my part of the world, and one of the Labour Members said that its

share of production for the network had fallen quite dramatically in the past two or three years. Tyne Tees Television can still produce programmes for network television, but what it cannot do at the moment is make programmes that satisfy the independent quota of other channels.

We know that the ITC has rejected the concept of regional ITV licensees fulfilling or contributing towards the independent quota of the various channels-including, of course, the BBC. We understand why the ITC has decided that those licensees are not independent, but the consequence of that decision is perverse in two distinct ways. First, it means that, to meet their independent quota, the other network companies-Channel 4, Channel Five and the BBC in particular-will have to source their programmes from other producers. Secondly, the definition of ''outside the M25 area'' will not lead those other network companies to source from independent producers that are based in different regions to the same extent as the Channel 3 licensees are.

If the objective is to secure more regional production for network television, simply depending on the independent production sector for the independent quota will not achieve that objective. If we were to allow relaxation of the definition of independence, that would achieve not only the Government's objectives, but enable the various channels that will be affected by the provisions to work with Ofcom to achieve the outcome that I believe all members of the Committee want.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Another way to achieve the hon. Gentleman's objectives, with which I have considerable sympathy, would be to support the amendments tabled in my name and those of the hon. Members for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) to ensure that there is a substantial range of programming and that it is based in the ''regions and nations'' of the United Kingdom. Does he accept that the framework of the Bill in setting the quotas for independent production has not taken into account the argument that he advanced? If his suggestion were accepted, perhaps we would need to go back to the quota and decide whether it is generous enough if we are to include Channel 3 franchise companies within independent production.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

That is a very good try by the hon. Gentleman to persuade me to support his amendment, but his proposal is not the same as mine. I agree that our aims and objectives may be similar, but I do not believe that Ofcom will have inadequate power. The Minister has fully explained that ''significant'' may mean ''substantial''. The existing wording is sufficient.

If we want to encourage more regional production, we have to ask ourselves where the programme producers are now who are capable of producing good programmes for network television that companies will want to buy and that advertisers will want to support. They have a role to play, too. We could almost throw the baby out with the bath water

if, by refusing to concede that the smaller, licensed ITV companies that are spread throughout the regions can do the job. For example, Harlech Television, Tyne Tees TV, Anglia Television and Scottish Television-to which I shall return in a moment-have produced tremendous programmes for network television. Let us bear in mind Tyne Tees TV and its Catherine Cookson programmes.

Those television companies can do the job. We need to think long and hard about whether, by excluding them from a definition of independent production in respect of other channels, we will be killing off the potential. The proposal that Ofcom will impose requirements on future Channel 3 licensees in the application stage is an improvement on what exists now. It will require them to explain what programmes that they will make for the network, but there is no guarantee that the proposed programmes would get on the network. The other channels may wish to show such programmes, especially if they had been shown before and were reasonably popular with a minority audience. I am not talking about programmes that could deliver the 10 million-plus audiences that ITV wants, but those that could deliver 3 or 4 million would be ideal for Channel 4 or Channel Five and they could contribute towards the independent quota.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I have been following my hon. Friend's argument and I agreed with him all along except for the point that he has just made. Given that regional Channel 3 companies such as Tyne Tees TV, Border TV and Grampian TV have not been able to get their programmes on the national network and programmes may be available for repeat broadcasts on Channel 4 or Channel Five, is there not a great danger that Channel 4 and Channel Five might seek to meet their 25 per cent. independent production quota by buying cheap repeats?

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

No, I do not think so, but I understand my hon. Friend's point. It is generous of you to allow me stray on to the issue of independent production, Mr. Atkinson, and I hope that you will allow me to respond to my hon. Friend.

We need not regard the figure of 25 per cent. as being written on a tablet of stone. There are smaller independents, some of which may be based in London. Fulfilling the independent quota and the ''outside the M25'' quota is not one and the same thing. There may be occasions on which a programme that meets both of those requirements will be produced and shown on the network, but the two quotas are not mutually inclusive. They both stand on their own.

I shall later suggest how my proposal might be done experimentally, but let us say that, as a consequence of my suggestion, there were an emergence, resurgence or renaissance of some of the regional production within the old ITV centres of excellence, and they were providing programmes to meet independent quota. If the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) were to come about, it would be perfectly feasible to reconsider whether the 25 per cent. figure were satisfactory. I am sure that the Committee would agree that if we ever got to that

position, things would be a darn sight better than they are now, given the trends of the past two or three years. We would have accomplished a great deal in terms of the re-emergence of programming made in the regions for the network.

I said that the provision is perverse in two ways, and I now come to the second. My understanding is that a programme made by a broadcaster from another country in Europe, similar to the kind of broadcasters that are currently denied the opportunity to contribute towards the independent production target, would qualify as contributing towards the independent production target. One could not discriminate against them. That is a little perverse, to say the least.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Does that mean we may get more Smurfs from Holland?

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Order. I have endeavoured to be tolerant with the hon. Gentleman who broadened the debate on the clause, but it is now getting seriously out of orbit. I ask him not to press the subject much further.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

As I am not an afficionado of Smurfs, I will not respond to my hon. Friend's comment. You have been very generous, Mr. Atkinson, but the Committee takes my point.

I said that I wanted to suggest how the matter might be dealt with experimentally. Granada is a dominant provider of programming to the Channel 3 network and, clearly, it would not be acceptable for a company of that size to be considered for making programmes for Channel 4 or Channel Five and fulfilling their independent quota. The ITC are right to reject it. Why could Scottish Television not be regarded as an independent producer for Channel 4, Channel Five or even the BBC? The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland made the point-[Interruption.] I am going to Glasgow in two or three weeks time so I shall try to look up the hon. Gentleman. It is a great city and it is too long since I was last there.

The hon. Gentleman made the point that Scottish Television's productions for Channel 3 network have decreased in number, and that would be a great opportunity for it. I mentioned Anglia Television, Tyne Tees TV and HTV. HTV is in the same situation-

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and the Committee will understand it. I am frightened that he will take us on a geographical tour of all the ITV regions. I would be grateful if he would bring those aspects of his remarks to a conclusion.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I was about to. Surely it would not be beyond the wit of Ofcom to devise a threshold to take account of the size of an ITV licence holder and its geographical position in order to determine whether its productions could be classed as independent productions. That is pertinent to the clause because it would assist Ofcom to fulfil our objective: it would require Channel 4 and Channel Five to commission programming made outside the M25 for the first time. We debated what that would mean the other day; it

would mean that the whole lot could be made in Hatfield and Reading. That is not what the provision is about because we want programmes to be made such places as Leeds, Newcastle, Cardiff and Bristol.

The Minister will have grasped my point. Let us revisit this. I do not anticipate that he will offer to table an amendment to deal with the matter, but an opportunity for Ofcom to address the issue has been lost and should be readdressed.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I shall be brief because many of the arguments were explored in depth on Tuesday when we debated clause 256. The amendments tabled in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland and myself-some are supported by the hon. Member for Ceredigion-largely reiterate our commitment to ensuring that the Bill gives Ofcom a significant requirement to ensure high-quality production.

The clause addresses the need for Ofcom to report on programme production, but focuses more on Ofcom's remit to ensure that every licence for a Channel 3 service must include an obligation to produce a specific amount of programmes outside the M25 area. I am still worried about that, although I welcome the Minister's reassurance. However, I am worried by the use of the words ''suitable proportion'' and I suggest using the words ''substantial and significant proportion''. There is a significant difference between the two phrases and my underlying concern is that the clause gives too much freedom to the new regulator to interpret the suitable proportion.

I do not want to bash the Americans, but there is a worry that if Channel 3 licences were extended to American companies, the situation could be exacerbated. If most Channel 3 licences were owned by American companies, we would have a situation in which chief executives sat behind a desk on the other side of the Atlantic. They would be even more removed from UK regions than the chief executives sitting behind desks in London who we discussed on Tuesday. American media companies are global players and they will lobby hard for their own interpretation of what is appropriate to be accepted by Ofcom. Therefore, the amendments are also necessary to protect the new regulator.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's argument, although I am unsure whether as a point of law it is correct with regard to ''outside the M25 area''.

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, to the United States of America, the British market is big, but not overpoweringly large, and that he should be directing his comments far more at Australian production companies such as Grundy Television, which produces ''Neighbours''? For it, the British market is much more lucrative than its home market.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, but my concern is also about American companies rather than just production companies selling products to Britain. That has

frequently happened with programmes such as ''Home and Away'' and ''Neighbours'', but I was alluding to ownership issues.

ITV's regional production base will only be secured by strong regulatory requirements in favour of ITV. We will not press the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland to a Division, and we welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's comments. Much of this topic was taken on board on Tuesday and today, so I will not say any more about it because the discussion has gone on for long enough, and it will take place again when we address a couple of later clauses.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

As hon. Members have said, we debated some of the issues that arise from the amendments in my name and those in the names of the hon. Members for Gloucester and for Glasgow, Anniesland last Tuesday-or last year, or whenever it was. However, there are a couple of points that I wish to address, particularly with regard to the Minister's amendments.

I welcome them because they incorporate the spirit of some of the debates that we had on Tuesday and especially because they seek to address the fact that there should be more than one production centre outside the M25-that there should be a range of production centres. I still think that the nature of regional programming in the UK-particularly with regard to Channel 3's remit-would be better reflected if the Bill were to contain a specific reference to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, which is why I tabled these amendments at this stage.

I suspect that the Minister will still resist them. However, I wish to bring to his attention one amendment that stands in my name and is supported by the hon. Member for Gloucester. Amendment No. 355 seeks to make it clear that regional development is not just for the regions, but for network ITV programming. That has been touched upon. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) admitted that there had been a reduction in regional ITV productions that get taken forward on to network. That is a sad fact, but it is due not to the quality of those productions but to a change in Channel 3. Over the past few years, it has become more like the third channel with regional opt-outs rather than a collection of regional channels put together.

That has been important for Channel 3, and it has been driven by the decline in advertising revenue and the need to have a much stronger branding for the third button on everyone's remote control. The sad side-effect of that has been a decline in the number of programmes that are made at regional level and that are then taken forward to the network level. The hon. Member for Ryedale mentioned that there were 15 licence areas, and therefore 15 production areas. In fact, I think that the correct figure is 16, because HTV Wales is different than HTV West so far as production is concerned-there is a production area in Wales and another Cardiff. Sometimes, one plus one can equal three.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

It is even better than that, because ITV actually produces some 27 different local and regional news programmes.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. We are trying to ensure that two things happen. First, that strong regional production for the regional or national market continues, whether by HTV Wales, HTV West, Tyne Tees TV, or others. The Government amendments go a good way down that line and I welcome them on that basis. Secondly, we are trying to ensure, through the clause and the amendments to it, that the regional production centres continue to provide strong, healthy opportunities for good quality jobs in our regions and nations and that there are opportunities for people in those regional production centres to make programmes for network transmission.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am a little bit worried about what the hon. Gentleman is saying-I am sure that he is doing it inadvertently-and I want to put the record straight. The Broadcasters Audience Research Board ratings of the top 50 network programmes for the week ending 22 December shows that 10 of the top 20 were made in the north-west or in Yorkshire. Two of the other programmes were made by Thames and the rest were made by BBC 1, some of which would have been made in the BBC regions. That looks like a strong track record for regional production. Why would anyone want to change that?

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I certainly do not want to change it. I simply want to strengthen it.

The Minister is being just a little bit disingenuous. We know from the programmes that we choose to watch which regional programmes use a regional theme and do well on network, for example, ''Heartbeat'' and ''Monarch of the Glen'', and which are actually made for the regions themselves. There is a difference.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I thank the hon. Gentleman, because that is an important point. There is a problem with the Big Brother concept-not ''Big Brother'', the television programme-about what people should be watching. We are starting to get qualitative decisions. It is as if we are saying that ''Heartbeat'', ''EastEnders'' and ''Coronation Street'' might be all right, but that those are not really the programmes that we are talking about; that we are talking about something substantially different-about higher quality programmes. Frankly, I do not think that that is what regulation is about. We must acknowledge that the great majority of people in this country are happy to watch programmes that are made in strong regions and the argument ought to be about how we can ensure that all the British regions are as good at making those kinds of programmes as Yorkshire and the Granada region.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

That is precisely what I am trying to address and I have not introduced any argument into the debate regarding which regional programmes are good and bad. I simply mentioned the programmes in the top 20 that we choose to watch, the nature of those programmes and the production areas that reflect them. Other production areas have greater difficulty in

getting their regional Channel 3 programmes on the network. About a half an hour ago the Minister, not I, moved an amendment about quality assessment. I think that he is straining a little bit. I do not want to go into too much detail, but I want to emphasise the importance of ensuring that there are strong regional production centres, not only for the regional demand, but the network demand. That is the key point.

In conclusion, I shall refer briefly to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ryedale. I would like to hear from the Minister-we have not had the opportunity until now-about the thinking behind why regional production by Channel 3 licence holders cannot be counted as an independent quota, especially if programmes were made by the BBC, Channel 4 or Channel Five. There is a huge problem within the regions, because we are likely to go for single ownership of Channel 3. There are also questions to be asked outside that issue, because it might strengthen regional production. For example, HTV Wales might be successful in selling to the BBC, more so, perhaps, than they are in selling to the network under the ITV level. Who knows? It would be interesting to explore that to see if there is a way within the framework of Ofcom to assist regional ITV companies to make the best opportunity of their regional production centres, than just making programmes for the ITV network.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I was moved to intervene by the Minister's comments, particularly about the successful ratings of regional programmes from Yorkshire. Leeds has an important cultural industry. It has an enormous spillover effect. There is a vibrant, cultural industry quarter around Sheffield Hallam university, which feeds into regional television production. Well-known programmes, such as ''Emmerdale'', ''Heartbeat'' and ''The Royal'' are on the television map and are hugely successful. The reasonable fear is that a future owner of the ITV Channel 3 licences may decide to engage in a cost-cutting exercise and one target may be regional production centres, such as that in Leeds.

We want to be reassured that Ofcom will have the teeth to say no to a potential owner of Channel 3, even though the owner may decide for commercial reasons to buy in ''Big Brother'' and still receive the same audiences that it receives for current programmes. I am encouraged by the amendments, because by specifying suitable regional production centres, Ofcom will have such a power. We are seeking such reassurances. I want to stress the importance of regional television production centres-in my case, Leeds and in the north-west, Manchester. Without them, our cultural industry network will be threatened.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

The clause is concerned primarily with increasing programme production in the regions, but the Minister in his introduction to the Government's amendments rightly placed it in context by referring to the Independent Television Commission review of the programme supply market. That is an important component when discussing regional production. It is worth placing on the record that many people consider that the ITC review is one of the most important documents to strengthen the broadcasting industry

throughout the United Kingdom. It was published many years ago, and I was disappointed that that we did not refer to it when we dealt with the particular clause. It is worth recognising that this is an important part of the Bill. Credit goes to Lord Puttnam's Committee, which drew attention to the matter. It was a result of that Committee's recommendations that the Government commissioned the review so swiftly.

There is no doubt that the regional production quotas have been important and that there remains a strong case for them. The review emphasises the enormous economic contribution made by the broadcasting industry. Because we are still dealing with a limited number of big commissioning companies, I accept the need for intervention in the market, even though I do not usually support such measures. The Minister drew attention to successes in achieving a thriving regional production industry, but the report sets out that it is still fragile in some places and that there is some way to go.

The report stated that, despite many policy initiatives to encourage output from the regions, production and distribution are still heavily concentrated in London, with about two thirds of all network to new programming, as opposed to that for regional consumption, coming from London. Manchester comes second with 11 per cent., which is a long way behind London. No other city or region accounts for more than 4 per cent. I agree that it is difficult to make a distinction under the clause, but there is a distinction between programming made in the regions for regional consumption, and programmes that are made in the regions for the network and which are to be commissioned for screening throughout the United Kingdom. We have been less successful in the latter area.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The hon. Gentleman has identified two important categories, but there is a third-programmes made for a region that subsequently prove so popular and effective that they are adopted nationally. Many of the success stories that have been mentioned were not commissioned nationally, but became national because of the quality of the programmes and hard work of the local teams.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

That is absolutely right. Undoubtedly, there is scope for exploiting regionally focused programmes with appeal, not only throughout the United Kingdom, but abroad. That point was mentioned in the ITC report, which drew to our attention:

''Rights from regional programmes commissioned from independents, by either the BBC or ITV, are retained by the broadcasters. There is very little exploitation of these rights beyond the UK''.

The report is universally acknowledged to be an extremely good summary of the problems still encountered by regional producers.

A major problem is that commissioning is still based in London. The networks have London-based or metrocentric commissioning centres. Independent producers believe that they need bases in London to

have any opportunity of bidding for programmes. There have also been instances in which quotas or targets have been manipulated in order to get around the requirements, such as larger independents establishing brass-plate offices to take advantage of regional quotas and so forth.

The key point applies throughout the independent production industry, as well as when trying to encourage regional production: quotas are not the problem, but the balance of advantage between the commissioning bodies and the independent producers-the terms of trade. The report says:

''The absence of formal terms of trade for regional production or indeed any negotiation over terms was an issue that''

was repeatedly raised by people making submissions.

The terms of trade issue and the way in which the report addresses it offers the best hope of giving a boost to the independent production sector right across the board and especially in the regions. Some of the commissioning bodies have behaved in a disgraceful way. Although the BBC said in its guidelines that the aim is

''to ensure that Independent Producers can choose which rights they make available to the BBC and which they dispose of elsewhere, so that Independent Producers are best able to generate a reasonable profit on Programmes made for the BBC''

all the submissions made by independent producers have said that there has been virtually no negotiation at all and that a flat cash sum is offered by the BBC, which holds on to the rights.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Order. We are moving into territory that we shall debate later. The clause relates to Channel 3.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I may well return to the subject, Mr. Atkinson, although you are right to correct me. The issue is terribly important and it affects all regional producers and commissioning bodies. The report states that if we get this issue right, and readjust the terms of trade to benefit the independent production sector, in the long term, it will be less necessary to impose quotas. Perhaps we will return to that in our later debates. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister envisages as the long-term future of quotas. The independent sector has no particular wish to sustain quotas indefinitely. It has pointed out that quotas sometimes act as a ceiling rather than a floor and that imposing a quota might create a barrier to expansion beyond the target, which would hold back development.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. He is right to highlight the role of commissioners because they might see a quota as a ceiling. That does not necessarily spell trouble because I do not think that independent producers would rather be without quotas-I have not met one who has said that. The hon. Gentleman is correct that we must get the spirit right because if quotas are seen as a ceiling, we will not tap the creativity that we talked about earlier.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I agree with the Minister about the potential danger of setting an arbitrary, fixed quota. He said that he has not met any independent producers who want to get rid of the quota, and nor

have I. However, that does not mean that independent producers think that quotas must be in place for ever. They accept that the long-term aim is a situation in which terms of trade and negotiating powers between producers and commissioning bodies are adjusted to the extent that quotas become unnecessary.

The ITC report draws attention to that. Part of the conclusion says that Ofcom should keep the operation of quotas under review and determine whether they should continue. Conclusion 36 says:

''Ofcom should also be asked periodically to assess whether the quota itself is still needed''.

The areas of the operation of quotas that the report said that Ofcom should keep under review include:

''The regional distribution of programmes commissioned under the quota, to ensure that a reasonable proportion is commissioned from outside London.''

None of us argue that quotas are unnecessary, and they will remain necessary for some time. However, there might come a moment when an arbitrary target is unnecessary, as the review flags up, if we achieve what we all want: a thriving independent production sector that is not based in London but spread throughout the United Kingdom.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

We have had another lengthy and excellent debate. I was glad that the hon. Member for Ryedale raised the issues that he did. He will know that the ITC considered the issue but concluded that a relaxation such as the one that he proposed would have a detrimental effect on the qualifying independents. It said that it would consider the case again but that it will require robust business cases to be put before it. That is interesting because I have followed the debate in the broadcasting press closely, and there is a school of thought that the independents must get real about ensuring that they have robust business cases for commissioners and others because there is a hard market out there.

Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, suggested that Ofcom must have teeth to ensure that what we are trying to legislate for will be adhered to irrespective of whether an American company or a German company comes in-some already are in. I have every confidence that Ofcom will have teeth.

The market will be a more powerful determinant because of the reasons that I made clear earlier. It is not an accident-there may be a bit of history behind it-that so many of the top 20 programmes are made in the north-west of England and Yorkshire. It is an indication the quality and strength of those production bases. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said that it is possible to strengthen those production bases by understanding their worth in terms of the creative industries that they can spawn. They will get stronger, not weaker. I do not share any of the pessimism that has been expressed, despite what the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said.

The hon. Gentleman raised another important point when he asked where the commissioners were.

I often get a bit impatient on that subject. I am always hearing regional ITV companies-and regional BBC companies as well, although we will discuss those later-saying that they do not get their fair share on the network. Very often, if they were producing better programmes, they might get a better share on the network. It is a cut-throat industry, but the appetite for good programmes is enormous-not only in this country but worldwide. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford highlighted the point that we are very smug in this country. We think that we have the best television in the world and that we make the best programmes in the world. However, we are not great at selling them abroad. We should look carefully at the quality and type of programme that meets the requirements of a worldwide market. The Americans are very good at tapping into that. Perhaps a little less bleating and a little more effort into getting the right quality may result in our selling more programmes abroad.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

Is not getting the distribution controls right one of the key elements in selling abroad? At that level, access to good local production is critical.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes, that is an element, but it is only one variable in the equation of success. There are many other variables and I do not think that one variable alone is the reason for our not selling as many programmes as the Americans do. They have a different kind of industry. It is very close to the film industry and they have a whole distribution and public relations industry for entertainment. We could learn some lessons from them.

I hope that I can respond to one of the central themes of the hon. Member for Ryedale's speech. The relevant definitions of independent production can be changed by order, so the matter can be kept under review. Ofcom will review the operation of the quota and will report to the Secretary of State annually. That is an important proviso.

We have some tremendously strong independent production companies in this country-companies such as Endemol-that put a lot of money into research and development and script development. We do not often put enough money into script development. We can look to the future of programme supply with a great deal of optimism.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Is it not an irony that Endemol is owned by Telefonica, the Spanish telephone company, and is allowed to be quoted as an indie, whereas companies such as Border TV and Tyne Tees TV are not?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes, it is. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is part of the European rules. For the record, I am the Minister who said that he thought it was idiotic and that Endemol should be an independent company. Its production record speaks for itself. It is very diverse. I do not like all the programmes that it produces, any more than the hon. Member for Ceredigion does-and he has very refined tastes. However, it is a company that we ought to be proud of.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 539, in

clause 276, page 243, line 17, leave out

', in the case of that service,'.

No. 540, in

clause 276, page 243, line 22, leave out

', in the case of that service,'.

No. 541, in

clause 276, page 243, line 23, leave out 'and'.

No. 542, in

clause 276, page 243, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 and insert

'expenditure of the providers of Channel 3 services on Channel 3 programmes made in the United Kingdom is referable to programme production at different production centres outside the M25 area; and

'( ) that the different programme production centres to which that expenditure is referable constitute what appears to OFCOM to be a suitable range of such production centres.'.

No. 543, in

clause 276, page 243, line 31, at end insert-

'( ) The regulatory regime for Channel 5 includes the conditions that OFCOM consider appropriate for securing-

(a) that what appears to OFCOM to be a suitable proportion of the programmes made in the United Kingdom for viewing on that Channel are programmes made in the United Kingdom outside the M25 area;

(b) that the programmes for such viewing that are made in the United Kingdom outside the M25 area (taken together) constitute what appears to OFCOM to be a suitable range of programmes;

(c) that what appears to OFCOM to be a suitable proportion of the expenditure of the provider of Channel 5 on programmes made in the United Kingdom for viewing on that Channel is referable to programme production at different production centres outside the M25 area; and

(d) that the different programme production centres to which that expenditure is referable constitute what appears to OFCOM to be a suitable range of such production centres.'.

No. 544, in

clause 276, page 243, line 40, leave out

'Channel 3 services are provided; and'

and insert

'regional Channel 3 services are provided, including any programme made for viewing on a national Channel 3 service other than a regional programme;

''expenditure'', in relation to a programme, means-

(a) expenditure which constitutes an investment in or is otherwise attributable to the making of the programme; or

(b) expenditure on the commissioning or other acquisition of the programme or on the acquisition of a right to include it in a service or to have it broadcast;'.

No. 545, in

clause 276, page 243, line 42, at end insert

'and

''regional programme'' means a programme made with a view to its inclusion in a national Channel 3 service as a programme of particular interest to persons living within a particular area of the United Kingdom.'.-[Dr. Howells.]

Clause 276, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 277 - Regional programming

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I beg to move amendment No. 397, in

clause 277, page 244, line 5, leave out 'sufficient' and insert 'significant'.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 356, in

clause 277, page 244, line 11, leave out 'suitable' and insert 'significant'.

No. 398, in

clause 277, page 244, line 34, leave out 'suitable' and insert 'significant'.

No. 399, in

clause 277, page 245, line 12, leave out 'suitable' and insert 'significant'.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I thank the hon. Member for Ryedale for commenting on my accent. I thought Ryedale was the high school in the film ''Grease'', but there we are. We learn something new every day.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the problem was not his accent, but the fact that my hearing is declining as the years go by.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I accept the hon. Gentleman's excuse, and I hope that he has a nice time in Glasgow. I assure him that it will be much nicer than where he comes from.

We have been down this road before, as clause 277 is very much linked with clause 276. The Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union gave some powerful arguments to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and me, and after discussion, my hon. Friend and I decided to table the amendments. Clause 277 is more about making programmes in the regions for the regions than about ensuring that programmes are made in an area to help sustain jobs, develop specific skills and benefit the local economy.

We could also amend the clause so that it would improve the provision of quality content. The Minister made some points about good programmes, and there have been a few from Scotland, of which ''Taggart'' is probably one of the most successful. There is also the new cult programme in Scotland, called ''Chewin' the Fat''. I do not know whether it is a cult programme in the south yet. I wonder whether such a programme would have been made if there were no regional television or any regional quotas for television. I very much doubt it. Some hon. Members would probably need subtitles to understand it. Research shows that viewers like programmes and features that relate to their areas. We had a long discussion about Gaelic and Welsh language programmes under earlier clauses, and that backs up what we are saying. The Minister agreed that such programmes are important.

Under the clause, we could give protection to the viewer, and make sure that licence holders are not merely paying lip service to their obligations, but are living up to them. We have already mentioned what will happen as regards who will make the programmes

and who will be in charge of what company, and the same applies to Ofcom. Who will be making the decisions in Ofcom's case, and what will their personal opinions be? In many cases, those opinions will relate to how those people view the rules by which they are governed. The production and broadcasting of regional programmes is a vital aspect of public service broadcasting in the UK and a distinguishing factor from the many cable and satellite channels that buy and recycle material rather than invest in production.

The British programme sector is widely acknowledged-although perhaps not in the way that the Minister would like it to be-as a world-class centre of creative and technical excellence. However, I must say that there is a distinct lack of reference to music, and particularly live music, in the Bill. I will return to that subject later. One programme that was shown over and over, particularly over the new year, was ''T in the Park'', a successful pop concert in Scotland. If such programmes are not shown and not given a range of broadcasting, they will not be made, and that is an important point to consider.

It is vital that we retain a strong regulatory commitment to regional production. It is therefore desirable to make a clear and explicit commitment to providing a ''significant'' proportion of such material, rather than using the far weaker existing formulation, which leaves the regulator open to being put under severe pressure to be flexible on the exact meaning of ''suitable''. I again make the point that the definition of the term will depend on the personal opinion of the person making the decision. Ultimately, we need a meaningful commitment to ''significant'' rather than ''suitable'' proportion of regional programming, and to ensuring that the viewers are offered a wide range of quality programmes with investment to support it.

I am worried because it appears that Conservative Front-Bench Members are agreeing a lot with the Minister, and I keep looking for the trap that they are setting. The Minister should beware Greeks bearing gifts. It also appears that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and I, along with the smaller Opposition parties, are the unofficial Opposition in these debates.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Perhaps that is because the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland has set out the reasoning behind these amendments.

I will make two points. The first of them reflects on an earlier debate. The Minister was quick to say that some of us were using a quality argument. However, the Government's word-''suitable''-has a quality association, whereas ''significant'' does not. That is an important difference. Our amendments are intended to give a steer to Ofcom to ensure that the depth of production in the regions is important to it when it comes to assess the impact of these clauses. The word ''suitable'' can be interpreted in many ways-including a qualitative way-in deciding what programmes are like, whereas the amendments have the virtue of being

much more hard-headed in the way that they propose to work out whether regional production is sufficient.

Secondly, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to amendment No. 356 because it has a slightly different effect than the others. It gives Ofcom the power to ensure that the regional programmes that are shown in a particular franchise area are made in that area. We have strong regional production centres-Leeds and Manchester, for example, and Cardiff-which make successful programmes, as the Minister has outlined, but I have a fear about smaller and currently less successful regional production centres: a new owner of ITV could use Leeds to make programmes for Glasgow or use Cardiff to make programmes for Bristol. That would be a retrograde step in the provision of regional broadcast centres and programming.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if there were league tables, innovative programmes-particularly regional ones-would have no chance of being on television?

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I agree. ''Chewin' the Fat'' has been shown in Wales, and I saw it-although I am unsure whether it has been shown in the rest of the UK.

It is good that programmes that are made in regional production centres-both BBC and ITV ones-feature heavily in the list of the top 20 programmes, but that does not reflect the whole range of programme making in the UK, and neither does it reflect the need for creative industries.

Where will the new ideas come from? Even the most popular current programmes began as new ideas: ''Coronation Street'', ''Brookside'' and ''EastEnders'' were huge innovations, but they are now staples. All those very popular programmes started off as innovative ideas; initially they were cultish-not many people watched them, perhaps-but their audiences increased. ''Prisoner: Cell Block H'' never quite made it, but so be it.

All those points reflect the need to maintain strong regional broadcasting centres. Amendment No. 356 would require Ofcom, when looking at the range of regional programmes, to ensure that programmes were made not only for particular regions, but substantially in those regions.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

''Coronation Street'' was originally commissioned as only six programmes for the network but is now the longest-running soap in the world.

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that technology has moved on slightly and that although programmes such as ''Coronation Street'' require large permanent sets, many programmes such as ''Heartbeat'' are made on location and are either filmed or use electronic television production? That means that large production centres are no longer needed, just a small number of offices. That provides more flexibility, so perhaps the Minister is right in saying that a programme with a strong regional heart does not necessarily require huge costs and a huge production centre. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's fears

about a single ITV are not so well founded, given modern technology.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about technology. Certainly the independent sector in Wales takes advantage of that, having small offices and using freelance staff and technicians. A very successful programme can be put together without having large production centres. I have no doubt about that.

However, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will support the main point that I am trying to get across: whatever the heart of a region's programmes, whether or not they reflect regional nature, as does ''Heartbeat'', that range of programmes should nevertheless be made in that region. Even given the Government's amendments to previous clauses, it would be remiss of us to allow a Bill to be framed so that it allowed three or four significant regional production centres-Manchester Granada is the obvious one-to become the production centres for all the 15 ITV franchise areas. The amendments would maintain not only regional programming but regional production centres.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I have sympathy with the amendments, so I am slightly playing devil's advocate, but does the hon. Gentleman not accept that were ''Heartbeat'' filmed in Sussex or Cornwall, or even southern California, that would be pretty obvious to the viewer, and it would not have the popularity that it now enjoys?

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

''Heartbeat'' could be filmed in the Brecon Beacons and not look very different, so I do not know whether that is true. I could go on about the use of Wales as a wonderful film location. There is a lovely beach in my constituency called Penbryn, to which hon. Members can go-unfortunately I have now given away its secret. If they do, they will see that it was the location for the closing shots of the latest Bond film. That is supposed to be the south Pacific, so the hon. Gentleman's view does not quite hold water. It is possible to fake such things on television and film. However, the import of the amendments stands as explained.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

We have had quite a lengthy debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland was quite right to talk about the success stories. ''Taggart'' was, of course, made by SMG Television Productions and had an audience of 7 million on ITV, which was very impressive. I have not had a chance to see ''Chewin' the Fat'' and I could not find its audience figures, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will tell me what they are at some stage.

The amendments would require regional Channel 3 services to allocate a ''significant'' amount of air time to regional programmes instead of a ''sufficient'' amount. They would also require regional, local and national Channel 3 services to ensure that a significant proportion of their regional or local programmes were made in the relevant area. The current formulation requires that to be a ''suitable'' proportion.

I shall enter a debate for a moment. The hon. Member for Ceredigion was right to say that the beaches in Wales are great film locations. They have

no rivals in Europe so far as I am concerned. However, I also agree with the hon. Member for Lichfield on that point. It might be possible to take a few shots for a James Bond film on a Welsh beach and get away with it, but elements of regional character go into regional production. That is especially true for television. Miracles can be worked with film production because there is money to be spent but, generally speaking, that cannot be done with television. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to say that that regional character comes through in such productions, and is consciously exploited by programme makers. This Committee seems to have very little faith in the nous and professionalism of those television producers. They understand very well that if they can tap into that regional character as well as into regional talent, they will make good programmes.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Indeed. Does the Minister not agree that it is often cheaper to produce such programmes regionally than centrally because of factors such as accommodation costs? Although the hon. Member for Ceredigion said that one hill looks a little like another, surely buildings vary a great deal in structure, for example, there are stone buildings in the north and others in Wales. Programmes need to be produced authentically.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I agree entirely, but I shall not be drawn down that route now. I saw a film at the weekend that was supposed to be set in Wales but had Irish theme music and very, very English accents among the ethnic Welsh. They kept referring to somewhere called ''Lanelly''.

We all agree that regional programming and, as we have just heard in the clause 276 debate, regional production are key elements of public service broadcasting. All the research shows that people see regional broadcasting as an essential part of Channel 3 and want it to continue. They want to see programmes that reflect their regional identity and they want those programmes to be broadcast at peak viewing times, when they are most able to watch.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

Before the Minister sits down after replying on this extremely important clause, which answers many concerns that Committee members have expressed, can he assure me that the BBC agreement will have the same impact on the BBC as the clause will have on Channel 3? At the moment, a large number of my constituents do not believe that they are getting a regional service for their region, because it comes from another part of the United Kingdom.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I shall not comment on that now because we shall discuss that agreement at some length later. He will know that the agreement and the charter come up for renewal in 2004, and his point is very strong. We must take that on board.

In the case of regional programming, there is no reason why a ''sufficient'' amount of time and a ''suitable'' proportion of programmes cannot be ''significant''. That may very well be the case. However, Ofcom requires some flexibility to

determine what is appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account market, cultural and other relevant factors. I sympathise with the spirit of the amendments, especially those tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Anniesland and for Gloucester. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester needs all the consolation that he can find after his rugby team was slammed by Munster at the weekend.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

Although the cherry and whites were indeed robbed in Munster, I must remind the House that we are still top of the league. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister respects that.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Order. When we continue, can we return to regional television? I gather that Gloucester lost because someone left their game plans in a taxi in Ireland.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

That sounds like Gloucester.

The Bill's provisions aim to ensure that public service broadcasting, taken as a whole, continues to reflect UK cultural traditions and meet the needs of diverse social and linguistic communities, to use the favourite words of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). They will also ensure that programmes for both national and regional audiences are made in the United Kingdom outside the M25 area. I hope therefore that my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Ceredigion will withdraw their amendments.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Once again the Minister has waxed lyrical and persuaded me. Before I agree to his request, I want to reiterate that regional programming is of the utmost importance, particularly to the people who live in those regions. I hope that the Committee has taken that on board. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 277 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 278 - Regional programming-making for Channel 4

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I shall not detain the Committee long. The glory of Channel 4 is that virtually all its programme output is independent production because it does not make its own programmes. Given the arguments presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, who asked that ITV companies be regarded as independents, does the Minister think that Channel 4 has a responsibility to commission programmes from-

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

Let me clarify my hon. Friend's question. I am not suggesting that ''Countdown'', the hugely successful programme made by Yorkshire Television in Leeds for Channel 4, should be regarded as an independent production programme. I am simply suggesting that some of the smaller ITV companies might make programmes for Channel 4 and be regarded as independent. Subject to that clarification, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking the Minister the question.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I thank my hon. Friend. This is a rather peculiar procedure because in a way I am not giving a speech, but asking a very long question of the Minister. Does the Minister not think that this is a good opportunity for Channel 4 to promote independent production among the smaller ITV companies?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman got there eventually. It is not my place to tell Channel 4 from where it should commission its programmes. It has done a very good job of commissioning. The clause is intended to ensure that that good work is acknowledged and to encourage Channel 4 to ensure that it commissions work across the country, in every region, whether large or small.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 278, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 279 - Inclusion of regional matters in

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

This might not even take 30 seconds. The clause is important and I want to highlight the fact that the regional teletext service on Channel 3 is a vital part of the teletext information service. Even now it is not replicated on the BBC to the same degree. In the regions away from the south-east, such as the north of England, which is the area that you and I represent Mr. Atkinson, it is a very valuable public information service. I am glad that the clause clarifies that Ofcom will continue to make that requirement in relation to the teletext service.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The clause requires Ofcom to include in the public teletext licence conditions that ensure that

the service includes an appropriate proportion of material that is of particular interest to people living in different parts of the United Kingdom. That obligation will be imposed on both the analogue and the digital service, but different provisions may apply to take account of the different technical characteristics of each service.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 279 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 280 to 284 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11 agreed to.

Clause 285 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 286 - Schools programmes on Channel 4

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

It is worth examining the clause. It sets out Channel 4's duties in respect of schools programming. As well as programmes on television, provision is made for associated materials for schools' educational purposes. How does the Minister see that fitting in with the larger discussions about the BBC's contributions to a digital curriculum? It is clear that television providers freely supplying educational programme causes disruption in the market, and those who provide educational materials on a paid-for basis have strong opinions about how that should take place. A decision has been made about the BBC's output, which increasingly is not only that of traditional television programmes, but associated materials such as internet sites. That is a sensible market for it to get into if it wants to provide material that will be used in schools.

How will Channel 4 fit into such arrangements? Will the whole public sector-or freely available output-be looked at as one, so that those who want to play in the commercial side of the market can understand what has been taken out and given to both BBC and Channel 4? The clause covers Channel 4 in particular, but will such debates take place separately? I want to explore the arrangement. I am keen to see the output of both the BBC and Channel 4 continue in a strong form, because that is useful to schools and huge public interest has been expressed in it. In doing so, however, those with business plans who want to develop commercially need to know where they stand. The extent to which Channel 4 will be in the market must be clear, if the commercial players are to be certain about the areas in which they should be involved.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam for giving me an opportunity to comment on the clause and the role of Channel 4. I shall not go into depth on what has been a prolonged debate about the on-line curriculum and so on. The clause requires Ofcom to include in the Channel 4 licence the conditions necessary to ensure that a suitable proportion of programmes on Channel 4 are schools programmes. That is important.

Channel 4 has a successful record and a well-deserved reputation for providing schools programmes. We want that to continue. That is why we are retaining a specific commitment for Channel 4, based on the existing obligation under section 34 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. It allows the Independent Television Commission to include conditions about schools programmes in the Channel 3 or Channel Five licence but, in practice, to date neither channel has been required to provide schools programmes under the provision. We are therefore repealing section 34 and, in future, a specific legislative obligation in relation to schools programmes will apply only to Channel 4. That is not to say that we underestimate the importance of schools programmes, as the hon. Gentleman hinted-we consider it to be very important-or the need for all public service broadcasters to provide programming of an educational nature. As he reminded us, the BBC will continue to provide schools programmes and indeed it is strengthening its ability to do that. Under the BBC's agreement, it will continue to provide programmes of an educational nature including formal education and vocational training programmes.

All public service broadcasters will have a joint responsibility to contribute to the general public service broadcasting remit set out in clause 256. Among the requirements encompassed by that remit is the provision of a suitable quantity of high-quality and original programmes for children and young people and a suitable quantity and range of programmes on educational matters. Although each broadcaster will have a different role to play in fulfilling the general remit, they will be under an obligation to make a substantive contribution. Channel 4's specific commitment to schools programmes reflects its unique role as a public body and as a commercially-funded public service broadcaster. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 286 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 287 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 288 - Conditions prohibiting interference

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Again, I have a question for the Minister. I find this an extraordinary clause. It relates to interference with other services, and primarily deals with the public teletext service. Does that mean that the private teletext service, which is two or three lines of data that television stations use for communicating with each other and with regional production centres, is exempt? Does it mean that other forms of sub-band are exempt? I am sure it does not, but it is extraordinary that teletext should be included and others are not. Why is that?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The clause requires Ofcom to include in the licence for the public teletext service conditions

that prohibit the licensee from causing interference with any television broadcasting service on whose frequency it is provided or any other wireless telegraphy transmissions.

Michael Fabricant rose-

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon. Gentleman should contain himself. I am capable of checking a bit of paper in my left hand while reading a bit of paper in my right hand. Because the teletext service uses spare capacity on frequencies assigned to other broadcasters, the risk of interference exists in theory. That is an important point. I am not aware of examples of that, but similar provisions exist in the Broadcasting Act 1990.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Ah!

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment more, I will try to answer him. The public teletext service is in a special situation because it uses spare capacity of frequencies assigned to other broadcasters. That is why-in theory-there is a risk of interferences that would affect the viewers of Channel 3 and Channel 4 services.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 288 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 289 - Categorisation of listed events

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

How things change! Some of us who are veterans of the 1996 legislation, including you, Mr. Atkinson, and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms). This issue led to the greatest Government defeat in the House of Lords since the second world war, and when we debated it in the Committee on the 1996 Broadcasting Bill it could be described, if not literally, as having caused blood on the Floor. It was one of the most hotly debated and contested issues in the entire Bill, and had I not risen to my feet it might have passed without debate-and here we are again six or seven years later. It is worth pausing, because this is an issue of great importance to sport, and sport often generates great passion.

In the past, both sides in the debate have recognised the importance of the decision to maintain a list of protected events that are required to be shown on free-to-air channels, rather than to have the rights going to a subscription service. I accept that there is probably a need for that, although I am not utterly persuaded about that in the long term. That immediately gives rise to a huge argument about which sporting events should be on the list. That, too, was something that generated great controversy during the passage of the 1996 Act.

On balance, I think that the existing list is correct. Certain sporting events-those that are now on the

group A list-will always be central to the life of the nation. We can argue about whether one or two events are equally important to some people. The Minister would probably want all Pontypridd matches in a special category on the group A list. Each sport has its fans. Some have argued that Formula 1 motor racing, perhaps the British grand prix, should be on the list, but it is not at the moment. Not everything can be included, however, and the list probably reflects a general consensus. It has evolved over the years; there has been much talk about it, and I would not necessarily argue about it.

It is interesting that the sports bodies sometimes argue about which events should be on the list. I remember that in 1996 the England and Wales Cricket Board argued vigorously that test matches should not be listed. We must bear in mind the fact that nowadays the sale of television rights is one of the greatest sources of revenue for all sports. It is inevitable that if the number of bidders for those rights is restricted, the outcome will be a lower price. In maintaining a list we are making a conscious decision that is likely to deprive the listed sports of the full revenue that they might have received had there been an open market for the sale of rights.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My hon. Friend is right in pointing that out, but does he accept that that occasionally works the other way? People at Wimbledon said that they would prefer not to have tennis available only on pay-per-view. It follows that they do not think that there needs to be a list, because they would decide whether to restrict broadcasts to the BBC.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

My hon. Friend is entirely right. He makes the point I was coming to, which is that the sporting bodies have to strike a balance. They must try to maximise the revenue that can be invested in the development of their sports, their facilities and in training and other areas, and they have a duty and a desire to ensure that the maximum number of people are able to enjoy the major events. There is also a related matter of access. That is a difficult balance to strike, and it is one that has occupied much time in the House over the years.

I noticed that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) had an Adjournment debate a couple of years ago on the subject of pay TV and the suggestion that particular matches might be available only on a specific charge. The hon. Member for Gloucester, who has temporarily left his seat, also secured an Adjournment debate a couple of years ago on access to sport and the development of the list of protected events, which are known colloquially as ''the crown jewels''. There has been a lot of argument.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield made an interesting point. Who is best placed to judge what should be listed and whether a potential loss of revenue for sport should be accepted in the interest of getting the widest possible audience for events? Is that for us in the House to judge or for the sporting bodies? As my hon. Friend said, the tennis authorities have concluded that it is important for the Wimbledon finals, at least, to be broadcast free to air so that the

maximum number of people can enjoy them. I welcome that sensible decision.

The fact that sporting bodies can reach such a conclusion inevitably makes us ask whether we need to intervene to maintain the list of events. On balance, we probably still do, but it is important to accept at every stage of the debate that we might be depriving sport of money. A fantastic amount of money has been raised for sports through the sale of television rights.

A debate is being held outside this Room to consider whether London should bid for the Olympic games, although our debate will influence that. Much consideration is rightly being given to potential costs, because significant expenditure would be required to build sporting facilities. However, the Arup report, which the Government commissioned to examine potential costs and benefits, points out that there would be a guaranteed income associated with the games and that the principle source of that would be from the sale of television rights. Television rights for the Olympic games are sold throughout the world, and that raises huge sums.

The greatest sporting event in the world is obviously the Olympic games. No one would suggest that the event should not be listed in group A as a fully protected event for live coverage on free-to-air channels. However, a subscription channel might think that buying the rights to cover the Olympic games would be the very thing to boost its number of subscribers. It could not do that-probably rightly-but that would deprive the Olympic games and London, if its bid were successful, of revenue.

There has been much controversy about the sale of football television rights. One is tempted to reflect on the recent history of ITV Digital and the sale of television rights for the Football League. The immense consequences for league clubs due to loss of revenue after the premature demise of ITV Digital show how important such money is to sport. One such consequence has been the bankruptcy of several clubs. Argument still rages about ITV's responsibility and whether it has liabilities, although there has been movement on that at last. That is an illustration, if we needed one, of how important the issue is.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me strong encouragement for what he is saying? We must remember that the market might look very good, but he will remember that World cup rights were bought by the Kirsch Group, which bit the dust in no uncertain terms. ITV Digital is not the only casualty, and not the only company that has had a detrimental effect on the fortunes of the sport the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

The Minister is entirely right, but when a commercial company makes a judgment about the value of a contract and gets it wrong-ITV Digital, for example, clearly believed the value of exclusive coverage of league matches would be greater than it was-to some extent, it has made its bed and must lie on it. It is not for Government to intervene, and I am sure that the Minister is not suggesting that they should. They cannot say to ITV Digital, ''Look, you're

paying too much; you can't do that.'' The Government cannot second-guess the market in that way.

There will be casualties, I am afraid. There is a big question about if not the legal liability, then the moral duty that some ITV companies have towards football league clubs. However, I shall not go further down that road, although it is an issue about which many people feel fairly strongly. I should also like to reflect on the benefits that football has gained from the coverage of the deal reached in the past 10 years or so with Sky. When the first contract was signed, it was worth roughly £192 million to the premiership. The second contract, which was signed five years later, was worth £670 million, and the third BSkyB live contract £1.1 billion.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Order. The clause is about listed events and their categorisation. Although I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say, he is going rather wide of the essence of the clause.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

Of course I accept your judgment, Mr. Atkinson; I merely add that the question of whether premiership matches should be included in the list is a live issue that many people have debated. The fact that the premiership matches are not in the list has resulted in £1.96 billion going to the premiership because of the deal that it did with Sky. That deal would obviously not otherwise have happened, but the premiership would have made some money, because ITV or the BBC-whichever got the rights-would have paid a large sum for such a deal. However, it is clear that they would not have paid as much as Sky was willing to pay. Both Sky and the premiership have benefited as a result.

We are not just talking about the really big events or big players; it is perhaps not so well known that the voluntary code on sports broadcasting rights included an agreement that a minimum of five per cent. of TV income should be set aside for grass-roots sport development. We should consider what that has meant right across the board to different sports. The Minister's Department published a document outlining some of the benefits not so long ago. In 2000, some £7 million went on grass-roots cricket, £32 million on grass-roots football, and £17.5 million on youth development in football. That has been hugely beneficial right across the board.

When considering restricting the market for sports events, it is important that we bear in mind the wider question of the good that the sale of television rights has done in benefiting sport, right from the very top to the very bottom. That raises another interesting question. At the moment, the justification for listing events is that there are many people who would not have access to those matches or tournaments or if they were exclusively shown live on a subscription sports channel. There are two reasons why people might not have such access: first, they might not have digital television, and so would not get the chance; secondly, they might not be able to afford to subscribe to Sky Sports or whatever the channel. We hope that the first reason will be removed in time, because we all agree on the need for digital switchover. That cannot happen until virtually the entire population are willing to change over to digital transmission. Therefore, the first

reason for maintaining a list of events will be removed as everyone will be able to access digital subscription channels.

The second reason still applies-whether it is right to require that matches or events are free to air. We will need to revisit that question when we reach the point of digital switchover to decide whether it is still necessary to maintain the list. I do not suggest that it will not be, but it will be interesting to see what the broadcasting world looks like by that stage. We will also need to re-examine the various individual tournaments and matches that appear on the list. That will provoke a widespread debate in which we must listen to the sporting bodies themselves.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

Is it not only the sporting bodies, but those who watch the sport who have an important say in that debate? The sporting bodies have a vested interest, but the people who watch the sport may have a different point of view.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

Obviously we should listen to everyone who has an interest in the issue. We should not suggest that the sporting bodies will deliberately reach arrangements that they know will result in large numbers of a particular sport's supporters being unable to access events, because in the long term that would be an extremely silly thing to do. It would lead to the decline of that sport. If people cannot watch a particular sport, the chances are that they will go off and follow something else.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

We are assuming that people will be able to access subscription sports channels in the future because they will all have digital television. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problem of bundling could still be a problem? Cricket fans effectively subsidise premiership football because sports' viewing is bundled into large expensive packages. Having to pay for a larger package just to see the odd event throughout the year is an idea that a large proportion of the public find unacceptable.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

The issue of bundling has provoked controversy over the years. The hon. Gentleman said that cricket is subsidising football, but the truth is that all sports benefit-they receive money from the sale of rights at no cost to themselves. Technical difficulties would be involved in allowing viewers to pick and choose which sports to subscribe to. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Bundling is a problem and the issue should be kept under review by the competition authorities.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

With the expansion of pay-per-view, people will pay only for what they want to see, which gets round the unbundling problem.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Order. Before the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford replies, unbundling is getting a little remote from the question we should be debating, which is listed events.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I accept your judgment, Mr. Atkinson, but unbundling is wrapped up in the issue of listed events. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield mentions pay-per-view, and the hon.

Member for Milton Keynes, North-East expressed on a previous occasion his concerns about the consequences of moving to a pay-per-view arrangement.

I do not want to prolong the debate because the heat has gone out of the argument, at least for the time being. The fact that we are having a short discussion on the issue with, I suspect, little disagreement, is a reflection of how much the broadcasting world has changed in a relatively short time. Six years ago, people were almost coming to blows on the subject. The issue is of huge importance to a large number of people, so I hope that the Minister will say a few words about this clause and related clauses, and explain how he sees the future of listed events as broadcasting continues to change and as we move towards digital switchover.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I do not want to demonstrate the differences in view and emphasis within the Conservative shadow Cabinet, but I will make one or two points that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford did not make. This issue caused a big row during discussions on the 1990 Bill. Were Mr. Gale here, he would confirm that. At that time, there was a strong argument that we should abolish listed events completely. As one of those who argued that we should not, I think that our decision then was right. The list known as list A has stood the test of time pretty well. However, at the margins, the issue is more difficult and could be revisited.

I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said. We have to consider the value to sports of whether television rights are sold to pay-per-view channels or to free-to-air channels. Sports may be denied the opportunity of selling to channels other than free-to-air channels if their events are listed. When sports weigh up their long-term interests, they have to consider the value of spectator interest. At the moment, all professional football-not only the premiership but the other leagues as well-benefits from supporter and spectator interest because of the quality of what people are seeing. I am thinking of the broadcasting of live FA cup matches-more of which we will see this weekend, on terrestrial channels-and premiership highlights. If those games were not available to the general public, interest in football would wane. Sport, especially football, has probably got the balance about right.

My hon. Friend was right to highlight the voluntary agreement of the Central Council for Physical Recreation-which I can remember greatly encouraging all those years ago. Football is now very much on board and the value of the money coming into the Football Foundation will be seen the length and breadth of England in the months and years ahead.

The England and Wales Cricket Board and the Lawn Tennis Association are putting substantial amounts of money into grass-roots sport.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

They need it, too.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I am sorry?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I was suggesting that, in the light of England's abysmal performance in Australia, they certainly need money to be put in.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

Well, I hope that the Glamorgan academy can make a contribution to the new talent that we clearly need. I gather that we have lost the first of the three one-day finals by 10 wickets in a relatively short time.

There is a second value that is even more important than the first one I mentioned-the value to sponsors. This is a point on which I disagree slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford. If we consider the Olympic games, the British Olympic Association is able to send-

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Order. I interrupt to stress to the hon. Gentleman that clause 289 is about the categorisation of listed events. I am a liberal-minded Chairman, as he knows, but he is becoming very wide of the mark.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

The Olympics are broadcast on national free-to-air channels. Sponsors pay for the British Olympic team; no public subsidy is required. Companies are willing to pay for sponsorship, because of the huge audiences that are attracted to the sport. If the Olympic games were shown only on subscription television, it would have a detrimental effect on the sponsorship of the British Olympic team. That is an important issue when deciding on the categorisation of some events.

It is a pity that the Ryder cup is on list B. It was a great shame that only people with access to Sky television, as I have, were able to see the closing holes of the great Ryder cup triumph in September last year. Other people had to listen to the commentary on Radio Five Live. I am a great supporter of that channel's sports commentary. Where would we be without it? However, golf is not a great sport for radio. Commentators do their level best, but to be told in whispers that the ball is running towards the hole, or that it has stayed up or gone in, is not as gripping as seeing it happen.

I want to make a suggestion. Given that the Ryder cup takes place over three days, will the Minister think about having its final day on list A, and the first two days on list B?

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Any other bids?

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

The Ryder cup is one golf event in the world that is not about money. It is about competing. That is its history and, for that reason, perhaps those who want to sell the rights and receive the best money for them will have regard to that spirit. Given that most homes still have analogue television, many people in the pre-digital era would have the opportunity of seeing the final holes of the Ryder cup. Such action takes place for only a couple of hours once every two years. Even though we are pessimistic about cricket, the Ryder cup is an event that we win from time to time and at which we beat the Americans.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I heard the hon. Gentleman loud and clear, as I did the hon. Member for Lichfield. I shall pass on the message.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

Does the Minister recognise that the fact that we can tackle the Americans is because we do so on a combined European theme? That shows the benefits of Europe.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am not quite sure about that. I am not entirely on-message on the matter. I am not sure that it has anything to do with the Bill.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Order. I am sure that it is out of order.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

My hon. Friend has made an interesting suggestion. Had I thought of it before, I might have taken it up. It was about amending the list categories of those sports in which we stand a chance of winning, such as women's curling.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon. Gentleman has stolen my best line.

The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford made an interesting point about pay TV. Could it fund the Olympics, for example? The protections under discussion apply to the United Kingdom and while mutual recognition provisions on such matters exist in Europe, they do not prevent the worldwide sale of rights to, for example, a United States pay TV provider. The rights to the Olympics reside with the European Broadcasting Union, which includes the BBC.

I shall respond briefly and explain, as you have attempted to explain on many occasions, Mr. Atkinson, about the nature of the clause. Following the previous review of listed events in the period 1997-98, a distinction was drawn between the different categories of events in the list-hon. Members have spoken at some length about group A and B events. The clause provides that if an event is listed, the Secretary of State will allocate it to one of the groups and she may decide to move an event from one group to another, subject to the same consultation requirements that are already applied to a decision to list an event. Under those requirements, the Secretary of State must consult Ofcom, the BBC, the Welsh authority-that gives Pontypridd a chance-and the person from whom the television rights for each event may be required. The clause, like clauses 290 to 292, is intended to ensure that the provisions regarding the list of events continues to run smoothly in future. I move that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 289 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 290 to 292 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 293 - Code relating to provision for

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I beg to move amendment No. 285, in

clause 293, page 254, line 21, leave out 'from time to time' and insert

'at least once every three years'.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 315, in

clause 293, page 254, line 29, at end insert-

'(1A) In exercising its functions under subsection (1) OFCOM must ensure that the providers of services to which this section applies provide users of those services with adequate information regarding the availability of and access to subtitling.'.

Amendment No. 316, in

clause 293, page 254, line 30, leave out 'tenth' and insert 'fifth'.

Amendment No. 313, in

clause 293, page 254, line 43, leave out '10' and insert '50'.

Amendment No. 314, in

clause 293, page 255, line 22, at end insert

'taking account of whether a programme is provided on a channel which is normally offered to consumers as a separate service or as one of a number of channels forming part of a single service'.

Amendment No. 284, in

clause 293, page 255, line 41, at end insert-

'(9A) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to collate and publish at least once each year details of the extent to which every service to which this section applies has met the obligations referred to in subsection (3).'.

Amendment No. 243, in

clause 299, page 258, line 34, after 'channels', insert-

'(aa) the listing and promotion of programmes accompanied by aids to viewing including subtitling, audiodescription and signing;'.

Amendment No. 244, in

clause 299, page 258, line 35, at end insert-

'(2A) The code must include minimum requirements and best practice guidance on making electronic programme guides accessible to people who are blind, partially sighted or have other disabilities.'.

New clause 15-Conditions to secure access to audiodescription-

'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to set such general conditions as they consider appropriate for securing that audiodescribed television programmes, so far as provided in digital form, are-

(a) broadcast or otherwise transmitted; and

(b) made available for reception in an intelligible form,

by means of the electronic communications networks described in the conditions.'.

New clause 27-Conditions to secure access to public teletext service-

'The regulatory regime for the public teletext service includes the conditions that OFCOM considers appropriate for securing that the provision of so much of the public teletext service as is provided in digital form is accessible to persons who are blind and partially sighted.'.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

We return to the issue of greater access for those who are deaf or visually impaired, some of the different aspects of which we have covered in earlier debates. Concern about that issue is felt throughout the Committee. The Royal National Institute of the Blind and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People have concerns about how the Bill could be improved to strengthen the protection for deaf and visually impaired people and they have done a good job in drawing those concerns to the attention of Committee members. That is reflected in the large number of amendments in the group, which have been tabled by all the parties that are represented in the Committee.

I will concentrate on my amendment No. 284, which was suggested by the RNID. Some of the amendments in the group were suggested by the RNIB and, although they were tabled by other Committee members, we share their objectives. I will, however, leave it to other hon. Members to develop their own arguments in relation to particular amendments.

Amendment No. 284 is small, but it would ensure that the information that is already being collected is put in the public domain. I am always conscious that in seeking to ensure greater access for deaf and blind people we should remember that sometimes that might involve some additional cost to the broadcasters. In this instance, however, I do not think that it would lead to a great burden on broadcasters. It is expected that Ofcom would maintain similar arrangements to those used by the ITC, whereby licence holders are required to provide details about what percentage of their programmes are subtitled. Such a requirement is necessary to ensure that the targets for subtitling, signing and audiodescription are being met. The amendment ensures that such information is freely available and can be inspected by those who have an interest in such matters. That could be achieved without great difficulty; Ofcom could publish the information on its website.

The purpose of amendment No. 284 is to create an environment where the legal requirements for subtitling are treated as merely minimum requirements. The broadcasters have shown good commitment to that. They have voluntarily gone beyond the minimum requirements: the BBC has committed to 100 per cent. subtitling provision for all its channels by 2009 and, as in previous years, ITV has committed to exceed the minimum requirement that it faces with the production of 114 hours of subtitling per week. Those developments are very welcome. It would be in the broadcasters' interests to get maximum credit for their record in this area, so I hope that they would also welcome the fact that that should be made widely available, and that is the purpose of the amendment.

Amendment No. 285 refers to the first line of clause 293, which states:

''It shall be the duty of OFCOM to draw up, and from time to time to review and revise, a code''.

To state that Ofcom should review the code ''from time to time'' is extraordinarily vague-it could mean once a week or once every 50 years. It would be helpful if Ofcom could be given an indication of the time scale that is envisaged for this obligation. We have suggested that ''from time to time'' should be replaced by

''at least once every three years''.

The code should be subject to fairly regular review because it deals with provisions with regard to which technology will inevitably play an important role. That technology is developing fast: unless there is a regular review, the impact of the code could be diminished, because it might no longer properly reflect what is technologically possible.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Does my hon. Friend not feel that the amendment presents a slight danger?

Although there needs to be a regular time for reviews, there might not need to be regular revisions. The amendment is phrased in such a way that if it were adopted the clause might force Ofcom to revise the code even when revision were unnecessary-in other words, a review might be necessary, but a revision might not.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I am not a lawyer, but my hon. Friend is suggesting that lawyers might interpret the amendment as stating that Ofcom has to revise the code every time that it reviews it. That would be ludicrous, but if that is an accurate legal interpretation, he would be right about the amendment presenting a danger that should be addressed. However, I think that it is unlikely that a lawyer would argue that. If the review concluded that the code was working perfectly, it would be nonsensical if Ofcom then felt that it had to revise it because the Bill said that it should do so.

I wish to return to technology, because that lies at the heart of the reason why there should be a regular review of the code. I offer as an example the current technological developments in subtitling provision-in relation to voice recognition technology, for instance. To illustrate the technological problems of that, I will make a diversion. I recently purchased voice recognition technology for my personal computer, and I spent several weeks speaking into it and getting complete gibberish appearing on the screen.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Now the hon. Gentleman knows what we have to listen to!

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

Some hon. Members may think that that was an accurate reflection of what I said, but I would like to believe that it was a technological failure rather than a failure of what I was saying. I am assured that such technology is developing very quickly, and it is quite possible that, before too long, we will develop software that can automatically produce subtitling with much greater ease, and that would obviously increase productivity in subtitling.

Similar developments are occurring in relation to sign language provision. Virtual signing technology could eventually replace the need for a human interpreter. Also, closed signing, in which signing is selected by the viewer in the same way as subtitles, is another development in technology that Ofcom might have to consider in the not-too-distant future. Developments in broadcasting generally will also inevitably have an effect on the code. For example, the code will have to keep up to date with the growth of interactive television. That is still in its relatively early stages, but last night on ''The Life of Mammals'' on the BBC, David Attenborough said at one point that viewers with digital might like to press the red button to gain a little more information. Clearly, interactive television will provide more additional services as the technology develops. That, too, needs to be taken into account by Ofcom to ensure that the code properly reflects the current state of technology.

The amendment would ensure that we met the objectives that we all share. It would make sure that

Ofcom properly ensures greater access for deaf and visually impaired people, and that the code governing that is up to date and properly takes account of the fairly rapidly changing world of what is technologically possible.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

My two amendments to clause 299 are included in the group of amendments under discussion. I must tell the Minister that last night I met people to talk about my private Member's Bill on sustainable energy. They regaled me with the story of how, after the Minister skilfully rejected my amendments to the Utilities Act 2000 on combined heat and power, people in the Department of Trade and Industry now wish that they had the sort of powers that I was pushing for. Given that, I hope that he will accept my amendments.

My amendments are designed to ensure that when Ofcom considers electronic programme guides, it takes into account not just the nature of the programmes but the design and nature of the EPGs, as those are key factors in determining whether people can use them. At the moment, a great deal of frustration is felt by those using the keypads, and those of us who are not as dexterous as others find them difficult to use. Disabled people have several problems to tackle regarding the nature of the design and how the programmes are accessed, and they need to be addressed. The code of practice is the right vehicle for doing so.

At the moment, a great deal of effort is spent on new technologies, as hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford rightly mentioned. He also paid tribute to some broadcasters. The VISTA-Virtual Interface for a Set-Top Box Agent-project that the ITC, BSkyB and City university are trialling at the moment will revolutionise disabled viewing. However, there are a number of regulatory issues. My amendments would not tie down the service providers to a particular technology or solution, but would ensure that the issues were considered. It is right that we should address the issues under the code of practice, so that when people are developing new technologies, they know the sort of issues that need to be resolved. I am quite certain that, with good will, such disputes will be resolved. I could stray down the road of interactive television, but I will not. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of several issues about that.

There is no point developing the most wonderful multichannel environment with the most wonderful EPG if people cannot access it. My amendments would ensure that access and design would be tackled as part of the code of practice.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I shall speak briefly to new clause 15. This is our third debate on access for deaf and visually impaired people to broadcasting services. It is right that we have had that many debates because it gives us a chance to explore new aspects of services. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East did that when he talked about interactive services.

My points about new clause 15 are similar to those that were raised during Tuesday's debate on clause 60. I want to ensure that broadcasters carry services to

allow deaf and visually impaired people to take advantage of subtitling and audiodescription as technology improves and there is a possibility of more services, especially in a digital format. On Tuesday, we said that technology such as DVD, which includes options for audiodescription or subtitling, is increasingly available. The services should become available through the mass media so that it is generally available rather than available only for individual purchase.

We tend to forget the wide extent to which subtitling is accessed. It is used not only by people who call themselves disabled, but by those who have a bit of trouble following the noise of a television in the background. Elderly people use subtitling most often, but others find it useful. People in Wales who want to learn Welsh use subtitles to follow Welsh-language programmes. Although watching subtitles on broadcast programmes was considered to be strange several years ago, it is now part of the viewing experience. The fact that pressing the interactive red button on a remote control often produces more text on screen will increase the extent to which people will use television to access a range of information and entertainment that mixes vision and text.

New clause 15 would ensure that Ofcom would set general conditions that it considered appropriate for the digital transmission of audiodescribed television programmes. We discussed the technical problems with that on Tuesday and the Minister told us why the availability of audiodescription on digital television had not moved along. He said that there had not been

enough co-ordination between different parties, and no doubt his comments were listened to.

The new clause would not prescribe the audiodescription that should be available but would mean that Ofcom would have a duty to decide the general conditions that it considered appropriate. I followed the Government's language in the Bill by giving Ofcom powers to decide what should be appropriate. The new clause does not prescribe in any shape or form. However, I want to ensure that Ofcom gives proper consideration to making audiodescription for programmes available in the widest possible form on digital. We discussed problems of satellites in that regard on Tuesday.

I hope that the Minister will accept that such a provision would strengthen Ofcom's role in relation to disabled people. During consideration of the Office of Communications Bill and this Bill, we have debated whether a representative of people with disabilities should serve on the Ofcom board. Given that that was turned down in favour of a small and narrow board of regulators, I hope that the Minister will accept that Ofcom should have a general duty to consider the matters.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Order. I deem it to be 11.25 am. We shall adjourn until 2.30 pm, and the Room will be locked in the meantime.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee E

Clause 293 - Code relating to provision for deafand visually impaired

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment No. 315, in

clause 293, page 254, line 29, at end insert—

'(1A) In exercising its functions under subsection (1) OFCOM must ensure that the providers of services to which this section applies provide users of those services with adequate information regarding the availability of and access to subtitling.'.

Amendment No. 316, in

clause 293, page 254, line 30, leave out 'tenth' and insert 'fifth'.

Amendment No. 313, in

clause 293, page 254, line 43, leave out '10' and insert '50'.

Amendment No. 314, in

clause 293, page 255, line 22, at end insert

'taking account of whether a programme is provided on a channel which is normally offered to consumers as a separate service or as one of a number of channels forming part of a single service'.

Amendment No. 284, in

clause 293, page 255, line 41, at end insert—

'(9A) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to collate and publish at least once each year details of the extent to which every service to which this section applies has met the obligations referred to in subsection (3).'.

Amendment No. 243, in

clause 299, page 258, line 34, after 'channels', insert—

'(aa) the listing and promotion of programmes accompanied by aids to viewing including subtitling, audiodescription and signing;'.

Amendment No. 244, in

clause 299, page 258, line 35, at end insert—

'(2A) The code must include minimum requirements and best practice guidance on making electronic programme guides accessible to people who are blind, partially sighted or have other disabilities.'.

New clause 15—Conditions to secure access to audiodescription—

'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to set such general conditions as they consider appropriate for securing that audiodescribed television programmes, so far as provided in digital form, are—

(a) broadcast or otherwise transmitted; and

(b) made available for reception in an intelligible form,

by means of the electronic communications networks described in the conditions.'.

New clause 27—Conditions to secure access to public teletext service—

'The regulatory regime for the public teletext service includes the conditions that OFCOM considers appropriate for securing that the provision of so much of the public teletext service as is provided in digital form is accessible to persons who are blind and partially sighted.'.

I should inform the Committee that we anticipate a Division in the House shortly. When that happens, I shall adjourn the Committee for 15 minutes from the start of the Division.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Thank you, Mr. Atkinson, for your flexible use of eyesight before the break, so that I was not left hanging when the Bell went. I hope to introduce in fairly short fashion the amendments that stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey).

The amendments relate directly to the additional help given to people who have visual or hearing impairment so that they may access television services in the same way as anyone else. The amendments are designed to press the Minister about the proposals and question him about how far and how quickly we should go, and how comprehensive the range of measures should be. It is helpful to test him on those matters because there is a large group of people who need access to such services to enjoy television. We should accept that on its own the market cannot necessarily deliver that. It requires additional assistance. All of us should take an interest in the matter because visual and hearing impairment can happen to anyone at any time. It will happen to a large number of those in this Room as we get older, if it not because of any other catastrophe before that. A large number of us will want the additional facilities dealt with in the clause.

Amendment No. 315 deals with making information available to people about services. Speaking to his amendments, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) raised some important points about the use of electronic programme guides. Amendment No. 315 refers to information in a generic sense. I understand that many people are not aware of the services available and do not find the information provided accessible. In 1999, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People carried out research that showed that 1.7 million people aged over 55 with hearing loss do not know how to access closed-caption subtitles, and more than half a million would use them if they knew how to access them. We want the Bill to require that information about access to such services be made readily available.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Is that not especially relevant now that, on digital television sets, such services involve no extra cost? Previously one had to pay more for a teletext set. All digital television receivers will have access to subtitling and other such facilities as an integral part of the system.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

It is helpful to refer to the transfer to digital technology. As the hon. Gentleman says, it will make more services available. However, the additional complexity of the new technology might make it less accessible to individuals who struggle with new

technology. That is a legitimate issue for us to examine. There is no point in adding a new raft of services if people, when they are confronted by the various buttons that must be clicked to get to the options, find the process so daunting that they cannot get through it. Amendment No. 315 would add a requirement to the Bill in that respect.

Amendment No. 316 deals with the ''how quickly'' question. We seek to test the 10-year limit that the Government have included and replace it with a fifth anniversary for the targets in the subsequent subsection. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) has just referred to the growth of digital television. Digital television targets tell us that we are entering a phase of rapid change. We are trying to ensure that the transition to more accessible services takes place sooner rather than later, so that those services are in place before the platforms have been entirely rolled out—it might prove more difficult more difficult to do that if it is left until later. There is no reason to wait 10 years to meet the targets that have been set. Those targets should be built into the transition to digital technology.

Amendment No. 314 looks at the way in which the targets are judged according to a particular broadcaster's output. If consumers receive a package of channels, targets should be set across that package rather than judged on each individual channel. We are looking for a different way to set the targets, so that when the broadcaster is deemed to be financially capable of introducing subtitling and the other additional accessibility measures, it should be judged on the entire package. The broadcaster should not be able to claim exemptions in respect of individual channels by saying that it cannot afford to do the additional work for them.

We recognise that the overall costs are significant—[Interruption.]

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Order. The Committee is suspended for 15 minutes.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

There are economic costs involved in the amendments, and I am mindful of them, but I think that the subject genuinely needs public debate. We are not talking about spending revenue from income tax or anything like that, but about the total cost of providing broadcast services. Appropriately enough, given the Government targets that many broadcasters have already taken on board—voluntarily, to their credit—part of those costs would go towards providing services to many of the broadcasters' viewers and listeners who require the additional services. We do not think that the cost is of itself a good enough reason not to try to press ahead more quickly.

Amendment No. 313 was tabled so that we could try to tease out why we have such a low target for

audiodescription. We have touched on the issue several times, and the Minister has pointed to the fact that the market for audiodescription devices is undeveloped. However, we suggest that there is a chicken-and-egg problem, as until the services have been broadcast as audiodescription, there is no incentive to develop products in the marketplace that will allow the services to be listened to. We suggest that setting in stone in the Bill targets as low as 10 per cent. will further depress the market for audiodescription devices. If that market is to flourish, we need to be more ambitious about the number of programmes broadcast with that additional facility.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the amendments carry a cost. Does he recognise that audiodescription is estimated to cost some £700 an hour? Working on the basis of 184 channels, the provisions already in the Bill will cost about £38.4 million after 10 years, and the hon. Gentleman's amendments would increase that to £192 million, which is a huge amount. Although channels that enjoy huge revenues, such as the BBC, might be able to meet that cost, the extra burden on small digital niche channels—if the hon. Gentleman's amendments also applied to them—might well make them no longer viable.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the figures, which I had already received in a briefing from people with an interest in the satellite and cable broadcast industry. I recognise the costs involved and I am not trying to shirk them, but there are genuine grounds for public debate on the extent to which we, as consumers of services, are prepared to pay for the additional services that some consumers need. That is a valid debate. It may be that the appropriate balance lies somewhere between the provisions of the Bill and my amendment. No one suggests that very small broadcasters should be required to take on board costs that would mean going out of business. I am suggesting that the Bill should be more ambitious, which is the view taken by such bodies as the Royal National Institute of the Blind, although it does not want smaller broadcasters to be put out of business.

New clause 27 relates to the public teletext service. The service provided in digital form should be accessible by people who are blind or partially sighted. We have a genuine fear that as we develop more complex technology for teletext services with richer contents, the service provided for users may go backwards—that is one of the perils of technology. We fear that deaf-blind people, who benefit most from teletext services that can translated through Braille type to readable form, are among those who might be left out unless a provision covering that is in the Bill. It is a challenge for deaf-blind people to access teletext, because it cannot be read out. They need an input or interface into the teletext so that it is provided in a form that they can use—typically, Braille. A requirement in the Bill for the development of new teletext services to include a consideration of accessibility for such people would be helpful.

We want to push the Government further. The 10-year targets could be more rigorous. They were introduced under the Broadcasting Act 1996 and there is a risk that we are setting the time scale further back than was envisaged at that time. If the Bill does not come into force until later this year and Ofcom does not get going until next year, some services will not have to meet targets until the middle of the next decade. We should be more ambitious and try to meet the targets sooner.

If the Minister cannot accept the amendments and the new clauses, I hope that he will state that the Government intend to act decisively and that he wants Ofcom to push hard. If he thinks that higher targets are desirable, if not that they should be mandatory, I hope that he will assure us that Ofcom will give every encouragement and support for the targets to be exceeded, especially when new technological methods provide new forms of access, such as those of Sky Digital, which has voluntarily demonstrated that its technology can do much.

There is a question about the way in which access devices work. I hope that the Minister will assure us that Ofcom will take seriously the provision of the second audio channel for digital terrestrial television set-top boxes, because that is the critical element of the ability to provide closed audio services. The problem is that we have tended to do everything on the cheap, which is right because we want stuff to get out to the market. There are, however, other technological solutions that would work, and I hope that we can push in that direction.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon. Gentleman will know that companies such as Nokia have made boxes with the extra capabilities. I am sure that we can explore those avenues further.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am grateful for that positive intervention. I was thinking about that because although the main digital terrestrial television provider is not strictly in the public sector, it contains a large amount of public involvement in the form of the BBC. We are in now a different climate than that of the subscription digital terrestrial television provider, which for commercial reasons wanted to get out boxes as cheaply as possible. There is now stronger public sector involvement and a free-to-air offering. As the Minister said, we can try to ensure that solutions devised by such companies as Nokia get out whenever possible, so that the installed base can take advantage of new services. There is no point in our developing new services unless people have the equipment to take advantage of them. I am sure that the Minister has plenty to say in response to such a large group of amendments.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

We have had several debates on these issues. I am sure that the Committee is aware that the Government feel strongly that people with sensory impairments should benefit from improved access to television services. That access can be enhanced greatly through the provision of subtitling, signing and audiodescription.

Clause 293 gives Ofcom a duty to draw up a code relating to provisions for deaf and visually impaired people. The code will give guidance on the extent to which the services that come under the clause should promote understanding and enjoyment by persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, or blind or partially sighted, and the means by which such understanding and enjoyment should be promoted.

In maintaining the code, Ofcom is required to review and revise it ''from time to time'', following the consultation procedure outlined in clause 294. In that respect, I might have a few answers to some of the questions posed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). Amendment No. 285, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), would require Ofcom to undertake such a review and revise the code at least once every three years, regardless of whether that was necessary. Although three years seems a reasonable period, it has been plucked out of the air. Under the clause as drafted, we expect Ofcom to undertake such a review and make appropriate revisions only when it considers that they are necessary, having regard to the requirement that it must be done ''from time to time''.

I understand the insistence of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford on regularity. When we discussed audiodescription models, I was shocked to learn how long it had been since a coherent approach to such issues had been taken by the Government. That was partly because many people as well as manufacturers had been involved in audiodescription models, although a group of very good people within Government were trying to develop such matters. Nevertheless it is important that Ofcom understands that it has a duty to review and revise the code regularly.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that to carry out a review at least every three years would be a time-consuming and resource-intensive task. It should be left to Ofcom's judgment to undertake a review when necessary, based on its experience of the implementation of the code. The amendment would pre-judge the frequency of reviews. It is not necessary to be so prescriptive, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

We have seen the report of Competition Commission on mobile phones. One of the fears about Ofcom concentrating on key economic issues is that the matter that we are discussing might drop off the bottom of its list of priorities. Will the Minister assure us that that will not happen?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have insisted throughout the Bill that Ofcom has such a duty. The issue is much more above the parapet now than it has ever been, and I expect Ofcom to react to it. I shall explain how we can be certain that it will act in such a way.

Amendment No. 315, tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, would require Ofcom to ensure that the providers of services to which the clause applies give users information regarding the

availability and access to subtitling, signing and audiodescription. That is something for which Ofcom might, in principle, make provision in the code relating to provisions for the deaf and visually impaired. It would be a matter for Ofcom's discretion since, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is no specific requirement on it to do so in the Bill. A specific requirement in the code might prove to be no more than a formality in any event. The subtitling obligations that must be satisfied under the code are of benefit to people who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted. It is in the service provider's best interests to promote actively the availability of, and access to, subtitling, signing and audiodescription.

Amendment No. 316, which also stands in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, would require the targets for subtitling, signing and audiodescription to be met by the fifth anniversary of the relevant date—the dates vary—as opposed to the 10th anniversary of the relevant date as set out in subsection (2). Following the review of the statutory requirements for the provision of subtitling, sign language and audiodescription services, the report of which was published in January 2001, we believe that a 10-year period in which to satisfy the obligations is a challenging target—certainly in audiodescription services—but one that is nevertheless achievable. Given that enough targets have been set that are difficult to meet, I want this target to be achievable. It will also give those services with new obligations, such as cable and satellite broadcasters, sufficient time to plan for the introduction of such requirements. As a member of the committee that is considering analogue switch-off, I know that such matters require some planning.

Furthermore, the relevant dates under clause 295 in respect of which obligations for subtitling, signing and audio description are to be satisfied were considered using the 10th anniversary of the service. That means that the relevant date will, in some cases, be calculated from a much earlier date than when the clause comes into force. For the Channel Five service, which began before the date of the passing of this legislation, the relevant date is 1 January 1998, and the fifth anniversary of the relevant date will already have passed by the time the clause comes into force. I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I wanted to point that out to him. Ofcom will continue the role undertaken by the Independent Television Commission in setting interim targets based on the obligations in clause 293(3), so there should not be a void in the run-up to the date on which the targets finally take effect. I hope that what I have set out allays some of the hon. Gentleman's anxiety.

Amendment No. 313 would require 50 per cent. of programmes to be audiodescribed for the blind, whereas clause 293(3), which specifies the obligations that must be satisfied according to the code relating to provision for the deaf and visually impaired, states that at least 10 per cent. of programmes that are not excluded programmes should be audiodescribed for the blind. Following the review of the statutory

requirements for the provision of subtitling, signing and audiodescription services, we considered that the target for audiodescription should remain at its current level of at least 10 per cent. That decision recognised the unresolved production and distribution difficulties with the audiodescription modules needed to receive the service.

I give an undertaking to the Committee that I shall continue to do all that I can to move the matter forward, because it has been stalled for a long time. As the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said, there is no easy way of disseminating the technology in the way that we would like. It is costly—he mentioned a figure of £129 million—and other modifications to existing law to afford disabled people access to other services might cost as much. That is a large sum for companies to carry at any time, without—I repeat—the proper market research and co-ordination having been carried out in respect of what should happen. I have been disappointed in that respect, although I have great admiration for the RNIB and other agencies.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

May I clarify the two issues we are trying to get at? First, I accept that audiodescriptive output is expensive and there is a debate about the extent to which that expense can be justified at any particular time. Secondly, however, making audiodescription available on equipment need not be expensive. The Sky Digital platform allows for that, even on the standard equipment. I hope that we can recognise that the equipment side can be pushed without putting huge costs on to the broadcasters. That is a different debate.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

That is a good point. I think it was the hon. Gentleman who said that great advances have been made in respect of DVDs. That should point the way in our consideration of the right of visually impaired people to enjoy films and so on like the rest of us. I ask the Committee to remember that the target for audiodescription should be kept under review and that it may be amended by order. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some confidence.

Amendment No. 314 would require Ofcom to take into account whether a programme is provided on a channel that is normally offered to consumers as a separate service, or as one of a number of channels that form part of a single service, when it considers the cost of providing the assistance for disabled people. It appears that the intention behind the amendment is that Ofcom should take account of the overall resources that are available to a broadcaster when it considers whether to exclude any of its channels on the basis of cost.

The code will set out the descriptions of programmes that Ofcom considers should be excluded from the requirements set out in subsection (3). Ofcom has the ability to exclude from the obligations set out in subsection (3) certain programmes relating to, or, in special cases, all programmes that are included in, different services to which the clause would apply. In excluding all of the programmes from the obligations in subsection (3), Ofcom must have regard, under subsection (6)(a) to (e), to a number of considerations, including the extent

of the benefit to the blind and visually impaired, the size of intended audience, the number of people who would be likely to benefit, the extent of the likely benefit, and the technical difficulty of providing the assistance. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned, there is something of a chicken-and-egg problem, but the provisions would ensure that Ofcom is aware of that problem and that it has the ability to deal with it.

I sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, but we believe that it would cause difficulties for two main reasons. First, the licence holder for the service in question would be obliged to provide assistance to disabled people, even if that service formed part of a family of channels. Second, it would be at best burdensome, and in many cases impossible, for Ofcom to investigate the detail of each channel's establishment and funding arrangements in order to determine whether exclusion was appropriate. In view of that, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.

Amendment No. 284, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, would require Ofcom to publish at least once a year details of the extent to which every service to which the clause applies has met the targets on subtitling, audiodescription and sign language referred to in subsection (3). Clause 344(3)(b) already states that in carrying out its annual factual and statistical report, Ofcom must consider the extent to which codes made by Ofcom under this part of the Bill have been complied with during that period. I do not believe that a specific reference in the clause to Ofcom's reporting on the code in relation to deaf and visually impaired people is necessary and I hope that in view of that, the hon. Gentleman will have some confidence.

Amendment No. 243, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, would require the code of practice for electronic programme guides to give such degree of prominence as Ofcom considers appropriate to the listing and promotion of programmes accompanied by aids to viewing, including subtitling, audiodescription and signing. We fully understand the need for consumers to know which programmes are accompanied by the aids to viewing that we have mentioned, but it is not appropriate or easy to give those programmes due prominence in the same way as can be done for programmes on public service channels. As has been said, there are difficulties, but it would be a useful feature if future electronic programme guides ensured that, when they list programmes broadcast on different channels, they flag up those with aids for visually or hearing-impaired people.

I assure my hon. Friend that the issue will be raised with my colleagues working on the digital action plan, because that is how the issue should properly be addressed. The first step is for stakeholders, representatives of broadcasters, consumer groups and manufacturers to develop and agree on a convenient system. The main problem will be ensuring that EPGs carry the appropriate information for each programme in the appropriate format. I would not describe the

current state of affairs as a mess but, as my hon. Friend says, there are some differences between systems that should be cleared up.

On my hon. Friend's amendment No. 244, there is no reason in principle why Ofcom could not include minimum requirements and best practice guidance in its code of practice on EPGs to ensure that they are accessible to the disabled in an appropriate form. However, that would be consistent with Ofcom's general duties under clause 3, which including having regard to the needs of people with disabilities. In line with our thinking on clause No. 293, we do not think that it is appropriate to prescribe in clause 299 every matter that could be covered by the code. I therefore do not believe that the amendment is necessary.

I am not sure whether we are also discussing new clause 15, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), as a Division has intervened since we were last told.

Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion) indicated assent.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon. Gentleman is nodding his head, so I shall refer to new clause 15, under which Ofcom would be required to ensure that all digital platform providers made certain that that visually impaired viewers were consistently able to receive audiodescribed programmes. That is clearly beyond the scope of clause 293 and would involve imposing general conditions on communications providers. However, such conditions are not permitted under the authorisation directive. The permissible categories are set out in the annex to the directive, and do not cover audiodescription or anything specific to broadcasting. That sounds a bit technical, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that point before pressing new clause 15 to a Division.

I now come to new clause 27, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam. The public teletext service is a valued part of public service broadcasting. We are keen for visually impaired people to have access to the service. At present, they have access to the analogue public teletext service and other text services such as BBC Ceefax through talking teletext. There is equipment that uses a teletext decoder and a voice synthesiser to translate written teletext into audible speech. However, existing talking teletext equipment is not suitable for receiving digital teletext services. New clause 27 would require Ofcom to include appropriate conditions in the regulatory regime for the public teletext service licence for ensuring that the public teletext service provided in digital form was available to visually impaired persons. The new clause would place a new kind of obligation on the public teletext provider, with no certainty of how and at what cost the broadcaster might fulfil any condition imposed.

No additional capacity is available for teletext to expand its digital service. The full amount of the capacity that is reserved for the public teletext service on a digital terrestrial multiplex is required to simulcast the analogue public teletext service. We are not prepared to grant additional capacity for the public teletext service on digital as to do so would squeeze capacity for other service providers.

The current talking teletext service is not a broadcast service and is not dependent on any special provision for the public teletext service provider or any other analogue text provider. It depends on specialised receiving equipment. In principle, there is no reason why manufacturers cannot develop new digital equipment to provide a talking digital text service that makes use of digital teletext service transmissions. New equipment is needed in any case: existing talking teletext receivers have an analogue tuner, so equipment with a digital tuner would have to be developed.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Ofcom will have a role in ensuring that that happens—that a digital teletext receiver that can translate teletext into sound or Braille is developed—but there is potential for dispute. If manufacturers cannot agree with teletext providers, someone will have to be able to intervene; otherwise, a group of people could lose their teletext service altogether.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

My faith in the market is well known to this Committee. In this country, 8.7 million people are reckoned to be deaf or hard of hearing and 1.7 million to be blind or partially sighted. That total of 1.7 million is the same as the population of Northern Ireland, and 8.7 million is a little bit more than the populations of Scotland and Wales put together. That is a big market—bigger than some European countries. I am therefore convinced that the market will develop quickly, in part as a consequence of the efforts of the hon. Gentleman all the other members of this Committee to raise awareness of the need to improve access and to develop the technology to allow that to happen.

Equipment such as digital tuners will be developed. That solution will not depend on any action by teletext providers and will enable those with visual impairments to access all digital services. I therefore feel that the new clause is unnecessary. I ask the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam not to press it.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

We have had a full debate. My amendment No. 285 is quite small. I accept the Minister's comment that three years, as specified in the amendment, is an arbitrary choice, but one sometimes has to pick arbitrary figures. However, I am reassured by the Minister's comments.

The intervention by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East went to the heart of my amendment—and, indeed, of almost every other amendment on the amendment paper. Ofcom has so many different powers that there is a fear that some issues may fall off the bottom and not receive the attention that they deserve. Preventing that was the purpose of my amendment and, I suspect, of many of the other amendments. Can the Minister assure us that Ofcom will give due attention to this matter and that it would undertake a review if asked to do so by an organisation such as the RNID or RNIB?

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I understand that there is an advisory committee on telecommunications that represents people with disabilities and gives advice on technical matters and other issues that affect the

disabled community. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the light of the Minister's comments, continuation of that advisory committee within Ofcom—either formally or informally—would be a useful way of reminding Ofcom of its duties under this clause? That might go some way towards alleviating concerns felt outside this Committee about the way in which Ofcom will concentrate on the needs of people with sensory impairments?

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

That might be a good way of dealing with the matter. I hope that Ofcom will talk regularly to the organisations—either formally through an advisory committee, or informally with groups representing disabled people—and that Ofcom will listen to them if they say that it is time to review the code. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 293 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 294 to 298 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 299 - Code of practice for electronic

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I beg to move amendment No. 191, in

clause 299, page 258, line 35, at end insert—

'(2A) In Wales, due prominence means parity of access to the full range of S4C digital programmes.'.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 255, in

clause 299, page 258, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert—

'(a) those television programme services known as BBC1 and BBC2 provided by the BBC in digital form.'.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

This is a probing amendment. The clause puts an emphasis on digital programme guides giving due prominence to public service broadcasts. In the Welsh context, S4C is such a public service broadcaster. In most cases, pressing button 1 will switch to BBC 1, and people more or less know what programmes to expect if they press buttons 2 and 3 on most digital programme guides, but after that it starts to get a bit murky. In England, button 4 will usually automatically switch to Channel 4, but in Wales it could result in S4C, with Channel 4 being located somewhere else. Button 5 will probably be for Channel Five, but after that we start to go into realms where people fear to tread. I want to know how the ''due prominence'' of S4C in Wales as a public service broadcaster will be protected.

I shall give a brief example. I am given to understand that one has to key in 752 to receive S4C on NTL in Cardiff and south Wales, but, to be honest, I would expect to receive something like al-Jazeera with a number like that. I would not expect S4C in Wales to be located on 752; I would expect it to be given more prominence. The amendment is designed to ensure that in a fully digital age the clause will be sufficiently robust to allow S4C to be located where the majority, if not everyone, can find it easily and not

get mixed up between the Welsh-language version and other language versions.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

Having visited S4C in Wales last year, I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. I am given to understand that although EPGs are limited by technology, some false premises are being made. When the guide is switched to sport, it will not necessarily say what sport is being shown on the more prominently listed channels. Equally, when switched to children's programmes, it will not necessarily say what is being broadcast on the children's television programmes. I do not know whether that can be solved by new technology—I am not a technocrat in any way, shape or form. In fact, in many respects I am quite the opposite, which is why I still rent my telephone from BT. I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's argument about what happens in Wales, and I hope that the Minister has taken favourable note of it.

Amendment No. 255 deals with a different matter. It would limit the definition of public broadcast service to which prominence should be applied in the electronic programme guide to BBC 1 and BBC 2, not BBC digital channels. The Minister and Ofcom need to grasp an important point. Some of our earlier debates were characterised by the concern that the all-powerful BBC made life difficult for some commercial channels. For example, mainly through the licence fee, the BBC has invested in a channel that competes with a channel that is having to fight commercially and is purely available on digital format—in other words, it is not available on the terrestrial network. The satellite and cable broadcasters group drew attention to two examples that could be a problem, the first of which concerns the Disney Channel.

Among many excellent pieces in the Westminster Media Forum booklet to which I referred the other day is one by Paul Robinson, the managing director of the Disney Channel in the United Kingdom. He said:

''We are concerned that the definition of public service broadcasting has been widened''

under subsection (3)

''to include any service or television programmes provided by the BBC in digital form . . . Given existing service provision by commercially funded channels, to permit public service broadcasters to move into genres already fully provided by the market, and to favour them with preferential EPG positioning, is both inappropriate and market distorting. In the children's broadcasting arena the market was already supporting 14 seven days-a-week full service channels prior to entry by the BBC with services that lack distinctiveness''.

The Bill insists that all BBC digital channels should be given prominence and that will make life more difficult, if not impossible, for the other channels, which have been encouraged into existence by public policy. There will be a conflict of policy.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

The other practical point is that there needs to be some sense of order in the way in which the EPG is presented. Surely there is logic in having the news channels, such as BBC News 24, Sky News, Fox News and ITV Network News, grouped together for ease of operation of the EPG. Under the clause, BBC News 24 would be at the beginning and

separate from the other news channels. That is one example of a genre.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

No.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield is right, however, in that BBC News 24 is a BBC channel. Hopefully, the hon. Gentleman can put us straight.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

The hon. Gentleman should read the clause. It states that the channels will only be given

''such degree of prominence as OFCOM consider appropriate''.

There is no guarantee that the BBC channels would be listed 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Many of those places are already taken. Surely all licence fee services that are provided on the basis of a form of taxation should be clearly findable by the average member of the public. There should also be a distinction between those channels and other BBC channels, such as UK Gold, which should not have such prominence.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

The hon. Gentleman has let the cat out of the bag on two counts. I hope that his view is not shared by the Minister. First, if the intention is not to put the other BBC channels at the top of the list on the first page of the EPG, why not accept our amendment? Why give Ofcom the opportunity to do that?

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

No. We do not want to dwell on it, but it is an important point. The hon. Gentleman is saying that Ofcom need not take such action, but how do we know whether it will or will not? If our amendment were accepted, the first page of the EPG on Sky would remain as it is now: BBC 1, BBC 2, Channel 3 and Channel 4. The other channels might suddenly find that Ofcom implements the provision and we end up with all the BBC channels listed first, followed by all the rest. The channels that are competing with them would be at a disadvantage.

As for how the hon. Gentleman let the cat out of the bag a second time—

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

No. I want to answer the hon. Gentleman before I accept any more interventions. He said that the fact that channels are paid for by public money means that they should be given greater priority than channels that are paid for by commercial broadcasters. I part company with him on that point. The broadcasting ecology in this country has a good mix of publicly funded broadcasts through the BBC and commercially funded broadcasts through Channels 3, 4 and Five, BSkyB, and the other channels that use cable, satellite and terrestrially delivered digital platforms to reach their audience. I am not in the business of arguing that one is greater or lesser than the other. Each channel should have equal opportunity of success.

I shall finish my remarks by citing another example. Why should BBC 4 be given greater potential prominence on an EPG than Artsworld? I have not been lobbied by Sir Jeremy Isaacs, but it speaks for itself that a laudable channel, which will always face

an uphill struggle financially, should be given a fair chance. I rest my case—[Interruption.].

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Order. I suspend the Committee for 15 minutes.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I shall talk briefly about suitable measures to protect the virtue of some of the more vulnerable and precious members of our broadcasting family, and about how we can give them the respect and high profile that they deserve. In coming years, the regulation of EPGs will be a key issue in broadcasting. EPGs will become more and more powerful. Drawing up screens and channel hopping will be the ways in which the average user selects from a vast menu of options.

We want to probe the Minister about how he will ensure that codes of conduct are strong enough to protect the positions of not only the large and the powerful but the smaller, more vulnerable broadcasters such as S4C. The channel number on an EPG is crucial if people are to gain access to the universe of programmes offered by broadcasters, particularly smaller broadcasters such as S4C. The smaller broadcasters do not have the same marketing or promotional budgets as the big ones, so it is vital that their profile has a prominence that gives ease of access by channel hoppers.

NTL, the prominent cable operator in south Wales, demonstrates how an EPG provider can make channels such as S4C invisible even to their key audiences. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion pointed out, NTL has placed S4C on channel 752; to gain access to the programme on cable, one has to scroll through 14 screens and press the button 98 times. The most ardent channel hopper will give up—except the most committed, because S4C is after the God Channel, between Zee TV and the Playboy Channel, and just before the Fantasy Channel.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

That is fascinating—I never got that far. However, it would be a lot easier for committed channel hoppers to learn the number. That is the short cut. That is what my kids do all the time—they never use EPGs, they just press the numbers.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I thank the Minister, but I suspect that different people access programmes differently. Some go to the extent of memorising the numbers of their favourite channels, whereas others, including children, sit down and flick and flick through the channels. Not everybody will learn the numbers.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Does the hon. Gentleman not share my concern that if one scrolls through the electronic programme guide by subject for children's services, S4C's ''Planed Plant'' programme cannot be seen. It is available only by learning the number. I heard what the Minister said, but I wonder whether he would be

happy if BBC 1 or BBC 2 were to be to be found on channel 739. I think not.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It is a classic case of profiling and marketing. The success of companies, especially smaller ones, is owed to being out in front and not having to go through hoops or rely on people memorising their numbers; they are in front of the consumer at all times. The children's programme ''Planed Plant'' is indicative of the problem, but I shall return to that in a moment.

S4C's apparent invisibility is also indicated in the special NTL edition of the Radio Times, which lists 33 digital channels, from BBC 4 to Animal Planet, Discovery, SciTrek and even Adventure 1. It also lists the regions—the Granada, Yorkshire, Tyne Tees and Carlton televisions companies—one by one. However, there is no mention of S4C. Although the clause does not deal directly with that aspect, S4C can be made invisible also to the mainstream programmers and to the national newspapers, such as the Daily Mail, which publish programme guides. I am gently pushing the Minister to say how we can protect the status of relatively vulnerable broadcasters such as S4C.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is S4C not mentioned in the Welsh edition of the Radio Times?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

That is right; we would expect to see S4C, if not in a prominent position, at least somewhere in the Cardiff edition of the Radio Times.

In short, we should avoid any suggestion that we are performing alongside Sid James in ''Carry on the Communications Bill''. Does the Minister feel that any decent, respectable, upstanding public service broadcaster, such as S4C, should be rudely placed next to two channels of comparatively easy virtue such as the Playboy channel and the Fantasy channel? That gives a strange and hardly appropriate connotation to the phrase ''due prominence''—[Laughter.]

There are also problems relating to genres. S4C has a clearly identifiable product, well known and highly respected among Welsh speakers and in the Welsh-learning context, known as ''Planed Plant''. Some brilliant programming is done for it, yet it cannot be found in the children's section of the EPG. A vast and wonderful menu of channels to choose from is available, yet the Welsh language option is not included. There might be technical reasons for that, but I ask for some words of encouragement from the Minister. Does he think that that is appropriate due prominence, in the context of the clause?

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

Following the comments of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), it is important to point out that, in the next 10 to 15 years, electronic programme guides will probably alter people's viewing habits more than any other aspect of the digital revolution in broadcasting. Contrary, I am afraid, to what my hon. Friend the Minister said earlier, it has been shown in every investigation into the matter that the vast majority of people do not learn the numbers. They surf through television channels either by going

to the genre section—the news, documentary, children's or whatever section—and choose from the list presented there. That is more of a problem for channels that are not genre-based and leads to the problem that has already been described as affecting S4C whereby, because it covers every genre, it is more difficult for individual programming areas or chunks of the day to be seen.

Something else that can be used, especially on the Sky EPG—although I do not think that it is available yet on most cable EPGs—is a facility for designating certain channels as favourites. People can make the box learn the channel numbers for them, so to speak. At the moment only five favourites are possible on the Sky EPG, but it would be good to be able to create more. It might be possible to establish the facility for S4C in Wales or, indeed, for use by Welsh speakers living elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I must confess that I am a surfer. Channels start up almost every day—I discovered last weekend something called Avago and also E!, which I think has only just arrived on the scene. Such channels will probably only ever be found by people who surf, because they do not have the money to promote a great launch. Surfing is part of the exploration of this new world that we are entering.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

I agree, and undoubtedly among the buttons that people use most frequently are ''programme up'' and ''programme down''. As electronic programme guides are at present, the location of a channel in the listings is vital to its success or failure. However, EPGs will change: it is fairly certain that in 10 years' time we will have not linear channel EPGs, but something much more akin to a genre EPG that helps viewers to find programmes rather than channels.

That is why the clause is so important. It does not actually use the phrase ''due prominence'', but

''such degree of prominence as OFCOM consider appropriate'',

which is a fairly broad term. The clause is important if we are to make sure that certain programmes or channels—depending on the way in which people want to approach their television viewing—will not be rendered invisible by the electronic programme guide. It is certainly possible for the people who have control of the EPGs to make certain forums invisible. That already happens in some ways with the TiVo box and similar devices in which the electronic programme guide is built into a system in which the metadata are assessed as they come into the box; it decides what programmes one likes to watch, reminds one when they are coming on and records them without one having decided to record it.

The electronic programme guide is potentially an important gateway through which broadcasters must find their viewers, and vice versa. Viewers must pass through it to get to the channels that they want to watch—but only if they know that those channels exist. I am worried that public service broadcasting channels—both those that are funded from the licence fee and those that are funded from the benefits that accrue through the licensing process—will suffer from

being hidden in the EPG process. That is not to say that I want to see all the BBC channels listed as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and BBC News 24 being channel 24, but there are ways of ensuring that they have due prominence.

It makes sense, for example, for the BBC children's channels to be in the ''children's'' area, rather than relegated to channel 898. It also makes sense for BBC News 24 to be in the news section—when it was originally discussed, Sky talked about making it channel 752. In Wales, the channel 104 place on the Sky EPG is taken by S4C, and Channel 4 is on 184; that seems to provide due prominence to both of those channels, because 184 is a readily remembered number. A suitable solution in England would be to have the obverse of the position in Wales and put S4C on number 184, because that includes the number 4 and is just a little bit different from 104.

The clause is vital if we are to ensure that there is open access for viewers and listeners. It is also important that we do not get carried away with the style of the Opposition amendment, which would limit the provisions merely to BBC 1 and 2, because we are talking about only

''such a degree of prominence as Ofcom consider appropriate.''

That is not too much to ask on behalf of viewers and listeners.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) has made some points that I would have made, so I will not repeat them. I had the misfortune to see Connacht get stuffed while watching S4C at the weekend, but at least I learned how to spell ''rugby'' in Welsh.

My hon. Friend said that technology is changing, which is a key issue. We must recognise that the type of EPG that we have at the moment is not necessarily the one that we will have in future. Ofcom must ensure that as changes happen in EPGs, the due prominence given to public service broadcasters, especially multi-genre channels, is not lost. It is important that if a channel, especially a small niche channel, has more than one genre, it is reflected in the EPG.

It is also important, as my hon. Friend mentioned, that new entrants are not unduly relegated to the bottom of the EPG. The place of channels on the EPG could determine their chance of success. That is a key issue. In the past, Sky has changed the EPG numbers of its channels. Ofcom must consider the issue of changing EPG numbers and it must ensure that where due prominence is given to some public service broadcasting, relevant changes—or other changes that have been made—do not affect that.

Finally, I shall mention the issue of bundled packages versus pay TV pay-to-subscribe TV and Freeview. It is a question of Sky Sports versus the Football League's 433 channel versus Eurosport, which is free. It is crucial that Ofcom bears the balances in mind when considering where the channels appear on the on the EPG. I ask the Minister to consider not merely the points arising from the amendment, but the issues raised by changes in technology.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The issues surrounding EPGs have become more complex irrespective of whether we accept that due prominence relates to BBC programmes or to a wider set of public service channels. Listening to the hon. Member for Rhondda, I was struck by how important the change in electronic programme guides will be. In clause 70, if anyone can remember it, we implemented, quite properly, European Union directives that require open access to the application programme interfaces on electronic programme guides. The logic of that change is that in the EPG, the one-to-one association between, for example, satellite digital television and the Sky EPG, will be broken. We will see a range of electronic programme guides that people will choose to access the channels that they want on their platform.

To return to S4C, which I realise is a sensitive issue, one can imagine members of the public who live in Welsh language-speaking homes wanting a form of electronic programme guide that gives all the top positions to all the Welsh-language channels. They will not want BBC 1 to Channel 4 at the top of their electronic programme guide, but will prefer the Welsh electronic programme guide, which gives due prominence to their channels.

For that to work, we are talking about almost two different things. We could have a whole series of electronic programme guides that people customise themselves, in which case we cannot expect Ofcom to go into people's homes to ask them ''Are you sticking to the code of practice? We see that you have programmed your favourite so that BBC 1 is no longer at the top.'' We do not want to go down that road. At the same time, however, we should regulate the lazy person's EPG—the default one that is shipped and that is not altered. That one needs to be regulated. I am not sure that the Bill as it stands is clear enough about what we are trying to regulate.

There can be two types of EPG: the default platform EPG and the set of custom EPGs. The hon. Member for Rhondda is right to point out that they are with us now in the form of TiVo, which is an example of computer technology and television technology. Increasingly, the customised form is what people will want as the two technologies are brought together. They will want their own EPGs not to be regulated by Ofcom.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

For a probing amendment, that was quite a debate. EPGs are a major feature of digital television. It is easy to choose your evening programmes when you have five channels, but when you have dozens or hundreds of channels, you need a much more appropriate tool than the zapper button on your remote control. However, an EPG can become a gatekeeper, and we must ensure that the public service channels are easily available on the guides. Technology is moving so fast that we cannot anticipate all the forms that an EPG might take, nor can we anticipate all the issues that may arise, although we have heard quite a few of them this afternoon. That is why we gave Ofcom appropriate powers and the necessary flexibility to regulate EPGs

on all platforms. That point was made very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda.

Ofcom will be under a duty to draw up and to revise from time to time a code that gives guidance on the practices to be followed in providing EPGs, and in particular on due prominence for public service broadcast channels. BBC News 24 is listed, as the hon. Member for Ryedale pointed out, with news channels. However, due prominence does not necessarily mean that it should be in first place. That helps, but it is not necessarily an unbreakable rule. Ofcom will determine what due prominence means, taking into account the audience share and the commercial benefit for the platform.

Several sittings ago, the hon. Member for Lichfield pointed out the way in which programmes are listed in newspapers and in the Radio Times. That has hardly varied over the course of many years: BBC 1 is shown on the left, either ITV or BBC 2 is in the centre, and Channel 4 and Channel 5 follow. That is where the format becomes irritating because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) said, in a Welsh paper S4C will have an equally prominent listing, usually down the right hand side of the page, while in papers that are not necessarily concerned about their sales in Wales there will be a little square at the bottom, somewhere below some of the Sky sports channels. That is a problem, but it is accepted as a fact of life. Perhaps we should talk about that.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

Oddly, though, one rarely sees the S4C digital listing. There is just the S4C listing, and they are completely different.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

That is perfectly true. I have never had a problem locating S4C—perhaps because I have Sky—nor has it been a problem for my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, who watched Pontypridd slamming Connacht last Saturday evening.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

The Minister referred to the conditions that Ofcom would consider in deciding where due prominence would be. He mentioned audience share and the benefits of the platform.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I did not say that.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I thought that he did, so I shall give him the opportunity to clarify what I heard. I also want to ask whether Ofcom would consider the public service remit of the broadcaster in deciding its prominence on the page.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I did talk about the role that should be played by public service broadcasters. I did not mention audience or any of the other issues that the hon. Gentleman imagined. I was probably mumbling—we do that in Aberdare.

Ofcom will determine what constitutes due prominence. We expect that it will take into account not only the number and place of the channel on the EPG, but the genre under which the channel is listed and its neighbours. Let me tell the Committee how I manage. I am just about bright enough to find the right genre and I can sometimes remember the numbers, but as soon as something comes on that I do not want to see, I scroll up or down. If I am

watching a movie, there are likely to be other movies in that section. The same applies to sport or news programmes and so on. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to do that; it is much easier than pressing 95 numbers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore spoke about invisibility and small channels' access to the EPG. Under clause 70, all channels have to be given access to the EPG on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda pointed out—so, indirectly, did the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, who described the ways in which the technology might advance—to try to fix those in the Bill would be a mistake. We do not anticipate big changes, but those that happen will happen a lot faster than we expect. I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore that it can be infuriating if one cannot find services and channels that one needs.

The rationale for giving public service channels due prominence on an EPG, which the hon. Member for Ryedale mentioned, relates to our objective of ensuring universal access to a choice of diverse services of the highest quality and easy access to communications services, free at the point of delivery.

Amendment No. 191 seeks to give the benefit of due prominence on EPGs in Wales to all the programmes provided by the Welsh authority and not only to S4C digital. I agree that the listing position given on an EPG is an important element in attracting an audience. With no EPG listing, broadcasters are unlikely to attract significant numbers of viewers, because they might not be aware of the services available, although the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford pointed out that habitual scrollers like him stumble across channels that can, and have, become cult channels. Although we talked about the different technologies that might emerge for EPGs, that represents a different habit that people will have. I suspect that people will be able to work with 100 and more channels—perhaps they will watch channels discovered by the hon. Gentleman. He could set himself up as a company to pass on word-of-mouth advice on such matters.

It is important for S4C digital that viewers have easy access to that channel irrespective of where they are in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that S4C digital should be prominent only in Wales, which the amendment suggests. It is good that the channel has been given channel 104—fourth place—on the Sky EPG in Wales, but it is also fair that because the channel is a public service and publicly funded, the Bill will ensure that it has a duly prominent place on EPGs outside Wales. If a new service is provided by the Welsh authority under clause 200, the Secretary of State may add it, under clause 299(4), to the list of channels benefiting from due prominence. That is an important consideration.

I understand that the public service channels are concerned that kids programmes available on BBC 1, ITV or S4C will not appear under the ''kids'' listing. Our debate has made it clear that EPG technology is not yet fully matured, but it is developing. Broadcasters and manufacturers are working

together to improve it. At present, EPGs list services by types of channels, not by genres of programmes. That will have to be addressed, as several hon. Members have said, and we will ensure that it is given due prominence in any future considerations. The situation might well change with new techniques, but clause 299 is sufficiently flexible to allow Ofcom to amend the code in order to take any improvements into account.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

Has the Minister sat down?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

No, I meant to say more, but my knee gave way—[Laughter.]

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I am grateful to the Minister for suddenly finding an old rugby injury.

The Minister was very persuasive. In fact, what he said conforms to what I said at the beginning of my remarks, that there is a case for trying to ensure that the listings are in a better shape than at present, although we understand that there are technological difficulties. With respect, however, I do not think that he has made a case for why all BBC digital services—not only BBC 1 and BBC 2—should be included in the list of public service channels. There is a danger that those channels will be given greater prominence than other commercial digital channels that compete against them.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I shall try to explain why I oppose amendment No. 255 on the grounds that the hon. Gentleman explained. The BBC provides more digital services than only BBC 1 and BBC 2. That is a good thing, and the 10 million viewers who have switched to digital have welcomed it. CBBC, CBeebies, BBC 3, BBC 4 and even BBC Parliament are public service channels that must have due prominence on the EPGs. My problem with the amendment is that I see no reason to limit the benefit to BBC 1 and BBC 2. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I believe that the clause will give Ofcom the right amount of flexibility and room for judgment to allow it to make the right decisions.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I am pleased that we have had the debate, which has allowed the Minister to clarify the thinking behind the clause. Importantly, he said that the Government believed that Ofcom should take channels' public service remit into account more than—I insist that the record will show that he strayed into this territory—audience share and platform benefit. He pulled himself out of the hole by returning to the public sector remit. In moving the amendment, I said that it was intended to probe the issue, and I am pleased that we have had an opportunity to do so.

I should put on record that S4C has faced these issues before. When it was set up—this was mentioned in recent editions of the Radio Times—it could not get its listings published in the Radio Times or the TV Times, which were the only TV listings magazines available at the time; nor could it get them published in the main newspapers, even in a small box. In fact, it had to produce its own newspaper, which was later carried in The Western Mail and eventually became the supplement that we get every Saturday. The paper originated from S4C's need to publish its listings, and

we have sought to explore the clause so that a similar burden is not imposed on small broadcasters. We should bear that in mind.

We should bear in mind the issues that we have discussed, although we should avoid any definition of S4C as ''Sex 4 Cymru'' rather than Sianel Pedwar Cymru. None the less, we have explored the issues, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I beg to move amendment No. 271, in

clause 299, page 259, line 18, leave out subsection (7).

The clause requires Ofcom to draw up and, from time to time, update and review a code of practice on electronic programme guides. The code should include guidance on giving due prominence to public service channels, and subsection (3) lists the services to be included for the time being. Those might be changed by order. Subsection (7) defines the term ''text service'' as having the same meaning as in clause 226, but clause 299 no longer refers to text services. As the definition is superfluous, the amendment removes it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 299, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 300 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 301 - Character and coverage of sound

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I said earlier that I would return to the subject of music, and I have now had a discussion with the Music Business Forum. I hope to be able to address clause 302 in my remarks on clause 301.

Music and radio are inextricably linked in the public mind. Changes to policy and ownership rules, criteria for licences, and the terms of licences can have a fundamental impact on the music that is heard on the radio, as well as on music creators and the wider music industry. Crucially, local radio stations can, and do, provide a boost to local bands. They can also improve awareness of the local live music scene. Where else can we see new talent these days—aside from on programmes such as ''Pop Idol'' and those about put-together electronic bands?

In the light of the Government's recent decision further to deregulate ownership at local level—to move to two commercial operators plus one public service broadcaster—the Bill must make it clear that the broadcast of local material should not only cover news and programmes, but clearly refer to music in its own right, whether it is in or around other programming. That would ensure that local musicians at least had a chance of having their music heard.

Deregulation and the move to ''two plus one'' at local level mean that the Bill is likely to trigger a

further wave of consolidation in radio ownership. Small stations that were awarded radio licences could find themselves under significant commercial pressure to sell out to larger groups. If that happened, any commitments on the local character of music would risk being lost—even if those commitments had been a condition of the original licence. If a station is awarded a licence on the basis of undertakings on the character of the music that it will play, it should not be able to go back on those undertakings unless the Ofcom content board gives specific permission. Otherwise, changes may be made that do not take the original commitments into account, and licence terms may run for several years during which the station moves away from a diverse and local music policy towards a centralised programming mainstream. I ask the Minister to consider that possibility.

Clause 301 relates to licensing. Music plays a central part in the application for many radio licences. Diversity of service results from careful consideration of a range of applications—that is an important part of the approval process. In order to avoid the diminishing of diversity, especially of music programmes, because of the pressure from programme suppliers for mid-term changes to licences, conditions should be tightened—that is, the conditions that an applicant must meet in order to secure Ofcom's approval to mid-term changes in the character of a programme's service.

As the Bill stands, it could be held that Ofcom could approve a change to the character of a service in the mid-term of the licence if it was satisfied that one of the conditions was met. That may have the effect of allowing owners to diminish the range and diversity of programming that the original programme licence application had promised to provide.

Eric Joyce (Labour, Falkirk West)

I can sympathise with small companies not wishing to be taken over by larger ones. However, media organisations such as the Scottish Media Group still require a certain critical mass so that they can avoid being taken over by even larger, perhaps global, entities. What is my hon. Friend's view on that?

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I thank my hon. Friend for his input, but my point is that if there are three criteria and one remains the same while the other two change, the whole character of a radio station could change. I am especially interested in music, but the broadcasting of local music played by local bands in Scotland, Wales, the north of England or Cornwall, all of which have their own musical identities, could be lost, because a station could argue that the criterion was still being met, because what it was playing was still music.

If we say that all the conditions have to be considered before any changes can be approved, we offer an additional level of protection. That is not to say that changes could not be approved, but all the conditions would have to be considered together, rather than one being considered in isolation. To avoid the diversity of music being diminished through mid-term changes to licences, Ofcom should surely be

required to take account of the diversity of music as well as the diversity of other programming. Those things go hand in hand.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) has raised those important points. Ofcom can agree to a departure from the character of a national or local service if and only if the departure would not substantially alter the character of the service and narrow the range of programmes available. For local licences, the departure must be conducive to maintaining or promoting fair competition, and there must be evidence of significant local support for the change.

This is meant to be a deregulatory piece of legislation and we do not wish to be over-prescriptive in dictating how Ofcom and the industry should draw up a localness code. The clause does not rule out local music, but it will be up to Ofcom to decide whether it wants to include it. No doubt, Ofcom will wish to consult the music industry, and I expect it to do so when drawing up the code. I imagine that the best and most imaginative of our radio station owners would understand the commercial attraction of giving playtime to local fans who have recorded something, or giving a platform on which local bands, musicians and singers can perform. That happens on some of our local radio stations. It is an important matter to take into consideration.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

A friend from Halifax sent me an e-mail today saying that he was a little worried that he would only ever be able to listen to Jive Bunny. How would my hon. Friend respond to him?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

I cannot react to that—

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

You would have to listen to Tom Jones.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

He does. [Laughter.]

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The matter is important, but it is not one that can be included in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland understands that, when drawing up the code of localness, we expect Ofcom to look imaginatively at those cultural aspects of which popular music is one of the most important to ensure that local character is not lost. If it tries to protect the position, as I believe it should, it will also enhance the popularity of the radio station in question.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I am glad that the Minister has said that. In France, there is a strict quota system for playing alternate French records and English-language records—or Anglo Saxon records as they are called there—on rock and pop music stations. It is a huge bore to the French and the Minister is right to say that we should not prescribe what radio stations should do.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The last French record that I can remember was by Jacques Dutronc and was called ''Et moi, Et moi, Et moi''. It came out in 1967.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

What about ''Je T'aime''?

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

The hon. Gentleman is right—but the woman who sang that was English, and very tasty.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 301 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 302 - Local content and character of local sound broadcasting services

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 603, in

clause 302, page 261, line 19, at end insert—

'(7A) Before drawing up or revising the code, OFCOM shall have regard to the extent to which matters they are required to secure under this section are, or may be, secured by effective selfregulation; and, in the light of that, to consider to what extent it would be appropriate not to draw up, modify or withdraw a code under this section.

'(7B) In determining for the purposes of this section whether procedures for selfregulation are effective OFCOM may take account not only of selfregulation independent of those to whom it applies, but also of the extent to which the matters to be secured under this section are being, and are likely to be, secured without the further imposition of a code.'.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

New clause 41—Local content of local sound broadcasting services—

'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to secure that appropriate local content is included in the programmes broadcast by local sound broadcasting services.

(2) In carrying out its duty in subsection (1), OFCOM shall—

(a) take all local sound broadcasting services receivable in any area together as a whole; and

(b) take into account the results of research carried out under subsection (7)(a); and

(c) take into account the extent to which the expectations of listeners for local content (under subsection (7)(a)) are being met by other services receivable within the area; and

(d) take into account the degree to which any action taken by OFCOM pursuant to this section may affect competition between local sound broadcasting services and any other class of service.

(3) OFCOM must draw up or agree a code giving guidance as to how the requirements of subsection (1) should be satisfied and, in doing so, shall have particular regard to the desirability referred to in section 3(3)(c) of promoting and facilitating the development and use of effective forms of selfregulation.

(4) The code may, in particular include guidance as to the relevance of different descriptions of local content included in local sound broadcasting services.

(5) From time to time, OFCOM may revise the code or direct that it should be revised.

(6) The code and every revision of the code should be published in such manner as OFCOM considers appropriate.

(7) Before drawing up or revising the code, OFCOM must—

(a) conduct research into listeners' expectations of local sound broadcasting services and other services receivable within any area concerned, including the extent to which they expect local content to be broadcast; and

(b) consult with persons holding licences to provide local sound broadcasting services or persons appearing to represent such persons, or both.

(8) In this section, ''local content'', in relation to a local sound broadcasting service, means content (including news or information) which is of particular interest—

(a) to persons living or working within the area or locality for which the service is provided; or

(b) to persons living or working within a part of that area or locality; or

(c) to particular communities living or working within that area or locality.

(9) References in this section to persons living or working in an area or locality include references to persons undergoing education or training in that area or locality.

(10) A code drawn up as a result of subsection (3) shall not have the effect of varying an existing sound broadcasting licence.'.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

We anticipated the content of the debate when issues of localness were raised under clause 301. The Minister said that the purpose of the Bill is deregulatory, and I agree. It is intended to be co-regulatory in its approach, and I agree with that, too. Amendment No. 603 would express that in the Bill. When we discussed clause 6, we referred to the extent to which Ofcom should have not only regard to what is already self-regulated and meets its objectives by that route, but to what may be self-regulated and may achieve the objectives set out under the self-regulatory approach. The Government said helpfully that they would think about such matters and perhaps return to them at a later stage.

We have reached an important point at which prospective self-regulation needs to be included expressly in the Bill. I hope that that would be among the matters that the Government and Ofcom want to be dealt with in a self-regulatory fashion. It would do no harm and much good if that were specified. The new subsection (7A) that the amendment would insert into the clause would provide that Ofcom should attend to the extent of effective self-regulation and the extent to which the objectives could be achieved in the way I have outlined—without drawing up a code, or by modifying or withdrawing a code to some extent.

New subsection (7B) may be a little less transparent in its purpose. In clause 6, the effectiveness of self-regulation is considered with particular reference, first, to the independence of the person administering the procedures from those who are to be regulated and, secondly, to

''whether adequate arrangements are in force for funding the activities''.

Thus those two factors would be considered anyway. The point of new subsection (7B) is to provide that in the context of clause 302 consideration should also be given to the extent to which the relevant matters can be secured without the further imposition of a code. Without the new subsection, the obligation to operate a code—either a code imposed by Ofcom or a self-regulatory code—would remain in force. My contention is that we are dealing with a different kind of self-regulation in this clause. Potentially it is self-regulation through the marketplace, not just through a code. I want to include in the Bill the possibility that the requirement to operate a code would not be imposed.

I see the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East nodding. New clause 41, with which the amendment is grouped, would, if I understand it correctly, rewrite clause 302 to include a specific reference to research as the basis on which the code should be established, and to exclude references to

local advertising. It is difficult to understand how it could make sense for Ofcom to prescribe in a code the way in which local sound broadcasting services should include local advertising when it is clearly in their interests to include the maximum possible local advertising.

It is obvious that advertising could easily be left to the industry to take care of. We have plenty of examples of advertising self-regulation in other contexts. There is no reason why, if any kind of code is required, it cannot be run on an industry basis. In that respect I am very much in agreement with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. Even if we confine ourselves to that argument, it is clearly important that the Bill should not bind Ofcom to impose a code with respect to local advertising, but should instead give it the freedom to dispense with one altogether.

Ofcom might be able to go further. Self-regulation would, in this context, mean leaving things to the marketplace. I was persuaded of that to a considerable extent last year, when we first discussed the ''three plus one'' type of arrangement. I had discussions with, and observed the activities of, local radio stations and the radio industry more generally, and I noted the extent to which in practice they are persuaded that their commercial interests tend towards content that is highly local, and towards high visibility in the local community to stimulate interest in the station. That is true of, for example, Q103 and for Star FM. The commercial radio stations in and around Cambridge operate in that way to a substantial extent. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said that local radio station vans, reporters and other employees from such stations are almost invariably to be seen at events in his constituency.

If it is in the commercial interest of the industry to take such an approach, to what extent do we need a code to tell it to do so? The answer is, of course, that we need the back-stop power to operate a code. Commercial circumstances may well not be able to dictate what happens in every case. There may be a need for recourse to powers through a code. However, that would be to turn the clause around. The clause is currently structured on the premise that we need a code: there is practically no recognition on the part of the Government that localness could occur as a result of commercial pressures alone. The purpose of amendment No. 603 is to turn things around and to allow us to consider the extent to which commercial pressures and the market will result in localness being reflected in the provision of local sound broadcasting services. As that result could not be guaranteed, the industry itself could come forward with a perfectly effective and commercially-based—and hence flexible and deregulatory—approach by which localness could be assured.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I follow the argument, but what if Clear Channel—a United States organisation for which I have a considerable respect, but which the industry is rather concerned about—were to acquire a number of radio stations and found that it could pull in large audiences based in the US and not be all that local? Its presenters could be based in New York, for

example, and it could put in pre-recorded local identifications. Everything could be done on a PC-based system. The stations would sound like local radio, even though they were not; and because they had a good playlist, they might pull in a big audience. Would we not want back-stop powers in such a case? Perhaps not, if the stations were pulling in an audience.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

That helpfully brings me to another point: what does experience tell us? The experience of Clear Channel in Australia tells us that although Clear Channel was able to acquire many stations and sought to make substantial economies in the cost of production by centralising music and other services, it lost localness and that lost it a share of the audience. Increasingly, the response has been to reintroduce localness into service content. So far as that example is concerned, the evidence is that commercial pressures do not necessarily result in a move away from localness; rather, they can result in a move towards it.

There is a second limb to that argument. We are not saying that clause 302 is the only mechanism through which localness is prescribed. Clause 302 is provided on top of licence content provisions and format prescriptions. It is a code that gives the industry a basis on which to assess the extent to which it is meeting localness requirements. What localness means is often subjective, and therein lies the problem. It is important that, when we do something essentially qualitative and subjective, it is done in a way that is flexible and related to the industry's circumstances.

I am persuaded by the industry's view, which is that the clause is a classic illustration of a case in which a regulator could, if it wished, intrude to a great extent on how a radio station managed itself, and could do so in ways that would probably be invisible to the listener. [Laughter.] Well, I suppose that they would inevitably be invisible to the listener; I should have said that they could not be discerned by the listener. Even so, they could have significant consequences in terms of costs or the operations of the station. It is important that the regulator is as commercially responsive as possible; that is at the heart of the deregulatory approach.

That brings me back my previous point. I do not think that my amendment would mean a free-for-all, or that responding to commercial pressures is likely to lead to the traumas that some predict. Back-stop powers are provided through the licences and will continue to be available. There will also be a back-stop power through the imposition of a code if Ofcom thinks that self-regulatory mechanisms or commercial pressures are not achieving the desired result. However, the amendment turns things around and is deregulatory in intent. If the Government agree, I hope that they will embrace the amendment for that purpose.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

I do not know whether it is because we were both members of the Joint Committee, but I find that I agree with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) rather too much for my own liking. However, he is right on this occasion.

I am a great supporter of accredited self-regulation as the way forward. The Government must take on board the idea of setting regulation as a back-stop in legislation and allowing the industry to develop self-regulation as an appropriate way forward. I am concerned about the way in which clause 302 is phrased. I agree with its objectives, but not with the way in which it defines localness through the processes and the way in which radio is produced.

Some of us attended the meetings yesterday of the all-party groups on community media and commercial radio, at which local radio stations gave good presentations on the sorts of activities in which they are currently engaged, how they get advertising, and the issues that such matters raise for small local radio stations. I am concerned that the detailed drafting of the clause could upset that balance.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made a number of the points that I was going to make, so I will not repeat them. The clause is meant to be deregulatory and I think that it could be deregulatory. My new clause would ensure that Ofcom's decisions about localness are based on the research that it is required to undertake under clause 13, rather than on a regulatory view of what localness is. The definition of localness that the clause requires would be too subjective. If we reversed things and looked at the outputs that people in an area were receiving, we could consider whether the service was delivering. If that were the case, Ofcom might have a chance to get the code right.

The Commercial Radio Companies Association has commissioned research—due out at the end of February—that explores what listeners want. I hope that the Government will look at that research while the Bill is being considered in the Lords and that they will take on board some of the points that arise from it. I want the Minister to consider these key points: the code must be operated so as to work with the industry, it must allow the industry to progress, and it should not require over-intrusive regulations from the regulator.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I shall be brief in commenting on what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland said. He might want to talk again about local music, so I shall try not to steal his thunder.

The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the role of local radio stations in promoting local music. The Minister may be getting representations from people who are concerned about local music in the context of other proposed legislation that is presently being considered in Parliament. He will know that there is some sensitivity about the issue and that people who are involved in local music organisations currently feel that they are under the cosh. I can understand why there is some sensitivity about people getting a platform to play, whether on radio or anywhere else. It is important that we recognise that at this stage, because there is an essential difference between the two issues.

There is a fear that the differences between local radio and national radio might be lost more easily in

the music played than in the speech-based output. We can imagine that a local music station with a local music licence might predominantly, or exclusively, put out national music with speech and local news-based opt-outs, and such a station might feel that that was sufficient to qualify it as a local radio station. I was encouraged by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, who said that the Clear Channel in Australia did not succeed commercially when it tried to work on precisely those lines. I would hope that such an exercise would not succeed commercially, but much damage could be done if it were embarked on.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Not only would such a station not succeed commercially, but surely, under the format agreement that it had made with the Radio Authority—soon to be Ofcom—it would not succeed under the licence terms.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I fear that it might succeed under the terms of licensing, because in broadcasting national rather than local music, it would not be breaching the format rules. I am not sure that the licensing agreement would specify what the format should be, or whether any distinction would be made regarding the type of music that should be played; the agreement would only mention ''music''. I am concerned that a station could drop its local music element without breaching its licence conditions.

I understand the spirit of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. We do not want to over-regulate. One would hope that the market would continue to make such a differentiation and that local radio stations would continue to promote local radio. However, I am concerned and I want to hear from the Minister that Ofcom would be able to act robustly if there were a failure. There is concern about the impact of a failure over several years to promote and support local cultural activity. Whether or not that resulted in a company going bankrupt and somebody else taking over the licence, a hiatus would be damaging to local talent.

During earlier debates, we discussed local creative and cultural industries, which are especially important in regional and sub-regional centres. The loss of such a platform and local input in a radio station would mean that the people who provided that input would migrate elsewhere. Even if somebody else came along with a licence, the local base of talented people in the industry would be lost. That is my principal concern, and although I hope that it will not to come to pass, the example of the Clear Channel experience of trying to withdraw everything to the centre shows how such an exercise would cause such disruption to local cultural industries. I hope that the commercial imperative will not lead to that, but I also hope that the Minister can reassure us, especially about local music output.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I said most of what I wanted to say when I spoke to clause 301, so I shall be brief because I am conscious of the time and I want to give the Minister a chance to say something.

Clause 302 recognises the need for Ofcom to ensure that local radio stations broadcast programmes that either consist of or include local material, and that those stations establish and maintain connections with the locality that they serve. The clause would oblige Ofcom to produce guidance to advise local stations on how the requirements could or should be satisfied. Clause 302(4)(a) provides that employment or other use of local people should be one of the factors to be considered when determining whether the requirement for local links is met. That is especially relevant to local talent. It is important that the condition recognises the way in which local radio provides a vital platform for performances by local musicians and new bands that are establishing local fan bases. That should be clearly stated in the Bill to avoid any ambiguity. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he would consider provisions that reflect impact on local music creators.

Clause 302 states that the definition of local material includes news, but there is no explicit reference to any other local material, although it is possible that music will be given appropriate recognition by Ofcom as material relevant to the definition. There is real concern that the provision does not adequately address the vital interrelationship among local radio services, local musicians and musical events. I know what the Minister said previously, but I do not think that the Bill gives sufficient clarity about music. Music is the most important thing that anybody listens to. The public listen to music more than anything else. We all have record collections—who knows, the Minister might have some 78s somewhere.

Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)

When my hon. Friend refers to music, he is talking primarily about pop music. What about other forms of music that might define the characteristic of a particular region?

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

There are many different kinds of music. Scottish Opera has its headquarters in my city and it would be very upset if I did not mention it. Jimmy Shand and his band were once very popular, and they certainly become very popular every 31 December as midnight approaches.

Is it any wonder that the young do not identify with politics when this legislation does not mention the thing that is most important to them—music? That is a mistake. Music must be addressed in the Bill. I have to tell my daughter to turn her music down, so I can tell the Minister that I listen to all kinds of music—even the kinds that I do not want to listen to. Ofcom must be able to consider music, especially in the local context. We want the Bill to be all-encompassing, and music is of paramount importance to most people—if not to every person—in this country.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Five o'clock till Tuesday 28 January at five minutes to Nine o'clock.