Tuesday, 5th March 1996.

The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Ian, Lord Bishop of Carlisle—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Worcester and the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

2.44 p.m.

When they expect to make a decision on the future of the Fire Service College.

2.50 p.m.

Whether they are providing guidance on the infestation of inland waters by American signal crayfish since they were first imported in the 1970s.

2.54 p.m.

Why they have decided to sell all three rail freight companies to one bidder and what is the price at which they have agreed to sell.

3.1 p.m.

When they expect to announce the change in the criteria for claiming legal aid.

3.10 p.m.

Report received.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 is concerned with a subject with the unfortunate title of "unbundling"; or, to we laymen, the right to show highlights of sporting events on television on any channel when those events have been negotiated live by another channel. It follows naturally from our discussions in Committee and the vote taken by this Chamber on that occasion to protect the eight listed events so that they are always available on terrestrial television.

The Government announced yesterday that they have accepted the will of the House on that matter. I immediately welcome that decision and thank the Minister for it. So far so good. Such a decision will be appreciated throughout the country by the millions of people who do not have access to Sky or cable. However, we have not yet had sight of the amendment and need to look at that before giving the statement a total and unqualified welcome.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said in his statement that one of his objectives was to make the list "more transparent", whatever that means; to establish a criteria,

"as a reference point for the future";

and to give further consideration to this "interesting suggestion". I have no quarrel with any of that. However, the Minister will appreciate that we must wait to see what that means in practice, especially in relation to any period of time for review of the matter.

I turn to the amendment, which deals with the question of highlights of all sporting events outside the listed events; that is, the majority of sporting events which appear on television. It is a question of major importance for the sporting public and for television viewers. Your Lordships will have some idea of the events in question when I refer to the Ryder Cup in golf, the Open Golf Championship, the Cheltenham Gold Cup Festival, Royal Ascot, the Five Nations Rugby Tournament, the European Golf Tour and the Rugby League Cup, among others. That will tell the House how important is the matter that we are discussing.

Unless action is taken to protect the rights of the public, those events could disappear from the television screens in millions of homes. I illustrate the point by reference to the Open Golf Championship, for which I understand Mr. Murdoch offered £24 million. It has not yet been signed up. If he secures that event, and if there is no provision such as is sought by the amendment so that the highlights can appear on the BBC, independent television or Channel 5, then three-quarters of this nation will see nothing of the event on their television screens. If we apply that argument to the other events I mentioned, the House will gain an insight into the seriousness of the situation that will arise.

I cannot believe that the Government want that to happen. Undoubtedly there would be an uprising in the land if all that sporting excellence is suddenly removed from the television screens in the homes of so many people, which is what happened in regard to the Ryder Cup. The House will recall that when we last debated the matter I quoted the exclusion clause which excluded the BBC. Sky has since told me that the BBC got it wrong and was in fact referring to other golfing tournaments. I do not accept that, but as I have only just been given that information I shall need to look at it with care.

In my judgment it will do a great disservice to sport as well as to the national interests of the viewing public if we allow the dangers I outlined—which are very real—to exist. The Murdoch millions could remove a great chunk of British sport from the television screens of the great majority of British viewers.

The amendment seeks to say that where a pay television broadcaster has exclusive live rights it must make the highlights available to a terrestrial broadcaster; where a terrestrial broadcaster owns the exclusive live rights it must make highlights available to a pay TV broadcaster; and, where a broadcaster holds the radio rights but is unable to exercise that right because, for example, it does not have a radio station, then it must ensure that the live rights are sold to another broadcaster and are not hoarded.

The amendment attempts to be even-handed and provide the rights to both terrestrial and subscription television. It places a specific duty upon the Independent Television Commission to ensure that, if live rights have been sold into one market, then the highlights should be sold into another. If a pay channel has exclusive live rights—as, for example, in the forthcoming boxing match between Tyson and Bruno—then highlights should be offered on reasonable terms to universal broadcasters, and vice versa. The Radio Authority is given a similar responsibility in respect of rights holders which are commercial radio stations.

The term "television highlights" is given a legal definition with the selection of extracts to be made by the purchaser. The legislation is intended to cover the BBC, with clear obligations on the governors to ensure, first, that it complies, and on the Welsh Authority in relation to S4C; and, secondly, that the matter is effectively dealt with. That obligation is also upon Channel 5, where it is included in the universal market to reflect the obligations it has taken on to maximise its audience by spending money to retune video recorders.

A new duty is created to register all those deals and to give the Office of Fair Trading the power to unbundle where the offending party is not a licensee of the ITC or the Radio Authority. The price for these events—a reasonable price—would be decided between the purchaser and the vendor. That is happening today—this very day—with cricket World Cup highlights being shown to BBC viewers under an agreement between the BBC and Sky. Noble Lords will remember that we informed them of that in the previous debate. I believe that it came about largely because of the tabling of the amendment we are now discussing. The offer was made again to the BBC and taken up at a price of £1 million. Whether I am right about that is a matter of small consequence. What is important is that the highlights have been made available. Every night we can watch World Cup cricket. We can hope that the England team get it right and do a bit better. I am happy to say that I think the £1 million well spent. I hope that it will be better well spent when we reach the quarter finals of the competition in a few days' time.

On the "Today" programme on 6th February Mr. David Elstein, head of programmes for Sky, told James Naughtie, that our proposals would be,

"wonderful news for Sky. We would now get highlights of all the listed events".

Exactly, my Lords. He got it right. I am very pleased that it is good news for Sky. I hope that Sky and Mr. Elstein will maintain that posture about the rest of the highlights we seek to protect. I hope that they are not opposed to the amendment. From discussions I have had I fear that I may be hoping in vain.

The Minister will tell us, according to the statement he issued yesterday, which again we appreciate—he was being very helpful as he always is—the result of the Government's ludicrous consultation exercise. We were told that the Government would consult all and sundry—everyone in the land—over a period of two years. I am sorry, I should have said two weeks. Two years would have been more appropriate. I am sorry for that slip. He will claim that that is what they have done. He will say, I believe, that his consultation exercise shows no substantial demand for protecting the highlights and that all the concern is about the listed events. That is not the case. I am sorry to say to the Minister that I take issue with him about his interpretation of his consultation exercise, although we really do not know much about it.

For example, the Independent CHA Sensor Poll, carried out on 20th February, which is only a week or two ago, found that two-thirds of cable and satellite viewers were unlikely to take up pay TV and that 80 per cent. of all viewers think the Government should legislate to protect the highlights. I hope the Minister will tell us today the organisations which were consulted and which could speak for the 30 million people without cable or Sky television. That is an important matter. I, for one, would like to meet the organisations the Government believe speak for the nation in order to find out exactly what they said and why the Government have not accepted their advice. They have rejected their advice.

One of the organisations consulted was the Voice of Listener and Viewer organisation. I have had the opportunity this morning to speak to Professor Vincent Porter of Westminster University who tells me that he was consulted. He spoke to officials in the department for one-and-a-half hours. What he told me is quite fascinating. He said that he drew the Government's attention to the fact that the Copyright Act guarantees,

"freedom to report news and current events".

That removes from our discussion any doubt as to whether the terrestrial channels can show on news programmes events which Murdoch has bought. That seems to have been cleared up, and I should like the Minister to confirm that.

Professor Porter drew my attention to a case in the European Court. I know that this is not a good day to quote in aid the European Court; nevertheless it decides what European law is. Therefore, we have to take account of it. The professor told me that it had recently made case law in a case which the BBC lost. The court determined that any holder of a contract for live television would be in breach of competition policy if it did not provide for the separation of highlights. That is a recent decision of the European Court. Not to do so would be contrary to the competition directive of the European Commission. The European Commission is apparently following up the matter.

The key is that the policy has to be exercised for the maximum benefit of the viewer. The European Court decided that not to allow highlights would not be for the maximum benefit of the viewer. If that case law is right there is no need for my amendment. I am anxious to hear what the Minister has to say. I assume that the Government know about the decision of the European Court. No one has informed us about it until now. I assume that since the professor spoke to the officials in the department the Government have had the opportunity to examine what the professor told them. I hope that the Minister feels able to give an authoritative comment and ruling today. If this viewers' organisation is wrong, we must persist with our amendment. If it is right, we shall probably need to think again. We await the Minister's response.

There is one final point. If we cannot protect the highlights of so many events of such importance to millions of people, and if, as appears to be the case, the Government do not wish to assist us to do that, then almost inevitably we shall have to do the job ourselves at Third Reading. We shall have to seek to add to the list of events. The Five Nations Rugby and some of the other events I read out need to be protected. That is my judgment and, I believe, the judgment of many of your Lordships and certainly masses of the public. If the Government will not protect them, and if they are not protected, I hope the Minister will take note that inevitably we shall have to return to the matter at Third Reading and attempt to extend the number of listed events in order to achieve our objective.

As I said, I hope very much that, having moved this amendment in what I hope is a reasonable spirit of conciliation with the Government, we can get some movement. I am aware that the Sports Council is trying now to draw up a voluntary code of conduct in these matters. I am not usually very enamoured by voluntary codes because often people find ways to break them. It will be a significant advance if a voluntary code is drawn up and all the television companies and sports bodies agree to accept it. We shall have to wait and see how that goes. I do not expect the Minister to be able to tell us much more about it now.

I hope that I have done enough to convince your Lordships that this is another matter of major importance, but perhaps we might have to do more work on it. However, it is right to raise it now and possibly to seek a vote either today or at Third Reading. I beg to move.

3.30 p.m.

3.45 p.m.

4 p.m.

4.15 p.m.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I call this the "conflict-of-interest amendment". That ought rightly to be prevented, but many of us have a suspicion that it may be necessary to do so by legislation. It seems increasingly clear that in certain sports people are speaking both for the sport and for the television company in discussions which they are holding with each other. I shall not spend much time on the matter, but I should like to point out that when we negotiate such important contracts, which involve large sums of money and the rights of television companies, it is absolutely vital that there should be a clear distinction between the executives of the television companies and the governing bodies of sport. Therefore, the amendment has been tabled to express that opinion and to seek the Government's views as to whether they think that that is a danger for which Parliament ought to legislate. I beg to move.

4.30 p.m.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regard this amendment as one of considerable importance. It seeks to establish an advisory committee of people representing the interests of broadcasters, sporting bodies, and viewers of and listeners to broadcast services, to advise the Secretary of State on matters concerning listed events. It is incredible that the matter of whether or not an event should be labelled a listed event depends entirely on the whim of the Secretary of State.

When Mr. Kenneth Baker, when he was Home Secretary, drew up the previous list in 1990, he consulted no one. Out of the blue he declared that the eight listed events that we are discussing today—and have discussed on previous occasions—were the jewels in the crown. He was more or less correct in that assertion but it is monstrous that one Minister should be able to take such a decision without being required to consult anyone and without any known criteria having been established. We have applied our minds to this matter to establish what we can do to prevent that position persisting in the future. We have sought to suggest who should be represented on the committee. We propose that the Secretary of State should be allowed to appoint the members of the committee. We are not trying to impose any members on the Secretary of State whom he would find unacceptable.

We believe there are three main areas of interest where the relevant people should be consulted when listed events are determined. Those people are the broadcasters, the sporting bodies and the viewers of and listeners to broadcast services. That seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. I hope that the Minister can embrace the principle, if not the wording of this amendment. If he cannot do so, I hope he will tell us how in future the Government will determine listed events. We shall return to these matters from time to time but I should prefer to have a simple, tidy and permanent solution as to how these matters will be determined, and what criteria should be applied. This amendment seeks to achieve that solution. I beg to move.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4 I wish to speak also to the whole list of amendments grouped with it. The purpose of the amendments is to create a legislative framework for the ITC to license and regulate for the provision of conditional access and subscriber management for digital terrestrial, digital satellite and analogue satellite. At the moment the ITC cannot apply a code to News Datacom—that is the company which supplies the Videocrypt conditional access system used by BSkyB—or to any other provider which is not an ITC licensee. The matter was debated in some detail on the second day in Committee. That debate makes very interesting reading. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth—I hope that he will not object to my calling him my noble friend—with his support not only for these amendments but also for the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, spoke of the Clydeside MP, Jimmy Maxton, and his reference to riding two horses at one time. Perhaps I should refer to what might appear to be another "riding of two horses" at one time. My noble friend Lord Donoughue has his name in support of the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, Amendment No. 164. As my noble friend Lord Donoughue supported the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor—and I hope that he will support my amendment today—my mind turned back to the old proverb attributed to G. Herbert dating back to 1640. Noble Lords will understand that one carries this sort of saying in one's head day in and day out. The proverb came into my thoughts:

"For the want of a nail the shoe is lost;

for the want of a shoe the horse is lost;

for the want of a horse the rider is lost".

We do not want to lose our horse. If we lose our rider, the viewer—in modern-day parlance—will be lost. That is why we have put down the amendments.

The amendment before the House today is not the same as the amendment in Committee in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. This group of amendments has a wider application. The key difference is that we refer to the role and the involvement of the ITC whereas the noble Viscount's amendment leaves the matter to the DTI and Oftel.

To use the horse analogy, we should not allow this important matter to become a battle for turf, although I rather suspect that that might have been a factor behind the scenes in the discussions on the European directive between the DNH and the DTI when considering the issues. How much easier it would be if we had not had such a proliferation of regulatory bodies in the communications field.

Conditional access has become one of the key issues in our consideration of the Bill. It is not surprising that that is so. The availability of wider choice, of diversity of programming, will themselves be dependent on the gateway access availability—a gateway which must not be so restrictive as to squeeze out competition and the start up of small service providers.

The issue of open competition and access was of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, at Committee stage. Indeed, the area of competition and access was referred to by the Minister at Second Reading.

On these Benches, we readily accept investment. The courage and money available to take a gamble in the market place have to be recognised and not penalised. However, the viewing public interest has a place in this debate. In dealing with broadcasting, one cannot simply treat the issue with a class licence as one does in telecommunications. In the nature of broadcasting, content will be a crucial factor, not just for diversity but in leading to commercial success too. We readily accept that the new digital era will provide not just broadcasting and television services but a range of services, many of which we have not even thought about as we discuss the Bill today.

I believe that it is in that area of broadcasting—diversity for the viewer—that the ITC has the prime experience: that of balancing the requirements of fair, effective competition with content. Indeed, it has such a responsibility under the 1990 Broadcasting Act.

The Minister confirmed, as does the DTI consultative document on conditional access, that the ITC will be consulted. But what does that mean? One can consult a range of people when making changes. It could end up a useless consultation with the views of the ITC not required to be taken on board by the regulator or the Secretary of State for the DTI. If there is open competition at present, as we are told by so many, why is there no rival to Sky Sport or some of the other services which one would think would be attractive to the public, having a range of similar services available?

At Committee stage, at col. 351, the Minister referred to the review of BSkyB's position by the Director General of Fair Trading. It was referred to earlier today. That review relates to the cable industry. The problem is that the review is due to be completed by May of this year. That is too late for consideration before this Bill leaves this House. Depending on the consultation procedure, it is probably too late for the other place to consider it when dealing with the Bill.

When dealing with the amendments at Committee stage, the Minister referred to an extension of powers necessary for the ITC which would place operators under the risk of regulatory double jeopardy. Of course, no one wants that. Under the 1990 Act, the ITC's duty in relation to fair and effective competition extends to services such as conditional access and subscriber management where they are connected with the licensed programme services. These amendments do not take the ITC into new or totally unoccupied territory. They allow the regulator to perform his duties across the sector rather than in selected and therefore defective areas of it.

I believe that the cable companies are concerned—I believe that the anxiety was raised in Committee—that regulating conditional access could lead to unequal treatment of their sectors. Let me assure noble Lords that that is not the intention of the amendments. We recognise that there are issues so far as concerns the cable sector.

The amendments—they are the same as those discussed in Committee—are before us today because although it has been the Government's intention to keep conditional access outside the Bill, it has been very much at centre play in our considerations. I hope that the amendments find approval with your Lordships today. I beg to move.

4.45 p.m.

5 p.m.

5.15 p.m.

5.22 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 136.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.31 p.m.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in rising to move this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 49. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark have put their names to these amendments and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, has put his name to Amendment No. 7. The amendments are linked. In the interests of coherence, and to save time, I think it best to deal with them together. The subjects of the amendments are conditional access, "must offer", "must carry" and electronic programme guides.

We have already discussed the fact that competition policy and broadcasting policy go hand in hand. Therefore an amendment is needed to ensure that there is effective competition for conditional access and for subscriber management services. My noble friend the Minister's commitment at Committee stage to implement the European Directive on Television Standards is very welcome and I hope that it will achieve the aims of Amendment No. 5; namely, fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access to conditional access. However, important though competition policy is, it will not achieve everything. Competition authorities would not feel comfortable or able to take decisions on the grounds of universality or—this is a very important point—preserving our national culture. I believe that this last point is of prime importance to all noble Lords but it would not necessarily be top of the agenda for a non-national television service provider through satellite or cable. Because of that, "must offer" is needed.

The European Television Standards Directive does not mention free public service channels. It states that equipment manufacturers would not be able to prevent viewers getting channels broadcast free to air. But public service broadcasters may well not be distributed free to air because they need to target their channels at one country. That is where they are funded from and it would be wrong for them to spend public money on buying the rights that would be needed to cover the entire satellite footprint which could indeed extend right across Europe.

The European Television Standards Directive is also the basis for ensuring that subscription services are provided on fair terms. But that would not cover free public service channels either. Public service channels cannot charge their customers. They would therefore be disadvantaged by a pricing regime that was created for subscription broadcasters. Under the directive all that the competition authorities would have to ensure is that public service channels were not discriminated against. But that means there would be nothing to stop public service channels being forced to charge viewers. There would be nothing to stop conditional access providers charging free channels the same for carriage as subscription channels and there would be nothing to ensure that public service channels broadcast over satellite were easy to find. That is why all the amendments link together.

Competition law is too slow for "must offer". It can take five years or more. For example, the Government and Oftel proposed the need for number portability in 1990. It was not until November 1995 that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission finally ruled that number portability should happen, and it may be another year or even more before the service is actually offered to customers. Five years is half the term of the BBC Charter and quite honestly the BBC could not afford to lose 10 or 20 per cent. of its viewers for that long. As anyone knows, in business, if you lose your customers for that period of time, it is a difficult task to get them back again; and it could be that the damage would be irreversible.

In a normal competition situation there can be financial compensation. But how would you compensate the BBC for loss of public support, perhaps indeed leading to the end of the licence fee if it did not have enough public support having lost it that way, or indeed leading to the non-renewal of the Charter? How could that be financially compensated? Satellite companies would know that the BBC could not afford to take this risk. It could be a case of delivery blackmail in which the BBC was forced to accept unreasonable terms or even to charge for its service. "Must offer" is needed to avoid that.

The amendment would ensure that viewers had automatic access to public service channels which were distributed by satellite. This is an extension of the principle in the European Television Standards Directive that conditional access providers should not be able to prevent viewers receiving channels broadcast free to air. The directive also states that subscription channels will be able to contract with conditional access providers on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. However, the directive does not cover free channels that are also encrypted. In future, public service channels may be encrypted, for obvious copyright reasons, to ensure that they are not received outside the intended country. But they would still be free. "Must offer" is needed to fill this gap in the regulation and to ensure that consumers can receive free but encrypted public service channels.

The aim of the amendment on "must carry"—Amendment No. 7—is to guarantee viewers access to public service channels in the digital age by ensuring that cable companies must carry public service channels. There are two types of cable licence: those granted under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 and those granted under the Broadcasting Act 1990. Holders of the 1984 licences must carry the BBC's publicly funded services and Channel 3 and Channel 4 public service broadcasting; in other words, BBC 1, BBC 2, ITV, Channel 4 and S4C. The 1990 Act removed that obligation. It was a move in the field of deregulation, which of course I support. But, in these circumstances, some of the cable franchisees have the 1984 statutory requirement but the 1990 ones do not. But eventually all cable franchisees will have to apply for the 1990 Act licences. Therefore, ultimately, all cable franchisees could stop distributing the public service channels.

The amendments would extend the "must carry" obligations to the 1990 Act licences ensuring that all cable companies carry the BBC publicly funded services plus Channels 3, 4 and S4C—that is to say, all public service broadcasting. In return for this "must carry" obligation, the cable companies get free carry. The Copyright Act 1988 gives the cable company exemption from copyright law when re-transmitting public service broadcasts which are neither encrypted nor broadcast by satellite. With digital broadcasting encryption will be more common. As worded, the exemption would therefore not apply to many future public service channels.

The Cable Communications Association, in response to the White Paper on digital broadcasting, specifically requested that the Copyright Act should be amended to allow free carriage of new digital public service channels, whether or not they are encrypted. Therefore, subsection (5) of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 7 grants the cable companies an exemption from copyright when carrying out their "must carry" obligations.

Amendment No. 49 deals with the electronic programme guides. It seeks to ensure that electronic programme guides cannot be used to prevent effective competition or to bury deep down 127 or 150 free public service channels. In the world of hundreds of television channels, which is quite feasible, electronic programme guides will be essential for viewers in order to make an informed choice about what they will want to watch. The electronic programme guides can be extremely sophisticated, acting like an electronic media helpmate in effect, learning their owner's programme preference; remembering to video their favourite programmes; guiding them towards new programmes that they will enjoy. All this sounds wonderful for those of us who are technologically challenged at the moment! They will be very powerful.

However, if there is no effective competition in the market for electronic programme guides, the owner of the dominant electronic programme guide could abuse that position to guide viewers towards their programmes. Public service channels, which the electronic programme guide owner may see as free competition to his pay television channels, could be buried at the bottom of the programme guide. Amendment No. 49, therefore, seeks to create effective competition in the market for EPGs by creating a pro-competitive licensing regime regulated by the ITC and ensures that if a dominant electronic programme guide does develop, it cannot be used to bury public service channels. I beg to move.

5.45 p.m.

6 p.m.

6.15 p.m.

[ Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]

Clause 8 [ Multiplex licences]:

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 16 and 23. These amendments refer to a single set-top box. I am aware that we strayed into that area when we talked about conditional access and we also did so in Committee.

If these amendments are accepted, they will ensure that there is a single standard set-top box providing availability of access for all digital terrestrial services. As presently drafted, the Bill makes no such provision. In fact, without the amendments the reverse could happen.

In Committee the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, said that it is too early to look at technical standards for a single set-top box. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, has some expertise in this field and is president of the European Informatics Market, of which I am a member. The noble Viscount was referring to the fact that the main European suppliers have agreed a voluntary common standard for set-top box equipment—a DVB agreement, which has been referred to today. The view of EURIM is that there is still a potential problem in that the agreed standard allows two options: the first providing a single set-top box with several slots so that several channels can be received with access by use of a smart card which is paid for; or one box with one slot for a proprietary conditional access system.

The amendments do not seek to state which technical standards should apply. I suggest that the Bill provides the only opportunity for discussion on that single standard. We must not have a monopoly dominance, as we do at present, which prevents people having access unless they pay for a different box. I believe that we all have the same aim; namely, one box for which an entrance fee is paid which provides access to whichever services or channels one wishes to access. But the technical requirement should be a single standard. We must bear in mind also that although we are discussing this Bill now, it will not reach the statute book until much later this year and I understand that talks are taking place at present about that very issue.

When we discussed this on the first day of Committee, the Minister accepted that there were concerns about the whole area. He said that he was prepared to look at the criteria to be applied by the ITC. As yet, we have had no response, but I do not criticise the Minister because I see how many amendments there are on the Marshalled List and in view of the number of changes that have been made, it may be that there has not been an opportunity to deal with this matter.

In Committee, the Minister referred to the DTI consultation document on conditional access, a copy of which we received on the day of that debate. The Minister went on to say that many of our anxieties were dealt with outside the Bill; and therein lies the problem. Those anxieties are real. They refer to broadcasting. I presume that the Minister is referring to the DTI consultation document.

The fact is that the DTI document gives no assurances that the viewer will see the emergence of a single standard through which access can be gained to digital services. The ITC has said that an integrated digital receiver, which is capable of receiving all digital terrestrial programme services, is in the best interests of the viewer. It is not surprising that he said that because I believe that that is generally accepted as the commonsense view. The amendment does not mean that there will be one identical receiver—in other words, a monopoly supply. We are talking about a single technical standard.

The difference between us is not whether a single set-top box is desirable, because I have heard no opposition to that proposition. We all agree that it is desirable. The difference is whether we accept that there is a need to make provision on the face of the Bill for the ITC to take into account proposals for set-top box compatibility when assessing applications for multiplex service licences. We believe that there is a need to have that on the face of the Bill.

In Committee it was mentioned that the German companies had concluded agreements on a standard decoder and that is referred to in the paper by the European Informatics Market and the review that it has carried out. The noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, is right in thinking that there may be some drawbacks to that. I gather that talks are taking place in the UK but I have heard only rumours and I do not have much detail about them. The Minister referred to that earlier today.

If there is nothing on the face of the Bill to ensure that we have a single decoder system and if no industry-wide agreement is concluded, where do we go? It means that we reach a position in which there is no fair competition. If it is not on the face of the Bill, it will be too late to take measures which may be needed to deal with the problem. I suggest that it will be too late not only for the viewer but also for the many services which we all hope will take off.

We cannot leave this matter to chance or even to common sense. Unfortunately, all too often there is too little of that about when one is dealing with money and competition. Since we discussed this matter in Committee, I have received two interesting briefing notes. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, referred to one of them from EUTELSAT, the European Telecommunications Satellite Organisation. That organisation also refers to the need for a single decoder. It notes the amendments put forward in Committee and that they were subsequently withdrawn. It urges us to put forward those amendments again at this stage. EUTELSAT is not a consumer organisation but it rightly says that market forces will determine an acceptable level of charge for the services, which is our intention. We want the customer to pay what he is prepared to pay. But to have a system which means more than one decoder box will not allow that competition to develop.

The other letter which I received is from the British Radio and Electronic Equipment Manufacturers' Association whose members last year manufactured 5.6 million colour television sets and 3 million video recorders in the UK. The association makes it quite clear that there are shortcomings in the Bill on set-top boxes. It does not want the issue to be left open—and it represents the manufacturers of televisions and video recorders here in the UK—to a voluntary agreement being reached. The association supports the ITC; as we do on these Benches. It wants the ITC to have the authority in the Bill to take into account how proposals from applicants for multiplex licences will ensure viewer access to the whole range of the new digital terrestrial services.

As BREMA says in its briefing note, the general principle which motivates its anxieties—and ours—that there should be a single standard is that there should also be a free market which would encourage consumers to purchase equipment in the knowledge that it will be cost effective and will give them access to the variety of services available. It will be convenient to use; it will be flexible; and it will not tie people to any one particular programme or service provider. How right BREMA is! That is what the amendments are intended to achieve. Those are the principles lying behind them.

6.30 p.m.

[ Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 18, 54 and 56. The amendments seek to clarify two existing provisions in the Bill. The Bill provides that applicants for television multiplex and national radio multiplex licences must submit proposals for promoting the acquisition of digital receiving equipment by consumers in the area of their service. The amendments seek to clarify that the word "acquisition" does not just mean purchase but also includes equipment acquired under hire or loan arrangements. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 [ Award of multiplex licences]:

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the award of multiplex licences is the key element in the establishment of digital terrestrial television and radio. The multiplex provider plays a pivotal role in the introduction of the new technology and the new services.

The Bill, as introduced, provided for the award of a television and a national radio multiplex licence to be made mainly on the basis of three particular criteria. First, there are the applicant's plans and time-scale for putting in place the transmission infrastructure, so that the services on his multiplex might be received as widely as possible and as quickly as possible throughout as much of the country as can be reached by the multiplex.

Secondly, there is the capacity of the broadcast services to be offered on the multiplex to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests. Thirdly, there are the applicant's proposals for promoting or assisting viewers and listeners to obtain equipment capable of receiving digital broadcasts.

Each of those elements is vital to the successful launch of digital terrestrial broadcasting. However, as I have already indicated, in response to amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, there is a further factor particularly important to television which needs to be taken into account; namely, the way that, taking everything together, a prospective multiplex provider's proposals will contribute to the overall development of digital broadcasting.

The amendments which I have tabled address this issue. In doing so they provide the regulators with a framework, a common currency, in which to weigh the separate elements of the proposals put to them by the applicants for the multiplex licences. The regulators will therefore be able to look at the applicants' proposals in the round and judge them by looking at the contribution they will make to the successful launch of digital terrestrial broadcasting as a whole. This means that the ITC can look at proposals for promoting and encouraging the acquisition of set-top boxes, and consider whether they are likely to lead to a cohesive rather than a fragmented market. They can look at whether multiplex providers intend to co-operate with each other on other aspects, too; for example, the roll-out of transmission infrastructure, where significant economies of scale might be achieved through co-operation with other multiplex providers.

I believe that these amendments go a long way towards meeting the concerns of noble Lords opposite, and will provide a clearer and more effective framework for the regulators to do their job. They establish the development of digital terrestrial broadcasting as a whole as the touchstone for decisions on multiplex licences. We all want this enterprise to succeed. We cannot do that by state direction, but we believe that willing co-operation between the various parties involved is likely to make a successful outcome more likely, and this measure we believe will help to achieve that. These amendments will help ensure that digital terrestrial broadcasting is given the fairest of winds as it sets sail. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

6.45 p.m.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 14—which stands in the names of my noble friends Lord Donoughue and Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde—and to Amendments Nos. 17 and 19, which stand in my name. The purpose of all of these amendments is to make a further attempt to ensure that requirements about the quality of future services are placed on the face of the Bill. The arguments about the importance of quality in broadcasting have been rehearsed at earlier stages of your Lordships' deliberations but it is worth summarising and highlighting a few of them again.

It has been generally agreed on all sides that we in the United Kingdom have an enviable tradition of high programme standards, of which we are justifiably proud. However, the Government now seem to feel that it is enough to rest on our past laurels and that little needs to be done to try to ensure that those high standards continue into the digital world. There are, of course, exceptions. The obvious one is that of simulcast transmissions of existing services where existing quality regulations will continue. However, the situation we should be considering now is that of the medium term when digital broadcasting will be the only terrestrial system for any listener or viewer. As the Minister predicted at Second Reading, there will be initially—I stress the word "initially"—18 national channels on six multiplexes.

The Government have proposed that together with technical ability, variety not quality will be the touchstone against which service bids for a multiplex will be judged. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said that the ITC would take full account of proposals for local, regional, community and special interest channels and programming as an important element in increasing variety. Amendments Nos. 14 and 19 would simply ensure that on that same basis and formula, quality as well as variety is considered. After all, variety in broadcasting is certainly a commendable and appropriate aim but it does not by any means always embrace quality. There can be an enormous variety of programmes, all of them of poor quality. Any of your Lordships who have switched between the 20 or 30 cable channels on offer today in any large American city will have a vivid and pretty depressing picture of what low quality multiple-choice TV can produce, however it is delivered in a technical sense.

In Committee, the Government also seemed to believe that the powers of the new Broadcasting Standards Commission to publish guidelines and to consider complaints about taste, decency and impartiality will in the future be sufficient protection against the worst excesses. Your Lordships will remember from the Committee proceedings that we on these Benches do not think that the present proposals for the remit and the activities of the Broadcasting Standards Commission are sufficiently pro-active to act as a significant voice of the viewer and the listener. In our opinion, they are certainly not robust enough to establish and monitor general quality standards. In this context, noble Lords may have been as apprehensive as I was to read the remarks of Mr. Kelvin MacKenzie, the ex-editor of the Sun newspaper and now head of Live TV, at a media conference last week. He looked forward to more and more TV channels which would result in an electronic freedom to match that of print. Mr. MacKenzie gave an example when he said:

"My own guess is that 20 years from now people will look back at the impartiality requirements of broadcasting as a quaint piece of history… The present rules will not be heeded and they will wither away".

Surely that is something which we should try to prevent in this Bill, not, as my noble friend Lord Donoughue said in Committee, to achieve lofty cultural ambitions but simply to raise the sights of the digital operators.

The Minister has argued that to impose quality constraints on multiplex providers would badly inhibit the development of new services. In Committee the Minister warned that in his opinion a tight corset of regulation would mean that entrepreneurs would simply not bother to invest in digital television. It might, he said, be strangled at birth. He spoke somewhat dramatically as though this were a threat to our cultural life as we know it. We on these Benches do not see it in that way at all. The prospect of an absolutely unregulated market of expanding digital services does not seem irresistible, particularly if it produces dozens, or indeed hundreds of television programmes all of the type which—as I have said—we can already see on American cable networks, or as enthusiastically envisaged by Mr. Kelvin MacKenzie. In those circumstances it would seem that there is no advantage to the viewer. We would be quite happy for choice and variety to be less and quality higher.

It is, of course, a question of achieving the right balance between appropriate growth and appropriate standards. However, as the Bill stands, the balance seems to be tilted too far towards uninhibited development. Frankly, I think that the Government have been too cautious. After all, there is nothing whatsoever in the history of television development—since the days when we talked about the licence to print money when ITV was set up in the 1950s—to suggest an entrepreneurial reluctance to invest in new opportunities.

The ITC apparently believes that quality criteria will not stop digital TV taking off. It has sought an additional qualification, as expressed in Amendment No. 13. In Committee, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, the Minister admitted that the Government had rejected the ITC's advice on this matter, but nonetheless the commission continues to press for statutory powers to be able to evaluate applications for quality. Amendments Nos. 13, 17 and 19 propose a flexible formula to allow the ITC to ensure that multiplex operators provide quality programmes within a range of programme services. They do not insist that each and every programme available on a multiplex should fulfil those criteria. It is not too late for the Government to empower the ITC in this way. After all, in 1990 in the previous Act the Government created the quality threshold for licence applications which undoubtedly mitigated but did not harmfully impede the free flow of market forces. These amendments simply seek a similar environment for the digital future. I beg to move.

[ Amendments Nos. 14 to 17 not moved.]

7 p.m.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[ Amendment No. 19 not moved.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 [ Power to require two or more multiplex licences to be granted to one person]:

[ Amendment No. 21 not moved.]

Clause 11 [ Failure to begin providing licensed service and financial penalties on revocation of licence]:

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 is grouped with a large number of other amendments and unless your Lordships wish I shall not read out all the numbers. The numerous amendments relate to one topic: the system of fining licence holders who have failed to comply with their licence conditions.

Current provisions in the Bill hold that the amount of any financial penalty should be calculated according to percentages of the multiplex revenue accountable to a licence holder for his last complete accounting period. This system of fines is used right across the board—for multiplex licence holders, digital programme service licence holders and additional service licence holders for both digital television and digital radio.

However, we are concerned that in the start-up period, multiplex revenue may be modest and the proposed percentages will therefore mean only negligible fines. This would undermine the enforcement regime. The sums involved may provide an inadequate sanction.

Our amendments make provision for the two types of penalties which may be levied: first, the penalty for failure to begin providing the licensed service, which by definition can only fall upon the multiplex provider. Our amendments provide that a penalty levied for this reason should be whichever is the greater of £50,000 or 7 per cent. of the multiplex revenue attributable to him. The other type of penalty is against failure to comply with conditions of licence; this may be levied against multiplex providers, programme service providers and additional services providers. We need to be more flexible here in recognition that there will be companies of hugely differing sizes within this group. Our amendments provide that the penalty for breach of licence conditions should not exceed whichever is the greater of £50,000 or the appropriate percentage of multiplex revenue attributable to the licence holder. The important difference is that the regulators are granted discretion to set the penalty at a figure which is less than £50,000 or calculate the appropriate percentage of multiplex revenue. This gives the regulators some discretion as to which base it is appropriate to invoke and to decide whether a £50,000 fine or a fine based on a percentage of multiplex revenue would provide the most appropriate penalty. I believe that this will allow more realistic and more effective sanctions.

The purpose of these amendments is therefore to bring the Bill into line in the various sections.

There is also another provision to which I would draw your Lordships' attention. The new clauses to be inserted after Clause 30 and Clause 61 allow the Secretary of State to vary by negative resolution the £50,000 figure set out in the clauses on financial penalties. This recognises the fact that such a figure may need to be varied at some point in the future in order to take account of inflation.

In addition, Amendments Nos. 168, 169 and 223 have been brought forward following representations we have received from the Independent Television Commission to regularise the position of all their licensees. I should stress that these amendments deal solely with the maximum levels of fines for breaches of ITC licences. The level of actual fine imposed and in what circumstances remains a matter for the ITC. The amendments bring the holders of non-domestic satellite service licences and the holders of licensable programme service licences into line with Channels 3, 4 and 5.

Under the current provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990, the maximum financial penalty the ITC can impose on these two categories is £50,000. That limit can be altered by the Secretary of State by order. With the growth of the broadcasting industry and particularly rapid growth in some sectors we accepted the ITC's point that such fine limits could quickly become out of date. Rather than the Secretary of State having to amend limits by order, we agreed with the ITC that it was more sensible to base maximum fines on the same basis that applies to Channels 3, 4 and 5; namely, a financial penalty up to 3 per cent. of the qualifying revenue for the licensee's last complete accounting period for the first offence and a fine not exceeding 5 per cent. for subsequent offences.

While the new limits bring the non-domestic satellite service licensees and licensable programme service licensees into line with other broadcasters, we have retained the £50,000 provision as well, since for some licensees such as small community cable channels, it is more sensible to keep the cash limit as qualifying revenue can be negligible.

The differing arrangements were made at a time when many satellite and cable services were newly established and needed significant help to get off the ground, but there is no reason now why they should not face the same level of fines. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 12 [ Conditions attached to multiplex licence]:

[ Amendment No. 23 not moved.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I wish to speak to Amendment No. 62. The first of the amendments relates to television, the second to radio and they mirror one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, at Committee stage and on which I undertook to think further. They provide that the Secretary of State's power to alter the percentage of the broadcasting spectrum which may be used for additional services should be subject to affirmative rather than negative resolution. We accept the noble Lord's argument that an order which alters the extent to which the broadcasting spectrum is actually available for programme services might well raise substantial issues for which the affirmative resolution procedure would be justified. I beg to move.

Clause 15 [ Attribution of multiplex revenue to licence holder and others]:

Clause 16 [ Duration and renewal of multiplex licences]:

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 27 to 30 and speak to Amendments Nos. 65 to 68. We have provided in the Bill as it stands for multiplex licences to be awarded for 12 years and to allow licence holders to renew their licences at the end of the first licence period for a further 12 years. These arrangements recognise the investment needed and the likelihood that the return on that investment will begin to be realised towards the end of the first licence period.

As I have so often emphasised, we cannot be certain how far and how fast the digital terrestrial market will develop. But we certainly hope that it will develop in such a way that will allow us to set a timescale for the withdrawal of analogue frequencies and to switch to an all-digital regime. It could well be that, as we approach the end of the first multiplex licence period, we are in a position to prepare the ground for the end game in our analogue switch off strategy.

The Bill already provides for the ITC and the Radio Authority to set new minimum requirements for the roll-out of transmission and the promotion of receiver take-up which licence holders would have to be prepared to meet if they wanted to renew. My amendments require the regulators to obtain the Secretary of State's approval of those minimum requirements. This does not undermine the proper role of the regulators, but rather underlines the Secretary of State's role in determining the timescale for analogue switch off—a policy issue which is clearly for Government rather than the regulator.

My amendments also require the regulators to obtain the Secretary of State's approval to the percentage of multiplex revenue to be paid on renewal, again reflecting the importance of creating the right conditions for the future of digital broadcasting and for analogue switch off. I would remind your Lordships that we have already stated clearly our intention that no payments to the Exchequer should be made during the first licence period. We will need to reassess the position as licences fall due to be renewed, and will take into account then the state of development of the market and the need for licence holders to provide the taxpayer with a reasonable return in exchange for the use of spectrum, which is of course such a valuable commodity. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 17 [ Enforcement of multiplex licences]:

The noble Lord said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

7.15 p.m.

Clause 19 [ Duration and conditions of digital programme licence]:

The noble Lord said: My Lords, of all the amendments to the Bill this is the most significant for deaf, hard-of-hearing and blind people. I regard the amendment as terribly significant for those people who are very often deprived of enjoying television. I hope the Minister will be able to accommodate us tonight. Millions of deaf people and blind people are looking forward to the Government's co-operation in opening television to them.

The amendment seeks to set targets for subtitling, signing and audio-description for digital services. As the noble Lord will know, the respective targets are 95 per cent. for subtitling; 10 per cent. for signing; and 50 per cent. for audio-description for blind people. The reason for the 95 per cent. is that we want to accommodate the difficulties and technical problems that will arise. We do not want to penalise people if they cannot keep to 100 per cent. However, we do want to achieve mass coverage. Therefore we are setting a target of 95 per cent. Ten per cent. for signing is a very small step forward but a very important one for those who depend on signing. Blind people need audio-description to explain what is going on.

The point of the amendment is that the targets are to be achieved by fixed dates. Targets are essential if those who are seriously impaired are to follow and enjoy digital television. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, rejected similar amendments. He expressed concern about "the need to strike a balance" and to avoid "suddenly imposing onerous requirements out of the blue." The Minister wanted to avoid deterring new entrants. He was right. I do not want to deter new entrants either. Nor do deaf people; nor do blind people. I am anxious to strike a balance, as the Minister wanted. I also want new entrants into television. By specifying now what will be required in eight or 10 years the amendment removes uncertainty, itself a great deterrent to entry. It also ensures that there are no sudden, onerous requirements on the television companies. The requirements are carefully—some would say too crefully—phased in. I hope that that allays the anxieties of the Minister.

For sensorily impaired people, the expansion of television through digital channels will be welcome; but it is not enough. There will be no gain from the entry of even 1,000 new companies if they are all unintelligible, as they will be if there is no subtitling for deaf people, no signing for hard-of-hearing people and no audio-description for blind people. In other words, provision for television can be multiplied as much as we like, but it will remain inaccessible to deaf, hard-of-hearing and blind people without the provisions of the amendment. Without parliamentary pressure that could happen. Those people will still be deprived while television provision is expanding for everybody else. We have a responsibility to those people which I hope the House, and especially the Government, will accept.

History is on our side. We know that it was the addition by the Minister—I underline the word "addition"—to the 1990 Broadcasting Act of the amendment to set targets that resulted in the gradual but definite increase in subtitling. Subtitling is now at 37 per cent. but is on course to meet the target of 50 per cent. by 1998. It is significant that the ITV companies are doing no more and no less than the Act requires. The targets set in the Act are determining progress. That is why those targets are essential. It is also significant that there has been no increase in signed programmes comparable with that of subtitled programmes. The reason is that there were no signing targets in the 1990 Act.

Each year hearing people have available to them, according to ITC/BBC figures, over 200,000 hours of terrestrial, satellite and cable television. Yet 62,000 profoundly deaf people, reliant on sign language, have no access to general programmes. That means they are prohibited from watching television. The new technology will enable signing to be done without being visible to the hearing audience. That will be encouraged by the amendment. If the amendment, or any measure that the noble Lord can present to the House, does not become part of the Bill there is no doubt whatever that deaf, hard-of-hearing and blind people will be excluded from enjoying digital television. That would be a terrible deprivation. We have a unique opportunity to include them in the new television era.

On the question of cost, the seemingly miraculous simultaneous presentation of words on a screen as they are spoken is not unduly expensive in relative terms. In fact it is very cheap. I put the figures to the Minister in an interview with him a short time ago. The cost of subtitling is about £600 an hour. That has to be compared with the cost of £600,000 an hour for television drama, £120,000 for documentaries, and £34,000 for sport. So £600 is a very tiny amount, especially when official figures show that some 10 million people use the subtitling provision. Apart from the "See Hear" programme, there is no signing or audio-description. I am reliably told that the cost of that provision would be of the same order.

The amendment calls for the targets on subtitling and signing to be met by the eighth anniversary of issuing a licence and by the 10th anniversary for audio-description. In an area where technology is galloping ahead those timescales are very generous. In the 1990 Act, a five-year period was allowed. We are now allowing an eight-year and 10-year period. Today it is far easier to advance subtitling because the mechanisms are well understood. Much of the expertise is available, although there will be a need for more trained operators. Once the size of the market is defined and the salary earned by operators becomes well known, I anticipate that market forces will establish training schools. At present the BBC is doing virtually all the training.

I hope the Minister will not say that the amendment is not required because we have the Disability Discrimination Act. I know that. The noble Lord was number two on that Bill as it passed through Parliament. There are good reasons why we should not leave the question of digital television access for seriously impaired people to that Act.

The Disability Discrimination Act rests on what is "reasonable". Until codes and regulations are published we have no idea what the Government will consider to be reasonable. This is an issue of very great importance to broadcasters and disabled people. It should not be left to others—in this case the ITC and civil servants—to decide what is "reasonable". It should be decided by Parliament and hence be part of the Bill.

It will also take some time before the codes and guidance emerge. But with this amendment companies planning to enter this exciting market will know, immediately the Act is passed, precisely what is required of them. That is beneficial to the companies and to a large section of their potential audience. It is far better to develop those facilities as they go along rather than try to tag them on at a later date. The "tagging on" approach would inconvenience the television companies and is an inappropriate and unacceptable way to meet the needs of disabled people.

I hope that the Minister will be able to respond constructively. On his words tonight will rest the hopes of millions of deaf people and blind people of watching television. I hope that he is able to oblige. I beg to move.

7.30 p.m.

Clause 21 [ Enforcement of digital programme licences]:

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 35 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 39, 72 and 77. They are technical amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 25 [ Enforcement of digital additional services licences]:

[ Amendments Nos. 43 to 46 not moved.]

7.35 p.m.

Read a third time.

Clause 121 [ The lieutenancies]:

The noble Earl said: My Lords, when last week the House was considering this Bill on Report, I raised an issue relating to the appointment of lord-lieutenants which had been brought to my attention by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and I said that I hoped the Government would be able to bring forward a suitable amendment on Third Reading.

The statutory powers governing the appointment by Her Majesty of lord-lieutenants for each county in England and Wales are contained in Section 130 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. That was a consolidation Act, and the provisions of that section repeat word for word provisions previously contained in Section 218 of the Local Government Act 1972. In Scotland the corresponding provisions are in Section 131 of the 1980 Act, which re-enacted Section 205 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

Until 1980 the instruments of appointment rightly referred to the 1972 or 1973 Act, depending whether the appointment was in England and Wales or in Scotland. Thereafter, they should of course have referred to the Reserve Forces Act 1980, but regrettably that was not always the case; many of them continued to refer to the 1972 or 1973 Act. It is quite likely that those appointments are nevertheless legally valid, but it is thought sensible to make it clear that that is indeed the case. The purpose of this amendment is therefore to dispel any doubts there may be about the validity of these appointments, and about the validity of any acts done by a lord-lieutenant whose instrument of appointment cites the wrong Act. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 122 [ Safeguard of employment for members of reserve forces]:

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3.

These amendments relate to the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985. I mentioned them during the Report stage. The change to Section 17 of the 1985 Act will mean that individuals who report as required on call-out or recall but are, for whatever reason, not accepted into service, remain entitled to the protection of the Act. The omission of Section 20(4) is consequential. The change to Section 20(3) introduces an explicit reference to maternity leave, and follows up a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I beg to move.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 11 [ Repeals]:

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 relates to pensions issues. As I mentioned during the Report stage, the Bill includes the repeal of almost the whole of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. Some sections of that Act are superseded entirely by the Bill and will be repealed immediately the relevant provisions are brought into force. Other sections will continue to have effect for limited purposes and will be repealed when they become spent.

Sections 140 and 151 of the 1980 Act give authority for the payment of war pensions to former members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Home Guard. It has been suggested to me that the inclusion of those sections in the repeal schedule might give the impression that it was the Government's intention to cease the payment of pensions to the individuals concerned, or perhaps to exclude new applicants who develop a disability attributable to their service. That is very much not the case, and to put the matter beyond doubt I have put forward this simple amendment to remove those two clauses from the ambit of the repeal. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

An amendment (privilege) made.

[ The Sitting was suspended from 8.2 to 8.35 p.m.]

Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Clause 26 [ Provision for broadcasting of services provided by independent analogue broadcasters]:

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret that I was unable to attend the Second Reading of the Bill and the Committee stage, but I have been following events carefully and reading the Hansard reports of the debates. I see that the case for the amendment has already been argued in a number of powerful speeches. I wish to reinforce the central theme of those speeches; namely, that S4C must be in a position to compete for viewers on the basis of equality between it and its competitors. It must be a competition between equals. But on the evidence of the White Paper—this has been confirmed by the Minister during the debates on the Bill—there will not be a level playing field.

According to the White Paper, S4C, as will be the case with Channel 4 in Wales, will enjoy only a quarter multiplex, whereas it is intended that its competitors—namely, BBC1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 5—will be guaranteed twice as much digital capacity as S4C and Channel 4 in Wales.

Unlike its competitors, S4C will be unable to provide all the technical benefits of digital broadcasting. It is not fair. It is not acceptable to the Welsh people. If S4C cannot offer to its viewers the technical benefits which will be on offer from its competitors, its services will be seen as old-fashioned and second-rate, and many viewers will not choose to watch its programmes. As a result, S4C will inevitably lose some of its audience. Surely that is unfair to S4C.

I am sure that there is no need for me to remind the House that the Act of Union of 1536 relegated the Welsh language to an inferior status in the public life of Wales for centuries. It was one of the black spots in our history. It was my great privilege as Secretary of State for Wales to pilot the Welsh Language Bill 1967 through the other place. The central purpose of that Bill was to confer on the Welsh language, for the first time since 1536, a status of equal validity with the English language in the public life of Wales. That has been the policy of successive governments since then.

It was also my privilege to co-operate with other noble Lords, in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, in setting up S4C 15 years ago. I can assure the House that the founders of S4C never intended that its programmes should be of second-rate technical quality compared with English language programmes. It was intended that they should always be technically comparable with the English language programmes of its competitors. Otherwise, how on earth could they hope to withstand competition? They have been technically comparable and, as the whole House heard on Second Reading, the S4C programmes have been a huge success. It is an achievement of which we are proud.

I would respectfully say to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who has shown great understanding and compassion in the course of our debates on the Bill, that it is far too late in the day to expect Wales to put up with a Welsh language service which is inferior in technical quality to alternative services in the English language. Indeed, Welsh speakers would feel justifiably aggrieved if they were deprived of Welsh language television services of technical comparability with the English language television services. This amendment would ensure that such a grievance would not arise.

My amendment affords the opportunity for the Government to promise that they will think again. I hope that the noble Lord and his right honourable friend will respond positively to it. If he does so the news in Wales will be received with pleasure. If he fails to do so there will be great disappointment in the Principality. I beg to move.

8.45 p.m.

Clause 27 [ The S4C digital service]: