asked Her Majesty's Government:

What measures are being taken to improve carers' opportunities for employment and learning, for maintaining their own health and well-being, and for accessing information to help them in caring.

My Lords, the Government are working with Carers UK to tackle barriers to carers who wish to stay in work or return to work. The Government's work-life balance initiative encourages greater flexibility by employers for people with caring responsibilities. The carers grant supports local councils in providing short breaks to carers to enable them to maintain their own health and wellbeing. By 2005–06, the grant will have doubled to £180 million per year that councils should use to provide services and 130,000 further breaks to carers. The new flexibility in the grant will enable it to be used for a wide variety of training opportunities. We shall continue to work to improve quality and accessibility of information for carers and the new carers online website is an example of improvements that can be made.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I am very happy to acknowledge the huge progress made for carers under this Government. My noble friend will perhaps remember some of the reports which he wrote for Carers UK and that the changes and improvements for which he called have largely happened. Does he agree that the latest report from Carers UK, Missed Opportunities, shows a worrying and disappointing picture of the impact that new carers' rights have had on the accessibility of services? Does he further agree that moving towards a system of measuring outcomes for carers in terms of services, which I believe the Government are considering, would be an effective way of bringing about much needed improvements?

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for reminding me of my previous work in connection with what was then the Carers National Association. It shows that the Government have not only talked the talk but walked the walk in this particular area. I share my noble friend's disappointment that the Carers UK report, Missed Opportunities, suggests that we have not progressed as fast as we would like. However, in the report carers recognise that waiting times for assessments have decreased. The carers grant increases and the new flexibility in use of the grant were seen by many carers as very helpful, as were direct payments.

We are reviewing the findings of that report with stakeholders. As my noble friend will know, the Government are increasing funding for social care by an average of 6 per cent over this and the next two years—that is, an extra £1 billion. We expect to see better outcomes for carers as councils use those additional resources to improve services.

My Lords, as carers often have to be on their own when looking after their charges, does the Minister think that enough is being done to support carers in those situations?

My Lords, it has always been the case that carers are a difficult group to reach to help them get access to services. They are often isolated and it is important to bring them together to share news and experience and to provide mutual support. To this end we are helping to fund what is called the "Ring Around Carers" scheme which reaches out to hidden carers. This project uses the power of local radio to help people identify themselves as carers and uses telephone conferencing as a way of bringing carers together to discuss their experiences.

My Lords, while on the subject of hidden carers, what is being done for carers who are looking after people who are not fluent in English and therefore have an added disadvantage, particularly if they happen to be their children?

My Lords, there are issues particularly around black and minority ethnic carers. The department continues to work towards achieving better services for people in this category and those whose first language is not English. We funded a good practice guide for practitioners working with black carers, developed by the National Black Carers Workers Network. We shall continue to study this area carefully and try to make further improvements.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most important things which can be done to help carers is to provide adequate respite care? Are the initiatives which the Government have brought forward working to that effect?

My Lords, the assessments for carers and the work that the Government have done, particularly in areas such as direct payments and the carers grant, all work towards giving carers not only more access to respite care but also more choice over the way they access that particular care and greater capacity to buy that extra support for themselves.

My Lords, in the report the carers cite the 21-hour study rule as a barrier to returning to education and work. What do the Government intend to do about that?

My Lords, this is an area where I shall have to confer with the other Ministers concerned and write to the noble Baroness.

My Lords, the Minister said that choice in respite care is important. That is all very well if carers are aware that respite care is available. For example, the Motor Neurone Disease Association has estimated that only a quarter of carers for people suffering from that disease are even offered respite care? What are the Government going to do about that?

My Lords, we know that there is a problem for some carers in getting access to information. That is why in my Answer I referred to the improvements in gaining access to information on which the Government are working. The new website is one such example. This is always a difficult subject. In many places, local authorities are making a better job of providing information to carers on how to access those kinds of services.

My Lords, how many children act as carers to their parents or siblings? How are schools being equipped to meet the particular needs of those children?

My Lords, the issue of young carers has been with us for a long time. I do not carry the numbers in my head. I shall write to the noble Earl on this issue. It is a long-standing area of concern. The Government have taken a number of initiatives to improve the lot of young carers.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What actions they are taking to protect the security of women and children in Iraq.

My Lords, while coalition forces currently conduct more than 2,000 security patrols every day, the key to improving the security situation in Iraq lies primarily in reestablishing the Iraqi police and judicial system. This will benefit the whole population, especially women and children.

United Kingdom forces in southern Iraq have been working with local police chiefs and community leaders to improve the security situation since the earliest days of the conflict. Thousands of police are now back at work in our area of operations and local courts and prisons are beginning to function again.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. In an interview with the Financial Times last week, the Secretary of State for International Development, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, admitted that she had to cancel her trip to Baghdad because of a fear of being assassinated. This will no doubt bring home to everyone how bad the law and order situation in Iraq has become. We have heard numerous reports from charities working in Iraq of women and children being raped and abducted, possibly to be sold into slavery or prostitution. What is being done to further improve security in Iraq? More specifically, what is being done to bring those responsible for crimes against women and children to justice?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She should not confuse what the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, said in her interview last week with the position of ordinary Iraqi women and children. The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, was very disappointed to have to postpone her planned visit to Baghdad and Basra at short notice but, as far as she was concerned, the security situation did not allow for it. She would have been a prominent figure in a country with which we were at war recently. She has made exactly the right decision. She hopes, of course, to visit as soon as circumstances allow.

As to the separate question of security in Iraq and the effect on women and children, the crucial factor is that law and order is improving on the ground. It must be remembered that it was only at the end of last year that Saddam Hussein released all criminals from his prisons. That in itself has made the position of women and children much more difficult. The fact that a great deal of policing is now going on and the court system is being resurrected is, in many ways, the best protection there can be for vulnerable groups in society.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the UK has made many firm commitments since 1991 to the specific inclusion of women in appointments for post-conflict recovery. We believe that women should be appointed to take part in this process. From the Minister's reference to the police, I imagine that it is a largely masculine force. It is considered desirable that 30 per cent of those involved in resolving conflict and restoring peace afterwards should be women. What is being done to help women to have influence directly in Iraq.

My Lords, led by the coalition, a large amount is being done in Iraq. The UK is committed to including women in all phases and at all levels in the reconstruction. Indeed, the Prime Minister's special representative and his team, working closely with the Americans, have been discussing the issue of engaging Iraqi women in the reconstruction process. A consultative meeting took place between the coalition provisional authority and 40 Iraqi women on 29th May to discuss the very point the noble Baroness makes about the inclusion of women in Iraq's reconstruction. A steering group has been formed to take forward this very important process. The proposal to hold a women's conference and the issue of women's participation in the political process, which is of crucial importance to the future of Iraq, are gathering strength.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that children are particularly at risk from unexploded cluster bombs? What steps are being taken to protect children in such circumstances and to ensure that they are properly cared for and receive appropriate treatment if they are injured?

My Lords, every effort is being made by the coalition to ensure that the kind of accident/ tragedy that my noble friend mentions does not occur. We are providing information to clearance organisations on munitions used, and locations, so that clearance of all types of unexploded ordnance that might pose a risk to civilians can be achieved quickly and effectively. We very much hope that we are on top of the situation.

My Lords, has the Minister seen the report from the United Nations? It is very concerned that religious extremists are intimidating women and girls into wearing the veil, even if they are Christian. Obviously this is a symbolic sign of oppression rather than the kind of disastrous events we have just been talking about. But one Iraqi UN staff member, we hear, recently received a handwritten letter at home saying she would be killed unless she started covering her hair. Are the UK Government encountering similar problems in southern Iraq and how are they dealing with that human rights situation?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. No, so far as we know—and we will of course investigate and correct ourselves if we are wrong—there is not that particular problem in southern Iraq. The issue is extremely important. In reestablishing the Iraqi police and judicial system, an amendment to the criminal code effected recently means that it is illegal for a man physically to chastise his wife, and courts can enforce maintenance payments to wives. Those may be seen as small matters, but in my view, if that is to be the basis of a criminal code beginning at this stage, it is a good sign for the future. We must remember that even though a wicked tyranny operated in Iraq, women were not treated as badly there compared with what has occurred in the past in some other countries.

My Lords, does the Minister recall his previous Answer to a Question I asked about weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of looters? Is he aware of any cases of ordinary citizens suffering from radiation sickness?

My Lords, I recall the noble Lord's Question, but I do not have an answer for him today. I have no brief to suggest that radiation sickness is being caused. I shall of course look into the matter and write to the noble Lord if I am wrong.

My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether any children have so far been killed or injured by exploding cluster bombs, and how many such bombs were dropped by the allied forces?

My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the figures he seeks. He will know that cluster bombs are lawful weapons that provide a unique capability against certain legitimate military targets and that it was necessary to use them during the war. Some 2,000 artillery-delivered L20 bomblet munitions, called extended range bomblet shells, were used, mainly on targets around Basra. These have secondary fuses that ensure far fewer unexploded bomblets are left behind than with older-generation bombs.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Why motorists driving without insurance no longer face the risk of disqualification for a first offence.

My Lords, under Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a person must be insured against third-party risks if using a motor vehicle on a road or other public place. Not to do so is an offence punishable either summarily with a fine of up to £5,000, six to eight penalty points and discretionary disqualification, or by a fixed penalty of £200 and six penalty points. Magistrates may disqualify for a first offence if the severity of the offence merits it.

My Lords, I am glad to hear that reply. It deserves wider circulation, because on 9th June, the home affairs editor of the Daily Telegraph said:

"Thousands of motorists caught without insurance will escape a driving ban for a first offence under new rules.

"Offenders will face an automatic £200 fine and six penalty points instead of a court appearance at which they could be disqualified".

A spokesman for the Magistrates' Association said:

"Youngsters paying well over £1,000 now know that if they do not bother with insurance they face only a £200 fine".

Will the Minister confirm, following his first sentence, that those two reports are inaccurate? If they are, will he see that the world gets to know that?

My Lords, I certainly would be a busy Minister if I sought to correct every inaccuracy in the national press. Even the Daily Telegraph can get things wrong on occasion.

The headline of the article that the noble Lord mentions reads:

"Let-off for car insurance dodgers"

when both he and the House will recognise that the intention is to make sure that car insurance dodgers who get off at present will be successfully prosecuted. Through the system of automatic number-plate recognition, the police are in a position to take note of a car which does not have valid insurance and to act accordingly. Therefore, the issue is not the severity of the punishment but the certainty of detection.

My Lords, could the Minister say how severity is determined? Either they have insurance or they do not—there is nothing but black and white in that particular case. Does he agree that it is time that people purchasing insurance for their cars should at the same time obtain a disc that they can display in their cars—the same as the road tax disc? It would make enforcement very much easier, as police could look at parked cars and see which cars were insured and which were not. That is currently being done in most European countries which, for once, are doing something better than us.

My Lords, I notice the noble Baroness's constructive suggestion. As I have indicated, we take this offence seriously. The number of prosecutions has been fairly constant over the past four years. The number is quite high, at 182,000 cases a year. So this is an offence that we need to tackle with rigour. Our chosen method with regard to first-time offenders, is to guarantee that everyone becomes aware of the fact that if they drive a motor car on the public road, detection equipment can identify the number of the car, whether that car has been insured and, if not, suitable action will inevitably be taken.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the increasing concern expressed about reliance on speed cameras for detection of offences, resulting in motorway patrol cars and others being reduced so that dangerous driving, tailgating and other offences are being allowed to go scot-free?

My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord is right in his proposition that this evidence is unreliable. I think what has happened—and I believe most noble Lords would bear testimony to this—is that the introduction of speed cameras has significantly affected road behaviour in this country. We cannot guarantee that everyone stays within the limits all the time, but it is certainly clear that the levels by which those who break the law and exceed the speed limits have been moderating significantly in recent years, a reflection of the fact that the system of cameras works.

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that it is still the case that before you can receive or obtain a road fund tax disc, you have to provide a certificate of insurance? If people do not have a road fund tax disc on their car, the chances are that they have no insurance either, which is one means of identifying them.

My Lords, my noble friend is right that often more than one offence is committed in the circumstances, and that several pieces of documentation are not valid for the car. As I have indicated, magistrates will take strong action when they regard the offence to be a multiple one and of a serious nature. My noble friend is reflecting the fact that compliance with the vehicle registration requirements also needs to be pursued with vigour. I can assure him that it is.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the penalty of disqualification from driving should remain available in cases where it is appropriate; that it is not in the public interest thereby to increase the number of those who are unemployable; and that it is therefore an important object of public policy that as many people as possible should remain able to go to work without the use of a motor car?

My Lords, I understand the noble Earl's point. I am seeking to assure him—as I hope I did in my initial Answer—that magistrates have the choice of whether to try a case and insist on disqualification when that is merited by the seriousness of the offence. However, in more orthodox cases where a first-time offender does not have the appropriate insurance, the penalty will not be disqualification but a fixed-penalty fine and six penalty points—a serious penalty which will affect the driver, but will not disqualify him for his first offence.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

On what basis they are opposing the proposal for a European Union regulation concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms.

My Lords, the Government support mandatory traceability and labelling of GMOs. We welcome many aspects of the EU proposals, but we are concerned that others are not sufficient [y firmly based on evidence, not practically enforceable or not consistent with the Cartagena protocol.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. For the record—despite his slightly equivocal reply—the Government clearly opposed the common position adopted by the Council of Ministers in March 2003. Only yesterday, Michael Meacher, until 10 days ago the Environment Minister, talked about the health uncertainties surrounding GM food and the lack of research. Consumers overwhelmingly support the GM labelling directive, as do the supermarkets, at the level proposed by the EU. Why do the Government not accept the necessity for the directive in that form? Is it because of US pressure?

My Lords, I totally reject the view that my reply was equivocal. We strongly support labelling and, therefore, should GMOs be allowed, the ability of consumers to make the choice. Our objections to some of the details of the proposals were that the labelling requirements would be unenforceable, thereby making bad law, and would in one respect be contrary to the provisions of the Cartagena protocol. As the House will know, the Government are looking at all aspects of GMOs, including the health aspects, and will make decisions in the light of the evidence, taking into account public opinion. The Government will not be rolled over by pressure from the United States, from Monsanto or, for that matter, from Greenpeace.

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the suggested labelling regime is being introduced, quite rightly, to facilitate consumer choice and not because of any known health hazard of any approved GM food? Of course that is not the situation that exists with many conventional foods; one thinks of nut allergies, for example. In those circumstances, given the subtleties and complexities involved, is it not absolutely right that we get an interstate regime that commands confidence because it is appropriate and can be enforced to the same standards across the whole of the European Union?

My Lords, that is exactly right. The enforceability of regulations in this field, as in others, is vital. Given the levels of concern and the differences in view, it is particularly vital in this field. It was necessary to have European labelling regulations. However, it is also desirable that those regulations are absolutely and clearly enforceable.

My Lords, given the international nature of the food trade and the fact that manufactured foods in particular come from all over the world, are the Government satisfied that the international arrangements outside Europe for segregation of GM and non-GM foods, and therefore for traceability, are in place to make the EU regulations work if they are put in place?

My Lords, the European regulations can deal only with products imported into the EU. We believe that the bulk of the regulations proposed by the Council of Ministers will be enforceable on imports as well as on anything produced within the EU. Clearly I cannot answer for the regimes in other countries for products not imported into the EU. I have already pointed out the deficiencies in enforceability of some of the regulations, which I regret. However, I again stress the importance of labelling requirements which can enable European consumers to make a choice.

My Lords, will the new labelling be similar to that for food currently displayed in supermarkets and elsewhere? Huge signs everywhere proclaim "organic this" and "organic that". However, looking very closely at the list of ingredients, one often sees a little asterisk which says that it contains "permitted non-organic products". Surely a product cannot be organic if it contains non-organic products. How will that be checked and traced in the new GM food labelling?

My Lords, the organic standards allow a minimum level of certain non-organic presence. In the case of the proposed GM rules, there will be a threshold for GM allowed in products advertised as not being GM products. That is primarily on the basis of traceability and enforceability of those rules and regulations. It is not an attempt to undermine the status of organic or non-GM products; nor is it an attempt to allow such products in by the backdoor.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will repeat a Statement from another place on the EU summit.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

"(1) It shall be the principal duty of OFCOM, in carrying out their functions—

(a) to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters; and

(b) in that context, to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets;

and to do so where appropriate by promoting competition.

(1A) Where it appears to OFCOM, in relation to the carrying out of any of their functions under Chapter 1 of Part 2, that the requirement specified in subsection (1)(a) conflicts with the requirement specified in subsection (1)(b), they may give priority to the requirement specified in subsection (1)(b)."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 14. In doing so, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on his arrival as a solo act on the Front Bench.

Following constructive discussions with Ministers and officials, the precise wording of the original amendment has been somewhat adapted to accommodate legitimate concerns relating to connectivity. I am personally satisfied that this revised amendment represents no diminution whatever in the principle of a clear hierarchy of duties favouring the concerns of the citizen when at variance with the imperatives of the market place. We have all worked hard to future-proof this legislation. I believe that the amendment will help to safeguard the interests of the citizen irrespective of changes in market power in the years to come. Read in conjunction with the public interest plurality test, the subject of an amendment likely to be debated next week, this amendment represents the closest I believe we can come to achieving reform of a regulated market environment—which, as I read it, was the all but unanimous view expressed on all sides in Committee.

As for Amendment No. 14, it is fair to say that the broad view of the Committee was that we should hold the feet to the fire of those legal experts who believe that there is no place for "citizen" in the legislation. I have no idea what the outcome of that element of debate is likely to be, but the Romans discovered two thousand years ago that it is a valuable word. We should cling on to it as long as we can. I sincerely hope that the Minister, in his reply, will do all in his power to find room for a word that far and away best expresses the community of interests that we discussed in Committee. I beg to move.

My Lords, I should point out that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 2.

My Lords, I support the amendment. I also associate myself with the general welcome to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in his new role. It comes as something of a culture shock after dealing with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone; it is a little like being invited to tea by Lady Penelope and finding Tony Soprano waiting for you when you arrive. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Minister will address himself to his new task with the open-minded flexibility for which we have come to know him in his long-standing role in the Whips' Office.

The amendment is deep in the philosophy of the Bill. The pre-legislative scrutiny committee came to the conclusion that, although many of the Bill's proposals to inject vigorous competition into the industry were welcome, there was a need for balance that did not and would not exist unless responsibilities were laid down in the specific duties of Ofcom to protect the rights of the citizen.

The amendment would take nothing away from the desired objective of the Prime Minister and the No. 10 policy unit to create a dynamic regime for the communications industry, but it would remind us that the very reason we have a Communications Bill rather than leaving matters simply to competition and enterprise legislation is that communications is different. It properly redresses the balance that makes communications different, and so would make the Bill all the better for its insertion.

My Lords, I support the amendment. Those of us who served on the Joint Committee tabled a considerable number of amendments in Committee that really covered all the matters we felt had not previously been dealt with adequately by the Government. I am sure that the Minister, whom I too welcome to his new position, will be glad to see that on this occasion far fewer amendments have been tabled in the names of the group that has been described as the "Gang of Four"—those of us from different parts of the House serving on the Joint Committee.

The amendments that remain are those that we all feel are still important. The fact that we are narrowing our field of fire may indicate to other Members of the House who have not followed the Bill in quite so much detail that there are still a number—quite a small number—of major issues to which we attach importance. It is on that basis that support the amendment.

I want to make a couple of other points with reference to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who spoke in Committee on the relevant group of amendments; at that stage, the amendment was grouped with others. She said that accepting the amendment would make "no legal difference whatever", and went on:

"I will resist it, because it would only confuse and not simplify".

If it was going to make no legal difference, I am not quite sure why she was so determined on that occasion to resist it. Almost everyone else who spoke felt that, far from causing confusion, the amendment would make much clearer what Parliament thought were the principal objectives, and would therefore be helpful.

The noble Baroness also suggested that "citizens" should not be used because it was,

"invariably bound up with the concept of nationality".—[Official Report, 29/4/03; cols. 594–95.]

Again, that argument was questioned. Amendment No. 14 today clarifies exactly what "citizen" means in the context of the Bill. Therefore I do not think that that can be a serious argument.

Bearing in mind the strongly held views of those of us who served on the Joint Committee, the widely held views expressed on the previous occasion by Members from all parts of the Committee, and the amendments that have now been made to try to deal with at least one of the points made, I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment.

My Lords, the situation is very hopeful. What stands out in my mind from Committee is that comments made in the first two debates—the second was on an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, on public service broadcasting—were crucial to the success—indeed, I would argue the actual viability—of the legislation.

Three issues predominated: first, the impossibility of co-equality, which is not mentioned in the Bill but is nevertheless glaringly implicit in the Government's previously revised Clause 3(1); secondly, the crucial importance of giving Ofcom a principal duty, right up front, to consider the "public (the citizen) interest"; and. thirdly, the growing recognition that what is distinctive about British broadcasting, contributing to its original and continuing pre-eminence globally, is the enshrined concept of public service broadcasting. I hope that what I have heard—that we are not able to vote on the amendment—is wrong. That would be a great disappointment to many noble Lords. We very much want Amendment No. 1 to be agreed to.

This time, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and his colleagues have tabled an amendment of even more compelling substance. I am sure that it will get even greater support from both sides of the House. He and his colleagues from the pre-legislative committee—I say this not as one of them, but as a groupie for that system and what it has produced—are to be warmly congratulated on the considerable efforts they have put into arguing the case for this and other changes to the Bill prior to Report. I have very little doubt that we shall all have cause to be grateful to the noble Lord in the years ahead. I wholeheartedly support the amendment.

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment before us today, as, indeed, I did when it was discussed in Committee. However, I did not speak on this amendment at that stage because I was not sure whether or not it was unnecessary.

The amendments have, as it were, been improved by Amendment No. 14, which is, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, meant to deal with the then Minister's objection to the use of the word "citizen". But I understand that the main argument for these amendments combined is to ensure that Ofcom will have concern not only for the economic considerations of the interests of the consumer and the way that competition can assist the consumer but also for the interests of the individual—the citizen, if one likes to call him that—in terms of the quality of what is provided and especially in terms of the public service obligations, which were emphasised by my noble friend Lord Puttnam and others elsewhere in the debates on the Committee stage.

However, I am torn between supporting the amendment and, on the other hand, feeling that perhaps it is not necessary. Clause 3(1) sets out two duties. The first comes before the second because, of course, one must come before the other if two duties are set forth. But no distinction is made between the duty to further the interests of consumers and so on, which happens to be in Clause 3(1)(a), and the duty to further the interests of the community as a whole in relation to communication matters. I do not know what the second one means unless it is to favour quality and public service obligations. Therefore, I believe that, as the Bill stands, the obligations of Ofcom go beyond that of economic concerns, and I rather doubt whether the persistence of my noble friend Lord Puttnam and others on this matter is really necessary.

My Lords, I, for one, could not disagree more strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has just said. Before I start my intervention, which will be very short, I want to say that I was not sure what prompted the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, to find herself in a hopeful position. If it is a hopeful position, I do not share it with her at present and I have no prospect of doing so unless or until I hear that the Government are prepared to move on this amendment.

I, for one, regard the amendment as being of paramount importance. I do not really mind about the verbiage attaching to it—whether one is talking about the "customer" or the "consumer" or about the "market" or the other word for it. I have been persuaded as to the importance of the amendment by two speakers on the far side of the House. The first is the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who wishes to provide Ofcom with an unambiguous basis from which to address even the most complicated issues which will come within its remit. I do not believe that it can be put more clearly than that and I accept it entirely.

The other source which persuaded me to see the light was, oddly enough, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who explained in words that I fully understood just how difficult the position of Ofcom would be. She said:

"The Bill in its totality delivers for both consumers and citizens".—[Official Report. 29/4/03; col. 594.]

Some people prefer the word "markets" to "consumers"; I do not mind which it is. She then went on to admit that balancing and reconciling the duties might well leave Ofcom with a very difficult task. I have no doubt about the truth of that. She made it very clear. She was able to offer to Ofcom only what she called "overarching principles". I am not sufficiently familiar with what "overarching principles" are to be sure that they would be of any great comfort or help to Ofcom when meeting these difficult problems. I believe that the position of Ofcom would be not unlike that of those rather odd gymnasts who nowadays precede all BBC news programmes, cavorting about on our screens without any particular purpose and from time to time finding themselves in what seem to me to be extremely uncomfortable positions. However, I do not believe that we should even consider the possibility of leaving Ofcom in such an appalling, distorting and uncomfortable situation.

In reality, such a balancing act, if it can be called that, by the Government is itself a slight deception. I believe the Government must be well aware that the forces of the market are such that 99 times out of 100 the real pressure of short-term demands, with the full support of the media moguls, would be more than sufficient to win the day. Supporters of the amendment fear that that position will be infinitely weakened by the pressures that the market and those who control the media—the moguls of television and other media—will be able to marshal against it.

The consumer and the citizen are two sides of the same coin. All of us are both from time to time, but the consumer will almost always take a short-term point of view. In our time, we badly need reinforcement for the long-term view. I submit that the amendment would give Ofcom the necessary basis from which to view its and our problems. I very much hope that the amendment will be accepted. If the Government do not accept it or move substantially towards it and if the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam—once again, I acknowledge readily our indebtedness to him—is not satisfied, I hope that he will support the amendment in the Lobby. I shall certainly follow him with the absolute certainty that I am right to do so.

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Puttnam. The word "ambiguity" lies at the heart of our concerns—and not only of the famous "Gang of Four". Nine Peers from all sides of the House spoke during the Committee stage and all were convinced that the original formulation was mined with ambiguity. I believe that there is now a great opportunity to exorcise this legitimate anxiety and to rid ourselves of it once and for all.

Secondly, I hope that your Lordships will fully support and champion that fine word and state of "citizen". It has a lengthy and distinguished pedigree.

My Lords, as all your Lordships are now fully aware, Clause 3 goes to the heart of the operation of Ofcom. I want to take us back to something that the noble Lord, Lord Currie, said at Second Reading:

"Ofcom needs some freedom of manoeuvre to carry out its duties in the interests of all consumers and citizens, in a proportionate way".—[Official Report, 25/3/03; col. 683.]

That said, there is a need for clarity, and some considerable debate took place in Committee in your Lordships' House concerning the fact that this part of Clause 3 was riddled with ambiguity.

We support the amendment because we believe that it gives clarity to the Bill. I refer briefly to another place, where my honourable friend the Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Mr John Whittingdale, questioned whether only the interests of consumers should be given primacy or whether that should be extended further to cover the interests of citizens more generally. He gave the example of public service broadcasting, which, as he noted, is in the national interest, although only some may wish to consume it.

The amendment does not diffuse the need to promote competition, where appropriate. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that the amendment makes no legal difference. Nevertheless, I believe that it negates ambiguity, simplifying and clarifying the principal objectives.

As to the definition of the word citizen, I agree with my honourable friend John Whittingdale, who said in another place that when we are talking about promoting the interests of citizens, we are talking about the national interest. The Minister was concerned about the use of the word citizen, when it was debated in Committee. I refer him to a speech, "Progressive Politics Maturing", made by the Prime Minister last week to the Fabian Society. The Prime Minister made several references to the citizen; I will quote only two. He referred to

"rebuild[ing] civil society around a new contract between citizen and state based on responsibilities as well as rights",

but also to public services as

"bind[ing] society together in collective action, citizens as well as consumers".

The word citizen is very much a part of our vocabulary; it is time we accepted it into our law. Amendment No. 14 does just that.

My Lords, I declare an interest as Chairman of Ofcom, and I should like to speak from that perspective. I was appointed just under a year ago to this position. We have been preparing Ofcom over this period, and have consulted widely with organisations that represent the public interest and with companies regulated by Ofcom in the telecoms and broadcasting fields—all of whom have expressed support for the concept of the consumer/ citizenship duality at the heart of the Bill as currently drafted. Ofcom has spoken little about the substance of the Bill, and that is because it is for Parliament to decide what Ofcom is to do and how that is to be done. We will seek to work within whatever remit Parliament decides to give us.

I made only one contribution on Second Reading, but I speak of these general duties today, because they can fundamentally determine the nature of Ofcom's duties and operations. This clause has been debated much more than others, and rightly so. It sets the fundamental architecture. During the debate the clause has changed significantly, and for the better. The general duties have been simplified—as the joint scrutiny committee recommended—from 15 separate duties to an overarching one. The Government's draftsmen have helped to reflect in those general duties what we as lay people refer to as the citizen interest, although not expressed in those words.

The dual concept of the citizen/consumer has been at the heart of the appointments to the Ofcom board, in the selection of its senior management, and in the nascent processes that we are putting in place. The Ofcom board reflects a wide and appropriate range of experience, to regulate in the interest of both the consumer and the citizen. Although I am best known as an economist and dean of a business school, I also believe passionately in the interests of citizens and the role of the community as a whole. My work as a trustee of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust and its commitment to diversity and plurality attest to that. These issues are fundamental to the role of the citizen: plurality, impartiality, high quality, diversity, and effective support for democratic discourse are critical outputs of our society.

I and the rest of my board regard it as a crucial part of our remit to nurture and cherish those values. We are confident that we can work well within the general duties that the Bill now gives us. If the Bill is passed, one of our first tasks will be to undertake a major statutory review of public service broadcasting with a view, as the Bill puts it,

"to maintaining and strengthening the quality of public service television broadcasting in the United Kingdom".

That is an immense responsibility; we shall discharge it with the utmost seriousness.

I do not presume to comment on the technical or legal drafting merits of the amendments moved by the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam, Lord Crickhowell, Lord Hussey, and Lord McNally. I will say, but only as a compliment, that between them, they have many parliamentary miles on the clock. Their amendments allow us to have a good debate about this vital issue.

It is essential that the Government listen carefully to the points made this afternoon. I am sure that they will. I also hope that in responding, the Government do not so far change matters as to distort the fundamental architecture of Ofcom. That architecture has been two and a half years in the preparation. No doubt, there is room for some changes. but it is not the time to pull out foundation stones when the Bill is almost complete—otherwise, the law of unintended consequences might kick in with a vengeance. 1 hope, therefore, that the Government can strike that balance, for this clause sets the fundamentals that drive all from this point forward.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he put on his economist's hat rather than his Ofcom hat, and agree that the concept of citizen is fundamentally different from that of consumer?

My Lords, I fully accept that, and that distinction is fully reflected in the drafting of the Bill.

My Lords, I must start by acknowledging the care that has gone into the preparation of these amendments. I also acknowledge the strong feelings that have been expressed in the House, both in Committee and today. I intend to respond in a positive spirit to the thinking behind the amendment.

We could be led a bit astray if we were to spend too much time talking about the words "citizen", "consumer" and "community". The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, started off badly by saying that he was indifferent as to whether we talked about consumers or markets, and then, interestingly, said something with which I agree:

"the consumer and the citizen are two sides of the same coin".

It is not our intention—nor is it in the English language—to equate consumers with markets. The word that I have always used, in 50 years with the Labour Party, is that we have to be on the side of the "punters". I think everyone understands that. However, "consumers" is not the same as businesses in the market.

I will continue to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton's speech, much of which I agree with, so that he may intervene on all that I say. Certainly, "consumers" is not the same as the market, in the sense that it is not the same as the businesses in the market "those who control the media", or, as he went on to say "the moguls". "Consumers" is not a doppelgänger for the wicked and self-seeking market, which some people in the Chamber seem to fear.

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his courtesy. I will briefly explain myself. The point I had in mind, even if I did not make it clearly, was the habit of the market to pinch or annexe the position of consumers, which is often taken, quite wrongly, to speak for the bulk of consumers.

My Lords, I agree with that, in particular with the words "quite wrongly". There is no sense in which our division between the phrase "community as a whole" and the word "consumer" should be taken to imply a subtle take-over by the market of the regulation which Ofcom is to undertake.

Let me respond to what I believe to be the thrust behind the amendment as well as to the wording of the amendment. We have always said that we want Ofcom to be a strong regulator. Its actions will be governed by the principles of good regulation and that is spelt out. But we should have no doubt that where intervention is necessary to further the interests of consumers and the community as a whole, Ofcom will have strong powers to act decisively. It will have powers to address market failures and it will have specific and well spelt-out powers in the Bill to deal with consumer issues. It will have the responsibility to uphold diversity and plurality and the powers to do so. It will also have the responsibility to preserve standards and the powers to do so.

In the past few days, I have read a great deal in the press about the dangers of dumbing down to American television standards. I have read in particular a vivid article by Professor Michael Tracey, which seeks to make the point about the Communications Bill. The difference between us and the United States relates not so much to ownership rules, but to the fact that they do not have content regulation. Content regulation is at the heart of what has been the feature of British broadcasting and it is maintained in this Bill.

However, I do not believe that anyone can say that because in some senses the Bill is deregulatory it is also soft. Where consumer interests and citizen interests—and I use that phrase in the widest sense that the Prime Minister was able to use it in his Fabian Society lecture—need to be protected, safeguarded and furthered, the Bill gives Ofcom very strong powers indeed. It will have concurrent powers with the Office of Fair Trading in respect of competition. It will uphold tough content requirements, including radio formats which ensure "localness" and quotas which will deliver regional and independent television production.

I turn to the difficult part about citizens. In daily life, we all use the word "citizens" in the way the amendment uses it. The Prime Minister used it last week and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, used it in her Reith lectures and in her speech at Second Reading. It is entirely legitimate that we should do so, but it is unfortunate that legislation cannot. In legislation, the word has a more restricted meaning which is confined to that of nationality. If we were to start to use "citizens" here, even if we define it as is done in Amendment No. 14, the definition is in conflict with all of the undefined uses of citizenship in all other legislation.

It is a trivial point, I hope, because surely when philosophers, the Prime Minister and everyone else are talking in ordinary life about citizens, they are talking about the community as a whole. And that is the phrase that we use in the Bill. I cannot for the life of me see what is lost by avoiding the difficulties of legislative language and using the phrase "community as a whole". Politically, it means the same as "citizen" is often taken to mean in non-legal contexts.

I understand that there are calls to give Ofcom stronger direction about when the interests of the community as a whole—or the interests in non-legal terms of citizens—should take precedence. I understand that unless we give it a clear and unambiguous steer, there are worries that we could lose all the things that all of us want to protect. Let us be clear that at the heart of today's debate is the broadcasting tradition with which we have grown up, which is admired across the world and of which we are proud. We are protecting that in this legislation.

We are not being stubborn on this point. We are open to proposals but we have to recognise that we do not want to cause more difficulties than we are trying to solve. On that point, we have to listen to what is said by the noble Lord, Lord Currie. So let us all agree that this is a matter of crucial importance, but we are concerned that we are trying to amend general duties to address a specific concern about one aspect of the Bill. We have to consider those general duties across the full range of Ofcom's responsibilities.

We need to strike a balance between giving direction to Ofcom in legislation and giving it flexibility to make some very complex decisions. We are trying to put into place a Bill that will last. That means that we can anticipate issues that will arise in the future.

The principle of saying that in some instances or in some parts of the Bill Ofcom should give precedence to the interests of the "community as a whole" has its attractions. In practice, it sets out in the most public way at the very beginning of the Bill that we are expecting Ofcom to act differently depending on the matters with which it is dealing. Consumer interests do not cover the whole range of Ofcom's activities. But I wonder whether that is what we really want. It does not meet our aim of having a converged regulator.

There are already occasions when issues are regulated across more than one part of the Bill; for example, conditional access or electronic programme guides. How can we give definitive guidance to deal with those issues? We cannot predict what others will arise, so I urge the House to be cautious about trying to put in place different overarching principles in the general duties.

I am not saying that we do not recognise the concerns expressed today and in Committee. But when we have analysed them, we believe that they concentrate on the issues that will rest not so much with Ofcom's board but with the content board. It is here that we need to put beyond doubt that the content board will act in the interests of the community as a whole. I want to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, by saying—

My Lords—

My Lords, if I may finish the sentence because it is a rather important sentence. I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, that I am willing and happy to take away the issue of how to give effect to what I know he wants by thinking again about the remit of the content board.

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend when he is winding up, particularly given the remark that he has made. I found it most encouraging. However, for the sake of those of us who may be involved with all kinds of legislation from time to time, is he saying that we all know what "citizen" means and we all know what we want to achieve, but it happens to be the case that when legislating we are not allowed to use the word "citizen" in our Acts of Parliament? Is that what he is trying to tell us? If so, I find it mystifying. given that the word and, as he said, the objective are perfectly clear. I do not want that to get in the way of what sounded like a positive response to my noble friend.

My Lords, no, I did not say that we cannot use the word in legislation; I said that we use it frequently in legislation in the context of nationality. To introduce the word "citizen" here to mean,

"all members of the public in the United Kingdom",

as in Amendment No. 14, sounds legitimate for this Bill, but it would conflict with the undefined use of "citizen" in all other legislation where its usage is restricted to nationality. It would cause all kinds of difficulty with other legislation.

My Lords, is my noble friend therefore saying that what one Parliament does with the word "citizen" binds the hands of future Parliaments in respect of a particular Bill?

My Lords, it is not a question of one Parliament or future Parliaments—no Parliament can bind its successors—it is a matter of consistency in the usage of language in legislation.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us who were on the pre-legislative scrutiny committee are not wholly happy about the power of the content board and the way in which it is weakened in some way? The idea of putting in a fundamental principle is related to future workings of the content board.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on his ministerial office. I am delighted to see him in his place. However, he seems to have omitted the concerns of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee and of the many amendments tabled in Committee about the content board. He is handing it all over to the content board.

My Lords, that is exactly why I am saying that, regarding these two amendments, we shall return to look at the remit of the content board. The intention is that there should be primary legislation—in other words that there should be government amendments at Third Reading. Without being drawn into the wider issues of the perceived weakness of the content board—and I recognise the Joint Committee's comments about that—we recognise that there needs to be some change in the remit of the content board, and that needs to be protected by primary legislation.

My Lords, I am concerned over two matters that were referred to by the Minister: first, the converged regulator, which is not as important as he believes, and secondly. the fact that if we use the term "citizen" we shall put a particular burden on the board of Ofcom, as opposed to the content machinery. That is welcome. I want the board to have a responsibility there.

My Lords, that is exactly what we shall take away to consider. If the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is now questioning the concept of a converged regulator, he is going back, not just to the beginnings of the Bill, but for at least two and a half years, and questioning the basis of Ofcom itself. As soon as one recognises the concept of a converged regulator, one has also to recognise that its responsibilities to protect the interests of the community as a whole have a subset. Although all consumers are members of the community as a whole, not all members of the community as a whole are consumers of telecommunications services. For that reason, one has to cover both.

The noble Lord, Lord Currie, was fair in his description of Clause 3(1). That should be read again. It gives due weight to both of those concepts. If further protection is required, then statutory amendments to the provisions for the remit of the content board—and I hope that my noble friend Lord Puttnam will agree, and take part in discussions—will be a good way to proceed. I hope that that point will influence the House. It represents much more important concerns than any difference that there might be between the "citizen" and the community as a whole.

My Lords, I do not wish to quibble with the Minister over words. However, the word "citizen" can define both the individual and the collective—whereas the phrase "community as a whole" could simply be a majority of the collective. They are quite different, both in law and as far as concerns Parliament.

Before making a final decision as to whether to divide the House, am I hearing a categorical affirmation from the Minister that the concerns that he has listened to during Second Reading and the whole of the Committee Stage will be met by the statutory use of the content board to enforce the intent of the present amendment?

My Lords, the noble Lord is asking for an "absolute assurance". Nobody ever asks for an assurance from Ministers, they always ask for an "absolute assurance". A number of different views have properly been expressed in debate this afternoon and in Committee. I cannot give an absolute assurance that all of those views will be accurately and fully reflected in any changes that we make to the remit of the content board. If we put our heads together and try, we could approach that nirvana.

My Lords, in order to strengthen the Government's will, and to take account of the fact that the issue is important—given the very strongly held views here—I beg to test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on the European Council, which I attended in Greece on 19th and 20th. tune.

"I should like to offer my thanks to Prime Minister Simitis and the Greek Government, who have conducted an effective presidency in a particularly difficult period.

"The European Council took delivery of the draft constitutional treaty prepared by the European convention under the expert chairmanship of Valery Giscard d'Estaing. We agreed that the draft is a good basis for starting the intergovernmental conference in October. The 10 countries joining the European Council will participate fully alongside the existing member governments. The aim is to conclude it in time for a new treaty to be signed after 1st May next year.

"The convention sets out clearly what Europe is for: its aims and objectives; the rights of its citizens; the powers and responsibilities of its institutions; and the way it takes forward its policies. It recognises expressly that what we want is a Europe of nations, not a federal super-state, and that issues to do with taxation, foreign policy, defence policy and our British borders will remain the prerogative of our national government and Parliament.

"The draft makes clear in the very first article that the Union has only those powers that the member states give it. It introduces a chair of the European Council to prepare and follow through the European Council agenda. It will bring an end to the present system of six-monthly presidencies, which is no longer feasible in a Union of 25. It will provide a greater role for national parliaments, which will be able to vet all new legislation and make the principle of subsidiarity work at the political level.

"There are of course areas where there is continuing negotiation: for example over enhanced co-operation; the structure of the presidency; and the role of qualified majority voting. But, above all, the new draft treaty offers the prospect of stability in the way that Europe works.

"I should like to pay tribute to the work done by Government Ministers and to other honourable Members for the contribution that they made to the work of the convention.

"In addition to the convention outcome, reflecting the work of its 200 members, Mr Giscard d'Estaing also referred to a minority report advanced in the convention, including by the right honourable Member for Wells, the representative of the Conservative Party. That report would turn the existing treaties into an association of states which would replace, and dismantle, the existing European Union.

"The European Council agreed a range of actions to secure our frontiers, to ensure better co-operation with third countries on migration issues and to enable us to take the action that we need to deal more effectively with asylum claims. Among the issues that we discussed is one on which we have been working closely with the European Commission and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The aim is to strengthen the protection of refugees in their regions of origin so that, in a crisis, it is possible to offer effective, accessible sanctuary to refugees closer to their homes.

"To test whether such a scheme can work we, with the support of the Commission, proposed pilot projects. These had widespread support. While the unanimity requirement in the Council prevented the idea from being specifically endorsed, this will not prevent the pilot projects from being taken forward by a number of member states, and the Commission will report back on them within the year.

"The Council discussed a paper by the EU's High Representative, Javier Solana, for an overall strategy in the field of foreign and security policy. He proposed a comprehensive approach to dealing with the global problems of poverty, terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction, stressing the importance of the relationship with the United States, the need to improve our military capability and the necessity in the last resort for pre-emptive military action.

"The Council endorsed a comprehensive plan for tackling the spread of weapons of mass destruction. This will be a particular theme of this week's ELI-US summit as we take forward our joint work on curbing the export of WMD. The summit will also focus on the trade and economic agenda, especially the need for a successful meeting of the WTO in Cancun, and foreign policy co-operation notably in the Middle East.

"President Chirac and I had proposed, following the G8 summit, that the EU should match the US by contributing up to one billion euros in 2004 to the Global Health Fund to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Although this had majority support, some member states objected and, because of the unanimity requirement, we could not secure agreement to this sum at the Council, but did agree that the European Union would determine the extent of its contribution at the pledging conference on 16th July.

"There was a strong focus at the meeting on the EU's relations with the wider world. Putting our support behind the Middle East peace process, we called on Hamas and other groups to declare a ceasefire and endorsed an urgent examination of the case for wider action against Hamas fund raising. We expressed serious concerns at aspects of the Iranian nuclear programme and our full support for the International Atomic Energy Authority in its effort to conduct a comprehensive examination of Iran's nuclear programme. We made clear that how Iran behaves on human rights, terrorism and the Middle East peace process is crucial to the future development of EU-Iran relations.

"Finally, we held a positive discussion about Iraq. The European Council affirmed the European Union's readiness to take part in the reconstruction of Iraq within the framework of UN Security Council Resolution 1483. We commissioned further work on the details of the help that the EU can provide.

"The Council took stock of the economic situation following the spring summit on economic reform. It set a clear agenda for action in line with the objectives, which Britain and a number of other member states have been advocating. The Council also endorsed the appointment of Jean-Claude Trichet as the next president of the European Central Bank, in accordance with the agreement reached during the last UK presidency.

"What is clear is that Europe at 25 nations will be very different from Europe at 15. In the coming years Europe will expand still further to welcome in Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and possibly others. Plainly, this means Europe must change the way it works. There are several areas where the convention proposes moving to qualified majority voting including on trade in services and the fight against terrorism, drugs and illegal immigration.

"However, we should not fear every extension of qualified majority voting as hostile to Britain. In some areas, we need QMV. The only reason we have any hope of achieving reform in the common agricultural policy is that decisions in the Agriculture Council are determined by QMV. It was thanks to QMV that we have opened up energy markets. If we want to drive through economic reform, liberalise markets and break down state subsidies, then in a Europe of 25 QMV on issues such as trade in services and mutual recognition of qualifications is essential for the British national interest. Britain needs Europe to work and, for Europe to work, it needs to change.

"However, that is not all that is different in a Europe of 25 or 30. These new nations joining the EU share, in many ways, the British perspective. They are firmly in favour of the transatlantic alliance. Freed from communism, they do not fear economic reform; they welcome it. Freed from subjugation by the former Soviet Union, central and eastern Europeans have no intention or desire to yield up the nationhood for which they have fought so hard. It is no surprise, therefore, that the convention so explicitly ruled out a European federal super-state.

"It is not only the new members that sign up to this vision of Europe. Increasingly, Europe knows that the focus for its economy and for its security must be outward, not inward. The danger for Britain is that, at the very time when Europe is moving closer to the view of Europe with which we are most comfortable, and which we can advocate so well, we lose the chance to take our proper place in Europe by fighting battles long since over and by turning away at the very point Europe is turning towards us. There are real battles of course: for example, over tax or defence. But they are battles that we can win.

"At this point in time, with Europe at a crucial point of evolution, this nation, Britain, has to have the confidence to stride forward. The next year will determine the shape of Europe, of which we are a member. There will be critical alliances to be made and choices to be faced. But I have no doubt that a Europe that now stretches from Finland and the Baltic states to the shores of the Aegean Sea, Cyprus and Malta is a Europe that should have Britain at its heart.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House. for repeating the Statement. Like him, I congratulate the Greek Government for their hard work in leading what was, by all accounts, a difficult summit. There were things to welcome: a renewed recognition of the transatlantic relationship; an admission that the fall of Saddam Hussein, in which the EU played no effective role, has paved the way to a better future for the Iraqi people; the acknowledgement—something not seen before in an EU communiqué—that coercive action may be needed in the case of nations seeking weapons of mass destruction; and support for the Aqaba declaration and the Middle East road map for peace. All this must give much satisfaction to the Prime Minister.

No doubt he and the noble and learned Lord also warmly share the endorsement in the communiqué of the personal commitment by President Bush to the search for peace in the Middle East. We share the concerns expressed about the threats posed by the nuclear programmes of Iran and North Korea. Do the Government support the current stand of the demonstrators in Iran against the Khatami regime?

Staying on international matters, will the noble and learned Lord explain why, in eight detailed pages of presidency conclusions pointing to a common European policy on asylum—something on which many on this side of the House have severe doubts—there is no mention of the Prime Minister's proposals for safe haven camps in third countries or transit camps in Europe outside the EU? Despite that, the Statement makes a virtue of qualified majority voting on illegal immigrants and suggests that that is the way to go.

Have those ideas now been dropped as the basis of EU action? Does that explain the candour of the Prime Minster's official spokesman, quoted in a newspaper this morning as saying,

"We've got ourselves into a bit of a bind on this one"?

Wherever we look at policy, the truth is becoming increasingly clear that the Prime Minister is making an embarrassing habit of "getting himself into a bind", particularly on European issues.

The signing of the accession treaty was historic, and the commitment to a wider accession process, involving Romania, Bulgaria and, in time, Turkey, is welcome. This subject will require detailed debate in your Lordships' House. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will indicate that he is keen that adequate time should be provided for this purpose.

Will the noble and learned Lord explain why common agricultural policy reform was. not on the summit agenda? Is it true that President Chirac threatened to invoke the Luxembourg compromise if ideas for reform were pressed? Do the Government agree that CAP reform is vital if Europe is going to give a fair deal to third world farmers? It is bitterly disappointing that yet another European summit has passed without any commitment to real reform of the CAP.

Let me turn now to the proposed European constitution. The presidency conclusions say that this was,

"a historic step in the direction of furthering the objectives of European integration."

However, the Government claim that it is just a "tidying-up exercise". Which is it? Since when does a "tidying-up exercise" set up a European president, transfer asylum and immigration policy to Brussels, establish a binding charter of fundamental rights, and open up new areas for the EU to expand its power without the approval of national parliaments? Does the noble and learned Lord accept that the constitution will change the way in which Britain is governed more fundamentally than a regional assembly in Humberside on which we have been promised a referendum? Can he confirm that, in the drafting of the constitution, most of the United Kingdom's proposed amendments were rejected? What does that say about the influence of the Prime Minister? Can the noble and learned Lord tell us whether the UK has dropped its objection to a European foreign minister? Can he say in what areas it has been decided to accept the abolition of national vetoes?

There is much that we on this side of the House want to see a positive EU do. We want to see the CAP reformed, as I said, and wider free trade. We want more progress on aviation and freedom in services such as insurance. We want a reversal of the tide of regulation that grinds down Europe's competitiveness. We want a Europe flexible enough to deal with enlargement and able to face the challenges of high unemployment, stagnant manufacturing and ageing populations let down by failed policies on pensions. That is our vision of where the European agenda should lie. Driving further integration will do nothing to advance that agenda, but it will further dilute the voice of the United Kingdom in arguing for reform.

The Prime Minister has achieved all too little in Europe in the past six years. If he weakens Britain's voice, he will achieve even less. Adoption of a new European constitution is seen as a major event by every government in Europe. It could be a turning point in our nation's history. Fatuous spin that it is all a minor tidying-up exercise fools no-one. On this great question, whatever our conflicting views may be, surely we can agree that the Government should have the courage of their convictions and put their case to a referendum.

At Maastricht Mr John Major, as Prime Minister, secured an inalienable right for the British people to vote on the question of the euro. Is the Prime Minister incapable of matching the influence of Mr Major, or is it the case that the Prime Minister believes that the British people cannot be trusted to decide the issues for themselves?

My Lords, I too thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made in another place. I echo what he said about the Greek Government's effective handling of the summit. I add the thanks of noble Lords in many parts of the House for the remarkable work done by Members of this House on the constitutional convention, as well as for that done by Members of another place. We have great reason to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and my noble friend, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, for the distinguished role they played. We are grateful to them.

It is rather a pity that the Government did not express their appreciation of the remarkable achievement represented by the draft constitutional treaty, whether or not one agrees with every line in it. To bring 15 member states and another 10 candidate states to agreement on such a detailed document and produce agreement that it should be presented as the draft upon which the IGC will base its negotiations is, by any standard, a remarkable achievement. I also regret that the Prime Minister did not think it right to mention the substantial deepening of democracy in the EU represented by the draft constitution.

For lack of time, I shall not go through it all. I shall mention a couple of remarkable examples. One is the great extension of co-decision making in the European Parliament to another 35 areas currently dominated by the Council. The second is the substantial proposal to open up the legislative General Affairs Council, something for which many Members of this House and of another place have asked for over 30 years. It is worth mentioning that acceptance of the idea of open public discussion in the European Council in its legislative mode is something for which we have waited a long time. It represents a step forward in democracy. Finally, in that context, I must say that many of us are pleased to see that there is now a voluntary exit clause. That means that Euro-sceptics can come out into the open and declare their true position, represented by the minority report at the convention, which is that they want to get out of the European Union and have nothing more to do with it. It is high time that people stopped disguising that view and expressed it clearly and firmly as an alternative to be put to the British people.

In that context, I shall say a couple of things about the broader international issues in the Statement, which brings together many aspects of policy, not just the draft constitution. On these Benches, we are glad to see that the Government's pilot project for asylum did not receive unanimous support from the rest of the European Union. It was always an extremely troublesome proposal. It had about it all the hallmarks of the dangerous "safe havens" policy of the 1990s, which, as we know, led to disastrous outcomes at Srebrenica and elsewhere. To many of us, it also represented a serious invasion of the human liberties of many of our fellow citizens. We are glad that it has been reduced to a pilot project, and many of us hope that the pilot project will not get off the ground.

I must also ask a question about the Middle East. I welcome what the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said about EU co-operation in the Middle East road map, which is crucial. We fully support the argument that there should be a serious investigation of the financing of Hamas. Will the Prime Minister and the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House echo the statement made this morning by Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, that, alongside attempts to deal directly with Hamas and bring it into negotiations, there is the question of whether targeted assassination is a sensible policy?

I have further questions for the noble and learned Lord the Lord President of the Council. Given the relative sketchiness of the report and the Government's decision up to now that they do not want a referendum on the constitutional convention, will the Government consider publishing a White Paper, setting out their position on the clauses in the draft constitution that they do not fully accept and explaining why they took that decision? That would enable all of us to have a more informed and intelligent discussion than we can have without either a referendum or a White Paper.

The Statement is marked by a great deal of timidity towards the Euro-sceptics. Those of us who are Euro-enthusiasts—we make no bones about that on these Benches—desperately want the information that will enable us to conduct a full and proper discussion with our fellow citizens. We believe that that will show that there is much more support for the European Union than is exemplified by many of our newspapers. We cannot have that unless we have the information from the Government and willingness on the part of the Government to engage openly in the discussion.

I conclude with two other questions. The appointment of a foreign minister brings together the present roles of the High Representative and the Commissioner for External Relations. What is the Government's view about that? Do they recognise that it should give the EU a substantially more influential voice in world affairs? Will the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House agree to support strongly the proposal for transparency in the Council of Ministers when it meets to discuss legislative matters and the extension of co-decision making to the European Parliament on the whole range of European legislation?

My Lords, I am grateful in substantial part for what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby.

The noble Lord was right to draw to our attention the importance attached to the continuance of the transatlantic relationship, to which the Government are firmly committed. He was right to point out that, despite a good deal of questioning, a good deal of cynicism and a good deal of scepticism, many people believe that the action in Iraq, in which our Government were fully involved, was fully justified. I take the noble Lord's point about coercive action, subject always, of course, to the norms of international law, about which he and I agree. I agree with him on the importance—the absolute necessity—of President Bush's personal commitment to the Middle East peace process. Again, there were those who scoffed when the announcement was made at Hillsborough, but I must say that, considering what Secretary Powell and President Bush have delivered so far, no one, I think, could fairly accuse them of lack of commitment and energetic effort.

The noble Lord asked me for the Government's view on the demonstrations in Iran. One must be careful in appearing to interfere in the affairs of other states. Sometimes, it is counter-productive. I think it is fair to say that there is a distinct reform movement among younger people in Iran. Many of us would welcome that. It is foolish to think of any society, least of all Iran, as a monolith. If there are optimistic signs, a tactful approach is more likely to succour them than undue use of the megaphone.

The pilots have not been dropped. We hope to get agreement on safeguarding refugees nearer to their home countries. Most refugees do not wish to be thousands of miles away in countries where the culture, the language. the traditions, the history, are different.

We want CAP reform. The wheel of history turns quite slowly. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, frequently, on this side of the Despatch Box, saying how keen his government were to have CAP reform, and we have not brought it about. The important point is that had CAP reform been on the agenda, because of the unanimity rule, we would have got nowhere. There is a significant prospect—I would describe it as an imperative—that at the Agriculture Council we can take this forward. I agree entirely with what was said about poorer countries. They will never manage to improve themselves significantly without CAP reform. But of course in the Agriculture Council, it is QMV not unanimity.

The noble Lord referred to "tidying up". I am not quite sure where he got that from. If one looks at the text, 75 per cent is drawn from existing documents and plainly, in the nature of things, if we expand by 10 from 15 to 25 members, there will need to be some modification of arrangements.

The noble Baroness paid well-deserved tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, and the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. I hope it does not seem patronising but I know that the Prime Minister has been extremely appreciative and congratulatory of the role they have played. As the noble Baroness pointed out, this offers us a deepening of democracy. There should be greater national parliamentary scrutiny of legislation. We have debated this issue to general unanimity in your Lordships' House.

On the Middle East peace process, it is essential that we pursue those who finance Hamas. I do not believe there is any difference between Her Majesty's Government and the comments made by US Secretary of State Powell this morning. The noble Baroness also put asked a question about a White Paper, which I am not authorised to answer directly. I shall simply indicate that I will take that forward to see whether it finds favour elsewhere. There is some virtue in going through the articles, finding out what type objections might be and seeing what support there may be for some of them.

On the question of a foreign minister, the terminology has been rather abused. There is no suggestion that there should be an EU state at the United Nations. But there are prospects for enhancing EU representations—not representation—at the UN. That will depend on the rules of the United Nations. There is no question of a foreign minister for the EU or an EU state in the Security Council.

I should like to conclude with one general point. This was welcomed by the Prime Minister as a basis for further activity. There is going to be an inter-governmental council. That will take the best part of a year. What we are dealing with here is not a mosaic text inscribed on tablets of stone. We are dealing with proposals for the way forward.

The noble Baroness lastly said that this was a rather timid approach. I do not believe it is. The next year will determine the shape of Europe of which we are a member.

"I have no doubt that a Europe that stretches from Finland and the Baltic States to the shores of the Aegean Sea, Cyprus and Malta, is a Europe which should have Britain at its heart."

I do not see any timidity in that direct quotation from the final paragraph of the Prime Minister's Statement.

My Lords, I wonder whether I might just press my noble friend a little more about his reference to pilot projects on asylum. As I understand it, there were two different proposals which might conic under that description.

The first is that there should be centres near asylum seekers' countries of origin, where people fleeing persecution could find safety, pending a decision by the UNHCR as to whether they qualify under the Geneva Convention and pending help by UN FICR to enable them to settle in other countries, possibly even in western Europe. The second proposal was that asylum seekers reaching western Europe would be sent to a holding centre back in the area they came from and that a decision would then be made.

Those are two rather different proposals. One is finding safety near the country from which they are fleeing. The other is being sent back from western Europe to a distant region, so they are shuttled backwards and forwards. Would my noble friend say a little more about which of those two proposals would be subject to a pilot project? Also, what was the feeling of the summit in terms of supporting one or other of them?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. We did make progress on our initiative on zones of protection for refugees. It was agreed that member states should work on proposals for better protection of refugees near their regions of origin. I have to say to my noble friend that we are at the very early stages of dialogue. This dialogue will be with the commission, UNHCR, as he correctly referred to it, and other member states, to establish pilot projects in the autumn. Therefore I cannot give my noble friend any further details on that at present.

My Lords, on the common agricultural policy, can the noble and learned Lord say whether the Government have in mind a timetable for the ending of export subsidies from Europe? This has been dragging on for many years. Surely it is urgent to bring it to a conclusion.

As regards the Middle East peace process, will the European Union use its collective weight to help to break the cycle of atrocities and reprisals of which we have seen too much? Secondly, will the EU pay attention to the fine details of monitoring progress towards the road map and removing obstacles to it?

My Lords, I cannot give a finite timetable for the ending of the CAP or any particular part of it. I wish I could but I have to be candid with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.

I believe the European Union is fully committed to the Middle East peace process. It is a member of the quartet which was the author of the road map. I have no doubt that monitoring of progress will be essential. The difficulty is that, as we found in other contexts closer to home, one party says they will not do something unless the other party does something first. That party then says exactly the same thing. That is not tolerable. It is grossly irresponsible to the people who live in that part of the world. They all want what we want: an opportunity for a decent and ordered life and the hope that their children will have a better one.

My Lords, I thank the Lord President both for his Statement and for his personal remarks about me and my noble friend Lord Tomlinson. The noble and learned Lord says that the new member countries in the enlarged union are not ready to give up their nationality. As Scots and Welsh we know that even quite close relationships with other unions may keep alive a sense of nationality for centuries. Does he recognise that they are as little anxious as we are to give up democracy in joining the European Union? The members of the convention felt that the strengthening of the democratic basis and legitimacy of the Union are a vital part of the advancement of the effectiveness of the European Union. This is not just by national parliaments holding governments to account, but through proposals to elect the President of the Commission, the openness of the legislation council and the greater authority and involvement of the European Parliament. In the consent of the peoples of Europe must lie the key to ensuring that it can speak with one voice, both in purely domestic European affairs and in regard to third countries.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is absolutely right. I take perhaps an example that might chime in both our minds—that is, the Czech Republic, which before 1939 was a democratic, highly successful, well-industrialised country. After 1945, until very recently, it had no experience of domestic democracy at all. What the noble Lord said entirely coincides with the theme of the Prime Minister's observations. Those who have struggled for so long domestically in conditions that we can hardly guess at are hardly likely then to give up voluntarily and willingly their hard-earned freedoms. The noble Lord is absolutely right in that context.

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House agree that both this meeting and the convention were opportunities to look at what powers, now in the hands of the EU, could be handed back to member states? Has that opportunity been taken in any single respect? If not, are we not faced with a situation where at every meeting there is further integration and the powers of this Parliament are further eroded? Sooner or later, if we go on in this direction we shall cease, in any meaningful sense, to be an independent country.

My Lords, I disagree with what the noble Lord said. That will not come as a surprise to him. Ultimately, one gets to a stage where one has a deep, even philosophical, certainly political, divide. There are many here—I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—who believe, not that we should drift with the tide of European history, but that we should be controlling as far as we can the way the boat goes.

If one has that view, if one welcomes the accession of the further 10 countries—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gave some of their names—it is a roll-call of 20th century history for people who had virtually no democracy, which is their right. I believe that we have many virtues in this country—one of them occasionally may be found to be compromised; I hope so—that we can offer. As many of us travel around Europe and talk to foreign Ministers and parliamentarians, they wish us to be there. They envy us our arrangements. They want to learn from them. I return to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan: there are opportunities here for a reinvigoration of the European institutions because of a two-way transfusion of increased democracy internally in the institutions and increased parliamentary scrutiny domestically. I have no fears about that and I hope that the rest of the country shares that confidence.

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for making the Statement. Is he aware that some people—indeed, perhaps many people—believe that the draft constitutional treaty smacks not of a federal constitution but of a unitary constitution? Will he comment on that?

In relation to the chair of the European Council, which the Statement says is to prepare and follow through the European Council agenda, will he or she be a chairman or a president? If he or she is to be a chairman, how will that relate to the president of the Commission? Will the president of the Commission be senior to the chairman of the Council or what? How will this new appointment of permanent full-time president square with the Prime Minister's Cardiff speech in which he called for a strong, full-time president? Mr Hain said that we wanted a president of the Union to be someone who could speak to the United States for Europe on equal terms. That does not seem to be borne out in the Statement made by the Prime Minister today.

What is likely to be the status of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights which at Nice the British Government said—indeed, it was laughed out of court by the British Government—would not form part of any treaty. Indeed, it was described by Mr Vaz as having no more relevance than the Beano. Can the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President of the Council, say what will really happen because it is now part of the proposed treaty? Have we got or will we have a Beano as a part of the new constitution? Finally, will there he debates in this House and in another place in advance of the intergovernmental conference in October and in the future?

My Lords, taking the last point first, obviously my noble friend Lord Stoddart, having much more parliamentary experience than I, will recognise that it is not for me to determine that. It is for the usual channels. When the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked me a similar question, I indicated that these are very important issues. We are an important House of Parliament, although we are not the superior one. Other things being equal, it seems to me that as a matter of principle we ought to seek to get decent time for these debates.

Although I do not have the text before me, I think that Mr Vaz said that—

He spoke about the Beano.

I know what he said. I am just about to explain it to your Lordships' entire satisfaction. Without incorporation of the charter as part of our own domestic law, I think Mr Vaz was seeking to say that it would have no more legislative or legal power than a copy of the Beano. Perhaps I would not necessarily have used quite that phrase myself, but there we are.

My noble friend Lord Stoddart asked about the president. Monsieur Giscard d'Estaing explained on innumerable occasions—once to me personally—that there is no French word for "chairman". There is one in Welsh, which proves that it is an infinitely more civilised language—"cadeirydd". At the moment, it is not possible to have the rotating presidency. I am bound to say—with one bound being free at last—that it always seemed rather strange that one had a rotating presidency with a country, not an individual, taking over the presidency every six months. Most organisations would find it difficult to run in that way and, as the Prime Minister said in his Statement, for 25 it is quite impossible. Therefore, it is prudent to have a presiding office—that is the word It am looking for—to preside over the deliberations.

Or a speaker.

My Lords, I hear my noble friend Lord Barnett as always helping me by urging that they might call the position a speaker or a Lord President or even a Lord Chancellor. I know that he is just being mischievous.

Or even a Wolsey.

My Lords, or even a Wolsey. To return to my earlier point, this is a possible way forward. It is a basis for the IGC, which will not report for a year. In the nature of things, if we are to have intensive deliberations for virtually a year, many of these questions will not be answered until that time.

My Lords, can my noble and learned friend give some indication as to whether any progress has been made and, if so, how much and in specific terms what, on the matter of the acquis communautaire? My noble and learned friend will be as aware as I am, or possibly even more so, that until the recent conference, the position has been that new joiners to the Community have been required to accede to the whole question of acquis communautaire. For example, countries such as Poland would undertake not to disturb existing arrangements by virtue of which the new member states assume all the responsibilities agreed up to that time by the remainder of the Community. That is my first point.

My second point concerns more particularly the common agricultural policy. Is there any firm undertaking, or any glimmer of hope that the proceedings between now and the next conference will result in drastic changes to the common agricultural policy? The continued imposition of that policy means that this country, among others, pays far more into Community funds than it really needs. It may well be that these issues have been solved. The House would be much obliged if my noble and learned friend could give an indication that, even if they have not been solved, specific steps are being taken between now and the intergovernmental conference to alleviate them. Otherwise, there is bound to be a profound scepticism that anything—but anything—at all will change.

My Lords, on my friend's second point, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I cannot give a categorical assurance or a timetable about the changes that are required. I do not think that there is a single Member of your Lordships' House who does not dissent from the proposition that change is long overdue. I come back to my point: if the issue is dealt with in the agriculture council there is much more hope—because of QMV—than the unanimity rule would have offered in the present session, which has just finished.

On acquis communautaire, of course any new country joining the European Union looks for transitional arrangements where appropriate. I do not see any difficulty in that. After all, Turkey, which at the moment is simply a candidate country and not an accession candidate, has made quite significant changes to its own domestic arrangements to meet EU standards.

My Lords, as regards the constitutional treaty, which will of course replace a whole clutch of other treaties that are going on the bonfire, is it not important to stress in the public debate that this new constitutional treaty arises from a convention on which we have a large input from national Parliaments; that is, from the voice of the public in Europe. That is a quite different situation from the past. It may be fully understood in Westminster, but I really doubt whether it is fully comprehended in the country.

My Lords, that is an extremely important point and one with which I perhaps did not deal sufficiently when I was speaking in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, about the reinvigoration of domestic parliaments as well as the reinvigoration of the institutions of the community. There has been a substantial input, not least from two Members of our own House. There has been a significant change of thinking. The final outcome so far, which is only a basis for the IGC, has benefited enormously and demonstrably by the input not least from parliamentarians from Westminster.

My Lords, perhaps I could briefly commend what the noble and learned Lord said vis-à-vis Iran. Our policy of critical but constructive support for major advances in democracy which have taken place there in the past eight years are in marked contrast to the American policy, which seems wholly counterproductive.

Briefly, building on what the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, just said, does the Minister accept that—and I go a good deal further than the noble Lord—for the vast majority of the people of this country the EU and all its works is a closed book—actually, no, it is a closed library of books.

The Minister talked about us having the confidence to stride forward. That sentiment rings here, in Whitehall, Westminster and among the chattering classes, but, for the vast majority of people, there is no confidence about striding forward. They are fearful of yielding sovereignty. There is a sense of going deeper and deeper into a mire from which we will never emerge with our traditional democracy attached.

So I simply say: either we have, as my noble friend Lady Williams says, a referendum, or—and I think second best—the Government really do try and communicate with the very ordinary citizen, not in the language of a traditional White Paper but in a studious attempt to present in language that he will understand and want to read, what are the key issues around this crucial turning point—as I think it is—in the history of European Union development.

My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's remarks about Iran. I was responding to the noble Baroness's particular proposition that there should be a White Paper. I think I answered appropriately by saying that I would take that idea forward to my colleagues. That does not exclude the national debate. The national debate is very important indeed. I could not agree more. The noble Lord spoke about a referendum being his first choice. There has only ever been one national referendum, which was in 1975. If we cherish parliamentary democracy, I think that we should be quite sparing in the use of referendums.

My Lords, could I—

My Lords, I am afraid that we have run out of time.

moved Amendment No. 2A:

Page 3, line 7, at end insert—

"( ) It shall be a further principal duty of OFCOM, in carrying out their functions, to further the purposes of public service broadcasting where relevant."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Deputy Speaker and to the Officers of the House for allowing me to rescue Amendment No. 2 on the Marshalled List in the form of what is now Amendment No. 2A. It was my own inadvertence—or lack of competence perhaps it is more truthful to say—which meant that Amendment No. 2 would fall because of its language if Amendment No. I was duly passed. The wording of manuscript Amendment No. 2A is indistinguishable, but, none the less, technically it means that the amendment survives; it can be debated; and, if necessary, voted upon.

I shall not keep your Lordships long because in Committee we had a debate of over an hour's length on a similar amendment also tabled in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady O'Neill and Lady Howe, my noble friend Lord McNally and myself. The House will remember that a dozen or so of your Lordships spoke, and all were in support of the amendment.

I think that the reason can be put quite briefly. The Government passed the Competition Act in 1998 and the Enterprise Act in 2002. This massive piece of legislation provides a very fulsome competition set of arrangements and provisions which, I would say, rather dominate the Bill. It is the wish of those who spoke in Committee—and I would like to think that it is still their wish—that we should retain a balance in this keystone clause, Clause 3. between the commercial and the competition considerations and what one might call the "cultural" considerations. My amendment is based upon a common-sense proposition; namely, that these non-competition aspirations and considerations should firmly underpin the Bill no less than the competition ones.

My Lords, I have no idea what amendment this is. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for saving me confusing everyone. Amendment No. 2A is effectively the same as Amendment No. 2 on the Marshalled List. I was trying to explain that, for technical reasons, Amendment No. 2 fell when Amendment No. 1 was voted upon and passed, so the amendment is in effect reconstituted. I shall read it in its reconstituted form. It states:

"It shall be a further principal duty of OFCOM, in carrying out their functions, to further the purposes of public service broadcasting where relevant".

I hope that that is now clear.

The cultural goods at the heart of the Bill, which go beyond the economic goods, need to be reflected at the commencement of the Bill in the same way as the competition and citizen elements are reflected. I hope that the Government will give the amendment their full-hearted support because it swims with the tide of their own intentions.

Clause 260(4) defines "the purposes of public service television broadcasting". I have used that phrase in my amendment. The following Clauses 260 to 266 expand on the duties of licensed public service broadcasters in that regard as well as providing powers to Ofcom if any of those broadcasters fail to live up to the requirements of Clauses 260 and 261. Ofcom will have powers of enforcement, although I remind the House—and this underpins what I said earlier about the dominance of the Bill being in competitive terms—that Clause 266, the enforcement clause, sounds at best an uncertain note in that regard and explicitly puts economic and market considerations on a pedestal above all other factors.

At Committee stage, in responding to the hour-long debate on an equivalent amendment, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made two principal points. His first point was that there was no definition in my amendment of what is meant by "public service broadcasting standards". I said then and I say now that the language I am using refers directly across to the language in Clause 260, which is very well defined. It contrasts markedly in terms of interpretation with the other language in Clause 3, which refers to the interests of consumers in relevant markets, which is very vague, and the interests of the community as a whole, which is also very vague.

The second objection raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was that Part 1 of the Bill is not only about broadcasting but telecommunications generally. That point is covered by reference in my amendment to its application being "where relevant". That is a more suitable phrase than "where appropriate". Your Lordships will note that the word "relevant" already finds a place in Clause 3 and cross-refers directly to Clause 260(11), which describes "relevant television services" to include Channels 3, 4 and 5, public teletext, Welsh services and the BBC.

Some have wondered why the amendment does not embrace the whole of broadcasting beyond the six prescribed services and channels. The answer is that it would have been much too ambitious to have sought to drag in the whole of broadcasting. But, given that Clause 260 requires those outlets to subscribe to the standards laid down in Clauses 260 and 261, it is wholly appropriate that this provision should be in the landmark or keystone clause, Clause 3.

Incidentally, Clause 3(6) gives Ofcom discretion to resolve any clash between its general duties under Clause 3 as it thinks fit. So, again, there cannot be any objection on that ground.

Without this amendment the balance of interests that the Bill should preserve between commercial and cultural matters will be tilted too far in the direction of mere competition. To use the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in Committee, we really must embed and make explicit at the start of this vital legislation,

"which moral universe this Bill is intended to inhabit".—[Official Report, 29/3/03; col. 583.]

The amendment will go some considerable way towards achieving that. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. My only regret is that the additional words which seek to spell out Ofcom's public service duty have not been added as a further subsection to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam.

As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, there is some concern that this would appear to favour one particular public service broadcaster—that is, the BBC. To say that I find it a little puzzling is an understatement. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, pointed out, Clauses 260 and 261 make it abundantly clear that the commercial terrestrial channels also have public service broadcasting responsibilities, even though they may be of a lesser nature.

As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, the debate at Committee stage illustrated the crucial importance that every noble Lord who spoke—it was a very passionate debate—attached to the need to continue to uphold public service broadcasting in today's increasingly competitive communications world. It was quite clear that the Committee—like most UK citizens—knew what public service broadcasting was, recognised it when it saw it and equally recognised when it was absent. It also wanted it spelt out up-front, right there at the top of Clause 3.

We now have another opportunity. The Government have listened and made changes on other issues raised. I salute the Minister for the number of new clauses he intends to introduce on Report. I hope, therefore, that he will accept what is proposed. Even better, I hope that he will find a way to add this amendment to the amendment brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, which has just been agreed.

My Lords, I have difficulty with this. I am sorry to say that because one of the most important objectives of the Bill ought to be to protect one of the great glories of British broadcasting—that is, public service broadcasting. I attach the highest importance to Clause 260 in which, for the first time in legislation, that is comprehensively defined.

The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, will know that after our last debate I suggested to him that perhaps the thing to do was to insert his amendment under Clause 3(2). He subsequently argued against that solution and produced the amendment printed on the Marshalled List, not the manuscript amendment. I would have been very happy indeed to support that amendment. I felt that by inserting the words "where relevant" he had dealt with the objections made by the Government Front Bench.

I wholly endorse the noble Lord's desire to have public service broadcasting referred to in Clause 3. I should like to see it there; I wish it could be there. I note that the Minister said on a previous occasion that we shall come to it in Clause 260 and other clauses and that that is where it needs to be. I do not agree with him. We need a reference in Clause 3.

A genuine difficulty is that we have just passed Amendment No. 1. This has led the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for understandable reasons, to put down a manuscript amendment. But, having produced a principal duty of Ofcom in a balanced way—we had an interesting and powerful speech from the chairman of Ofcom about the importance of balance in these matters—to add another principal duty at this point seems to make life rather difficult for the chair of Ofcom. It does not provide clarity.

I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, had been content to get this reference, which I would love to see in Clause 3, into the second part of the Bill. But unless he has an easy explanation as to how it will work in simple terms when he responds to the debate, I have genuine difficulty in supporting the manuscript amendment despite the fact that I promised to support the original amendment when he first put it down.

My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has just said. Although I was fully supportive of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, in Committee, I have thought about it a lot since then. I have a concern about placing this duty on Ofcom, particularly in Clause 3(1). There is a clear conflict with the amendment which has just been passed. More than that, given that Clause 3 sets out the duties and parameters for the whole of the media industry, to include broadcasting and telecommunications, and given that the Bill is to liberalise ownership of the media, surely it should be a primary duty of Ofcom to consider all broadcasting—public service and otherwise—to ensure that we retain and maintain high quality programming.

In other words, Ofcom must keep a watchful eye over all programming to further the purposes of good and diverse programming for the viewer and listener. I say that, particularly given the words of comfort from the noble Lord, Lord Currie, who said today that Ofcom had taken on board the need, as one of its first key aims, to review, with a view to monitoring and strengthening, public service broadcasting, which would be under Clause 260.

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I say in parenthesis that I hope it is recognised that in the proceedings of this legislation I now speak with a new authority. Referring to an amendment which will come before us later, the Guardian said last week:

"The amendment has the support of the influential Labour backbenchers Lord Bragg, Lady Jay, Lord Fowler and Lord Borrie".

Rumours of my defection are slightly exaggerated—indeed, they are much exaggerated. But I hope that the Minister will now listen to me with an attention I am not sure I enjoyed previously.

I have two comments on the amendment, the first of which is the more general. The discussion on the Bill has been criticised, not least by the new Leader of the House of Commons, who has said that some kind of filibuster has been taking place. I deny that entirely—I simply do not recognise it. So I was fascinated to hear the chairman of Ofcom, the noble Lord, Lord Currie, say how this discussion had strengthened the legislation—a total justification.

My second point, using the small influence I now appear to have, is to urge the Minister to accept the amendment. I believe that the principles of public service broadcasting should be absolutely fundamental to broadcasting in this country. It sets us apart from what happens in so many other countries. We would be very foolish to weaken our stance in any way. We should do everything in our power permanently to embed the principles of public service broadcasting in our system. Obviously, the BBC is seen as the best upholder of public service broadcasting standards, and I think that it is. Noble Lords have mentioned the example of the World Service. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, the BBC is not the only upholder of public service standards; nor should it be.

My view is that the most important public service broadcasting standards apply to the reporting of news. In an age when so much reporting is slanted, when some papers advocate particular policies to the exclusion of all other arguments, it is important to have balanced and objective reporting. We should allow the public to make up their mind rather than be led by the nose. I am not saying that the standards of balance and objectivity will always be achieved. For example, there was great controversy during the reporting of the Iraq war, but at least the aim is to achieve balance. I believe that aims such as that are, and should be, absolutely fundamental in our broadcasting system. They are worth fighting for and, for my money, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said. His aspirations are set out well in the amendment.

My Lords, I hope I do not embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, too much, after his accolade in the Guardian, if I now rise in warm support of the passionate speech he has just made upholding the concept of public service broadcasting. His argument is absolutely right. In many ways, this Communications Bill is historic because it seeks to reconcile the separate worlds of telecommunications and broadcasting. The public service tradition is Britain's particular contribution to quality in broadcasting. The role of public service broadcasting within that totality, within the balancing operation that the new Ofcom has to take on, is better spelt out right at the beginning of the Bill instead of in Clause 260. For that reason alone, I warmly support the amendment.

My Lords, just to show that I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, with the same undivided attention I give to my own Back Benchers, let me say that I agree entirely with what he says about the importance of public service broadcasting. So does the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe; so does the noble Lord, Lord Thomson; so do we all. The Bill enshrines that concern for public service broadcasting. It is suffused with support for public service broadcasting.

In Clause 260, which is none the less important, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, because it is in Part 3 rather than Part 1, the Bill gives the best, most detailed, description of public service broadcasting that has ever appeared in legislation. In the clauses which follow, the Bill gives Ofcom teeth to enforce the achievement of those standards. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has a caveat about a particular part of Clause 266. It is, I think, a misunderstanding on his part. I shall be glad to discuss it in its place.

To put a generalised expression of support for public service broadcasting in Part 1 is unnecessary. It is not simply unnecessary; it is unnecessary and undesirable. In 14 years of opposition I always enjoyed being told by the government that the amendments I put forward were either unnecessary or undesirable or, more frequently, both. This is both. It is unnecessary because Clause 3 specifies the duties of furthering the interests of consumers and the community as a whole. The purposes of public broadcasting are directed principally to the community as a whole and should not be ends in themselves. Similarly, Public service broadcasting is one element of the mix which assures the availability of a wide range of high quality broadcasting which meets a variety of tastes and interests, as required under Clause 3(2)(c). However, it is one means, not an end in itself. As I said, Clause 260 gives the best and strongest defence of public service broadcasting in legislation that there has ever been. That was recognised, I believe, in Committee.

Despite the qualification "where relevant", where it is relevant is in relation to Part 3 functions, which contains detailed provision to ensure the delivery of public service broadcasting objectives. I will not make much of it being harmful. However, the amendment suggests that, having secured the place of public service broadcasting, Ofcom should be required, say, to assess its spectrum policy against the interests of the consumer and the community and then skew any decision in favour of public service broadcasting purposes. That cannot be right. If furthering the purposes of public service broadcasting had been the foremost broadcasting objective of current and previous regulators we would not have had the growth of the new platforms and channels that have led to extra choice and innovation for the benefit of viewers and listeners.

The spirit and intention behind the amendment are admirable. However, it cuts across the balance we have sought to strike in this Bill and I hope that it will not be pressed.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to all who have spoken. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, suggested that this amendment does not clarify Ofcom's keystone obligations. However, Amendment No. 1, which we have just passed, deals with,

"the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters; and … the interests of consumers in relevant markets".

In my view, that does not extend head on to issues of public service broadcasting. A detailed examination of the provisions on general duties in Clause 3—and I refer the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, to this, as he raised the question—reveals, in Clause 3(3)(a), a further specific reference to,

"the desirability of promoting competition in relevant markets".

There is no reference anywhere else in Clause 3 to public service broadcasting standards. Although the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, talks of unbalancing the Bill by including this reference at the front of the Bill, at the beginning of Clause 3, my proposition, which I think is supported by all who spoke, is that the reverse is the case. There is a superfluity of reference in the Bill to competition and a paucity of reference to public service broadcasting standards. As many have said, public service broadcasting standards do not even get a mention until Clause 260.

I listened particularly carefully to the reservations expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I am anxious to carry them with me to a vote if to a vote it has to go. So I would now propose to withdraw the amendment, to speak with them further and, I hope, to bring back an amendment that will have their approval at the next and final stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 3, line 16, after "services" insert "(and in particular the diversity of elements within such services)"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the key purpose of this amendment is to address the need for Ofcom to secure in carrying out its functions the availability throughout the United Kingdom of a wide range of TV and radio services,

"and in particular the diversity of elements within such services".

In essence we are seeking to ensure that, in addition to there being a wide range of services which are both of high quality and calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests, there is sufficient diversity of all forms of creativity within those services. In contrast with the previous amendment, we believe that this amendment addresses all programming, public service broadcasting or otherwise.

The amendment is designed to ensure that Ofcom is required to take specific account of the different component parts of television and radio services when making an assessment of whether such services taken as a whole are both of high quality and calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests. Without such clarification on radio services, for example, Ofcom could conceivably make a judgment on overall quality and diversity as long as it was demonstrated by, for example, news, sport and light entertainment programmes, without giving specific or sufficient regard to music and the performing arts.

The amendment was proposed by the music industry. We are pleased to support it, and encourage the Government to support it, because it is addressing the need for diversity of all forms of creativity. The importance of creative diversity—including music diversity—together with the absence of any provision in this entire Bill to require and enable Ofcom to act effectively on this issue has led us to conclude that this deficiency could be addressed by amending Clause 3. Our amendment would furnish Ofcom with an overarching responsibility to ensure that this vital element is given due regard when making its regulatory decisions.

While we understand that the Government are reviewing this important issue, we are keen to support that process by putting forward several amendments—we have later amendments on Report for scrutiny by your Lordships—aimed at bringing greater regulatory clarity for British music creators and audiences, and indeed in the wider public interest. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warnock and Lady Howe, for their ongoing support on this issue and those respected voices from the Government's own Benches who sounded the alarm during earlier debates. I beg to move.

My Lords—

My Lords, I do not want to curtail debate, and if others wish to speak after me, that is fine, but I hope that I can help the House. We said in Committee that we would table amendments on Report that would address the main area of concern, which is about music on local radio. We expect to table amendments this week for debate next week. I hope that those will meet the concerns of the music industry. I think that I should add that this amendment seems to require diversity not only across services but within services. That would seem to me to mean that Classic FM would have to carry jazz and pop, and that pop stations might have to include Stockhausen or Berio. I do not think that that is what is meant.

My Lords, far be it from me to inflict the wrong music on the wrong audience. I shall be brief in my reply. I am very grateful to the Minister, who is clearly taking this issue on board. In that well known phrase, let us watch this space and see what comes before us next week in our further deliberation on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 3, line 29, at end insert—

"( ) the application, in the case of electronic communications network services, of standards that provide adequate protection to members of the public and all other persons from unwarranted infringements of privacy resulting from activities carried on for the purposes of such services;"

The noble Earl said: My Lords, if I may, like other noble Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to his new position and congratulate him on it.

I turn to the amendment. The Bill requires that appropriate privacy standards be secured in respect of all television and radio services. That is of course welcome. The effect of the amendment is to extend that requirement to "electronic communications network services". The substantive point is that, if it is sensible that the radio and television arms of media enterprises should be subject to appropriate privacy standards, it necessarily follows that their Internet or web-based arms should be too. A failure so to do not only creates a gaping hole on the face of the Bill, it also creates what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, so eloquently described as a "philosophical inconsistency" in the Government's approach and attitude towards both this Bill and technological convergence more generally.

What was evident from our debates in Committee is that we are all, even the Government, agreed that this is a hugely important issue that needs to be addressed. As the Minister, put it:

"I do not disagree at all … if we have provision in Clause 3(2)(f) in respect of radio and television services, there ought to be comparable provision for electronic communication network service users—there is no doubt about that".

So we are all agreed. This is an amendment of substance which it could be fairly said would improve the Bill. Yet, on the evidence of the Committee, the Minister will in due course reject the amendment. The grounds for so doing are outwardly reasonable. As he explained in Committee, and I have no doubt that the same argument will be deployed again today,

"any standards imposed by Ofcom would have to be consistent with the new European regulatory regime for electronic communications, including the new directive on privacy and electronic communications".—[Official Report, 29/4/03; col. 646.]

I do not dissent from that. But perhaps the Minister will explain in what ways the amendment is inconsistent with the relevant directives? I do not believe it is. Indeed, there are not inconsiderable advantages in adopting what could be called an anticipatory approach in this matter rather than leaving it in abeyance.

I acknowledge too the Government's commitment as expressed by the Minister:

"We intend to implement the directive in the UK by means of separate regulations under the European Communities Act 1972".—[0fficial Report, 29/4/03; col. 647]

Again, that is eminently reasonable. What need of the amendment is there when the Government are going to legislate in the future by a different route? I have a number of concerns here. Self-evidently the Government are content to legislate on this matter as it relates to radio and television by means of primary legislation. As I say, that is welcome. Indeed it is wholly unsurprising. But when it comes to the electronic communications network services aspect of the problem, they are content to deal with it by secondary legislation. There are shades here of the "philosophical inconsistency" identified by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I return to the central tenet of my argument: if it is right to legislate in this area for radio and television services by primary legislation, then it must be right to adopt the same approach for electronic communications network services. After all, what is at issue here, far from being a matter of administrative detail, and thereby an appropriate candidate for secondary legislation, is a fundamental principle, the essential human right that an individual's privacy should not be infringed.

Nor should we lose sight of the problems associated with consigning these matters to secondary legislation. Your Lordships will be aware of the gestation periods of, for example, the code of practice for voluntary retention of communications data required under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, or the Information Commissioner's employment practices data protection code. The latter was three years in the making, while the former runs the risk of failing to meet its two-year deadline for implementation on 13th December this year. This begs the question of whether it would be sensible to run the risk of leaving this issue in limbo for such a long period. I do not believe that that is sensible. As I said, there is virtue in the amendment in the sense that it anticipates and preempts this risk.

There is the seductive argument that when it comes to information technology issues it is unwise to legislate unilaterally. As the Minister put it:

"We shall implement the directive and put in place a set of controls that will have the enormous virtue of covering Europe. It is not a UK matter, it is an international one."—[Official Report, 29/4/03, col. 647]

How very true. It is a sound analysis, so far as it goes. The key here is the noble Lord's use of the word "international". The reality is that this is not an exclusively European matter either. It is global. So, if we are to be tempted into accepting the thrust of this argument, logic dictates that legislation should wait until such time as some form of global agreement is in place. However desirable, that prospect is some way off. Quite rightly, the Government are not advocating that the matter should rest in abeyance as a result. In other words, the enormous virtue to which the Minister referred is but a glass half-full. None the less, if the amendment were inimical to the forthcoming directives, I would be the first to concede that it was an inappropriate addition to the Bill. But it is not. It has the virtue of anticipating the directives rather than preempting or compromising them.

So, as I observed in Committee, I find myself in a somewhat curious position. None of your Lordships has thus far dissented from the amendment's underlying principle. None of your Lordships has suggested that it is in any way defective or indeed inconsistent with forthcoming European legislation. In the circumstances, I find the Government's obduracy in resisting the amendment difficult to understand. I look forward to the Minister's reply in the, perhaps vain, hope that at least some light can be shone on the impenetrability of the Government's position. I beg to move.

My Lords, we support my noble friend's amendment.

My Lords, in supporting the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, I shall try and be brief. I could not, in any event, argue a case as effectively and expertly as the noble Earl.

It is indeed a strange anomaly, as the noble Earl pointed out both today and in Committee, that something broadcast via the Internet should not be subject to Ofcom regulation while the same broadcast received by the more traditional methods of television and radio sets is. Issues about human rights and privacy are surely possible here.

Everyone is keen to keep the Internet free of regulation but I wonder whether it remains feasible in the long run. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said in Committee that a globally agreed solution was needed. In the long term that clearly must be right. The interim problem remains. The Internet Watch Foundation does its best, but most of us have a growing feeling of unease about the kind of damaging material that can easily be accessed by an increasing range of receivers, not least 3G mobile telephones, which an increasing number of young people already possess or to which they aspire. The Minister told us in Committee that consultations had begun and that powers would be brought in via the European Communications Act 1972. Giving additional powers to Ofcom would therefore not be helpful or necessary. As I said in Committee, it may not be possible or everybody's wish to regulate the Internet but citizens' concerns about whether voluntary regulation is likely to remain sufficient are increasing, given the material that is easily accessed on the Internet. If only to future proof this legislation, which we are told will not be outdated for many years, it would make sense for Ofcom, which is to be responsible for regulating almost every other form of electronic communication network, to be given some role in setting standards at least for the Internet if only to give the regulator powers to promote, oversee and agree codes of practice. I hope that the Government will support the amendment.

My Lords, having looked carefully at what the Minister said in Committee on 29th April I still do not understand how this is going to work. As the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, explained, we have one system of regulation of privacy when we are dealing with radio and television. Another system, as the Minister explained in Committee, is going to come into effect at some time in the future under the European Communities Act 1972. The Minister said that this was necessary because the regulations that are to be introduced under that Act would go beyond the remit of Ofcom. It would be useful if the Minister explained what is happening in the consultations which he spoke of in Committee. These started at the end of March and are still under way. What sort of solution does he think will be produced at the end of the day? Will the European regulations that he mentioned feed back into Ofcom's remit? Will they require Ofcom to apply the European directive into radio and television so that a uniform system applies across the board of electronic communications? Or are we going to have two completely different systems of dealing with privacy, one for radio and television and another for other forms of electronic communication?

Perhaps the Minister will also explain something that I find mysterious. We all agreed it was impossible to regulate the Internet, but at col. 647 of the Official Report of 29th April 2003 the Minister spoke about the directive introducing new e-mail and Internet controls. I am sure your Lordships would like to know more about that, and whether it is being dealt with under these consultations.

My Lords, I support this amendment. My concern is the ever-increasing scourge of spamming. Certainly, the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, has spoken about the forthcoming European legislation, but there does need to be a standard to control abuses of the Internet. I am not referring only to spamming, but to distribution of malicious viruses, hacking and, of course, the proliferation of unsolicited pornography. I do not call for Internet regulation, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Howe, but more a light-touch approach.

It is a commonly held view that the Internet was included in the Bill as an afterthought. I hope that the Minister, who has an excellent grasp of the exigencies of the world wide web, will look with some sympathy on the amendment.

My Lords, I wish to support the amendment, too. There is now no boundary between the Internet and radio and television. I spend more time listening to the radio on the Internet than over the airwaves now, as it is so easy simply to have it running in the background once one has a broadband connection. We are about to have parliamentary broadcasting over the web. Doubtless other broadcasters will follow as we start to get decent broadband connections.

The Internet is another extension of radio and television. Already services have started up that are available only over the Internet. Why start a pirate radio programme now, with all the difficulties of legislation and people trying to close it down, when the same thing can be done over the Internet with the same quality of reception? It is all one, and it is ridiculous that half should be in and half out.

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Northesk, who spoke with much more authority than I am able to on the subject. The words that rang in my ear when he spoke were that an independent liberty should not be infringed. I support him. If he presses the amendment, I shall be with him in the Lobby.

My Lords, I want to ask a question rather than make a long speech. For 10 years I was a regulator in the premium-rate industry. At the end of that time in ICSTIS, we talked a great deal about convergence, rather as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, just described. I thought that the Bill would look across the horizon to the future when all the services would converge. Indeed, since I left ICSTIS, there seems to have been even greater integration of services. Will the Bill look towards that integration, or will we have two kinds of regulation in future?

My Lords, in introducing the amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, very properly gave my reasons for resisting it last time. I am very grateful to him for that, and those reasons still stand. He described them as outwardly reasonable, but I think that I can show that they are both outwardly and inwardly reasonable. He asked me a number of questions, and other noble Lords have also asked questions, about what we propose to do. I had better repeat it—I caught myself almost saying "very briefly". If I do. I shall leave the Chamber. I am getting so angry with that phrase, which is followed by long speeches, so I stopped myself in time.

When we debated the amendment in April, we said that the use of the electronic communications networks was subject to a separate European directive on privacy and electronic communications, which will be implemented by 31st October this year using the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972 instead of other primary legislation. I shall answer all the points made about that, and why we consider it better to act that way.

The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, asked how his amendment was inconsistent with the provisions of the privacy and electronic communications directive. There are a number of detailed inconsistencies, but one of very great importance is that Ofcom is not the appropriate body to enforce privacy standards in networks and services. That role is to be performed by the Information Commissioner, who is of course the successor in role to the Data Protection Registrar. He or she is a UK independent supervisory body reporting directly to the UK Parliament. He oversees and enforces the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The Information Commissioner has a wider range of duties including the promotion of good information handling and the encouragement of codes of practice for data controllers—that is, anyone who decides how and why personal data about identifiable living individuals are processed. He is responsible for the current regulations, and will be for the regulations that we shall introduce this year. That answers nearly all the points made by other noble Lords about the need for effective regulation. Regulation is much more effective if done by the Information Commissioner than by Ofcom, which has a different range of responsibilities.

The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, then said that the provisions by secondary legislation would be in abeyance, and that they would not meet the deadline of 13th December. The answer to that is that they will be in force by 31st October. They will meet the deadline; there will be no delay in implementing what he and other noble Lords want. He criticised the difference between primary and secondary legislation. We use secondary legislation when we are able to do so in law. There is no difference in effect between primary and secondary legislation. It is still the law of the land; however, we did not need to burden the Bill with that element of relatively uncontroversial primary legislation.

The noble Earl raised the issue of global agreement, because he thought that I was too welcoming of the idea that regulation through the European directive on privacy and electronic communications was to come into force throughout Europe. I think that he recognises that that is better than its doing so only for the UK. He is right, of course, in saying that the search for global agreement is rather further off, but I do not think that that supports his amendment.

We are doing everything that the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, wants with equal effect, and much more effectively in terms of the responsibility being with the Information Commissioner. We are also doing it on time. What more do we want?

My Lords, I am of course grateful to the Minister for that reply. Although he fleshed out what was said in Committee, I still find it slightly dispiriting that much the same arguments were deployed. However, as I concede, at least they were fleshed out.

The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, rightly raised the issue of spam, and I was extremely grateful to him for that. I was grateful, too, for the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. However, I should counsel her that, so far as I am concerned, the amendment does not bite in any way on content but solely on the issue of privacy.

I hear what the Minister says about the role of the Information Commissioner in respect of regulating privacy. But, to my mind, the amendment does not seek to regulate; it seeks to impose a base standard in respect of infringement of privacy over which Ofcom could and should perhaps have oversight. Therefore, on that point I do not believe in truth that the amendment is as deficient as the Minister would like me to believe.

Ultimately, the privacy of the individual and his protection against unwarranted infringement is no small thing. If the amendment were attempting to ratchet up that protection or, indeed, to introduce a system of regulation in its own right, I could attach some credibility to the Minister's position. But I do not believe that it does; it merely seeks to replicate a regime that the Government believe to be fit for purpose for radio and television services and to apply it equally to electronic communications network services—as I said, not in the form of regulation but as a simple standard.

The Minister—indeed, all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—agree that the issue is important and that doing something about it is right and sensible. I suspect that our only point of difference is one of methodology and of bridging the gap between Royal Assent for the Bill and whenever—the noble Lord says 31st October—the relevant provisions come in under the European directive.

However, I regret to say that, in so far as the Government persist in failing to understand that the Bill should also be about technological convergence, I remain unconvinced by the arguments advanced by the Minister. On that basis, I wish to seek the opinion of the House.