asked the Chairman of Committees:

What action is being taken to help asthma sufferers by making the Palace of Westminster smoke free.

My Lords, I can of course answer only for the House of Lords' half of the Palace. With regard to staff, since 1992 the administration has observed the principle that staff are entitled to work in a smoke-free atmosphere. With regard to Members, the rules on smoking are a matter for the House as a whole. The current rules were agreed in March 2001, following a survey of Members. There are no current plans to review those rules.

My Lords, I thank the Chairman of Committees for his Answer, although I am sure he will understand that I am not completely happy with his response. Does he agree that research shows that passive smoking is one of the main triggers for asthma attacks? Does he further agree that there should be a duty of care towards members of staff, and, indeed, Peers, and that, in the light of all the evidence that shows that passive smoking causes ill health and in the long term can cause death, we should now be moving towards a smoke-free environment for all the staff and Peers in your Lordships' House?

My Lords, I cannot comment on the research on passive smoking, some of which I have seen goes both ways. As I said in my original Answer, the rules were last changed just over two years ago. There were considerable improvements from the point of view of restrictions on where smoking was permitted. As far as I am aware, no member of staff has complained about being made to work in a smoky atmosphere. All those who work in the Bishops' Bar do so as volunteers.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that since I gave up smoking I have developed a very sensitive nose? Is he further aware that, at the age of 80, there are very few pleasures left to me, but one of them is passive smoking? Does the noble Lord agree that it is not possible to smell smoke or tobacco in the Palace of Westminster except in the smoking areas, so there is really no need to generate hot air?

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on having given up smoking. I have given up as well, except for the occasional small cigar, I must admit. I, too, perhaps enjoy the occasional smell of someone else's smoke.

My Lords, as always, I declare an interest as a member of the Lords and Commons Pipe and Cigar Smokers' Club. I also declare an interest as a member of the Refreshment Committee of the House, although of course I do not speak for it. Is the noble Lord aware that there have been some 260 replies to the recent survey on the catering outlets of the House which was sent to every Member of the House, of which more than 230 were from regular attenders, and that of those replies only a handful—the Clerk was unfortunately unable to give me the precise number but said that it was definitely fewer than 10—even mentioned smoking?

My Lords, I was aware of the survey of Members of the House about the refreshment facilities. I was aware that only a small number had commented on smoking, but I am glad that the noble Lord pointed that out to the House. Of course, as I said in my original Answer, in 2001 various changes were made to the various outlets of the Refreshment Department. Smoking is now not allowed in some of the places where it was allowed before.

My Lords, is there an attempt to cull this House by allowing smoking to continue here among Peers and therefore bring their deaths forward?

Not by me, my Lords.

My Lords, is the Chairman of Committees satisfied with the quality of ventilation in the areas of the House where smoking is permitted, particularly in the Barry Room, where there is a hard core of smokers at the Long Table? The effect of that smoking is for the smoke to drift throughout the whole of the room. Indeed, I cart see one or two Peers opposite are nodding after their experience in the Barry Room last night. Is not the answer for us to make the building non-smoking, but to provide designated closed smoking areas for those who wish to continue?

My Lords, the ventilation in the Barry Room has been looked at. I hope that there has been some improvement there. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, took part in the debate when these measures were introduced in March 2001. At that time he congratulated the Offices Committee on proposing what is for many of us an acceptable compromise.

My Lords, would it be possible for the Chairman of Committees to think about issuing white masks? It would have the added advantage that one would not know to whom one was speaking.

My Lords, I shall take away that suggestion.

My Lords, is the Chairman of Committees aware that a motion proposing a ban on smoking in all public places was overwhelmingly agreed to by doctors attending the annual conference of the BMA in Torquay today? If we institute a ban in the Palace of Westminster, would we not be setting a good example to others?

My Lords, I was aware of that because I saw it on the news this morning. If the Government wish to introduce a ban on smoking in public places, they no doubt will do so and we will, of course, have to follow.

My Lords, do the Government accept that it should be a principle of liberal democracy that government should interfere with people's lives as little as possible, and that further bans should be very carefully justified before the detail of government regulations extend into every aspect of our private lives?

My Lords, I do not answer at the Dispatch Box for the Government, but it is nice to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, of proper liberal principles.

My Lords, does my noble friend believe that the Government should interfere as much as possible to prevent people's unnecessary deaths?

My Lords, I really cannot be drawn on questions for the Government.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether European Union regulations are being drawn up which will prevent the use of smoke-flavoured additives in food.

My Lords, a European Union regulation bringing controls on the use of smoke flavourings in food into line with existing controls for other food additives has been proposed. The proposal would prevent only the use of smoke flavourings that present risks to the consumer.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but does he agree that the introduction of such constraints will affect the smoky bacon crisp industry, the smoked salmon industry and all the others? Does he further agree that, in the end, those are only flavourings, and that one would have to eat a monumental amount of such food—as a result of which one would die of obesity and a heart attack—before one would ever die of cancer?

My Lords, let me reassure the noble Earl that his ability to consume smoky bacon crisps will remain unaltered by the regulation. Smoke flavourings are produced from condensed wood smoke, which contains substances known to be harmful to human health, especially those called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons—of which I am sure every member of the House will be well aware—which are known to cause cancer in humans.

Traditionally smoked foods, such as kippers and smoked salmon, to which the noble Earl referred. would be unaffected by the proposed regulation. The regulation is likely to require the assessment of no more than 20 primary products from which all smoke flavourings are produced, none of which is produced in the UK.

My Lords, is this not just the thin end of the wedge? Are not exactly the same chemicals contained in smoked foods such as kippers or smoked cheese?

My Lords, I am reliably advised that traditionally smoked foods, such as kippers and smoked salmon will not be affected by the proposed regulation. Smoke contains certain chemicals that are of health concern, hut it is the primary products that are the cause of concern.

My Lords, is this not another example of the European Union going over the top? What peer review has been undertaken by doctors on the carcinogenic effects of polcyclic aromatic polycarbons?

My Lords, other member states have quite strict controls on smoke flavours. As I mentioned, the primary products that produce those flavourings represent a hazard to human health. If I may, I dare to say that this is an example of the EU protecting UK consumers from potentially dangerous products manufactured abroad. I know how many Conservative Members are interested to know about the benefits of belonging to the European Union.

My Lords, what of the smokies of Arbroath? The noble Lord did not include them. The terms "smokies" and "Arbroath" are synonymous. Can he assure us that that product is excluded from the regulation?

My Lords, if it is a traditionally smoked product, it will be covered by my earlier remarks.

My Lords, does it make a difference from where the smoke comes? For instance, smoked salmon proudly boasts that it comes from oak chippings. Is smoke regardless bad for one's health? Is it the end of bonfires? Is it the end of barbecues?

My Lords, we are discussing the production of the primary products that would lead to smoke flavourings. We are not discussing barbecues, and so on, in this Question.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that blow torches are used with some meat—lamb, in fact—for minority use? Some of that meat is not properly cooked and is the subject of investigation by environmental health authorities. Does he have any plans to keep a register of those retail outlets, which are causing great health concern?

My Lords, if the noble Lord will write to the appropriate Minister, I am sure that he will take up those concerns. The Question concerns smoke-flavoured additives to food.

My Lords, if those additives were dangerous, why were they allowed in the first place?

My Lords, what I am saying in answer to the Question is that there are controls on those additives in other countries. That concern has been brought to the attention of other members of the European Union and the regulations will deal with the issue in due course.

My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many prime products there are?

My Lords, as I said earlier, there are 20 primary products, all of which are produced overseas.

My Lords, if smoking were banned in public places, what would be the status of food flavoured with tobacco smoke?

My Lords, I do not think that I can give any advice on passive exposure to smoky bacon crisps.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the progress being made by specialist schools is satisfactory.

My Lords, the progress being made by specialist schools is very satisfactory. In 2002, 54.1 per cent of pupils in non-selective specialist schools achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A^*-C, compared with 46.7 per cent for all other comprehensive schools, even though the intake of ability at age 11, as shown by key stage 2 results, was broadly similar to that for non-specialist schools. By this September there will be 1,454 specialist schools in place, providing for 46 per cent of all pupils.

My Lords, given the massive and continuing growth in the number of specialist schools, can my noble friend tell me how many schools wishing to become specialist schools have been unable to do so because of the shortage of certain specialist teachers? Can my noble friend also confirm that the specialist schools receive much more in the way of grants than do non-specialist schools? In those circumstances, how can the non-specialist schools pretend to have the same standards as the specialist schools?

My Lords, my noble friend is very interested in specialist schools and has been for a long time, but I regret that I cannot give him any information about the number of schools that have not been designated "specialist" because of the shortage of teachers. We know that some schools have not been able to achieve the £50,000 sponsorship that they need but, again, we do not know how many because schools are not required to provide that information. However, I do believe that the results that are being attained in specialist schools demonstrate that the status is part of a very effective schools improvement programme, which I hope my noble friend will want to support and thereby enable more schools to achieve that aim.

My Lords, the Minister said that over 50 per cent of those pupils in need of a special school place are catered for, which means that well over 40 per cent are not. Do the 40 per cent of pupils who do not have a special school facility available to them not wish to attend such schools—some people believe that it is better not to be educated at a special school—or is there still a desperate need to be met among that proportion of well over 40 per cent?

My Lords, the noble Baroness is talking about special schools, while I am referring to specialist schools. Specialist schools are those which have a specialism in one of 10 different subjects.

My Lords, as the specialist school programme now spreads its wings into areas of the humanities where there is less consensus on a canonical core curriculum than is the case for the sciences, to what extent are the Government encouraging such schools to develop their own curricula, either individually or collectively?

My Lords, it is true that the two most recent specialisms to be announced are in music and the humanities and, as with all other specialist schools, we want to see those curricula being developed to the highest standards. But the schools themselves are all bound by the national curriculum and will have to abide by it.

Just as we have seen from the excellent and quite outstanding work being done in the arts colleges in both history and geography, we now look forward to seeing the same in music.

My Lords, is it government policy to roll out specialist status to every secondary school in the United Kingdom? If that is the case, how are the Government proposing to help those schools which cannot find sufficient local resources to meet the £50,000 sponsorship required for specialist status?

My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. The Secretary of State has made it clear that we intend to roll out the specialist school programme nationally because the status forms part of the improving schools programme, and it is successful.

We know that many schools are experiencing difficulties in raising the required sponsorship. For this year we have made available £3 million in the form of partnership money on which schools may draw. The application forms are now being made available and, if they meet the criteria, the first schools will be able to draw down from that fund from September to March of next year. When we come to the end of this funding year we shall look again at the situation to see what else we can do.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that great confusion has arisen over the use by the Department for Education and Skills of the terms "special schools" and "specialist schools"? Special schools are for those with learning disabilities and thus are quite different from the specialist schools. Could not something be done to rename either the special or the specialist schools in order to avoid further confusion?

My Lords, I do not believe that generally there is any confusion between special and specialist schools. Perhaps I was not clear in my pronunciation of the word "specialist", which may not have helped the noble Baroness. However, the specialist school status is very much about schools having specialisms in different subjects.

Of course within those schools there will be children with special needs, who are also helped by the programme. But there is no confusion between the different types of school.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that my noble friend has made a very good point? Special schools do have a specialism: they are specialist in the field of teaching young people with learning difficulties. So I do think that my noble friend has a point.

Further, does the noble Baroness accept that specialist schools were established by my government when last in office and that we are delighted that the proposal is being built upon? However, concerns are now being expressed that many schools are being given specialist status when in fact the particular subject in which they are declared to be specialist is one that is very weak within some schools? I think that the rigorous selection process for allowing a school to become a specialist establishment should at the least insist that a school is specialist in the subject for which it is given specialist status.

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness's first point: that special schools are very specialist. We have seen the results and we admire the wonderful achievement of all those children.

Turning to specialist status, it is true to say that certain specialist schools have been in some sense weak in their specialism. The funding and extra help they have been given has enabled them to develop and improve in those areas. Certainly the application process, as it has developed, has become more rigorous. I think that we are now seeing the benefits of that in all kinds of ways, including in the improvements schools are making in developing their partnership arrangements with other schools.

My Lords, as every school will now be able to become a specialist school, is not the answer to the problem of the confusion over names to call them comprehensive schools?

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend heard me talk about "other comprehensive schools" in my first Answer. Specialist schools are within the family of comprehensive schools, although a very small proportion—under 6 per cent—selects by aptitude. Specialist schools are certainly comprehensive schools.

My Lords, can my noble friend comment on the view of the House of Commons Select Committee on Education and Skills that the expansion of specialist schools is taking place without any evidence to show that they are successful?

My Lords, without wanting to anticipate the Government's response, which I think will be fairly robust, I have to say that we do not agree with that view. The evidence that we have gathered in support of the expansion of the scheme comes not only from the Government's own evidence, but also from a very wide range of quantitative and qualitative data from academic sources, Ofsted, the National Foundation for Educational Research and, just as importantly, from the experience of those schools which are part of the programme and that of others wishing to join.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether there is adequate competition to supply United Kingdom coinage following the collapse of the Birmingham Mint.

My Lords, the Government have an agreement with the Royal Mint for the supply of circulation coinage that has some time to run. The Royal Mint will continue to meet demand for the duration of this agreement.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that Birmingham Mint is now in administration primarily as a result of the termination by the Treasury of the Royal Mint's market-sharing agreement with Birmingham Mint? Does he further accept that, as a result, a significant reduction has taken place in competition for the supply of UK coinage?

My Lords, I am afraid that I am not able to comment on the commercial relationship between Birmingham Mint and the Royal Mint because it is a matter of legal dispute. I cannot give the assurance being sought by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many in the City of Birmingham and beyond will be saddened that the Mint has a hole in it? Can he confirm that part of the reason for the loss of business has been the introduction of the euro? Will he have a word with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that every assistance is given to those who may lose their jobs at the Mint to find work elsewhere in the manufacturing sector?

My Lords, it is not true to say that the Royal Mint has a hold of the Birmingham Mint.

A hole!

My Lords, I have not seen the ads recently. I thought that they had been discontinued, but I may be wrong.

The Birmingham Mint went into administration and the administrators sought a purchaser. The only thing to have happened since is that the Royal Mint has bought some of the equipment belonging to the Birmingham Mint and that is the limit of their connection. No, it is not true that the Birmingham Mint has gone into administration because of the euro. We expect—and have always expected—that we shall be responsible in this country for the production of most, if not all, of our coinage under the euro. Therefore there should be no loss of business.

My Lords, the original Question of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, was about competition. I did not hear the Minister refer to competition in his Answer. Be that as it may, the Royal Mint is a failing organisation and has been losing money hand over fist. When will it live up to the Government's trading fund rules by at least breaking even? When will it stop entering into costly plots such as contracting to mint euros, for which it was always ill equipped?

My Lords, perhaps I may concentrate on the last part of the noble Lord's question. The Royal Mint did not succeed in its tender to mint euros for other member states which were entering stage three of European monetary union. There are indeed lessons to be learnt from that. I do not believe that it was well enough prepared; I do not believe that it appreciated the extent of the competition; and I do not believe that it appreciated the quality requirements demanded for the euro coins. So, to that extent, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is right.

As to the relationship between the Treasury and the Royal Mint, clearly the Crown has a contract with the Royal Mint which is reviewed from time to time. It was last reviewed in 1997–98; it will come up for review fairly shortly.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they have made representations to the Government of China or Hong Kong about the terms of the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill which is about to be considered by the Legislative Council in Hong Kong.

My Lords, we have made frequent representations to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government about their draft national security legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law. We have also discussed the issue with the Chinese Government. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary did so with the visiting Chinese Foreign Minister last week. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr Rammell, issued a further statement about the draft legislation yesterday, 30th June.

My Lords, I am aware of and grateful for the concern which the Government have expressed on a number of past occasions on this issue, but we are now getting to the crunch point when the Bill will be voted on. Indeed, I understand that there has been a big demonstration against the Bill in Hong Kong earlier today. Do the Government agree that there are still serious defects in the Bill which raise concerns about the rule of law in Hong Kong? Are the Government aware that the democratic movement in Hong Kong sees intervention by the Government as a last hope of achieving changes in the Bill? Will the Government therefore make representations to the authorities in Hong Kong and Beijing at the highest possible level?

My Lords, I am aware of the demonstrations and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that we are following this issue very closely indeed. I have made the point that my honourable friend Mr Rammell and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary have made representations. I also had some brief discussions about this matter last week.

We welcome the fact that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government have improved the legislation in many areas from the original proposals put forward last autumn and the legislative proposals published in the spring. We are particularly concerned about the proposed new provisions on prescription, which I believe may be the issue troubling the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We believe that these provisions blur the dividing line between the separate Hong Kong and mainland legal systems by introducing into Hong Kong legislation links to mainland law. That is the real problem and the nub of the issue. We share the view of many in Hong Kong—who may well have been demonstrating today—that this is inconsistent with the one country/two systems principle that underlies the joint declaration.

My Lords, did we not tell the people of Hong Kong six years ago that they would not be forgotten? Does the Minister agree that the rule of law and freedom under the law that we bequeathed to Hong Kong is its most precious asset today? While I am glad to hear that some of the effects of the Article 23 measures and subversion legislation may have been modified—or, indeed, exaggerated in the first place—will the Government nevertheless be very bold indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested, in pointing out to the Government in Beijing, at the highest level, that their pressure for these changes could lead to very serious long-term damage for Hong Kong? Does the Minister agree that quiet dialogue is no longer the appropriate medium for handling this issue? Does she further agree that we must avoid the accusation being levelled at the British Government—as it has been—that they are mere spectators in this very serious situation?

My Lords, if such a charge is being levelled at the Government it is quite unfounded. Quiet dialogue has its place and it is important that we are able to engage frankly with both the SAR and Chinese Governments on this issue. That does not and has not precluded our making quite robust public statements. I remind the noble Lord that the former Lord Chancellor and Mr Rammell have put across our concerns in person when visiting Hong Kong. There was a period when such visits were not possible because of the SARS outbreak, but we have continued these exchanges at official level and we have made frequent representations. On 20th June, Mr Rammell sent a personal message to the Secretary for Security on this issue and, as I indicated in my original Answer, the matter was raised only last week by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary with the visiting Chinese Minister. We have also spoken out on this issue—not only in private but in public. We have now issued three statements—on 18th November last year and on 27th March and 30th June this year—and we have led international efforts to improve the legislation, with the US, the EU, Canada and Australia following our lead. The EU, of course. issued a statement yesterday.

My Lords, does my noble friend hold out any hope that there will be a change of heart on the part of the authorities in Hong Kong or in Beijing? What has been the Chinese response to the many representations made by the Government?

My Lords, the Chinese Government have responded today in relation to the statements that have been made. I have referred to the statement put forward by the EU yesterday and the United States Government have also made a statement. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has said that the allegations made in these statements are "unfounded" and that Article 23 is an internal matter in which foreign countries have no right to interfere. That is the public statement being made by the Chinese Government. That is why I was so emphatic in saying to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that this is not only a matter for public exchanges; there also have to be quiet exchanges between those who are able to talk frankly to each other. Of course we should say what we believe to be the case publicly but it is enormously important not to lose the value of quiet diplomacy.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that this objectionable law is likely to come into effect as early as 9th July? Does she see any prospect, in the short time remaining between now and then, of achieving changes in the sweeping provisions which are liable to affect the media, the churches and groups such as Falun Gong?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right. This continues to be a matter for discussion in Hong Kong. Our representations and the representations of others have led to some changes in the original points put forward by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. We now have a period of about eight days. I have told the House what the Chinese Government have said. Your Lordships are in a position to make judgments, as are the British Government, about how much progress we are likely to make by shouting the odds at the Chinese Government rather than trying to pursue some well-argued points with them. In your Lordships' anxiety to do the right thing, I hope that your Lordships will not lose sight of the importance of diplomacy as well as public statements.

My Lords, I wish that the Minister's remarks had been used in the two, three or four years immediately before the hand-over. That is now history. The Minister mentioned several times representations being made in this respect to the government in Beijing. I am sure that the House welcomes that. Have representations also been made directly to Mr Tung Chi Hua, the chief executive of the Hong Kong SAR? If not, could they please be made?

My Lords, yes. I had hoped that I had made that clear in my initial Answer, when I said that we had made frequent representations to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Regional Government about the matter. We shall of course continue to make sure that they are left in no doubt about our views on this issue.

My Lords, given that there has been a strong statement from the White House, which the Minister has confirmed, that there has been a statement from the European Union, and also repeated representations from the British Government, will the Minister consider drawing to the attention of the Chinese Government the damaging effect on foreign direct investment that this is likely to have, if it is pursued in its present form? If Hong Kong, as the Minister indicated, does riot have full recognition of its special status, there is likely to be concern among foreign investors about continuing to invest in that region.

My Lords, I would add that there have also been statements made by Australia. This is a difficult issue and I appreciate that your Lordships are enormously concerned and wish to leave no stone unturned in the arguments that may be put forward. There are judgments to be made about the efficacy of what might be seen as a threat in relation to what otherwise might be seen as encouragement. I was specific in reading out what I understand is the reaction of the Chinese government.

We have to make some quite difficult judgments over the next few days about the most efficacious way to proceed. If I may say very gently to the noble Baroness, it is just possible that pointing out what might happen over foreign direct investment—which I would suggest is self-evident—might be seen as more on the threatening side, rather than on the persuasive side, of the equation.

My Lords, the original Question of noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to the fact that the issue is about to be considered by the Legislative Council in Hong Kong. Can the Minister say whether the Legislative Council is in a position to amend or reject the proposed Bill, and if so, what would be the consequences?

My Lords, as I understand the matter, it does have some powers of amendment, although they might not be the same types of powers enjoyed, not so much by your Lordships, but by another place. The matter is under consideration and the discussions should be completed by 8th July. As I understand it, there is some room for manoeuvre. I hope that we focus on the continued good will and persuasion of those who feel that there are some outstanding issues about the effect on the Joint Declaration, and the whole point about one country/two systems and the consistency of what is suggested in the legislation, even as it stands with that principle in the Joint Declaration.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 126) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

My Lords, I rise to ask the Chairman of Committees a couple of questions. I shall place the matter in context. When I first saw this document I assumed that it was a wind-up and as such one of the most brilliant spoofs I have seen in this House.

First, there are the remarks that whatever we do we must minimise the effect of the appointment in this case, but we must generalise it to cover any case, on the availability of Members to serve on the subcommittees. The expression,

"should not place undue pressure on the availability of Members of the House to serve".

Given that there are several hundred people who comprise the membership of your Lordships' House, is it not odd that the availability of Members to serve on important sub-committees is so limited? Whenever we debate the role and future of this House—and I assume we are due for another such debate any minute—we always emphasise our enormous contribution, our total commitment, the fact that we do this marvellous job, and so on, yet when one comes to a small subcommittee, which is not put forward frivolously by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, one of the immediate considerations is the somehow limited availability of Members to serve. This is not a trivial matter, because, regarding the Finance Sub-Committee, which your Lordships are keen on—where I was told that this House was full of experts in the scrutiny of the Government's finances—I had to go around cap in hand to persuade almost anybody to serve. Whenever someone asked, "Do I have to turn up?", I replied "Yes, you not only have to turn up but this committee will be meeting continuously for about four weeks". The answer was, "Regretfully, no". This is a serious matter. If our House is being prevented from doing its job because of availability, there is something much more wrong with our House than I was willing to take seriously.

The more important wind-up—and this is brilliant of the Liaison Committee—is that whatever this new sub-committee does it must exercise restraint on the number of reports recommended for debate. This is not doing what, again, I thought we set up committees to do, which is to look at the subject, study it properly, write a report and then rather pathetically hope that people are interested so that we might have a debate. Now the approach is, "Well, we have been set up, but we had better not do anything in case it might lead to a request to debate our recommendations". It is so ridiculous that, if this is the way our House is to run in future, one starts to come to the view that perhaps the world would be better off without us altogether.

I do not believe that for one minute. But the lesson we must learn is that if we decide to so something—and in this case the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has put forward a serious suggestion—the correct response is to say, "If it's worth doing, we will provide the resources to do it. We will, I am sure, find Members to serve, and when they have produced a first class report, we will find time to debate it". That is our justification.

My Lords, I largely support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about membership of committees. However, is there a minimum level below which there should not be a committee? Ten members sounds fine. But has there been any research on all the committees of this House that have sat over the last two or three years, and on their attendance levels? There are a large number of people who accept membership of committees and are unable to serve for all sorts of reasons. Some of the reasons are manufactured in this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, knows, I have been unable to attend this committee on two successive weeks through being involved in discussion of amendments in the Chamber or in Grand Committee. There are around 100 people who are doing an enormous amount of work; the remaining people are not sharing the burden. It would be useful to know the attendance figures. The last thing we would wish to do is to appoint 10 members, and then find that only five ever turn up regularly.

My Lords, as a former chairman of a sub-committee I am also concerned that we are reducing the number of members from 12 to 10. Is it possible that the situation might be reviewed in light of the views expressed? The European Union Committee actually asked for two additional subcommittees to undertake its work, but we have ended up with only one. The principal reasons seemingly being given are that we are short of resources. In light of the fact that we have nearly 700 Members of this House and that we have problems ensuring that EU scrutiny is carried out correctly, would the Liaison Committee be prepared to set up an investigation to try to see why we are having difficulty finding sufficient people, and can it take steps to ensure that we have sufficient people?

My Lords, I would like to shed a little light without pre-empting what the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has to say.

I start by saying that I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for granting us one of the two committees we asked for. That will help. There is tremendous pressure at the moment. The mandates of individual sub-committees are very wide. They are all important, but a particularly significant one at the moment is the Environment and Agriculture Sub-Committee, which is also meant to deal with public health and consumer affairs. We wanted an extra sub-committee so that we could have a committee devoted to social policy and consumer affairs, which would include health, worker protection and education and other issues. I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for providing us with an extra committee. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness the Deputy Leader of the House, who told me first that the Government Front Bench would support it. I am grateful to her for having promoted it in the Liaison Committee.

With regard to numbers, I think that we can make things work with 10. I have never been a great supporter of large committees. The question is whether we get people who will attend. If we have a committee of 10 and we can guarantee that seven or eight will be there for the meetings, it will work. What we must avoid is a situation in which the usual channels feel that they must put so-and-so on to a committee because they need the party numbers, and so-and-so does not show up. My philosophy is to keep the numbers reasonable but to make sure that those on committees are genuine attenders.

The noble Lord, Lord Peston, raised a concern about debate times. There may be a slight misunderstanding here. I do not think that it was the intention of the Liaison Committee—the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees can confirm it—that the extra committee, which will be known as Sub-Committee G and will deal with social policy and consumer affairs, would have to go slow in producing reports. The Liaison Committee was saying that the whole constellation of sub-committees must not produce more reports than the House can digest. I accept that; it is a fair point. It does not invalidate the point that I have made for a long time, which is that we should try to get prime time for our reports. We are making determined efforts to ensure that reports that can be for information only, rather than debate, will not be brought to the Floor of the House.

One of the reasons why we are doing a great deal in the Select Committee and the constellation of subcommittees to improve our external relations and our publicity is that we want to make sure that reports that are for information will not just be for the information of the House but will be made available to the outside world.

We can live with 10 members. We are grateful to have a seventh sub-committee. Provided that we can get time in the House for the really important reports, the Select Committee on the European Union and its sub-committees will deliver what your Lordships want.

My Lords, I pay tribute. first, to the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. I know how much he does and what a great job he does. I understand why he does not want to upset the Liaison Committee. Having got one of the two committees that he requested, he might want to go back sometime for the other one.

I never thought that I would find myself in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Peston. When he said that he had to go cap in hand to get anybody to serve on the Finance Bill sub-committee, I was quite offended on behalf of those who did join, including the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who is certainly not "anybody" and was an excellent member of the committee, as was my noble friend Lord Sheldon. We had an excellent Finance Bill sub-committee as, I am sure, those noble Lords would agree.

I agree with my noble friend on one important point. It is not that relating to the size of committees. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that a committee of 10 members, provided that even nine of them work full-time, can do a great job. Usually, on our committee—the Economic Affairs Committee—we do not have 100 per cent. The more important question has been raised before; I have raised it before. How do we find time to debate the reports? There is no point in having reports from committees if we do not find time to debate them on the Floor of the House. I noted the recent suggestion that time might be found for debate in the Moses Room or in a Grand Committee room. That is an excellent idea, and I hope it will be followed up, although 1 would prefer reports to be debated on the Floor of the House. There are so many excellent reports from committees of your Lordships' House. It is an important matter.

Those on the Government Front Bench always say that they do not have control of more than 27 per cent—even then, it is only for some of the time—of your Lordships' House so they cannot decide how many days should be allocated for Select Committee debates. That is a matter for the usual channels, as we call them—that is, those on all the Front Benches. I hope that they will take note of the mood of the House, and I hope that time will be found, one way or another, if necessary. We might even sit for an extra day or evening in order to debate important reports. As I said. that is not a matter for the Government Front Bench alone; it is a matter for all Front Benches. I hope that they will take note of that and that the last words of paragraph 3 of the Liaison Committee's report will be, if not deleted, noted with some concern.

My Lords, first, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the report is neither a spoof nor a wind-up. It is the work of the Liaison Committee. As noble Lords will see, the committee was not unanimous in wishing to set up an additional European Union sub-committee. It agreed to do so only with the accompanying recommendation about reducing the number of members of the committee from 12 to 10. At present, there are six European Union sub-committees. They are not all up to strength, but, if they were, they would involve 72 noble Lords. There will now be seven sub-committees of 10, adding up to 70.

The committee was conscious of the additional work of committees in train at the moment. A new statutory instruments committee is to be set up in the new Session. There are pre-legislative scrutiny committees for several Bills, and the number is likely to increase. There is also, of course, the finance subcommittee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred, not to mention the Select Committee on the Speakership of the House that is due to be set up later this week.

The noble Lord, Lord Peston, made a second point about whether reports should he recommended for debate or information. That was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, to whom I am grateful for his intervention. I am grateful that he is happy with what the Liaison Committee has come up with.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, I must say that I have no research into attendance at committees. So far as I am aware, there has not been a problem finding a quorum, whatever that may be. We can look into it. No doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, will wish to do that in respect of the European Union sub-committees.

The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, also, I think, largely answered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, referred to a membership of 700 in the House. The active membership of the House is considerably fewer than that.

The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, asked for more time for debates. I am sure that the usual channels will have heard that request. I hope that they will be able to respond to it. All the report asks is that the committee exercises restraint in the number of reports recommended for debate, does not insist that all reports should be debated and agrees that some should be only for the information of the House. I hope I have answered most of the questions. I commend the Motion to the House.

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld.)

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Donaldson of Lymington.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

moved Amendment No. 109:

After Clause 195, insert the following new clause—

My Lords, we support the amendment.

My Lords, the amendment is an odd hybrid between the approval of new services by the Secretary of State under the terms of the BBC's charter and agreement, and Ofcom. I am not sure that it makes a huge difference to what will happen in practice, but there are some difficulties in the way that it has been framed. It seeks to bring the process for approving new BBC services within the statutory framework, although the Secretary of State would continue to grant the approval for new BBC services or changes to existing ones under the BBC charter and agreement.

A statutory requirement would be placed on Ofcom to prepare a report on whether BBC new service proposals satisfied certain objectives. There would be a duty on Ofcom to review and report periodically on the extent to which new and changed BBC services complied with the relevant approval, and the objects mentioned in the amendment.

I am sure that, having been involved in broadcasting legislation in the past, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is aware that the amendment conflicts with the principle that the BBC is not, generally speaking, regulated by statute. It has a special status as a chartered body with a special relationship to Parliament. As I said, it is anomalous that the amendment leaves the grant of approval to be carried out under the charter or agreement but makes statutory provision for the process. I might understand it the other way round, but not this way round.

Let us be clear: new BBC services are already subject to rigorous assessment by the Secretary of State—anyone who has followed the process of approval of BBC3 and BBC4 will be aware of that. The guidelines provide for full public consultation. They set out the factors to which the Secretary of State has regard in taking her decision. We always take into account the views of the ITC and the OFT—the ITC, at any rate, will be subsumed within Ofcom. The guidelines are published, and the amendment draws on them. It is well drafted in the sense that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

In future, Ofcom will have an important role in the approval process for new BBC services. Ofcom will be consulted on any new BBC service proposals and on any reviews of existing BBC services. The Secretary of State is committed to an independent review of the BBC's new digital television and radio services in 2004, and she is committed to the involvement of Ofcom in those reviews. I believe that that is what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is looking for. We are not persuaded that formal provision is needed to ensure that Ofcom plays an appropriate role in relation to the approval of new BBC services, or changes to existing services.

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. He has given me the assurance that Ofcom will have a role in the approval process and will be consulted. I am always attempting to move the BBC gently further away from the Secretary of State, because at the end of the day it will be in a safer place. Perhaps the relationship between the Government and the BBC in recent days has shown that more clearly.

We now have the rather bizarre prospect of the BBC possibly using licence fee money to take the Government to court, who will be using taxpayers' money to defend the action: a somewhat circular process that will benefit only lawyers. But I am grateful for the Minister's assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 112A:

After Clause 195, insert the following new clause—

My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, needs to apologise for the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I can think of no more perfect substitute for the noble Lord.

I intervene for two reasons—the remark of the noble Viscount. Lord Astor, about whether the recent events concerning Mr Alastair Campbell are a sign of things to come, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Pearson, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. It is a hit of a warning cloud that we must be quite sure that the independence and integrity of the BBC as a news organisation is protected and retained. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to the extent that I am a little perplexed at the silence of the governors during the recent furore. There is a need for a clear statement on two sides. I am intrigued about whether the spat between Mr Campbell and the BBC is a personal vendetta or a statement of government policy. There needs to be clarification.

I think the governors should tell Mr Campbell and the Government, in no uncertain terms, to get their tanks off the BBC lawn. I do not think it is any accident that the personal standing of the Prime Minister has plummeted during a time when there has been a mudfight between the Government's spokesman and the BBC. The reason is very simple: the British public inherently understand that when politicians in government try to intimidate the BBC, the public interest is being threatened, along with the independence of the most trusted news organisation in the world. It is interesting that 93 per cent of the UK population used BBC television, radio, text or online services during the first two weeks of the war in Iraq, and that there were over 140 million hits on BBC News online in the first week, after which there were 3 million a day.

I have said before that we have a unique national asset in the BBC. The current structure, with the governors providing a cordon sanitaire between the BBC practitioners and the politicians, has stood the test of time. I am glad this is only a probing amendment, but if ever it came to the vote, I hope that the Government would resist it.

My Lords, a nervous glance around the Chamber suggests that I am the only serving or former BBC governor present. I feel, therefore, that I should speak against the amendment and remind noble Lords of the existence of something called the Governors' Programme Complaints Committee. I was a member of the first one of these committees; anybody has the right to appeal to it, wherever their appeal first comes in. They will be informed that they have the right to go to the governors.

There were four of us then. We saw everything and read all the papers if the appeal came to us. It is not that governors do not see complaints about the news or fairness—they see them all right.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for not rehearsing the long-standing complaint that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has against the BBC about its attitude to Europe. We have had it not only in a debate but at two stages of the proceedings of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will convey the message that some of us think we have had enough of it.

Nor shall I follow the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who seems to want me to use the amendment as an opportunity to clarify the dispute between Alastair Campbell and the BBC. I shall certainly not do that. It is a matter for the governors of the BBC, Mr Campbell and his friends, which does not arise out of the wording of the amendment.

The amendment would require advisers to the chairman and governors of the BBC to be employed by independent trustees appointed by the Secretary of State, which is an interesting thought in itself—bringing the Secretary of State into the issue. I certainly agree, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, has confirmed it, that the governors need access to independent and informed advice on which to make decisions. I am not sure whether it is well known that the governors already have access to independent advice through the governance and accountability department.

The BBC announced last year a number of significant reforms to its internal governance arrangements. which were to establish a clear delineation of the functions of the governors and the executive committee to enhance the role of the governors in monitoring performance and regulatory compliance, to provide the governors with independent advice and support on compliance, and to introduce objective setting and accountability through a new governance and accountability department.

The amendment would provide unnecessary and inappropriately intrusive government interference in the way in which the governors operate. It is clear that the governors have the power to ensure that they have suitable advice that is independent of the BBC executive. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, confirmed that. If they become unhappy with the existing arrangements for obtaining independent advice they can change them. The governors themselves are independent and ought to be left to get on with their job, which includes ensuring that they have appropriate advice.

I stress that the Government have full confidence in the governors' ability, and it is offensive to suggest that they are incapable of doing so. The suggested role for trustees appointed by the Secretary of State would mean needless additional bureaucracy that could impede the governors' effectiveness. The governors who actually do the job of regulating the BBC are clearly the best people to decide how and by whom they should be advised in order to maximise their own effectiveness. Giving that role to trustees over whose decision the Government would have no control would undermine that. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, asks, we resist the amendment.

My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords and the noble Baroness who took part in the debate.

It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, had some sympathy with the amendment. He was right to do so because the BBC is held in very high esteem—make no mistake about that. I am concerned that that esteem should not be undermined and that the BBC retains the trust of licence-payers and the whole community. That was one of the reasons for moving the amendment.

To illustrate that, I saw on ITN a poll as to who people trusted more—Mr Campbell or the BBC in the recent spat. The result was decisive. Ten per cent said that they trusted Mr Campbell more and 90 per cent said that they trusted the BBC more. The BBC should guard that reputation very closely. I was glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, that the governors do take an interest. However, it is not patent that they do so. The people who make complaints do not understand that they do so. The replies that they receive from the BBC are entirely unsatisfactory in many instances. I know that because I have taken up many complaints with the BBC and have been completely dissatisfied with the way in which they have been handled and replied to.

I did not expect the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to support the amendment. Indeed, it is a probing amendment. I am sorry that he has had enough of it. We always enjoy the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, especially in European and BBC matters. I hope that he will not be deterred by the view of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that we have had enough of it, but will continue to bring matters of importance to the House.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the governors of the BBC already have independent advice. But we are not sure whether that advice is independent, and we shall be watching it. I hope that in time we can have full confidence in the BBC in how it handles European matters and complaints about its coverage of such matters. Having said that, I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 113:

My Lords, as I have said previously, I welcome the setting up of Seirbheis nam Meadhanan Gàidhlig, the new Gaelic Media Service. By tabling these amendments we return to the issue of funding and the provision of programmes in Gaelic—that is, the number of television hours per year from the suppliers going out at peak times and not in the middle of the night as so often happens. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for his support. He spelled out the reasons for these amendments and explained their purpose. I reiterate that the value of the Gaelic Broadcasting Fund has been eroded by cuts and inflation each year since its establishment in 1991 when its value was £9.5 million. If its value had been maintained, it would now be worth £12.5 million. Instead there has been a 33 per cent real-terms reduction which has severely weakened the fund.

Under the Broadcasting Act 1996 the remit of the Gaelic Committee was expanded to include radio as well as television programmes. Furthermore, it was expected that Grampian, Scottish Television and the BBC would each provide from their own resources at least 30 hours of Gaelic programming a year to the current licence holder, S4C Digital Networks. That has not happened.

The Gaelic Broadcasting Fund requires protection at least similar to that for the Welsh language. The Welsh language has not been subject to the same squeeze because, as we have heard, its fund has been index linked since 1998. However, I understand that the Welsh S4C funding has not kept up with the requirements of digital development coupled with inflation in the broadcasting industry. We have been told, and, I believe, that the Government have promised a review of funding for Welsh broadcasting. However, I am always very suspicious of reviews and ask myself when they will happen and how long they will take. Nevertheless I am sure that Welsh broadcasting will welcome the fact that the funding is to be reviewed. I submit to your Lordships that Gaelic deserves at least similar treatment.

These amendments seek to secure some sort of stability at last for future funding. I simply do not understand how the arrangements currently work. In Committee, the Minister said:

"I can confirm that the matters addressed in the current Bill as regards Gaelic broadcasting are wholly within the reserved policy area".

I welcome that statement. He went on to say:

"However, it is true to say that the funding of Gaelic-medium programmes through the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee is being provided by the Scottish Executive".

Then he said:

"The executive is not responsible, however, for programmes supported by the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee".—[Official Report, 22/5/03; col. 988.]

It seems a huge muddle. Perhaps the Minister can explain by what method this very specific fund, the Gaelic Broadcasting Fund, reaches the Scottish Parliament. He may say that it goes in some mysterious and opaque manner via the Barnett formula and the block grant. That may be so, but I doubt it. The Barnett formula operates on the basis of planned spending in departments in England. I believe that it works by identifying whether a spending area within a devolved administration is a comparable sub-programme in terms of spending by the United Kingdom Government on services in England. However, no programme in England is comparable to the need to fund Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland. So presumably funding does not come through the block grant. There are areas where various forms of funding are passed directly to the devolved administrations and simply bypass the Barnett formula. Perhaps that is the answer to the problem.

I do not like mysteries in government. We are supposed to be open and transparent these days—freedom of information and all that. Noble Lords can perhaps sense my frustration. Why do we have to argue about such a paltry sum when we know the benefits of a secure Gaelic broadcasting service—which would be of such enormous value to a language that is still alive despite having endured years of deliberate proscription and denigration? We believe that it is at last beginning to turn the corner. I ask the Government to give Gaelic broadcasting a long-term and secure future.

My Lords, I support these amendments. I must first apologise for being unable to take part at the Committee stage. However, I have read Hansard. On Second Reading I declared my interest as a life member of An Comunn Gaidhealach.

In Committee the Minister gave some very reassuring comments about the opportunity now afforded for having a dedicated Gaelic language television channel. Gaelic may or may not, as some of its apologists have asserted, have been the language spoken in the Garden of Eden, but it is a language and a tradition which for the best part of 2,000 years relied exclusively on oral communication to relay its truths and histories. Some historians have liked to cast doubt on the authority of that as opposed to a written history. However, it would be nice to think that technology has finally come up with a complete means to redress the balance which, particularly since Caxton went to work with his printing press, has worked against that sort of communication for this particular culture.

Speaking particularly to Amendments Nos. 113,211 and 212, the noble Baroness, Lady Michie, explained at Second Reading how the original concept in setting up the Gaelic Television Fund was that the target for production of Gaelic language programmes should be 200 hours per year. As my noble friend Lord Luke said, if the money provided then had been index-linked it would now be worth £12.5 million. He also made the point that it is sad that, since then, some of that money has been transferred to other purposes.

There is currently no legislative provision for maintaining, far less increasing, the fund, which is no doubt very comforting for those who have to deal with the purse strings. These amendments are a modest effort to ensure that current funding will at least keep up with inflation.

I shall try to follow up on the arguments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Michie. The Government have made an effort to point out that all funding is taken care of by the Scottish Parliament, which we understand. However, considering that such funding is presently based on Section 183 of the Broadcasting Act 1990—neatly transferred to Scottish Ministers by the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999—can the amendments that we are proposing to the 1990 Act be similarly neatly transferred as the basis for consideration to the Scottish Parliament? A number of your Lordships feel that this issue is much in the interests of our historical cultural diversity.

My Lords, as a Welshman, I rise to support my Scottish colleagues in this House. In the days when I was Secretary State for Wales, I greatly regretted that I did not speak the Welsh language. I was, however, energetic in my support of it, and the late Lord Whitelaw and I played the major role in establishing S4C. Against that background, I have the greatest sympathy with those who want to see the Gaelic language supported and adequate broadcasting provision provided. I confess that I have not followed the exact arrangements in detail, and if the Minister can convince me that they are entirely satisfactory, and that there is adequate funding and so forth, fine. However, some reassurance would be helpful. This issue is of interest not only to Scottish Members.

My Lords, the amendments to Schedule 15 and the consequential amendments to Clause 205 would link the resources provided for the Gaelic Broadcasting Fund with the retail prices index. We believe that it is not acceptable for the Bill to provide for a guaranteed level of funding as measured against the retail prices index or, indeed, any other indicator.

The implied comparison with the funding for Welsh language broadcasting is clearly inappropriate. The Welsh Authority service was set up on a distinct basis to provide a fully-fledged channel, S4C. The formula approach to funding was therefore a basic element in its construction.

In the case of Gaelic broadcasting, although the Bill empowers a new Gaelic Media Service to broadcast a dedicated channel following the granting of relevant licences from Ofcom, that is a longer-term aspiration. What we are dealing with at the moment is a body that administers grants from the Gaelic Broadcasting Fund to provide a more limited service of up to 200 hours of Gaelic programming. In future, the Gaelic Media Service will take over that role. Any moves to create a dedicated channel for Gaelic programming are more likely to be evolutionary than revolutionary in nature. Moreover, this is expenditure wholly within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. Even if the other factors that I mentioned did not apply, I would not see the Bill as the right vehicle for imposing unilaterally a spending obligation for Gaelic broadcasting on the Scottish Executive.

Amendment No. 114 after Clause 206 would give the Secretary of State the power to impose an obligation on the BBC, the Channel 3 licensees in Scotland and Channel 4 to provide at least 30 hours of Gaelic programming each year, free of all charge, to the Gaelic Media Service. None of those programmes may be funded wholly or partly by the service.

Under the Broadcasting Act 1996, read in conjunction with the Mulitplex Licence (Broadcasting of Programmes in Gaelic) Order 1996, the BBC and Channel 3 licence holders in Scotland are already obliged to provide, free of charge, the holder of the multiplex licence under which Channel 5 and SC4 Digital are broadcast with at least 30 hours of Gaelic programmes each year. Therefore, the amendment would effectively double the quota which the BBC and Channel 3 licensees have to make available. It is not clear from the amendment whether the same programming could be supplied to both SDN and the Gaelic Media Service.

The effect of the amendment would be to impose on the BBC and Channel 3 licensees an increase in their existing obligations with regard to the provision of Gaelic programming. That increase has not been the subject of any consultation or negotiation. As the 1996 order has not thus far been extended to Channel 4, it could also impose new obligations on Channel 4.

Amendments Nos. 214, 215 and 216 to Schedule 15 to the Bill would amend Section 32 of the 1996 Act to make the existing requirement on the BBC and Channel 3 licensees in Scotland, which is to provide 30 hours of Gaelic programming each year to SDN, subject to the proviso that such programming should not be funded by the service.

As with the previous amendment to Clause 206, the effect of the amendment would be to impose on the BBC and the Channel 3 licensees an increase in their existing obligations with regard to the provision of Gaelic programming to SDN, which, again, has not been the subject of any consultation or negotiation.

The noble Lord, Lord Luke, asked for—to put it bluntly—more money and for a review of funding for Gaelic broadcasting. It would not he proper for this House to commit those responsible for the funds, the Scottish Executive, to such a review of funding. However, the Scottish Executive will consider the case for an increase as part of its spending review in 2004.

The noble Baroness, Lady Michie, referred to the mystery of the funding arrangements, the lack of transparency and a general difficulty in coming to terms with where the money comes from and where it goes. We are aware that the funding for Gaelic broadcasting is met by the Scottish Executive from within the Scottish block grant. We will, however, write to the noble Baroness with precise details of how the money moves from one part to another.

The comparison with Wales is interesting, but we should all bear in mind that there are estimated to be 57,000 Gaelic speakers inside and outside Scotland and 500,000 Welsh speakers. That may give us some clue as to why Welsh television is more highly developed than its Scottish counterpart. As I said, we are looking not at revolution, but at evolution. It is the Government's wish to support the Gaelic language. It is the Executive's wish. If the demand is there, I am sure that a Gaelic television station will emerge in due course. In light of what I have said, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.

My Lords, while I thank the Minister for that answer, I found it pretty unsatisfactory. I cannot understand why it is inappropriate to compare the S4C and the Gaelic situations merely because one is one-tenth the size of the other. It still should be considered and surely it should have the same amount of money that was designated for it in 1990. The fact that it lost so much of its value should be taken care of. I am not asking, as the Minister suggested, for more money; I suggest that we should now have the money that was originally available. The fact is that the money comes in some mysterious way from the block grant to the Scottish Parliament but it still comes from Whitehall; that is where the block grant comes from in the first place. I find it rather strange that the reference involved the Scottish Parliament when I understand—I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Michie, shares this view—that that is a reserved arrangement.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Michie, for her support; she knows so much more about this subject than I do. I also thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, for their support. This is not a very satisfactory situation. However, at this stage there is nothing more that I can say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 115:

After Clause 209, insert the following new clause—

My Lords, I, too, shall speak primarily about Wales. I point out that the new clause applies to England, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as to Wales.

The noble Baroness was good enough to accept my earlier Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 to her new clause and I hope that their incorporation in the new clause that is before us will make it more acceptable to the Government and to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, who spoke on this issue in Committee.

The amendments were drawn up specifically to take account of the comments of the Minister, Dr Kim Howells, in Committee in the other place on a not dissimilar clause, which was moved by Mr Simon Thomas, the Plaid Cymru Member for Ceredigion. The new clause as amended will confine the national council's review of Ofcom's work in respect of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, solely to the extent that it affects devolved matters. That Ofcom will affect devolved matters such as the economy, education and, in Wales, the Welsh language, is beyond question. Communications are all pervasive in regional and national life.

That the new clause is essential seems to me beyond doubt. If we do not have formal, statutory councils of the kind proposed, I am sorry to say that I can see nothing but trouble ahead for Ofcom in the national regions. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell mentioned S4C in our previous debate. Those of us who have had anything to do with broadcasting in Wales know that it can be a troublesome area. That was so long before the difficult birth of S4C in the early 1980s and I am sure that it will continue to be so.

The Minister, Dr Howells, in the other place told the Committee that the Government would,

"expect Ofcom to consult the relevant territorial departments and, through them, the devolved Administrations in order to seek nominations for suitable candidates".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 12/12/02; col. 106.]

The candidates would be for the content and consumer panels. That is all right so far as it goes; indeed, since the Government accept it, I see every reason for its inclusion in the new clause—and included it is. However, there will be matters outside the scope of the consumer and content panels—matters relating to policy and direction. Who will advise Ofcom in those circumstances and warn it of the likely public reaction? It may not be known to local directors and so on. Ofcom will certainly need a sounding board of the kind that the councils will provide.

The Minister also anticipated consultative arrangements set up in a memorandum of understanding between Ofcom and the relevant Secretary of State for each nation. That is better than nothing, but my preference is for councils, enjoined by statute, similar to those of the BBC. Such councils will be a good sounding board for Ofcom, and I am sure will be found invaluable.

My Lords, in considering this amendment, it may be helpful to your Lordships to know what Ofcom intends to do on its own account with respect to advisory structures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Ever since I was appointed chairman of Ofcom last summer, I have made it clear and public that we will set up national advisory councils for each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, whether or not we are specifically required to do so under the statutes as finally determined. We consider that it will be of the highest importance to Ofcom that we receive advice at a senior level from those who can reflect the concerns and interests of people living in the home nations, such as those issues that have been highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.

There is a national representative from each nation already on the Ofcom content board and we would expect a similar arrangement to be put in place for the consumer panel, with the detail subject to the outcome of our consideration of the Bill. More generally, we are determined that Ofcom shall be present and properly represented in each nation. Ofcom executives have already made contact with the territorial offices and, while respecting the principle of reserved powers, with the devolved administrations.

We are engaged in discussions about how good, effective working relationships can he established. Those discussions will cover procedures for consultation; the appointment processes for the national councils; seeking advice on Ofcom's physical presence in each nation; and arrangements for the maintenance of regular contacts with the devolved administrations.

I greatly hope that that will serve to reassure noble Lords about Ofcom's own plans. We intend to do this well. I hope also that Ofcom will be allowed enough freedom in the wording of the Bill to allow these structures and processes to evolve organically from those discussions, and to demonstrate appropriate flexibility. Too much detailed prescription on the face of the Bill could be counterproductive.

My Lords, the whole House can be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Currie, for his important contribution to our debate. It was precisely because I was worried that the original wording of the amendment would be in conflict with his closing words that I was critical of a similar amendment at the Committee stage, and pressed my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy to seek to put down amendments.

I entirely share the noble Lord's view that we must not put wordings into the Bill that might suggest to the national assemblies or to the other devolved bodies that they have responsibilities for the operations of Ofcom that they do not have. Similarly, we should not write into the Bill directions which go outside the proper role of advisory committees. I therefore understand and sympathise with the comments made by the noble Lord.

Having said that, the amendment now before us is very similar to the amendment suggested by the joint scrutiny committee and also to the amendment which I put forward in Committee. In a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Currie, has undermined any arguments against having it written into the Bill—clearly what this amendment suggests is very much in line with what they are already going to do—but, for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy has hinted at, there are some quite powerful arguments for having it actually covered in the statute, if only to give the reassurance that is sought in the nations and regions, and perhaps to eliminate some of those sources of conflict to which he referred.

When my noble friend looks back to past history and to the troubles that we had in the very first days of the administration of which we were both members, I hope that he will not prompt anyone else to start, or threaten to start, a fast unto death, to get what they want. But those were the sorts of emotions that were raised at that time about broadcasting. He is quite right to say that these are touchy subjects.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Currie, and his colleagues will be able to accept the proposed wording. Alternatively, if there are some minor amendments that would make it easier for him to do so, perhaps they could be brought forward on Third Reading. If the noble Lord could accept something along these lines, which is broadly similar to what he is going to do anyway, it would, as my noble friend Lord Roberts suggested, help his task. It would calm things. It would give reassurance. I think that it would be a wise move. I therefore support the amendment. I hope that it, or something very like it, will emerge from the Bill when it leaves this House.

My Lords, the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Currie, was extremely helpful, but I have one small point to make. He indicated that Ofcom was planning to set up such councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, whereas the amendment also specifically mentions England. This relates to the reason why we on these Benches support the amendment.

We are still coming to terms with and grappling with the realities of devolution. We shall also have to come to terms with the realities of devolution for England. I think that it would be sensible to have this kind of amendment on the face of the Bill—particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Currie, has gone so far in indicating his own thinking.

I believe that my credentials on this are sound because, both when I chaired a party committee and when I sat on the Joint Committee, I resisted the idea of specific national nominees on the main Ofcom board. I believe that it was right to do so. However, there has also been the powerful point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that there are national sensitivities. It was put rather brutally by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford in Committee that Ofcom would be run from the bar of the Groucho Club. Perish the thought! However, such sensitivities exist—namely, that what is happening in the regions and nations will not be fully appreciated by a metropolitan organisation—and they will have to be counteracted.

I believe that this amendment has the right balance. It addresses the right issue, as we understand that Ofcom is already well down that road. I think that it would be a very smart move on the part of the Government simply to accept it.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in what may have been a Freudian slip, referred to "the regions". This amendment would appear to refer to the three devolved nations and then, in rather general terms, to England. There is an asymmetry about the amendment that distresses me, because I believe that in England there are many different regional concerns, which ought also to have the opportunity to be expressed on a level footing with the concerns of the devolved nations.

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment. I entirely agree with all that noble Lords have said. My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy referred to the possibility of trouble in the national regions. I was also interested in that statement. Perhaps we could have a debate on the definition of "national" and "national regions".

I agree with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. Notwithstanding the fact that it is extremely helpful to have the noble Lord, Lord Currie, offer his reassurances on this matter today, it would be better if this issue were covered properly in statute. The changes introduced by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy are extremely helpful and sensible. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

My Lords, I am very grateful for the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, presented her arguments—reinforced, as they were, by subsequent contributions—on an area which we debated at considerable length in Committee. This amendment advances the issues which were discussed in Committee, and the debate has taken place in a very constructive way.

I have listened carefully to the debate and I want to respond as constructively as I can. Of course. we are sympathetic to the anxieties reflected among the nations and to the obvious concern expressed fully in the opening speech that broadcasting is a significant feature of life in scattered communities, as is the case in certain parts of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I am very grateful, too, for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Currie. He reinforced a point that we also expressed in Committee; that is, there is no way that Ofcom would go about its business without having due regard to the needs of the nations which make up the United Kingdom. I recall that at that time the noble Lord said that there had been a considerable number of visits to outlying possibilities. Much constructive work has been done, and I do not need to do anything other than thank him for his contribution and reinforce what he said this afternoon.

We are somewhat hesitant about expressing in the legislation a degree of rigidity in relation to the committees that Ofcom would set up. It is recognised that Ofcom has provision for representing the nationalities with regard to contact sports, and so on. But we are anxious about the degree of rigidity that would be involved in establishing four committees of Ofcom in the way that has been argued. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have sought to avoid placing unnecessary constraints on the structure of Ofcom or limiting its flexibility in dealing with changing circumstances.

However, the case has been well deployed today. We do not wish to accept the amendment at this stage and hope that it will not be pressed. But we undertake to consider this debate in full, to look at the issues again and to see the extent to which we can amend the Bill without, at the same time, falling into the trap of rigidity, which would do harm to the broad objectives that we all share. On that basis, and heartened by the debate, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he indicate whether he has consulted the Welsh and Scottish Executives and whether they have given any indication as to what their attitude would be?

My Lords, certain aspects of their attitude have been well expressed. With regard to the feeling in Wales on this matter, I leave that to the eloquence of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. In introducing the amendment, the noble Baroness sought to reflect proper concern for the nations, and we all recognise that concern. But the noble Lord will also recognise that some difficulties arise with regard to this issue. Broadcasting is not a devolved issue. Respect for the views of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is very important. Suggesting that this matter should be directed from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a different matter altogether.

My Lords, I am most grateful to all who have spoken in the debate. In particular, I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Currie, for his contribution and for his very reassuring remarks. I accept the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that some improvements could be made to the wording of the amendment. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic remarks concerning the spirit of the amendment, and I accept that some rewording should take place. In the light of those comments, I should like to take up the offer to reconsider the amendment and to reword it. Therefore, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 118:

Page 191, line 5, at end insert "and which is, so far as practicable, accessible to persons who are blind or have a dual sensory impairment".

Hear, hear!

My Lords, the amendments concern issues that we have already addressed. However, we did not come to a satisfactory conclusion with regard to the idea of teletext services being available. As a result of various technical innovations—for example, through items such as a Braille printer being attached to the system—the analogue system is currently available to those who have a sight impairment and to those with a dual impairment in sight and hearing,

I have been assured by the RNIB and its specialist adviser that great difficulties will arise under the changeover. When the adviser spoke to Portset—the Talking Teletext manufacturer—it was said that no device could be made to read the digital teletext in its current format. However, we were assured that, with a new software programme, it would be possible for the service provider to provide a programme which accesses and reads the contents in different ways—that is, it would be compatible with assisted technology. Effectively, such a programme can be devised if one takes the time to apply pressure and ensure that people think about the problem.

When it comes to providing news, it is particularly important that we remember those who have dual sensory impairment. I had a meeting with the Minister and other Members of this House at which the subject of dual sensory impairment—that is. deafness/blindness—was discussed. I hope that this will be a warning shot with regard to later amendments. It was said that if one deals with problems affecting the blind or with those affecting people with hearing impairment, then one deals also with problems affecting the deaf/blind. That is not true. One simple reason is that usually if a person has a hearing problem, he can go primarily to a visual medium for support, or vice versa. In this case, the teletext and the printer which provides Braille enables the sense of touch to provide the information, and that would greatly assist certain groups. As people live longer, the number of those with dual impairment is bound to rise. Effectively, in Amendment No. 118 we are suggesting that the Government should place upon Ofcom the duty to ensure that the best use is made of technology. According to technical advice, we believe that that is now possible.

I turn to Amendments Nos. 135 and 139. These Benches become rather more friendly towards Sky than is normally the case. We suggest that public broadcasters should allow and pay for audio description to be used on the Sky system so that it can reach those who already have the Sky box. Radio 4—it is nice to use the BBC against the BBC—in its "In Touch" programme, asked its listeners for their views on this matter. One response was, "Why should we not use the Sky system?". I must apologise for not being present at one of the briefings, but Sky now has a system which delivers audio description. A secondary system which delivers audio description—it may not be quite so good—is infinitely better than a good system that is not available.

A response to the "In Touch" programme stated:

"You asked if the listeners wanted AD [audio description] well this one does. You also asked how we wanted to receive it. Any way we can. When do we want it?—I wanted it the day I got my audio description set on my Skybox. I despair of this penny pinching and mean spirited country sometimes, it is shameful".

The sentiments and language are probably true of all phone-ins. What are the costs? There was an initial cost of £6,000 and then £20,000 per annum per channel of extra bandwidth. Of course, it is not only £20,000. It expands some local/national channels. But the sum is probably under half a million pounds per year.

The RNIB, whose hand lies heavily on these amendments, suggests that there may be a case to answer under the DDA for not taking reasonable steps to ensure that people receive the system. I suggest that there is a case to answer. If the Government accept the amendments they will he dealing now with the problem for a large number of people. Approximately 480,000 people with a visual problem have access to Sky. It would be a step forward which would not get in the way of those who choose to receive the free-to-air services in other ways. It would merely ensure that those with systems in place receive access now. I beg to move.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord. Lord Addington, on the success he has achieved in the proceedings so far on this important Bill. None of his amendments is more important than Amendment No. 118 with its concern for people who have a dual sensory impairment: the Helen Kellers, as it were, of contemporary Britain.

When I was Minister for disabled people from 1974–9, I was asked what combination of disabilities I thought was the most devastating in its effects. The question was, of course, unanswerable; but I recall that my first inclination was to offer blindness combined with pre-lingual deafness as my response. For it takes scant imagination to appreciate the extent and severity of the handicapping effects of being without hearing, without sight and without speech.

My noble friend Lord Ashley played a leading role in 1970 in enacting the world's first-ever legislation on the dual sensory impairment of deafness and blindness; and this must he an evocative moment for him, fighting the good fight for them again as he is today.

There are those who think that without any action in Westminster or in Whitehall someone will turn up and design new equipment to replace talking teletext and that this will sort the problem out. But it will not. It has to be understood that it is the format of digital teletext itself which is the fundamental problem. The technical expert for the Royal National Institute for the Blind has studied the issue and looked at the structure of digital teletext and how it works. He has concluded that Portset (talking teletext manufacturers) are right to say no device could be made to read digital teletext in its current format. That is why this amendment is so important. It would ensure that Ofcom does all it can to ensure blind and deaf-blind people's continued access to teletext post-digital switchover.

What would he untenable would be for Westminster and Whitehall to do nothing. The experience of audio description should teach us that these things should not he left to chance. Nor is it tenable to expect small specialist providers to continue to fill in the gaps in the market and expect cash-strapped, deeply excluded consumers to pay exorbitant amounts of money for a service which everyone else gets at no extra charge.

Amendment No. 118 is very much about social inclusion. I hope that the House as a whole will recognise its importance as today's debate proceeds.

My Lords, in Committee I tabled amendments which dealt with audio description. Therefore, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 135 and 139.

The technology is there. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, it is available already on Sky for approaching half a million blind and partially-sighted people. It is available on other broadcasts but only to about 65 people who had the trial modules. There seems to be a real problem in persuading the manufacturers that there is a market for producing set-top boxes. We are told that the technology on trial at present with the 65 trial modules is better. I believe that it is an accepted European standard. But there is still the problem of bridging the gap.

In Committee, the Minister said that requiring the BBC and ITV to simulcast audio description on Sky digital would somehow jeopardise the development of receiver-mixed audio description for digital terrestrial. I wonder sometimes—I dismiss it as an unworthy thought—whether broadcasters who are invoked with free-view consider that if consumers could obtain the service on Sky they would be less inclined to have free-view. Later amendments deal with how the percentage of audio description is calculated; and the powers of Ofcom to vary it.

The set-top boxes could be adapted extremely cheaply. We are told that the chip for the set-top boxes costs only about £10 and that the facility will soon be available on all set-top boxes. If it is available, but that does not take place, I ask the Government seriously to consider the possibility raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, of a case brought against the broadcasters under the Disability Discrimination Act. It would be unfortunate, if I may so put it, if the Government were to side with the broadcasters and perhaps resist these amendments, or similar provisions, and then find that they are conniving in a situation which could result in the broadcasters losing a case under the Act. The RNIB is prepared to back a legal case against the broadcasters because we are talking about a very reasonable adjustment.

The DDA applies explicitly to access to and use of a means of communication. Section 21 of the Act places a duty on service providers including broadcasters to amend policies, procedures and practices which prevent disabled people using a service and to provide auxiliary aids and services. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider the issue extremely carefully. The technology is there. There are two kinds of technology. We are not clear why there is this delay in the more advanced technology being adopted. However, if it is not adopted, there is a strong chance that a case could be brought under the Disability Discrimination Act. It would be unfortunate if the Government were backing a situation which turned out to be illegal.

My Lords, I make two basic points. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friends Lord Morris and Lord Carter for their contributions. I appreciate what they have said. They have covered most arguments.

However, on Amendments Nos. 135 and 139 there is a clear conflict about the facts of the situation which should be resolved to the satisfaction of the House. In Committee, the Government said that the cost of Amendments Nos. 135 and 139 was an issue—and for our briefing we have relied heavily on the RNIB and the RNID, both of which have been excellent—but the RNIB, on the contrary, states that nothing could be cheaper or easier to arrange. Only one is right: it is either an issue of cost or it is easy and cheap.

I have enough confidence in my noble friend to assume that he will treat these amendments with great sympathy, but if for any reason he cannot, I do think that it is incumbent on the Government to illuminate the costings and to say what these expensive costings are. Of course we could think about different wording or something of that kind. However, I hope that the Government will he able to give us the details of why these developments will be very expensive.

My second point is on discrimination. I am a great advocate of the DRC taking legal action if one gets recalcitrant employers or organisations and so on. I press all the time to start legal action but I wonder in this case. It occurs to me that it is a form of discrimination if blind or partially-sighted people cannot use these wonderful advances. So I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the Government or the DRC should consider taking action.

But why take that risk? Why bother? The simple answer is to accept the amendments and one would not then need to argue about legal action. The answer is plain and simple for the Government and lies in the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I hope that they are able to accept these three amendments.

My Lords, I associate noble Lords on the Conservative Benches with the sending of best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and hope that she will be back with us before too long.

We support Amendment No. 118 in principle. I was most interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Carter, say that the technology—I hope I have this right—with regard to the digital teletext is there, but that it is too expensive to deliver.

My Lords, I was speaking about technology on audio-description, which is in Amendments Nos. 135 and 139.

My Lords, I beg the pardon of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Nevertheless, I just want to say that we support the amendment and hope that the Minister can give us some joy on what is being delivered. It is very important that the discrimination described by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, does not take place. 1 am not sure that I go along with the idea of suing, but certainly we wish to see progress on this as on other issues.

My Lords, we on these Benches have consistently supported amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Ashley. I simply want to say that I endorse and repeat that support for these amendments.

My Lords, my contribution will also be brief because everything that I want to say has been said. I have read the RNIB briefing. Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I was particularly moved by the pleas made by those who wrote to say that they would have wanted these services and facilities from the moment they arrived.

It is clear that this is a growing market. We are told that the longer people live, the more likely they are to be disadvantaged in this way. So the market is there. The costs are going down the whole time. So, again, there is every reason to be doing this. Inclusiveness was mentioned, which the Government have as a main objective. I think it is a very desirable objective. We can now see that if push comes to shove there is a clear possibility that a case could be made under the DDA.

So I hope very much that the Minister when responding will be able to accept the role that government must play if the broadcasters are to have this responsibility. It must be overseen and underwritten by the Government.

My Lords, I share with all noble Lords who have spoken today our keenness that people with sensory impairments should benefit by improved access to all television services including the public teletext service. I think that view has been universally expressed. In particular, we recognise the peculiar problems of those with dual sensory impairment. My noble friend Lord Ashley was particularly eloquent on that point in Committee.

There is a problem between analogue and digital. Those who are visually impaired and those with dual sensory impairment have access to analogue public teletext services and other analogue text services through Talking Teletext equipment, which uses a teletext decoder and a voice synthesiser to translate written teletext into audible speech. The information can be stored on a computer and printed out in Braille. That is fine for analogue teletext services, but the digital technology, for reasons I shall not go into, does not enable the same thing.

The amendment would require Ofcom to introduce a new kind of technical requirement in the regulatory regime for the public teletext service with no certainty of how and at what cost the broadcaster might fulfil any condition imposed. We want the legislation to be future-proofed. In so far as we can, we want to provide for any anticipated new beneficial technologies, but we really cannot include in a Bill an obligation on Ofcom to do something that we do not know can be done, and which, even if it could be done, we do not know how to do it.

The fallback situation—I realise that this will not be entirely satisfactory—is that in carrying out its functions Ofcom has a general duty to have regard to the needs of persons with disabilities. Of course that includes the needs of those with dual sensory impairment. So there is the general duty pushing Ofcom in this direction, but we are arguing that it does not need a special provision of the kind set out in Amendment No. 118.

We do not just rely on the wording. One of the key tasks of the technology and equipment group of the digital action plan is to consider the specific equipment needs of disabled people. We will ensure that the issue of accessibility to digital teletext services is taken forward within the work of the group. The most effective way would be a commercial solution, but it does not need to be reflected in the provisions of the Bill.

My Lords, I intervene in the hope that it will save time later on. Is the noble Lord saying that, to the best of his understanding, if, say, a new software system was designed that would make access to teletext possible, it would have to be brought into being and used in the existing structure?

My Lords, certainly the digital action group would take that forward, yes. The general duty on Ofcom would oblige it to take action on it. I do not know what that action would be. It depends on whether the technology is inherent in the broadcasting process or is much wider, which is converting the spoken word into something which is intelligible, particularly to those with dual sensory impairment. So I cannot tell on whom the obligation would lie, but I can say that the digital action group has a responsibility to take it forward and that if it takes it forward and finds the solution, Ofcom has a duty to progress it under its general duty towards people with disabilities.

On Amendments Nos. 134 and 139, we fully understand the need to ensure that, where a channel must be offered on a network or satellite service, any viewing aids that relate to that channel are also carried. But in fact, audio description, which is what is in play here, is just one form of ancillary service. As is clear from subsection (6) of Clauses 268 and 269, the Bill already provides a "must offer" obligation to encompass ancillary services, as well as the main "must offer" channels to which they relate. Given Ofcom's general duty, to which I referred, under Clause 3(3)(i), to take into account the needs of persons with disabilities, we have every sympathy with the motivation behind the amendments, but there is already specific provision.

I turn to the issue of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, to which several noble Lords referred. That Act relates to persons who provide the services—in other words, to the broadcaster, certainly not to the Government or Ofcom. Although the debate about the type of audio description is for Ofcom to deal with, the question of compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act is for the broadcasters. If nothing were done, they could be prosecuted under the Act. It is in their interests to take the necessary steps. That needs no further action from Ofcom or the Government.

I hope that it is clear that we are in sympathy with the amendments. We believe that we are taking the necessary steps, both for dual sensory impairment and for audio description, to advance provision as fast as technically feasible.

My Lords, the Minister's argument—"Don't worry; it is already covered twice"—was plausible. As for his answer on Amendment No. 118, it was interesting and should be considered in detail by those who helped me with—let us be honest, performed—the drafting. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment to consider exactly what sort of cover is available and whether the process is strong and quick enough.

However, when it comes to Amendments Nos. 135 and 139, I am less happy. We are basically dealing with the cock-up school of history come to life. We are producing audio description that no one can receive. Boxes do not have the technology available; no manufacturer has been going through a system. Then we have a system through which we could access a huge chunk of those using a free-to-air service—something that the public are funding and which the public should be able to access but which, because of an administrative disagreement, they cannot.

To be honest, that is on the edge of sanity. If our figures are right—the Minister did not challenge them, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said—we have every grounds for pressing ahead. But the Minister then effectively said, "If you have a case, go and do it". To pick up on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, if we must use the existing legal structure, we shall. I am not sure whether the Bill is the right way with which to deal with the matter, but I say to all those listening, please remember that if you are to give us nothing other than a legal option, we shall use it.

My Lords, before the noble Lord decides what to do about those later amendments, there are two aspects to what I said. First, under Clauses 268(6) and 269(6), Ofcom will already have the powers sought under the amendments. Secondly, under the Digital Action Plan, we are already taking steps to act using those powers.

My Lords, with due respect, I accept that, but the fact is that audio description, which has previously been allowed for in legislation, has been produced but still is not getting through. There is no guarantee in the Bill or in any discussion about it that we will have the box with a chip in place. We have heard good noises; we have heard of things going forward. Perhaps we should not press the amendments; we have not reached the appropriate stage in the Bill. I am trying to listen and to be as co-operative as possible.

However, good intentions were already there. That is why the issue arises. We have not achieved them. Having said that, there is a case for further discussion and for returning to the issue at a later date—if, indeed, there is still a live issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 118A:

Page 205, line 36, at end insert "if such service is accessible from the main service immediately by the execution of a single action"

My Lords, when I first read the amendments I was not entirely clear what the noble Baroness was driving at and I am grateful to her for that explanation, which has made matters a great deal clearer. I understand that a television licensable content service means TV or EPG, whether broadcast from a satellite or distributed through an electronic communications network, and that "relevant ancillary service" includes any other service apart from advertising which is ancillary to a programme and relates directly to its contents. Thus if the web-streaming service to which the noble Baroness referred was not immediately relevant to the content of the main service, then she need not worry about it. However, the noble Baroness seeks to limit this to a service which is accessible from the main service by the execution of a single action, which I think would be rather too limiting.

An example is given in the Explanatory Notes. At this point I must say that the notes for this particular clause are much more helpful than is usually the case. Often when I turn to them I find that generally they paraphrase what is set out in the Bill, whereas for this clause the Explanatory Notes give an excellent description of a service that might be covered.

They cite a wildlife programme which allows the viewer to choose different camera angles via a menu or to access factual material about the animals from within the broadcast stream. Those would be relevant ancillary services because they are made available by the provider of the main service, but they might not be accessible by the execution of a single action. The viewer might first have to bring up the menu on screen and then perform a second action to pick one of the options displayed. No doubt the provider would try to make the choices as simple as possible, but the effect of the amendment would seem to be to exclude these menu-driven services from the definition and thus to require the provider to obtain a separate licence for them, even though from a common-sense point of view they are ancillary to the main service because they come directly under the control of the main provider.

My Lords, I am not qualified to know whether the response of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has been effective, but I am sure that she will be glad to have had it fed into the debate. This is a horribly complex subject and one on which we know that there is not immediately in sight a definition that will please everyone. That is why we have provided in Clause 231 for amendment of the definition if future technological and other changes require it so that policy objectives continue to be met.

The central distinction we want to make here is that of keeping broadcast services within regulation and leaving on-demand services outside. I think we are all agreed on that point. We have already held discussions with representatives of Channel 4, which is interested in the issues raised by these amendments, and no doubt we shall continue to hold those discussions. We think that the concerns of Channel 4 are misplaced, but we want to ensure that the definition is right. Officials are available to continue to discuss these matters.

Let me explain why we cannot accept these particular amendments. Amendment No. 118A would have the effect of ensuring that an ancillary service which could be accessed from the main service only by "two clicks" should be unregulated. However, that would take out of regulation ancillary broadcast services such as interactive Wimbledon camera angles accessed from BBC1 if they could be accessed only via the BBCi interactive area. I do not think that that is what is intended.

Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 seem to try to ensure that any Internet service dedicated to broadcast material is excluded from regulation as a television licensable content service so long as it is at least two clicks away from a television or radio programme. Our definitions already effectively exclude Internet services of the kind with which we are familiar, but the scenario which our forward-looking colleagues in the industry may have in mind is a service wholly dedicated to web-casts and operated in such a way that it met the criteria for television licensable content services and so fell within regulation. Where that happens, the power in Clause 231 to change the definition would come into force.

However, the particular service to which Channel 4 has referred in discussion is that which provides on the web an uncut version of a film which can be broadcast only in cut form. Channel 4 did this with the Danish film "Dogme #2—Idioterne". We think that such services are already excluded from regulation by way of the definitions in the Bill.

As I said, we are more than happy to continue our discussions to ensure that the definitions work well, but I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and I agree that this is a complex subject. It is certainly helpful to have the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and I admit that I should like to reserve my thoughts until I have had an opportunity to read in Hansard what he said.

This is an important area and I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance that the Government are in discussions with representatives of Channel 4. This is a matter that will be of growing interest and debate as the distinction between television licensable content services and the Internet inevitably blurs with the further development of the technology. Indeed, I recall that, prior to Second Reading, I had long and really interesting discussions with various people in the media industry about this situation, which will grow. Indeed, the blurred distinction here might test the lifeline of this legislation. It may bring about the need to consider in the future how we deal with licensable content for broadcast television and then find that something available on the Internet is not regulated in any way.

I am grateful to Channel 4 for its two-clicks proposal. It has certainly helped me to understand the potential problem that may arise as the distinction becomes more blurred. I am grateful that the Minister will continue discussions. I hope that the definitions will work and reassure Channel 4 and others in the broadcast media. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 121:

Page 218, line 38, leave out "or"

My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 161, which is grouped with these amendments. The amendment clarifies the meaning of "due prominence" for public service broadcasters on electronic programme guides and ensures that due prominence is given to the correct national or regional variation of public service channels—for example, BBC Wales in Wales and Granada in the North West.

When this issue was debated in Committee, there was considerable support for these arguments. However, at the same time, concerns were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that the amendments as tabled were rather too prescriptive. Others were concerned that we might be getting involved in a commercial dispute between the BBC and Sky over the electronic programme guide listings.

Since then, I am happy to say, the BBC and Sky have resolved their difference in a way that satisfies the public interest. The BBC will no longer purchase an encryption service from Sky and will therefore broadcast its channels in the clear on digital satellite. BBC1 and BBC2 will continue to be located at slots 101 and 102 on Sky's electronic programme guide.

The BBC will purchase a regionalisation service from Sky to ensure that viewers with viewing cards within the UK receive the right national and regional services. That applies to everyone who has pay TV. In future, new customers will have to buy a card if they wish to access the regional variation of their choice at slots 101 and 102. They will still of course be able to access those channels by memorising a three-digit number if they do not want to buy a card.

The way in which the dispute has been resolved does not guarantee that the outcome of any future commercial arguments between platform operators and public service broadcasters will necessarily be in the public interest. The dispute has underlined the need for Parliament to set as clear objectives as possible for Ofcom while leaving it adequate discretion to implement the policies set by Parliament. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Unless Ofcom is given greater clarity than we gave to the ITC, it is possible that the same problems that led to the recent dispute between the BBC and Sky will arise with other public service broadcasters. That cannot be in the interests of the consumer, Ofcom or your Lordships' House.

My Lords, I support Amendment No. 161, which has been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and to which my name is attached.

In Committee, great prominence was attached to the importance of public service broadcasting. It is important that the public service channels—BBC, ITV and Channel 4—are able to broadcast their programmes in a way that makes them easily accessible to viewers across all platforms. There is little point in insisting that our public service channels should produce in their programming a certain amount of regional news if in order to find it you have to scroll down to the nether regions of the electronic programming guide.

In our deliberations on the Broadcasting Act 1996 I fought for top prominence for the public service broadcasting channels in the electronic programming guide. This was accepted. However, some seven years later, we are now re-engaged in the same issue. When we had those debates in 19961 am certain that we never even considered that Sky would be in a position unilaterally to move the BBC from the top positions 101 and 102 in the EPG—but that is what it recently proposed.

However, I believe that the voices raised in this House—in a period when, by chance, we happened to be debating relevant legislation—made clear the importance that Parliament attaches to the ability of citizens to find their public service broadcasters. Fortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, the dispute between the BBC and Sky has been settled. But we cannot expect such legislation to be on the Floor of the House when there is a future dispute between commercial platform operators and a public service broadcaster. We need to do more than make our views known. We need to give clarity to the regulatory framework and we need to ensure that public service broadcasters will always have prominence.

Technology has moved on since 1996. The purpose of the amendment is to provide clarity for the regulator in the light of that change. I hope that the Government and my own Front Bench will listen sympathetically to the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and I have made.

My Lords, I rise briefly to explain why I have attached my name to the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.

It is important to emphasise that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that all public service channels remain easily accessible to viewers. This concerns not only the BBC, but ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5.

As has been mentioned, the BBC and Sky, thankfully, have resolved their current dispute. But ITV's contract, for example, expires in autumn 2004. The amendment establishes that public service channels should be at a position on the EPG that is no less prominent than will be the case at the enactment of the Bill.

The amendment also importantly clarifies that when we refer to "due prominence" we mean for the right regional version of a public service channel. This is particularly important for ITV, with its unique regional structure. A viewer in Manchester expects to receive Granada on button 103. The viewer in Belfast expects to receive Ulster TV. How can we urge ITV to uphold its long-standing public service tradition if we are not prepared to will the means to ensure that viewers are guaranteed easy access to their regional services?

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 162 standing in my name. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord McNally, back in the Chamber because he gave the House wise counsel in a previous debate. He said that in this dog fight between the BBC and Sky it would be sensible for Parliament to keep its distance. He slightly spoiled the effect by then supporting the amendment drafted by the BBC. Never mind, his advice was wise. It was shown to be so by the agreements, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has referred, reached between Sky and the BBC without any help from us. Those wise words should resound with us as we consider these amendments.

Again we have to choose between two extreme positions, although "extreme" is perhaps unfair. One favoured by the BBC is put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others in Amendment No. 161, and we have heard the case for it. The other, favoured by Sky, is at the other extreme, arguing there should be no change in the Bill. I am not sure who will put that case. I said from the beginning that I thought that Parliament could do with giving a nudge, but not a push, on this matter—not siding with one side or the other, but nudging in favour of the public service channel. That is the thrust of my amendment. It may be feeble, but it endeavours to say that Ofcom should use its best endeavours to make sure that the public service channels do not lose their present prominence. There may be situations in which it is right for that prominence to be reviewed. If, for example, BBC Four was doing incredibly well and BBC Two was doing incredibly badly, it might be a good idea for BBC Four to be promoted, and Ofcom should allow that. That would register with Ofcom Parliament's will that due prominence should be given to the public service channels. I hope that the Government will he sympathetic.

My Lords, I agree with virtually everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote. My former company HTV believes the issue to be of crucial importance for it and similar companies for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, argued well. As to which amendment to choose, I would prefer a firm push rather than a gentle nudge, so I strongly support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 163 in my name. This is a plea on behalf of smaller broadcasting channels and for clarity within the proposed code of practice. I have placed the amendment at the request of S4C, a channel that broadcasts in Welsh and which I had the pleasure of seeing, if not totally understanding, on my recent visit to Cardiff.

Ofcom has a duty to draw up and revise periodically a code of practice to be followed in providing EPGs and especially to give due prominence to public service broadcasting channels. S4C has already experienced some problems with its placings in Wales, and it does not believe that the due prominence element on EPGs is being followed. EPGs will be a key issue in future broadcasting and may well alter people's viewing habits perhaps more than any other aspect of the digital revolution in broadcasting. Most people do not know the number of the channel that they want to watch but instead surf the channels, as I often do. This presents a problem for channels like S4C, which are not genre based.

For example, S4C hosts a well-known and, I understand, well-respected children's programme, "Planed Plant", which in English is "Children's Planet", but this cannot be found in the children's section of the EPG and has to be searched for. Any codes of practice must be strong enough to protect not only the larger broadcasters, but the smaller broadcasters, such as S4C. The channel number on an EPG is crucial in that the smaller broadcasters do not have large marketing or promotional budgets, so their profile must be prominent enough to give ease of access to them by channel hopping. This amendment aims to ensure that the smaller broadcasters such as S4C are given a fair chance in the code of practice.

My Lords, I reassert my comments in Committee. We believe that public service channels should have prominence, especially those channels referred to—BBC One, BBC Two, and ITV. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred to ITV's unique regional structure. It is important to ensure that these public service channels are easily accessible across all platforms. Notwithstanding, I sympathise with the amendments proposed. I am still concerned about the prospect of putting something into the legislation as opposed to leaving it with Ofcom. Technology is moving ahead all the time, the introduction of new channels is growing, we are going to have more and more public service channels, and I am concerned about those kinds of channels—such as the History Channel, which does not happen to be a public service channel but has all the characteristics of one—being pushed further down because they do not happen to have that label, PSB.

The amendments do not answer my continuing concerns. It is important that Ofcom should take on the task early in its life of drawing up a code on the application of EPGs. As noble Lords have said, there has been a long expectation for a code on EPGs to be put forward by Oftel and the ITC. It is important that Ofcom takes this work forward at an early opportunity so that easy access to the channels of viewers' choice is safeguarded, but I am concerned about the lifeline of this legislation, which I mentioned in the last amendment, and the flexibility for Ofcom to be able to respond to what I hope will be an ever-increasing number of channels. There should be more choice for the viewer, good, high quality public service channels, but there should also be no discrimination against other channels that do not happen to be PSB but provide high quality viewing.

My Lords, I sound a note of dreadful warning. The two Front Benches are in total agreement. My contribution is almost otiose after the careful arguments deployed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. However, I shall also say that as there has been no dissent I hope that the Government's attempt to meet the requirements of the agreement that we struck in Committee are agreed in the form of a government amendment.

First, I turn to Amendment No. 163, spoken to by my noble friend Baroness Gibson. She is right that it is necessary for Ofcom to consult widely, and we expect that to be done. Before it draws up and revises the code on electronic programme guide, they should consult, as we expect them to consult on all significant decisions. I point out to my noble friend that appropriate consultation by Ofcom is already required as part of its general duty to follow the best regulatory practice. We provide for that in Clause 3(3)(d), and, therefore, we do not believe that there is any need for a specific statutory provision regarding this area of consultation, although I do value the fact that my noble friend has emphasised that fact, and it will be part of Ofcom's remit. There is also a danger that accepting a specific amendment might give rise to the implication that Ofcom is specifically enjoined to consult in this area but not in others. In fact, I think that it is recognised that we want maximum consultation by Ofcom on all crucial decisions.

I must say—this relates to a point touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe—that it is not just a question of public service channel providers. It might not be just those providers who ought to be consulted. They are affected by the "due prominence" provision, but they are not the only parties affected by that provision or by the other topics that will be dealt with in the code, such as fair terms between EPG operators and service providers or accessibility for people with disabilities. It is for that reason that we think that it would not be right to make the amendment, even though it is an important reminder to Ofcom of its obligation to carry out due consultation on a matter as important as the code.

I turn to the amendments to which I shall have the most difficulty replying. I do not want to go too much into the general argument, as I agree with the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, expressed the matter. She may feel that that is a nod of congratulation warmly to be wished, but, in that area, we are in agreement. We are all convinced of the benefits of EPGs and the need for viewers to find their public service channels easily. We are strongly committed to ensuring that public service channels are given due prominence on EPGs.

As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, an important step forward was taken during the deliberations on the Bill in the agreement reached by the BBC and Sky, which the noble Lord defined with great accuracy. Obviously, I hope that, if similar issues arise in relation to other public service channels, they will also be solved in such an appropriate way. In case there is any doubt, I shall make it clear that, when I talk about due prominence being given to a public service channel, I mean it to apply to all the regional variations of that channel. Each of those variations should benefit from due prominence to the same extent. As it is a matter of public policy, I agree that it is something that Ofcom should address in its code.

For the same reason, I have some sympathy with the provisions in new subsection (2A)(b) and new subsection (2B), proposed in Amendment No. 161, so ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I shall consider further whether we should include something to a similar effect in the Bill. Having said that, however, I have reservations. They relate to the reservations emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. They were also reflected in the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, who referred to the fact that things had changed apace since the Broadcasting Act 1996—only seven short years ago.

We are trying to put into statute significant arrangements for the industry, and we are all too aware of the fact that things move on apace and we must come to terms with the rapidity of change. We just do not know how things will evolve in the all-digital world. Our perception of what "due prominence" should mean might change—for instance, when new channels are created. The inevitability of such change is the reason why we have aimed to ensure that Ofcom has the necessary powers and flexibility to regulate EPGs of every form and on every platform. The code will be central to that regulation and will need to balance our policy objectives with the need, to which we have often referred, to leave commercial operators as much room as possible to negotiate their affairs without interference. Finding that balance is not easy. Given the increasing importance of EPGs, which several noble Lords accurately identified, we must think about how we deal with the matter. However, it would be unwise to allow Ofcom only six months in which to draw up that important code.

We will move towards the significant arguments that were presented. My noble friend Lord Lipsey referred to the concept of the "nudge"; it is a bit more than a nudge. The argument has caused us to think about how we can move towards the objective, while not so confining ourselves in legislation that we cannot keep up with the rapidity of technological change that we are wrestling with.

My Lords, I said that the world had moved on since 1996, and, of course, that is true. It has moved on in a big way: at that stage, I was battling with my party's government over the prominence of public service broadcasters on the EPG.

What I really wanted to say—perhaps I did not express it well—was that, although the world is moving on, it is important that we always maintain public service broadcasts in the prominent position. Of course, that also involves regional channels, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, said. The Minister threw back at me my remark that the world had moved on, but I have not changed my focus. The public service broadcasters must be in the prominent position.

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness if I gave that impression. It never crossed my mind that, when she was thinking about how the world had moved on, she was talking about the arrival of a different administration. Such a thought would never cross my mind, as the noble Baroness will readily understand.

I sought to emphasise that we all recognise that, with any Act that aims to establish a framework for broadcasting at a time of rapid technological change and development, we must move with great care. We must put in statute and try to maintain a degree of flexibility that enables Ofcom to do its work without being cabined and confined too much. I was merely making that point.

My Lords, I wanted to follow up one point. My memory may be at fault. Certainly, the concept of public service broadcasting—

My Lords, this is Report stage. Interventions are supposed to be made before the Minister sits down and are supposed to be related to what he has said. They are not to be used to expand on previous points.

My Lords, my intervention relates exactly to what he said. I thought that I had got up before he sat down. I shall, of course, do what is required. I was going to say that the Bill is meant to be sufficiently future-proofed to take account of the speed of change, so that, if and when it becomes necessary to deregulate in this area, it will be possible to do so. That was my only point.

My Lords, I agree entirely. The noble Baroness puts it more succinctly than I did.

moved Amendment No. 122:

Page 218, line 40, at end insert "; or

() it is comprised in a television licensable content service."

Amendment No. 123A:

After Clause 257, insert the following new clause—

moved Amendment No. 124:

Leave out Clause 258 and insert the following new Clause—

My Lords, I support what the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said. This provision should be in the Bill; it would provide a clear definition, and help, to community radio. Anything that helps community radio does great good for the duties and opportunities in this country of local communication. We can hammer on and on. We live in a technological world, not only at a massive level but also at a local level. Such local opportunities are golden. If we can get it right here, it will be a great help to many communities in this country. In fact, for what it is worth, I think the two great areas of technological growth in the future are global and intensely local.

Community radio in this country is encouragingly advanced. I think it is our duty to sow this marram grass and help prevent the shifting sands of merely global, national and moneyed technology from drifting around without roots.

My Lords, I, too, strongly endorse this amendment. In many ways, it is as important an addition to the Bill as virtually any we are discussing. We have developed, and are developing, a society which is increasingly, as the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, has just mentioned, money-driven and top-down. This is the part of the broadcasting spectrum that is bottom-up—of the people, by the people, for the people. It surely must find a place in the Bill.

I refer the Minister to the fact that his own Government have placed huge store—rightly, in my view—on the 10th report of the policy action team which came out of the first initiative taken by the Prime Minister after Labour was elected to power in 1997. That action team encapsulates in its report perhaps the most important single insight of all 18 action teams: that social inclusion—and this amendment is about eliminating social exclusion—can come only from self-help and by communities doing for themselves what they think appropriate and what they want to do, rather than being told from on high. I very much hope that the Government will give this a fair wind.

My Lords, I, too, will be extremely brief. Everything that I have heard and seen about access radio—now renamed community radio—since debates on the Bill have begun has left me with the feeling that it is very worth while. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has said, it will certainly help regarding social exclusion. To be able, within a community, to help it communicate about the various issues that concern it is a crucial part of how communities and citizenship develop.

My Lords, I add my support to a very important concept. I would go further—I would like to think that this is a beginning, not an end. The whole notion of community building is surely at the heart of Labour Party policy and, interestingly enough, was the theme the shadow Home Secretary, Oliver Letwin, used in an excellent speech in Brixton last week. He said:

"I believe in the miracle of the establishment of a neighbourly society—the bringing about of sustainable social programmes in our inner cities".

It is surely beyond question that the ability of communities to talk to each other, to communicate with each other, to get to know each other better has to be the most fundamental paving stone towards better and more neighbourly communities.

I was very lucky a couple of weeks ago in Liverpool to be shown a facility that has been built whereby I was able to webcast question and answer sessions with elderly people trapped in tower blocks. The creation of this type of technology and this type of opportunity in the process of building communities in this country should surely be a priority for the Government, not an add-on to a very large and complicated Bill. I should have thought this could be central to the Bill and the beginning of something far more important than the brief discussion we have had this afternoon would suggest.

My Lords, Amendment No. 124 seeks to replace the existing community radio clause and to bring community radio directly within the existing regulatory regime for applications for radio licences. There is a real problem with the amendment, as it refers to Section 84 of the 1990 Act, which is to be repealed. Leaving that to one side, we feel that there are very good reasons for rejecting the amendment.

Fundamentally, we believe that our Clause 258 is simply more effective. As drafted, it already gives Ministers the power to set up community radio regimes. All noble Lords who have contributed to this debate will be happy to hear that we plan to do this by introducing an order later this year, following consideration of Anthony Everitt's report, which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned.

The Government believe strongly—to echo the comments of every noble Lord who has spoken—in community radio and in the future of community radio. As I said when we considered the same amendment in Committee, the amendment also seems problematical in that it seeks to bring community within the mainstream radio licensing regime by inserting a reference to community radio into Section 104 of the 1990 Act. But Section 104 deals simply with the process of making an application, and would not allow us to introduce, for instance, specific content regulation. Were we to accept the amendment in place of the provisions in Clause 258, we would lose the ability that we have deliberately reserved to tailor the regulatory regime in a way that is more appropriate to community radio. The result would he that community radio would be subject to the same rules as commercial radio services.

I ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment, recognising, I hope, that the Government believe very strongly in community radio and that, by introducing an order later this year for consultation and debate in both Houses, they will demonstrate their commitment to this extraordinarily important cultural and social matter, which my noble friend Lord Bragg described so eloquently.

My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this brief debate for the support which has been given to the amendment, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, all of whom added an element of their own to the argument. All those arguments added up, as I interpret them, to an agreement that there should be something on the face of the Bill. The Minister said that that was not possible; I shall look very carefully at what he said in Hansard—

My Lords, I do not think that I said it was impossible; I argued that the provision was already in Clause 258 and, in connection with the order which we wish to introduce later this year, that shows the Government's commitment to community radio.

My Lords, that is exactly the point. I would like to read carefully what has been said and to consult the authorities in community radio on their reaction to the Minister's remarks. They may well receive them more favourably than I appear to have done.

It is quite clear that we have moved on apace during the Bill's proceedings in accepting the importance of community radio, as has been said by those noble Lords who were kind enough to support the general drift of my amendment. Obviously reserving the right to come back should it be necessary, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 124A:

My Lords, without wishing to pre-empt debate—clearly, there will be a debate after I have spoken—we could be in some procedural difficulty as a number of amendments in the group are government amendments to which other noble Lords will wish to respond. I hope that the House will agree that I should intervene now to debate the government amendments and then, with the leave of the House, respond to that debate before the mover of the prime amendment decides what to do.

Amendment No. 127 imposes a requirement on broadcasters to include programmes of an educational nature and other programmes of educative value. After we debated the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in Committee, we concluded that the requirement for broadcasters to provide programmes on educational matters did not accurately reflect our intentions. Amendment No. 127 clarifies that programming covered in Clause 260(6)(e) should not apply only to issues relating to education such as school class sizes, for example, but should extend to programmes whose purpose is to educate and which have educational value.

Amendments Nos. 128, 129 and 133 relate to programmes dealing with religion. Amendments were proposed in Committee both to modify the focus of the current reference to religion in Clause 260(6)(f) and to make reference to other forms of belief.

Having reflected on that, we have identified two separate concerns that we can meet. The first is to make it clear that the reference to religion within the remit encompasses both factual programmes about religion and programmes of a religious nature. We interpret that as meaning the portrayal of religious activity, including acts of worship. The second is to add a reference to other beliefs, which would include ethical systems or philosophies such as humanism or secularism.

Amendment No. 128 expands the reference to religion in the matters listed in subsection (6) of Clause 260 to "religion and other beliefs". Amendment No. 129 sets out the range of issues to be encompassed by programmes dealing with religion and other beliefs. The effect is that public service broadcasters as a whole will have to provide programmes which, first, convey factual information relating to religion and other beliefs, including news, tenets of faith or belief, and history. Secondly, they must portray activity relating to religion and other beliefs, in particular, by showing acts of worship and other ceremonies and practices, such as church services and the equivalent for other faiths. That includes some services or ceremonies in their entirety.

I shall not respond to Amendment No. 129A at this time if the House agrees. Amendment No. 133 defines "belief" to mean a collective belief in, or other adherence to, a systemised set of ethical or philosophical principles or mystical or transcendental doctrines.

On Amendment No. 130, the noble Lord, Lord Lea, argued in Committee for a strengthening of the reference to programming for children and young people in the public service television remit. The provision for children's television in the public service remit is already unique among the list of requirements in that it specifies that programming should be both high quality and original. Nevertheless, we accept the case for an additional safeguard. Amendment No. 130 therefore expands the existing wording to refer to a suitable quantity and range of programmes for children and young people. That is similar to the formulation used in respect of the requirements for education programming and programming on topics such as science, religion arid international issues.

I think that I have dealt with the government amendments, and if the debate proceeds, I can then, with the leave of the House, respond to other amendments.

My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment No. 131, may I say that I am in favour of all the other amendments, including the government amendments? I am most grateful to the Minister for the amendment on educational nature and value.

I resubmitted my amendment because there appeared to be some misunderstanding about its intention when it was debated in Committee. The misunderstanding came particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. My noble friend Lady O'Neill had kindly taken over the task in Committee of moving the various amendments in my name to Clause 260, as I could not be present the day on which they were called; or it may have been a question of divorce.

I had intended to stress the importance of ensuring on the face of the Bill that programmes for children included a significant quantity about the UK's history, culture and traditions—and specifically geared to audiences in this country. That is particularly important for the child audience who will shortly become the UK's adult citizens.

There are two reasons behind that thinking. First, with an increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-cultural population, the commissioning of this kind of programme would be an important public service duty for broadcasters. The intention is perhaps not dissimilar from that of Amendment No. 125, which will be moved later by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. I am glad to have the opportunity again of correcting any misunderstandings that there may have been about what I said on another occasion. I am very enthusiastic about the noble Lord's amendment. My amendment is intended better to equip today's young people to play a full and active part in the UK, particularly in their citizenship role.

Secondly, the amendment is intended to act as a further hedge against the possible consequences of foreign ownership. Should a global player take over a major part of our broadcasting industry, it would need a regulation requirement of this kind to avoid the temptation to produce nothing but homogenised programmes that were saleable world wide.

I thank the Minister for tabling so many amendments. We are all most grateful to him for having listened to the many concerns about the wording of the clause and its subsections. I am therefore sure that he will be able to reassure me that his Amendments Nos. 127 and 130, I think, will meet the concerns on this point that many people have voiced to me.

My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment No. 129A I welcome most warmly government Amendment No. 129. I am very grateful to the Government for listening carefully to the views that have been expressed from these Benches and across the House about the importance of reflecting in broadcasting the significant place that religion and other beliefs have in our national life. Amendment No. 129 does in my view meet the aspirations of many people both within the Churches and in the population at large of whatever faith and none. Certainly there are many elderly or disabled and others who for various reasons are confined to their homes who will be especially grateful for the emphasis on the broadcasting of worship.

Amendment No. 133 is an interesting definition of "belief", not least because it repeats as part of its definition the very word it seeks to define—an echo perhaps of what I think was Sydney Smith's much quoted answer to the question about the functions of an archdeacon:

"an archdeacon is one who performs archidiaconal functions".

I take Amendment No. 133 to be an entirely appropriate attempt at an umbrella definition. In that sense it meets the need adequately. What Christians mean by belief is quite different, for example, from what Jews mean by belief. Each faith, or non-faith, sees things differently and poses different sets of questions. So as far as these Benches are concerned we are willing to back this definition of belief. As a distinguished theologian with whom I shared my views and sought his put it:

"I should have thought that if you were to support this amendment you would be standing on a not uncertain wicket".

Amendment No. 129A in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, makes what I hope will be seen as a benign drafting point in relation to government Amendment No. 129. I think that it is the Government's intention that news and other information about different religions and other beliefs should include discussion programmes. I am sure your Lordships would agree that intelligent engagement and dialogue is particularly important in areas of religion and belief, not least because it is often the most effective way of building up tolerance and respect between people of differing viewpoints, and thereby encouraging greater harmony and understanding on these fundamental issues within local communities. It is a point which in a different way the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has recently made in relation to an earlier amendment.

So I hope that, at least by specific mention in the record of this debate, the desirability of such positive exchange in discussion—being as it were a genre within the programmes dealing with religion and other beliefs—will be affirmed by the Government.

My Lords, I rise very briefly to support all these amendments. They seem to me to be an extremely worthy group. I should particularly like to welcome my noble friend's amendments and Amendment No. 129A in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. They all seem to me to strike exactly the right balance for a modern, tolerant and civilised democracy.

My Lords, I rise briefly to comment on Amendment No. 124A and on the government amendments to do with the definition of belief, including Amendment No. 133. I very warmly support the aspirations of Amendment No. 124A. I think that drama—and I choose my words carefully—is the jewel in the crown of broadcast television. We need it, and it is one of the things that we do best in this country.

If I can be marginally pedantic, perhaps I may say that I was not sure in the amendment as drafted about the notion that drama covers a range of issues. I recognise the place that "Cathy Come Home" has in that tradition of issue-based drama, but does all drama have to have an issue? Can it not be the product of imagination and not simply of issues? Does every drama have to have a helpline attached at the end of it? Is Brideshead Revisited about student homosexuality or interfaith marriages? Is "King Lear" about care in the community for ageing monarchs? I am not at all sure that the movers of the amendment have not slightly constricted themselves. Perhaps if the word "imagination" found its way in there as well as "issues" it would improve the amendment. But that is not to say that it detracts in any way from my support for it.

In the same mood of pedantry I shall move on, if I may, to Amendment No. 133 in particular. I was impressed by how easily pleased the right reverend Prelate was with this definition, which seems to me extremely tricky. I am not saying that I for one could do any better. I think that it is a matter that has vexed philosophers down the ages. However, there are certain problems with this definition in terms of Ofcom, which has to make it work. First, are all "beliefs" equal? I imagine that at one time the Government considered using the word "faith" rather than -belief', but they have come up with belief in the end. I think that "a not uncertain wicket" probably is not what our Lord had in mind when he talked about St Peter as a rock. I think that a "not uncertain wicket" is probably slightly different from the rock of faith which sustains most religions.

I think that the Government have problems, for example, in contrasting within the definition of belief a systemised set,

"of ethical or philosophical principles",

on the one hand,

"or of mystical or transcendental doctrines",

on the other. Certainly Christianity, Islam and Hinduism combine those so that—in this mood of pedantry—the amendment at least should read, "and/or of mystical or transcendental doctrines", which would describe most of the major faiths.

More practically, rather than picking at this very difficult piece of drafting, how far does this extend? Would the so-called Church of Scientology now be able to apply for judicial review if it did not receive proper coverage from public service broadcasters? My observation is that the smaller the number of people who adhere to the so-called systemised system of beliefs, the more intense is their fervency. It seems to me that if the Government are not very careful they are going to make it extremely difficult for Ofcom to distinguish between the major faiths which we would all like to see receive adequate coverage in the way that the right reverend Prelate described and the more marginal and very significantly minority views which would nevertheless claim to have codified their views in one way or another.

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend the Minister in his amendments which I think are very welcome and very well thought through. I should also like to support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester with regard to his remarks about religious programmes. Those of us who make them find them extremely difficult to make. They are extraordinarily valuable. They reach out across the community in ways that no other programmes do. It is very welcome indeed to have the Bill reinforce them.

In this supportive mood, I should finally like to support the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall. However, I should like to extend his definition which provides,

"that sufficient high quality original drama is broadcast covering a range of issues in a variety of formats".

Why does that not apply to the arts, sciences, politics, documentaries and nature programmes which are often more distinctly for British public service broadcasting across the four channels than is drama? I know that this is a quixotic request and that the time is late. I am not going to press it. I nevertheless thought it worth burying in Hansard. Who knows, one day it could be excavated.

My Lords, I rise simply to support with great pleasure the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall. Having spent most of my life working in and around drama I find it enormously encouraging to see it put forward as an issue itself. It would also be particularly nice to imagine a future in which less of the drama that appeared on television involved police uniforms and white coats. Perhaps we were looking at a slightly wider range.

My Lords, I am prompted to rise—and I had not intended to—to speak to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, Amendment No. 24A, concerning original theatre. Over the weekend, I was sitting in my car and I heard a radio broadcast by the celebrated actor, Tim Piggott-Smith. As many of your Lordships will recall, he was one of the stars of "A Jewel In The Crown". He spoke interestingly about his life in the theatre, but I was interested particularly in a remark that he made towards the end of that broadcast that is relevant to this amendment. He said that he thought that legitimate theatre in this country had shifted over the past 20 years slightly away from the centre of our culture. That rang a bell with me. As an impressionable young man, I worked for a theatrical agent and went around the country to repertory companies. At that time, theatre and drama were available to a much wider range of people. Nowadays, West End theatre relies increasingly on celebrities and star performers to draw audiences. Admittedly, there is interesting work going on in fringe theatre, but this amendment is absolutely correct. Television drama, which reaches large audiences, can explore areas which perhaps legitimate theatre is finding more difficult to address. It is important that that fact should be given recognition in the way that is suggested by the amendment of the noble Lord. I have no disagreement. I cannot follow my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham on the drafting of it. "Issues" perhaps has some connotations which might be worrying, but I cannot think of a better word myself, so I shall not criticise it.

My Lords, perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 133E. It is in this group, but it has so far been orphaned. I am not surprised, because it seems to be ill-grouped. However, it is there and unless someone speaks to it now, it will be lost.

The amendment would toughen up Clause 266, which is the enforcement clause in the Bill. That is a vital clause because, frankly, all of the laboured and intense discussion that we have had over many days, including the one just now about the content of Clause 260, which relates to public service broadcasting standards and the purposes of public broadcasting, would come to nought if Ofcom has such feeble powers to uphold those standards as to be, so to speak, honoured in the breach.

As it stands, Clause 266(1) states that if Ofcom is of the opinion that a licensed public service provider has failed to meet the requirements of Clauses 260 or 261, no action can be taken unless—and this is the rub—

"Ofcom are of the opinion that the failure of the provider is serious"—

well, fair enough—

"and is not excused by economic or market conditions".

Many Members of this House are of the view that that excuse does so much to weaken the enforcement test that it should be taken out. Ofcom has to be of the opinion that the provider has failed; it has to be a serious failure; and that is enough. As I have said on previous occasions, it is a little like saying that in future shoplifting will not matter if the person who has done it is hard-up on the day.

A further point to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is that Clause 266(3) states that even if Ofcom is of the opinion that the failure of the provider is serious, it still cannot proceed unless it has regard to a number of further factors, one of which is,

"general economic and market conditions affecting generally the providers of television programme services".

So, at any event, it is there later on in the clause. I wonder what power Ofcom will ever have to make sense of the key cause, Clause 260, if those words are not removed.

In closing, I ask a pregnant question. The enforcement clause begins by saying:

"This section applies if OFCOM are of the opinion that the provider … has failed",

but can Ofcom come to that opinion at any time, or is it implied that the decision must be taken during one of the five-yearly reviews provided for in Clause 260? I sincerely hope that the Minister will say that Ofcom can come to such an opinion at any time. Otherwise, again, the whole mechanism vis-à-vis enforcement will be altogether too feeble.

My Lords, I rise in response to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I understand why he is concerned about the economic tests, but they seem to offer a sensible flexibility for Ofcom. We may be entering a world in which ITV will be a much less economically healthy organisation, although I hope that that is not true. Inevitably, that would affect its ability to pay its way—which it must do—and also its ability to meet its public service obligations. If we are to future-proof the Bill, Ofcom must be able to make allowances of some kind for that. The Bill as drafted allows for that, but the amendment would not assist with it.

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, sits down, will he not concede that there is already a second provision, which I just read out? There is a double provision, so the first reference is not needed.

My Lords, it may be otiose, but I would prefer to have belt and braces than neither.

My Lords, I rise briefly to welcome the government amendments. I also strongly support Amendment No. 124A. which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall. It is hugely important to include high quality drama in the public service remit, although I question the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, when he said, "Why should we stop with drama? What about arts and science?" The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, even mentioned politics, God forbid. It is certainly a good amendment and I hope that the Government accept it.

I also have a lot of sympathy for the amendments proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Although I accept some of what the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said—such as his concern about the definition of "beliefs", which does present a problem—the spirit behind the amendment is tremendously important. The more that young people can be exposed to programmes containing discussion of different religions and beliefs, the more we support practical ways of breaking down barriers, so it is hugely helpful.

I am also very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, for clarifying the intention behind Amendment No. 131, about which, as the noble Baroness quite rightly said, I was concerned in Committee. Now that I understand that the amendment would encourage original programmes for children and young people that have a high content of the United Kingdom's history, culture and tradition, I entirely support what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve.

My Lords, I respond to the non-government amendments in this group. First, we have some difficulties with the wording of Amendment No.124A, including those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. However, I gladly invite everyone who put their names to the amendment—indeed, anyone who has spoken on the subject—to talk to me between now and Third Reading to see whether any progress can be made.

Amendment No. 129A, in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, would amend the wording of our amendment to include a specific provision for discussion of different religions and beliefs. I can give an absolute assurance or an unqualified undertaking—I could use any of the appropriate phrases in such circumstances—that the provision of news and information, which is in our amendments, can encompass discussion, for example, by way of analysis and the presentation of different perspectives and points of view. The same could go for programmes about the history of different religions and other beliefs. So the additional wording proposed by Amendment No. 129A is unnecessary. I liked the example, on the definition issue, given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester involving Sydney Smith. My favourite definition is from Ernest Bevin, who said that socialism is the policy of the Labour Party at any one time.

My Lords, the Labour government.

Thank you, my Lords. I rely on a trade unionist to correct me on these matters.

Amendment No. 131, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, also relates to programming for children and young people. It would specify that a significant proportion of such programming should be intended for audiences in the United Kingdom. In Committee we were of the view that the amendment was not necessary, and we are still of that view. The obligations for broadcasters to provide programmes for children and young people which are both high quality and original will in themselves be sufficient to ensure that such programmes appeal to the tastes and interests of the relevant audiences within the UK.

We acknowledge the unique importance of programmes for children and young people. That is why we tabled Amendment No. 130, which requires broadcasters to provide a suitable quantity and range of high quality and original children's programmes. In those circumstances, we believe that there is no case for Amendment No. 131. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees that it has been overtaken by the government amendment.

Amendment No. 133E is interesting. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, explained it. The answer was given by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. Clearly, not all broadcasters will be financially healthy and there may be circumstances in which, if they are on the point of going bust, one relaxes the rules for a short while until they can recover afterwards. That is rather like the difficulty that the Strategic Rail Authority has with certain train operating companies. It may be desirable to close them down, as happened recently, or to bail them out. One cannot lay down cases in advance. In the Bill we have allowed the option for Ofcom to temper the wind to the shorn lamb under certain circumstances. However, the circumstances will be determined by Ofcom. I am sure that Ofcom will riot wish to see that as a general let-out from the obligations on broadcasters.

My Lords, does the Minister believe that lawyers and some television companies will see this as a marvellous weapon with which to bash Ofcom if it tries to exercise any of its disciplinary powers? That is my fear.

My Lords, I do not see how they can when it is specifically stated that Ofcom is of the opinion; it is its judgment that is provided for in the Bill. Lawyers would have to prove that it was not of the opinion, which I believe would be rather difficult.

On the noble Lord's point about waiting for a five-year review before taking action, I can assure him on that. Where a report has been made under Clause 260, that will help Ofcom to formulate its views on enforcement under Clause 266. However, there is nothing to require such a report before action is taken. In other words, the enforcement procedure laid down in Clause 266 relating to the obligations under Clause 260 is pretty fierce. I hope that I have responded to the non-government amendments.

My Lords, I thank all the distinguished contributors who commented on Amendment No. 124A. The noble Lords, Lord Holme of Cheltenham and Lord Bragg, the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, Lady Whitaker and Lady Buscombe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, were all in support. I thank the Minister for his ready agreement to the fact that there could be some issues to tease out at a meeting to see whether we can make progress.

I cannot resist the temptation to respond very quickly to the intriguing point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. He asked what the issues were in, for example, Brideshead Revisited. I was trying to work that out. What are the issues in Hamlet? Well, existentialism, obviously. What are the issues in Waiting for Godot? I believe that the play begins with the line, "Nothing to be done". Is not the answer to what the issues are that we do not know what they are, and that that is the nature of the drama? I do not know whether the noble Lord asked a rhetorical question and whether I am doing OK in trying to respond, or whether another sort of question was involved. In that spirit of pedantry, I believe that there may be a question about how we address this conundrum of words.

My noble friend Lord Bragg put his finger on another important question. We should avoid going into a great litany—we did that earlier in the Bill—and stating that broadcasting must cover everything in Rogets Thesaurus. We want somehow to give a very strong message, which Ofcom somehow cannot ignore. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, that is the point.

In conclusion, I welcome the Minister's response to Amendment No. 130 and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 125:

Page 231, line 20, after "facilitating" insert "civic understanding and"

My Lords, I should like to express my warm agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said. This is not a disguised plea for kinder or fairer treatment of individual politicians. They, for better or worse, will remain fair game, whatever we say. It is a plea on behalf of the manmade institution of Parliament. If people are not told about it, have no information about it or only minimal information, accompanied by generous doses of derision, Parliament will not survive. Unhappily for the media, if they are to remain free, the only certainty they have is that there is a free Parliament in existence.

I would be in favour of keeping this Bill within manageable proportions, even though it started fairly gross. However, the noble Lord, Lord Holme, was absolutely right in requiring some acknowledgement by the Government that it is important that the media should understand and recognise that, without fair ventilation, the institutions which are important to civilised life will have little chance of survival.

There is no need for me to prolong these remarks, but I share the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that the same representations, which received a rather abrupt dismissal by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, at an earlier stage, will be treated more kindly, more understandingly, more generously and more wisely by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who is more than capable of doing so.

My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lords, Lord Holme of Cheltenham and Lord Peyton of Yeovil, have said. What the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said—that citizens should understand their institutions—goes to the heart of this amendment.

What has not been mentioned in quite such detail, however, is that there is absolutely no question but that the reporting of Parliament has steadily, year by year, gone down the scale of media priorities. When I joined The Times in the 1960s, we had a trained staff of seven or eight trained shorthand writers, all of whom could do incredible shorthand speeds of over 200 words per minute. We had two pages devoted to Parliament and were reporting Parliament absolutely straight—reporting what Members of Parliament or noble Lords had actually said. The same kinds of standards were also applied by the broadcasting organisations. Issues were reported fully and the reporting of the proceedings of Parliament was heard in programmes at peak times or in adjoining programmes to which people would listen.

We have therefore come a long way down the scale over the past years. The sketch writers now seem to reign supreme. If there is a Budget Statement or a debate on fox-hunting or something of that kind, then there is straight reporting. Often, however, it is to try to get some amusement out of the proceedings of Parliament. Straight reporting of what is taking place in Parliament is a very low priority, and that is a very great pity.

This is an amendment to a clause on public service broadcasting. The clause itself requires a comprehensive and authoritative coverage of news and current affairs. I think that is right. One of the great things about organisations like the BBC is that that can be provided. What these amendments also require, however, is that the coverage and the reporting of Parliament and other legislatures should be on the face of the Bill. That would be a very sensible step forward and I therefore totally support what the noble Lord, Lord Holme, has said.

My Lords, 1 rise briefly to make sure that, in his response, the Minister does not say that the clause concerned, Clause 260(6)(c), already deals with the matter. I suspect that he may.

The amendment would make the clause read that the,

"services (taken together) provide … for Facilitating civic understanding and fair and well-informed debate".

There is a difference between civic understanding and fair and well-informed debate. The former is wider than the latter, and it is very important that one does not simply rely on the British adversarial tradition of debate.

My other point, which I make briefly but I hope relevantly, is that the Government themselves introduced citizenship education into the curriculum last autumn. I very much hope that they accept this amendment, because it directly underpins that very important initiative.

My Lords, I have great sympathy with this amendment. It seems to me to be an object that we should all pursue. I do see some difficulty with it, however.

We would clearly regard it as wholly inappropriate to lay down any guidelines for what the printed press say about proceedings in Parliament. That would seem to infringe upon censorship and would be deeply unpalatable to all our traditions. Why is it, therefore, that we are prepared to lay down quite clear guidelines for the television world?

There needs to be some clarity of thought here. The only conclusion I would draw is that what we say to the world of television must be in the form of exhortation and general principles but not of statutory enforcement.

My Lords, I take the point which has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. However, I think that it is worth Parliament drawing the media's attention to the correlation between the apathy, cynicism and other maladies which affect our political system, and the fact that media coverage has moved away from factual reporting towards entertainment. One has only to look, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has said, at the growth in the number of sketch writers and the almost total absence of any actual parliamentary reporting, even in the broadsheets.

There is the paradox that we have the technology to have 200 television channels, but not one that can or wants to carry Parliament regularly. There is the parliamentary channel. However, that in itself has its dangers. I do not want to see politics driven into a safe ghetto of a parliamentary channel, which can be reached only by the few.

I return to an old theme and it is one of exhortation. Most of the BBC's political programmes are over 20 years old in concept. It recently had a major rethink in its political coverage, which resulted in some presenters appearing not wearing ties and one programme for young people, which it is about to abandon.

I believe that much more effort could be made to cover politics seriously, particularly the working of this Parliament—if only for the benefit of journalists themselves. I receive a number of telephone calls from political journalists, who clearly do not know how this place works. It could certainly benefit them.

There is an obsession with viewing figures. One cannot run a programme that has only 800,000 viewers, although that is probably more than Gladstone addressed in his whole political life. I believe that much is still worth saying to the media about their responsibilities in making democracy work. There is more need for civic education—an idea pioneered by both my noble friends Lord Holme and Lord Phillips. There has been a tendency within the United Kingdom to think that somehow belief in democracy and democratic institutions come with one's mother's milk. That is a complacent attitude. Democracy needs democrats in order to work, and we need a great deal of help in creating those democrats.

My Lords, I rather disagree with my noble friend Lord Bridges but very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said. First, we must not forget that we are regulating a system—the broadcasting system—to which approximately 70 per cent of those who receive information go for that information. Secondly, one knows that a certain slant comes with the information in newspapers. Impartiality, which is important, certainly does not preclude new concepts relating to the things that we regard as so important—the broadcasting of Parliament and the fact that we need to get over to the rising generation the importance of such institutions in upholding democracy and so on. Therefore, I very much agree with the noble Lord's amendment. I hope very much, too, that the Minister will take it to heart.

My Lords, I add my support for Amendment No. 126. I believe that a very special case is to be made for it. We must remember that Parliament, as an institution, is unique. It is the core institution at the heart of our political system. It is the means through which people speak authoritatively to government and the means through which government seek to regulate the activities of citizens. Therefore, it is distinguishable from all other institutions. For that reason it deserves particular treatment in terms of coverage. That does not necessarily equate with supportive coverage. I believe that it is possible to provide objective and fair coverage of proceedings. I think of BBC radio's "Today in Parliament" programme as demonstrating what is possible.

Therefore, I regard the amendment as extremely important. But, although I regard it as necessary, it is not sufficient. It is necessary in the context of this clause. I do not consider it to be sufficient, but I believe that sufficient conditions must then be provided by Parliament itself in demonstrating its relevance, making it appropriate and attracting those outside to show that it is able to deliver. The mass media are a means through which we are able to show that. Therefore, I believe that Parliament deserves special treatment. I strongly support the amendment.

My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 125 and 126, to which my name is added. While I am reluctant to be too prescriptive as to what precisely is required in order to fulfil the public service remit, ensuring that there is sufficient coverage of the proceedings of Parliament and of the other elected legislatures in the United Kingdom is a very important aspect of public service broadcasting. The broadcasts provide a primary means by which the electorate educate themselves in the process of government and the legislature, and it is vital for the successful functioning of a democracy that the electorate are well informed.

I am particularly keen on the words "civic understanding", and here I think especially of young people. I agree entirely with all that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said about the BBC's programming in relation to Parliament and politics. Much of the format is so old-fashioned that it is a turn-off for most young people. I hope that the Government will accept the amendments so that this matter can be treated as something of a priority.

One of the upsides today is that young people are not prepared to mark their cross or tick the box unless they feel that they understand the issues. That must be a good thing. They are far more questioning; they do not take anything for granted; and they do not vote just as their parents did. However, they are not prepared to vote or to take part in the democratic process unless they are comfortable that they understand the issues. We must all encourage broadcasters to respond. They have a very powerful platform from which they can assist in encouraging young people to become involved in the democratic process and in showing in a good light the many ways in which Parliament and, indeed, all other forms of parliament—local government, too—contribute to a civic society. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendments and, in particular, the one relating to civic understanding because it is all-encompassing.

My Lords, one of the requirements under the public service television remit is that broadcasters must provide comprehensive and authoritative coverage of news and current affairs and that they must do so to the extent that is appropriate for facilitating fair and well-informed debate on news and current affairs.

Amendment No. 125 would make the facilitating of "civic understanding" a further objective of the news and current affairs requirement. Taking civic understanding to mean an awareness of the processes of government and politics at all levels seems an entirely proper consideration for public service broadcasters to have in mind. We are therefore very happy to accept the amendment.