asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we recognise the valuable contribution of speech and language therapists. That is why, for five years in succession, they have received pay increases in excess of the rate of inflation. Agenda for Change provides an opportunity for further recognition and development of their skills within a common framework which includes local flexibility where recruitment and retention is difficult. Amicus MSF, which represents speech and language therapists, is among the unions that have collectively agreed to moving to test Agenda for Change in 12 early implementer sites. It will identify any particular problems emerging for staff.

My Lords, I should first declare an interest. After I suffered a stroke, very few people could understand me; now, fortunately, there are one or two who can. The speech therapists with whom I have spoken are gravely dissatisfied with the present position. Does my noble friend realise that there is a real link between those who experience a terrible loss of communication and the outside world? Does he also realise that those people are helped enormously by speech therapists, as I have been? Finally, does he perceive that they see the pay currently being offered as a deterioration in their present position'? I hope that he and others in his department will communicate with them and understand their terrible sense of privation.

My Lords, nobody who has heard my noble friend speak in this House on many occasions can doubt the highly valuable contribution that speech and language therapists have made to his recovery. We are all grateful for that.

I recognise the concerns that my noble friend is voicing. I certainly know from my personal experience that the transition from one pay system to a new one can he difficult because of uncertainty of one kind or another. However, I reassure him that a lot of protection is being built into the Agenda .for Change process, which can last up to 2011 where there are problems. I emphasise again that we are trying out these changes, with the agreement of all the unions involved, in 12 early implementer sites. Amicus MSF has made it very clear to all its members including speech and language therapists that if things do not work out quite as it expects, if there are problems or it wants further confirmation from its membership, there will be a ballot in 2004 when its membership can actually exercise their voice before any national rollout of these changes.

My Lords, the Minister was right to recognise the concerns of the speech and language therapists. Of course there are concerns, particularly about the job evaluation exercise carried out for the purposes of Agenda for Change. Does he recognise that, currently, the profiles for the job evaluation exercise do not include any equivalents of bands 3, 4 and 5 for the speech therapists, which means that there is a swathe between £30,000 and £60,000 which is not covered? For younger speech and language therapists, that looks as though they will riot be able to earn those types of figures, to which they would have been entitled in the past. Will the Minister correct that and put on the record that that is not the intention of the Agenda for Change exercise?

My Lords, the purpose of the Agenda for Change exercise is not to do people down but to improve flexibility, to enable people to build better careers, to provide a stable employment basis and to provide a degree of local flexibility which I am sure the noble Lord would agree is often necessary in terms of high-cost areas and recruitment and retention. We know that there may be some problems. That is why, with the agreement of all the unions, we are having these 12 early implementer sites prior to going for national roll-out—so that we can actually debug the system, so to speak, and find out where there are problems before we go into a wider area. We also know that, in particular jobs, there may be a need for local job evaluation to tackle some of the sorts of problems that the noble Lord identifies. There is no reason why that should not be tested in the early implementer sites.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that these specialists have an important role in helping people with paralysing illnesses to communicate and in leading them into alternative ways of expressing themselves?

My Lords, that is why we wish to make a success of the transition for speech and language therapists in Agenda for Change.

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister has taken into account in these changes the unique position of speech and language therapists, not only in helping those who suffer from otherwise crippling illnesses but also in the education of very early speech difficulties in children. That seems to me one of the most important things that they hake to do. Language deprivation and language disability in children, whether it comes from a physical disability or from a very non-communicating background, is one of the real inhibitors for children trying to succeed in the educational system. I believe that these professionals are unique in the range of their abilities and should be treated perhaps in a rather special way for that reason.

My Lords, we fully appreciate the concerns. We recognise the special circumstances of speech and language therapists, particularly in relation to children where there is often a need for early diagnosis and help so that their development is not impaired. We are well aware of those problems and we are taking them into account.

My Lords, for some years I was president of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. We always got honeyed words from successive governments. We always elicited sympathy and the promise of action in the future but very little action was actually taken. If the Minister could translate what he said at the Dispatch Box today into immediate action, that would be the best thing he could do for speech and language therapists.

My Lords, I am well aware of the major contribution my noble friend has made in this area. I can reassure him; answers have been given earlier that recruitment of speech and language therapists has improved in the NHS over the past five or six years. That is why we do not want to make mistakes; that is why we are trying to test out the new changes in the 12 implementer sites.

My Lords, will the Minister give a guarantee that these people will not suffer any reduction in their earnings? They are extremely valuable and they are a scarce resource in the NHS.

My Lords, there need be no losers under Agenda for Change, although it is publicly recognised that some staff may not gain. There are a number of mechanisms built into the agreement that will operate to ensure that staff are covered in the short and longer term. Those include protection until 2011 for staff on national roll-out.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we are making progress on the marine environment. Internationally, we are working to follow up commitments made at the World Summit on Sustainable Development to tackle pollution and to protect marine biodiversity. At home, we are pursuing the policies set out in our first Marine Stewardship report published last year.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. In terms of our domestic waters, does the Minister agree that it is a great pity that not only have we had policy statements and talking shops from the Government and no legislation, but also, according to the British Geological Survey's report for the World Health Organisation, we are still firing depleted uranium penetrators into UK waters? Perhaps, when Ministers are enjoying swimming in the sea this summer, they might reflect that it is supposed to be an ecosystem and not a dustbin.

My Lords, the noble Baroness will concede that there have been significant improvements in the quality of water along much of our coast. The dumping—if such it were—to which she refers, took place some considerable time ago. We are therefore talking about remedial measures in that as in many other areas. The degree to which we are polluting the sea nowadays has greatly reduced, but it needs to reduce further in terms of off-shore pollution and pollution from shipping.

My Lords, the House will remember the tragic disaster earlier this year when an inappropriately named oil tanker—"Prestige"—was obliged to leave Spanish coastal waters. As a result it sank in the open ocean with disastrous consequences across Spanish and French coasts over a very wide area. What plans have the Government put in place since that time to ensure that such a disaster could not occur in British waters?

My Lords, as regards pollution from shipping, the Government have been very active in the EU Environment Council and the EU Transport Council and in the International Maritime Organisation to achieve tighter rules and environmental standards for shipping. In the UK, we have also established a pollution control zone consistent with the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea which extends up to 200 nautical miles from our coast. The UK Government are in the position of prosecuting the owner of any ship suspected of committing a pollution offence within that 200-mile zone.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the delight with which the decision to cease the discharge of nuclear waste—particularly Technetium-99—was received in Norway when the Secretary of State gave an instruction to Sellafield that those emissions should stop? Is he further aware of how important Norway regards this in respect of the preservation of its fishing stocks?

My Lords, without necessarily accepting the totality of the Norwegian Government's position, we have instructed BNFL to stop such discharges for a period while further research and development is carried out. I am pleased that the Norwegian Government appreciate that gesture.

My Lords, has the Minister noticed that the Convention on the Future of Europe has unwisely purported to translate a provision of the European Court of Justice into a constitutional provision giving exclusive competence over marine biodiversity in Union waters to the Union? Will he, and other members of the Government, seek to ensure that this is a shared responsibility enabling coastal states to take action of which they are capable and in which they are interested?

My Lords, I am aware of that interpretation of the convention. Our understanding of the meaning of the convention is that it does not change the boundary of competencies between the European Union institutions and member states.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, we have time for both.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Is the Minister aware that members of the population of Ireland—both North and South and on the east coast in particular—still believe that the Irish Sea is seriously contaminated from the nuclear station at Sellafield and happenings there?

My Lords, at times I have been made extremely aware of the view of the Irish population, both North and South. However, on this issue, the Irish Government brought a legal case which the British Government won.

My Lords, while I welcome the 200-mile zone mentioned by my noble friend, if two tankers were to collide outside this country's territorial limits but within the 200-mile zone, am I right in thinking that a prosecution could be brought only in the countries of registration of the ships concerned, which could be, for example, Liberia?

My Lords, I shall probably need to consult my noble and learned friend or the precise answer to my noble friend's question. My understanding of the position is that we could prosecute for the pollution so caused, but the question of any failure of seamanship would normally revert to the flag country. However, if my noble friend will be patient, I shall write to him to clarify the position.

My Lords, does the Minister think that the Government's plans to build vast windmills at sea will improve the marine environment? If not, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the marine environment is not polluted?

My Lords, the decision of the Government to invest substantially in wind power marks a major step towards further protecting the environment as a whole from, in particular, climate change and carbon emissions damage. Therefore that investment will be of very substantial benefit to the environment. However, when identifying particular sites on which to locate wind farms, obviously it is important that we minimise any effect on the marine environment.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government are committed to providing a sustainable public sector infrastructure to ensure the delivery of high quality public services and are substantially increasing public sector net investment to a planned level of 2 per cent of GDP by 2005–06. The UK's national infrastructure covers areas as diverse as energy, water and flood management, transport and waste. In many of these sectors the assets are owned by private companies. The Government do not believe that it would be desirable to give responsibility for these diverse sectors to a chief government engineer or to conduct a national survey of infrastructure because it would add nothing to current monitoring and enforcement activities.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, not least because on the previous occasion when this matter was raised in Parliament—four years ago in another place—that Minister ran out of time before he could respond.

Has the Minister read the admirable report entitled The State of the Nation 2003 prepared by the Institution of Civil Engineers? It gives a detailed report on the various parts of the infrastructure and stresses the need for an overall government approach to be taken to it. Does the Minister really think what he said in his Answer will ensure that the shortcomings revealed in this report will be put right in the near future?

My Lords, I have read the report from the Institution of Civil Engineers because I responded to a Question on it on Monday. I thought that I had better read it, whereas normally I might not have done so. The question of a national survey is raised in the report but, as I have said, I do not think that such a survey would do any good in terms of dealing with any defects we have in this area. Moreover, having read the report, I cannot see any arguments put forward which would make me change my view.

To my way of thinking, there is nothing to be said for trying to co-ordinate the infrastructure on gas with water or, say, telecommunications with transport. These are completely different sectors and so nothing would be gained from a total survey other than more delays and bureaucracy.

My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that his response has given a great deal of pleasure in so far as it indicates that the Government have decided—remarkably—not to increase the amount of bureaucracy when asked whether they would like to do so?

My Lords, I am delighted as always to give the noble Earl pleasure in this or in any other area of argument.

My Lords, what happened to the plan discussed a few years ago to map every street for gas, water and electricity supplies, which would have been a most wonderful piece of bureaucracy? Did not the government of the day decide that the exercise would be too expensive? Is it necessary today, or do all the infrastructure companies dig up the roads in the right place, at the right time, and to the maximum convenience of road users?

My Lords, any information that exists on that is so deeply buried in the bureaucracy that it has not come to my attention.

My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that, even though the Government have decided that they would not wish to proceed with the appointment of a chief government engineer, as suggested by the Institution of Civil Engineers, nevertheless they should consider whether there should be some greater coordination of infrastructure development? For example, have they considered the success of the French Commissariat du Plan which, over the years, has delivered so much to the French infrastructure? Should we not learn from the experience of others?

My Lords, the thrust of the argument set out in the report from the Institution of Civil Engineers was that if a chief government engineer was appointed, all these questions could be taken out of politics and decided on the basis of independent expert advice. Having dealt with Questions in this House on matters such as energy, I am very sceptical whether an independent government engineer could in some way resolve the many issues we have to consider politically, such as different forms of energy or road transport funding. I do not think that such matters can be taken out of political decision-making or, indeed, out of the overall economic framework. Therefore I do not think that this would be productive.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, following the requirements of the Scotland Act 1998, the Boundary Commission for Scotland published its provisional recommendations for parliamentary constituencies in Scotland, proposing 59 constituencies in place of the existing 72. The commission has now considered the reports of all eight subsequent public inquiries and, to date, has published revised proposals in relation to six of these. If necessary, the commission will publish revised proposals shortly in relation to the two remaining public inquiries.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. Can he confirm the statement made by the right honourable lady, the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, who on 18th December 2002 said in the other place that she planned to fight the next general election on the new boundaries? Does the Minister expect any objections to come from local authorities about the allocation of the new Westminster constituencies to the Scottish regions for the purposes of the list system of proportional representation for the Scottish Parliament?

My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked me two very complex and slightly interconnected questions. If I am to respond to them properly, I hope that the House will bear with me if I take a little time to do so.

The first question the noble Baroness asked was whether my right honourable friend expected to fight the next general election on the revised Westminster constituency boundaries for Scotland. In essence, the matter lies with the Boundary Commission for Scotland. What is clear is that the legislation is in force to do so. As I indicated in my first Answer, the Boundary Commission for Scotland has the process well under way and therefore I think that there is every reason to expect that the numbers of MPs elected to Westminster from Scotland at the next general election will be 59 rather than 72. But, as ever, I would add to that the cautionary reminder that those issues are completely under the control of the Boundary Commission for Scotland in terms of when it is ready to report and I shall not be so hubristic as to imply that nothing is ever uncertain as regards when the next general election is to be held.

I turn to the second question concerning the changes to the regional boundaries for the additional Member system for Scotland. By putting the two together, the noble Baroness has asked a very clever Question devised to completely confuse me. The Scotland Act 1998 also required the Boundary Commission for Scotland, at the same time as it made its recommendations on the boundaries for the revised, reduced number of Westminster MPs, to look at the impact of that on the regional boundaries for the additional Member system for Scotland. Therefore if one is travelling in hope, it seems likely that the commission will complete its work on the MPs for Westminster very shortly and will then start the process of looking at what, if any, adjustments are needed to the regional boundaries as a consequence.

My Lords, first, do the Government have any plans to exclude MPs representing Scottish constituencies from voting on all issues put before the United Kingdom Parliament? Secondly, when the Boundary Commission for Scotland comes to consider the rural and remote areas of Scotland, will it depart from the arithmetic purity of 60,000 head of population per constituency in order to avoid creating oversized constituencies, but adopt that arithmetic purity when dealing with the smaller urban constituencies in central Scotland?

My Lords, as to the noble Earl's second question, I shall have to refer to the explicit terms of the Scotland Act. From recollection, the Boundary Commission for Scotland was charged with meeting the test of parity of representation with England in aggregate rather than in every constituency. If, as I suspect, that is what Parliament required, it was for the very good reason that, given the different population densities of Scotland, it would not make sense to require every single boundary to contain 70,000 electors.

As to the noble Earl's first question, which was a more fundamental constitutional one, we have no such intention whatever. This is a Parliament of the United Kingdom. Long may it remain so. We believe in the Union. We believe in a Parliament where all Members are equal. That is our policy and it will remain so.

My Lords, is it not extraordinary that the Liberal Democrats should suddenly echo the Conservative and Unionist Party in another place and are now complaining bitterly about the results of a national general election where people were elected to the United Kingdom Parliament? Are they aware that they are playing with fire and into the hands of the Scottish Nationalist Party, which challenges the integrity of the Union?

My Lords, I do not want to be drawn too much into this area because it is nearly school holidays. I did not really detect the implied degree of malignancy in the question from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. If anything. I believe the noble Earl was pleased with the answer I gave that the United Kingdom Parliament should remain as such for ever and a day.

My Lords, will the Minister take the opportunity to reject the reports that have appeared in some newspapers that the Government now have an agenda to delay the implementation of the Boundary Commission's proposals as a reward for those Scottish Members of Parliament who saved the Government's bacon when implementing a policy on health in England for which there was not a majority among English MPs?

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond. I read the article which alleged this in, I think, The Sunday Times Scotland. I had hoped that I had made it clear from what I said previously about the powers and independence of the Boundary Commission for Scotland that we have no influence whatever over this process. Nor should we. The only way in which a politician—the Secretary of State for Scotland—is involved is when the recommendation comes before him. There is then a further legislative challenge to the Secretary of State to present the document, the report and the order consequent upon it as soon as may be. It is not an open legislative window. The process is clear. It is set out in statute in the Scotland Act and in the Boundary Commission Act. It is a completely fictitious report.

My Lords, what is the Government's calculation of the number of Labour seats that will be lost?

My Lords, I am confident that at the next general election we will have another resounding success.

My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that if the Boundary Commission completes its work, either by the end of this year or certainly by Easter of next year, the Government will activate the order to give effect to its recommendations in time for the next election?

My Lords, I do not know—I cannot think why—when the next election will be. I believe I gave that undertaking in what I said previously. I indicated that as soon as the Boundary Commission for Scotland had reported to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the current legislation—which we have no intention of changing—places him under a charge to report to Parliament as soon as may be. That is not an open-ended timetable.

My Lords, further to what the Minister said about the Scottish elections, does he recollect that his noble friend Lord Sewel, when speaking in the Scotland debate, said that the Government accepted that it is no longer possible to justify the level of representation that Scotland has enjoyed in another place over the years? Does the Minister know that his noble friend went on to suggest that it might be necessary at some point to review the provisions of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 if it was found that the number of Scottish MPs was still excessive?

My Lords, I shall have to look at exactly what my noble friend said so that I do not do him any injustice. What we committed to, and what the House legislated for, in the Scotland Act 1998, if I recollect, was to do just that and to bring the level of representation of Scottish MPs elected to Westminster onto exactly the same basis and proportionality as that of English MPs. That seemed to this House and another place to be utterly fair and reasonable.

My Lords, following on from the answer given by the Minister that this issue will be decided by the Secretary of State for Scotland, am I right in assuming that that is Mr Alistair Darling and that his is one of the constituencies that would disappear?

My Lords, the noble Lord may have more information than I have on this issue, but the Secretary of State for Scotland, whoever it is at that time, will report. Given his period in government, the noble Lord will know that extremely strict rules always apply when any Minister is faced with a potential conflict of interest. One would expect the civil servants to ensure that the rules were properly adhered to at such a time.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no knowledge of a secret deal by President Chirac to protect Ratko Mladic. It is a matter for the French Government. The international community continues to exert pressure on Serbia to hand Mladic to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. We are working with international partners to trace indictees, particularly Karadzic. In April, the EU introduced a visa ban on individuals known to assist indictees, and the Office of the High Representative on Bosnia-Herzegovina has also frozen assets of individuals suspected of supporting Karadzic.

My Lords, it is seven years to the day since the slaughter in Srebrenica ended. There were five days of slaughter which left 8,000 Muslim boys and men dead. Does the Minister agree that, irrespective of President Chirac's involvement, it is shameful that the international community, including, in particular, NATO members who have the capacity, has failed to do anything in seven years to apprehend those primarily responsible for that massacre? Does the Minister agree that Karadzic moves around freely, with quite a large protection entourage, in a small area and that it is nonsense to suggest that no one knows where he is? If the same energy had been directed towards the apprehension of Mladic as was directed towards the apprehension of Eichmann—and he is in the same class as Eichmann—he would have been in The Hague ages ago. Carla del Ponte said the other day that there is no will. I agree with her. But I do not know why and the Minister did not seem to explain why.

My Lords, a great deal of commitment and energy is going into apprehending and detaining war crimes suspects. Of the 75 people indicted for war crimes, only 18 individuals remain at large. So work is going on. As the noble Lord indicated in his response to my Answer, he knows that there are difficulties in apprehending some of these individuals. The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, noted earlier this year that in the region in which Karadzic operates, Tito managed to tie down six German divisions with only 15,000 partisan troops. There are problems but our international partners, including SFOR and the Office of the High Representative, are doing everything they can to apprehend these individuals.

My Lords, further to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, it is odd—is it not?—that General Mladic who, after all, is considered to be one of the butcher-architects of Srebrenica, which was one of the worst atrocities committed on European soil since the Second World War, is around and about and his whereabouts are said to be known. It is true that the French Government totally deny the suggestion that there has been any deal and people are not quite so sure about what Mr Karadzic might be charged with, as I think he is in a slightly different category. Can the Minister assure us that enormous efforts will be put into nailing this particular individual and bringing him to justice in The Hague, where he surely should have been long ago?

My Lords, I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that enormous efforts are being brought to bear to, as he said, nail this individual. Mladic is thought to be in Serbia, but since no NATO troops are based in Serbia, it is entirely the responsibility of the Serbian authorities to hand him over to the tribunal. The international community continues to put great pressure on them to do so. My honourable friend in another place, the Minister for Europe, Denis MacShane, raised our strong concerns on this issue with the leadership of Serbia and Montenegro during his April visit to Belgrade.

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

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1A to 1C in lieu thereof.

As we come, thankfully, close to the end of parliamentary scrutiny of this Bill, we return to an issue that has produced some of the most interesting debates. It is entirely appropriate that we are debating duties that will set the scene for Ofcom's work. I am sure we will do so in the positive spirit which has carried the Bill since its introduction into the Chamber over four months—and, I understand, 83 hours on the Floor—ago.

In introducing these amendments, it is important to repeat what the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said in another place. When this House considered Ofcom's general duties, we decided that Ofcom should be given a principal duty to the citizen and consumer, and within that duty, citizen interest should take precedence. We also decided that Ofcom should discharge its duty to the consumer and citizen where appropriate by promoting competition.

The Government are keen to reflect the spirit of the amendment carried in this House. Having listened to what has been said throughout the debate about putting the word "citizen" on the face of the legislation, we recognise that we explained our concerns about using this as a legislative term because of the fear of confusion with legislation concerning nationality. But it is clear that the House of Lords believes that this is the right term. We think that the courts will understand that the phrase "citizen interest" runs through the Bill in a civic sense, applying to such areas as high standards in television and radio, public service broadcasting, universal service for telecommunications and the optimal allocation of spectrum. So the Commons Amendment No. 1A retains the word "citizen".

We want to be sure that the general duties will actually work and there are potential difficulties, which I pointed out at the time, in Lords Amendment No. 1. The noble Lord, Lord Currie, explained on proceedings after Third Reading that the amendment created,

"different duties in different parts of Ofcom's activities, which will cause difficulty. It will make Ofcom subject to judicial review . It will be the big players, not the small players, who will take advantage of that".—[Official Report, 8/7/03; col. 260.]

The Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Currie. By introducing a hierarchy of duties, the Lords amendment would introduce increasing risk of judicial review. Like existing broadcasters, Ofcom must strive to further the interests of both consumers and citizens, as appropriate, and with equal vigour. Ofcom needs the flexibility to achieve the objectives that Parliament is giving it. We absolutely believe that the consumer interest is normally best served by competition, but in citizen interest issues, competition is not the only solution. More often than not, Ofcom will need to act under licensing powers. The Commons amendments seek to remove the potential for legal challenge against Ofcom.

I can assure the House that the Government understand the difference between the interests of the consumer and the interests of providers, an issue that was debated. I want to make it clear that we are not in any way equating the interests of consumers with the interests of the market, nor are we equating the application of competition with an unchecked free market. Ofcom will act for consumers and citizens.

The Commons amendments remove potential dangers contained in differing interpretations of the amendments carried by this House. As well as keeping the word "citizen", we are keeping the concept of a principal duty to further the interests of both citizens and consumers, and these interests shall be equal.

In addition, the Commons amendments bring further measures of transparency and accountability. Where the duty to consumer and citizen come into conflict in important cases, Ofcom will publish a reasoned statement as soon as possible after any decision explaining how the duties came into conflict, how Ofcom resolved the conflict and the reasons behind its decision.

Your Lordships have rightly said time and again that the communications industry is not like any other industry. We believe that our amendments will ensure that communications continue to contribute to a strong and healthy society and democracy.

We are grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Currie, who helped to frame these amendments. Their support has been invaluable in this, as it has been throughout the passage of the Bill, because we welcome the knowledge and experience which comes from the Joint Committee and from the experience of the chairmanship of Ofcom. Also, because of their positive approach, I believe that we have before us amendments that will protect the interests of the citizen and the consumer from the beginning to the very end of the Bill. I believe that these amendments reflect the strong feelings expressed in this Chamber, and I commend them to the House.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 A to 1C in lieu thereof.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, I should say at the outset that these Benches will be supporting the Government's amendments. The Minister mentioned the long journey that we have travelled. I urge people to look at some of the ministerial language that was used at the start of that journey, particularly by Dr Kim Howells and Tessa Jowell, and then study tomorrow the Minister's comments in Hansard. They will then understand just what a journey this has been. We believe it has been very welcome in tilting the Bill back towards public interest and citizens' interest.

Sometimes when the House of Lords passes an amendment, we wonder whether we have done the right thing. Our original amendment, which was carried with such a fine majority and had support from all Members of the House, was the direct precursor to the Government suddenly finding the will and the imagination to concede the Puttnam amendment. If they had not, they would have lost another three votes in this House. I have no quarrel with that, but it shows how sometimes letting the Government know the will of this House early in a Bill's proceedings affects the seriousness with which they listen to subsequent arguments.

We also appreciate the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Currie. I echo a comment that was made yesterday about the self-regulatory nature of this House. If we had had too firm a Chair on the relevant evening, the noble Lord, Lord Currie, would not have been able to make the helpful statement that he did. But because this House has the common sense to listen when someone has something worth saying and not to stick too closely to the rule book, we received sound advice about the faults in the original amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, circulated a letter—he is becoming quite a letter writer—to supporters of the original amendment which states:

"I believe the Government has understood and taken on board the spirit of our amendments, and in one substantial respect has even improved them. The drafting changes mean that OFCOM will be better equipped to deal with a legal challenge to its decisions".

We welcome that.

The dangers are still out there. I read today on the Internet a speech of Howard Dean, the leading Democrat presidential candidate, who is making the kind of speeches in the United States that Tony Blair used to make in the United Kingdom. Howard Dean said:

"The media conglomerates now dominate almost half of the markets around the country, meaning Americans get less independent and frequently less dependable news, views and information".

That is the nature of the task ahead for the noble Lord, Lord Currie, and his colleagues. Despite what the Minister said at Third Reading, this is an untried and untested regulator. We do not know whether we are getting Elliot Ness and The Untouchables or Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory. Only time will tell. I say for the Minister's benefit that that was a joke. I know how he loves to store my jokes.

The hopeful point about the legislation is that the reputation that is first on the line is that of the noble Lord, Lord Currie, in regard to the powers he will have and the firmness with which he will use them. We on these Benches have every confidence in him. The amendment is acceptable in that context.

My Lords, it is not necessary for me to say anything at all at this stage except that we on these Benches support all three amendments.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Puttnam is absent as he is undertaking duties as Chancellor of the University of Sunderland. At his request I should make it clear—it appears to me that this message has been passed round the entire Joint Scrutiny Committee—that this amendment has his full support. Indeed, he had a heavy hand in its drafting.

My Lords, I wish to add one point to what has been said. I join in the happiness at the unanimous agreement. I slightly take issue with what the Minister reported of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Currie. The Minister did not misreport the noble Lord, Lord Currie, but I slightly take issue with the purport of his remarks; namely, that the Commons amendment will make life easier from a legal point of view. Be that as it may, whatever has been lost—here I speak as one who doubts the cultural efficacy of markets, if I can put it that way—by taking citizens' interests from a position where they were, so to speak, prior to consumer interests to the position we now have, I believe has been made up for by the fact that the furtherance of the interests of citizens is no longer to be subject to the qualification to do so.

"where appropriate by promoting competition".

It seems to me that we have a clearer separation of consumer interests, which are now not hitched to promotion of competition at all, whereas under the Puttnam amendment they were. As I say, I think that we gain with one hand whatever we may have lost with the other.

My Lords, I am pleased that the amendments of my noble friend Lord Puttnam have been accepted by the Government in principle. I know that he is also delighted. He is especially delighted with the statement by the Secretary of State which accompanied the moving of the government amendments. The guiding principle of my noble friend Lord Puttnam is that the citizen should have equal rights and equal consideration with the consumer. I congratulate my noble friend on his enormous achievements in the Bill. I congratulate my noble friend Lord McIntosh on his magnificent input into the Bill. I also thank Tessa Jowell for accepting the amendments.

My Lords, I read carefully what was said in the other place. It is clear from that and from what your Lordships have said today that these amendments, even if not entirely satisfactory to everyone, are workable.

I confess to being one of those who retain some doubts, for example, about how potential conflicts of interest between citizens and consumers will be satisfactorily resolved. It may well be that placing such inherently conflicting issues under one regulatory roof makes that inevitable.

However, as others have said—this is crucially important—the word as well as the concept of "citizen" and "citizen's interest"—which is often very different from that of consumers—is now firmly on the face of the Bill. Here I rather share the view of Brian White in the other place who suggested that perhaps an alternative parliamentary legal view is required when disputes about the meanings of words such as "citizen" occur.

So, I confess to being a sufficient "groupie" of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, to put my remaining doubts about these clauses to one side!

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3A in lieu thereof.

The Government's commitment to broadband is unequivocal. We have set a clear target to achieve the most competitive and extensive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. As Stephen Timms said in another place, it is important to explain our concerns about whether we needed to include reference to broadband on the face of the Bill. That is the issue before us, not the issue of commitment or the issue of lack of importance to the UK economy, nor that Ofcom would otherwise have no role in encouraging the fair development of the broadband market. The Bill already requires Ofcom to secure availability of a wide range of electronic communications services. That will include broadband services. Therefore, the reservations concern only whether it is necessary to specify broadband on the face of the Bill. There were those on both sides of the Commons who thought that that was not necessary.

However, your Lordships, on the urging of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, put forward an amendment to refer to broadband in the general duties. The noble Earl convinced the Government that he was right. Commons Amendment No. 3A ensures that what was agreed by this House fits with the structure of the general duties.

In the light of the points made in debate in this House, the measure covers both roll-out and take-up. It will require Ofcom to have regard to the desirability of encouraging roll-out and take-up of high speed data transfer services.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3A in lieu thereof.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, needless to say I am extremely grateful to the Minister not only for explaining the terms of the amendment in lieu but also for his courtesy and generosity in keeping me and my co-signatories to the original amendment informed of developments in the Government's thinking. I am content that the formula arrived at by another place meets the concerns expressed in our debates on broadband during our scrutiny of the Bill. As I say, I thank the Minister and the Government for allowing us to arrive at what is a satisfactory meeting of minds and I therefore support the Government's amendment.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 42 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42A in lieu thereof. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 72A to 72E.

At Third Reading, we accepted Amendment No. 42, which would have required Ofcom to include conditions in the public teletext service to secure that people with sight and/or hearing disabilities were able to use the service for all the same purposes as people without such disabilities. I explained that there were some technical issues to be addressed with regard to the drafting and the placement of the amendment in the Bill, and Amendment No. 42A does that in a way which we believe preserves the spirit of Amendment No. 42.

At Third Reading, we accepted Amendment No. 72, which requires Ofcom's code relating to provision for the deaf and visually impaired to give guidance as to the extent to which applicable services should promote the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by persons with a dual sensory impairment. I indicated at the time that we would need to make some minor amendments to ensure that the remainder of the provisions on the code were consistent with the change. Amendments Nos. 72A to 72E are therefore minor consequential amendments to make provision for consultation on the code and accessibility of the code to apply to people who have a dual sensory impairment.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 42 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42A in lieu thereof.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, I agree that the form of wording in Amendment No. 42A is clearer and more direct. I thank the noble Lord for making sure that, as regards Amendment No. 72, we have a way of ensuring that dual sensory impairment is brought in throughout the whole structure. I thank the Government.

My Lords, positively my last word on the Bill is of heartfelt thanks to my noble friend Lord McIntosh. The long-standing problems have now been dealt with in a very efficient and effective way. It will transform the lives of deaf, blind and deaf, blind people.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 72A to 72E, consequential on Lords Amendment No. 72.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 72A to 72E, consequential on Lords Amendment No. 72.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 116A to 116E in lieu thereof.

Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 concerned the scope of the codes under which broadcast advertising would be regulated. Many noble Lords expressed concern that the drafting of the Bill would widen the scope of the codes and proposed that the scope should be narrowed to cover only advertising which may be, in the all-hallowed phrase, misleading, harmful or offensive. The Government accept that amendment, hut the House will recall that we had some concern that the formulation would not embrace all the matters which it would he proper to regulate by way of the code, including matters subject to the current codes.

We had further discussions with the current regulators and the advertising industry, which have been helpful. We think that two specific matters should be added to the list of matters in Clause 312(2) to ensure that they could be regulated under the codes. They are the ban on political advertising provided for in Clause 314, and the United Kingdom's international obligations.

It was suggested on Report in this House that Clause 312(7) already provided for Ofcom to take account of the United Kingdom's international obligations. However, the scheme of the Bill is such that all matters subject to the advertising code must fall within the objectives set out in Clause 312(2), and Clause 312(7) applies only to matters falling within the standards objectives. We consider that it should be put beyond doubt in the Bill that the international obligations can be met by way of the code, whether or not they appeared demonstrably to meet the test of being "misleading, harmful or offensive".

Amendment No. 116 added to the standards objectives specified in Clause 314 that the standards objective concerning the protection of children should apply to the specific provisions in that clause for advertisements and sponsorship. That proposal sought to meet earlier concerns expressed by the Government about the narrower scope of Amendment No. 115. Clause 314, as drafted and by way of Amendment No. 116B, picks out the standards objectives applying specifically to advertising, so the reference to the first standards objective—the protection of children—in Clause 314(1) is an exception in specifying one of the general standards objectives. I should make it clear that, in fact, all the standards objectives of Clause 312(2) apply to all television and radio programmes and advertisements, so far as they may be relevant. Amendments Nos. 116C to 116E are simply designed to tidy up the wording.

The Commons amendments accept the amendments made in this House, but go on to address two specific areas of government concern about the scope of the advertising standards codes. They reflect the wish of this House that matters subject to the advertising code should be more clearly specified in the Bill.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 116A to 116E in lieu thereof.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what he said and to the Government for agreeing with this House on the immediate question to which the original amendment gave rise, which was the rather unsuitable use of "unsuitable" in relation to the regulations regarding advertising. I am glad that, on that narrow but very important point, the final Act will return to the now-hallowed words that have been used in the code for a long time.

With regard to the other matters mentioned by the Minister and the opportunity that the Government have taken to deal with some wider issues, for my part, I think the Government wise to propose what they propose. One of the most important aspects of the role of broadcasting in our society is that the use of money to buy political advertising is prohibited. That is one of the sources of very great health in our democracy. One has only to look at what happens in the United States, where the excesses of money collection have led to many abuses. It is important to regulate that matter properly.

As I understand it—I was not wholly clear about the full implications of the changes that the Minister mentioned—political advertising is now to be brought sensibly within the code of standards in advertising, whereas in my time it was curiously exempt. Although it is a delicate matter to apply standards of taste and decency to political advertising, with politicians accustomed to getting away with things that the conventional advertising industry would never have dreamt of trying on, I welcome the concern that the Government have shown on the matter and the steps that they have taken.

My Lords, on Report I was persuaded—I am glad to say that so was the House—that the amendment to which I put my name along with the noble Lords, Lord Thomson, Lord Borne, Lord Saatchi, and others, was an improvement on the Bill as it had come to us from the Commons. I am equally persuaded that what the Government have come forward with now is an improvement on what we put forward then, so I am very happy with the Government's amendments and thank them for making them.

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, the world's leading expert on political advertising, I do not think that I should respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. I make an exception to say that, as in the measure we accept that what we are doing is in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights, we are grateful to have support for it from those on the Opposition Benches.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 130A to 130L in lieu thereof. We do not think that it is right to remove the few remaining restrictions on religious ownership in their entirety, but we have listened carefully and sympathetically to the many points raised in debate in this House and in another place. The amendments offered in lieu address many of the concerns raised by those who wish to remove the restrictions.

Before I explain why we think the restrictions should be reintroduced to the Bill, even in a greatly modified form, I shall repeat some of the points that the Government made in another place so as to emphasise that the Government are not opposed to religious broadcasting or religious broadcasters. In cutting short my speech on this subject at Third Reading, I was perhaps guilty of not informing the House adequately about the Government's position and I unreservedly apologise for that.

The Government believe that the faith communities play an integral part in the life of the United Kingdom and should have a place in the broadcast media. We also recognise that religious broadcasting is an important element of public service broadcasting. I hope that we have amended the Bill to ensure that its importance can better be reflected in the Bill's definition of public service broadcasting. Our changes were strongly welcomed in the statement by senior Church leaders that was issued yesterday. I am pleased, too, that they have concluded that, taking the measures in the Bill together, the legislation,

"marks a sea change from the previous regime under the 1990 and 1996 Acts".

We have also made it clear that we regret the reference in the communications White Paper, some time ago, to religious broadcasting's "particular capacity to offend". That was an unfortunate and unnecessary phrase, which we would not use today and it is not the basis for our proposals for continuing restrictions.

More generally, we are confident that Ofcom will take seriously its role in maintaining and strengthening public service television broadcasting, and will not wish to see religious broadcasting marginalised. Our policy is to have as few restrictions as necessary. We allow religious bodies to hold different kinds of broadcasting licences where that is consistent with satisfying as many viewers and listeners as possible and giving equal respect to everyone's beliefs. We wish to avoid a situation where, through scarcity of broadcasting spectrum allocated to a particular kind of licence, some religions achieve access to the airwaves but others do not.

Where there is no broadcast spectrum scarcity, as is the case with cable, satellite and digital terrestrial broadcasting, there are no restrictions, because there are enough opportunities for several religions to offer services and for other non-religious services to co-exist with them in offering a diversity of services. It follows that restrictions could be removed in the event that significant new broadcasting spectrum were to become available. That would not require primary legislation and could be done by order. I shall go further than saying that it could; I can assure the House that it would.

It follows that in the event of any new classes of licences being introduced, we would carefully consider whether religious organisations should be able to hold them; there would not he a presumption that they cannot. The decision will turn, as now, on questions of broadcast spectrum scarcity and we are proposing to amend the Bill to reinforce that point.

The Bill will remove all unnecessary restrictions on religious bodies holding licences and will greatly increase broadcasting opportunities by allowing religious bodies to hold licences to provide both national and local digital radio services, and digital terrestrial television services, as well as TV-restricted services. The only remaining restrictions on religious bodies holding broadcasting licences will relate to Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences, national analogue radio licences and multiplex licences.

To put all that in context, under our proposals religious bodies would not be able to hold the 16 ITV licences, the Channel 5 licence and the three national radio licences now held by Classic FM, TalkSPORT and Virgin—20 licences in all. However, they can hold any of almost 900 different cable, satellite and digital broadcasting licences. As a matter of fact, religious bodies currently hold around 40 UK broadcasting licences of one kind or another.

I am aware that there are some who are disappointed that any restrictions at all remain, but, again, I am grateful to the senior Church leaders who have given a "cautious welcome" to the ownership provisions in the Bill, on the grounds that they are a step on the way to the complete removal of restrictions on religious bodies holding broadcast licences.

I shall concentrate on the case for the continuing restriction on national analogue radio licences. As I have said, there are only three now—Classic FM, TalkSPORT and Virgin 1215 AM. At present, there is not enough spectrum to allow more nation-wide services of that kind. Given that fact, it would not be appropriate for one of those licences to go to a religious organisation. One should remember that that could happen if a rich religious organisation were to make an offer to Classic FM, to TalkSPORT or to Virgin that they could not financially resist. We do not believe that a religious radio service, however popular it would be with many, would have sufficient appeal to justify it having one of only three national licences. We have been very careful in reaching a decision about the national analogue radio licences to ensure that there is a variety. That is why we have insisted that one of them should not be pop music and that one of them should be mainly talk and not music at all.

We are also concerned that it would be invidious, and perhaps unfair, for only one religion or one religious tendency to have a national station, and others not. We therefore take the view that, as a religious organisation will not provide a service which has a sufficiently wide appeal to justify using one of only three such licences, it is more honest and more transparent to set that out in the Bill rather than leave it to Ofcom. Of course, we could leave it to Ofcom—we could apply internal criteria in the granting of licences—but that would not be the open and honourable course. If we take a particular view, it is better to say so: Parliament should take the decision, rather than it being at the discretion of a regulator.

In any case, Ofcom's discretion is limited in the case of national analogue radio licences, since they are normally awarded to the highest bidder, as I have just pointed out. That would mean that a well-funded religious organisation could out-bid all the other organisations in order to broadcast a national radio station serving one particular faith community and one only—unless they were to buy all three of the national analogue channels, which would be an extreme case.

The rationale for the bidding system for national licences is that it enables the market to develop a popular and sustainable service. The highest bid is a proxy for popular appeal. In the case of a religious organisation, non-market factors would apply—in other words, faith would be the main consideration. A well-funded religious body could not just out-bid other organisations; it could run its national service on a non-commercial basis through subsidy, subscriptions and other forms of support. That would not necessarily produce a popular service. The need to rely on subsidies rather than advertising would suggest the opposite.

Conventionally commercial bidders for a national analogue licence will aim to provide a popular service with wide appeal so as to ensure a financially viable business, but if some bidders deliberately set out to do that on a non-commercial basis there would be a risk of national analogue services, which are of enormous importance to large sections of the public, not appealing to the largest possible number of listeners. Is it right to put Ofcom in the position of having to use the power that it has to rule out a religious body? Surely Parliament should do that.

The Government believe that the need to treat all religions fairly and to use scarce spectrum in a way designed to appeal to a wide range of tastes and interests, combined with the particular way in which national analogue radio licences are awarded, means that we need to retain the restriction on religious bodies holding such licences. We have therefore looked at ways of making the restrictions work in a way that tries to meet the concerns of religious broadcasters. Our amendments would reverse what one might call the "default position" in the case of religious bodies.

At present, religious bodies are disqualified persons for all licences but, at Ofcom's discretion, can hold certain licences listed in the legislation. In theory, that would mean that if a new category of licence were introduced, religious bodies would automatically be disqualified. The amendments introduced in another place would make it clear that religious bodies are disqualified only in relation to licences specified on the face of the Bill; in other words, they are now ruled in until ruled out, rather than the other way around. Again, I was pleased to see that senior Church leaders welcomed that change.

The communications White Paper recognises that the restriction on religious bodies holding local digital sound programme services is an anomaly. Therefore, we propose to implement those parts of the Bill which remove restrictions on religious broadcasters two months after Royal Assent. It is still our intention to implement all other ownership changes in December. I hope that means that religious broadcasters will not have to wait any longer than necessary—I am thinking literally about 17th September—before they can take up new broadcasting opportunities. Government Amendments Nos. 130H to 130K are necessary to achieve that. They allow the ITC and the Radio Authority to stand in the shoes of Ofcom for these purposes until Ofcom acquires their substantive licensing powers at the end of this year. Again, I am pleased that that has been welcomed by senior Church leaders.

The Bill, taken as a whole, ushers in a new era for religious broadcasters with greatly increased access to broadcasting licences as the scarcity of spectrum has decreased. If the Bill is agreed, the restrictions on local and national digital programme licences and the digital services licences needed to provide radio on Freeserve should be lifted by the middle of September.

Once this happens, new opportunities open up. Local digital radio multiplexes are still being licensed so religious broadcasters can obtain some of those spots. In the case of existing radio multiplexes, there should still be chances for religious bodies to obtain slots on those multiplexes which are currently unfilled or become vacant in the future, and there are opportunities to take up radio slots on Freeserve. We remain convinced that while spectrum scarcity continues, the case for some restrictions remains. But where restrictions can be removed, they have been removed. This Bill offers huge opportunities for religious broadcasters.

Finally, the Secretary of State intends to convene a forum later in the year to have a high-level discussion with religious broadcasters about the future of religious broadcasting. This will provide an opportunity for those with an interest to have a dialogue with the Government. It may be that a number of the issues that have been debated but not always agreed in this House can be more fully aired in this context. I commend the Commons amendments to the House.

Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 130A to 130L in lieu thereof.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

3.45 p.m.

130M Baroness Wilcox rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 130A to 130L in lieu thereof, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 130".

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 130M as an amendment to the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to insist on Lords Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed.

We on these Benches do welcome the steps the Government have taken with these amendments. They provide greater assurances to religious broadcasters for, in the words of the Minister today and of the Secretary of State in another place, Tessa Jowell, they are now ruled in until ruled out, rather than the other way around. Unfortunately, however, ours is not a stance that can be softened by tweaking the emphasis on the face of the Bill. It is a matter of principle. There is a principle at stake here and no amount of compromise drafting will make a difference. It is absurd and a violation of human rights, whether currently included in existing human rights legislation or not, to single out religious organisations in primary legislation and ban them from entering the competition for certain categories of broadcasting licence.

We have covered this ground many times before, but with the addition of the plurality test there is even more force to the argument that the Bill as it stands provides more than enough safeguards. We are told that the issue is one of spectrum scarcity. The fact that that argument is not advanced about any other type of broadcaster, however questionable their moral stance, or in any other country, speaks volumes.

There is evidence that with better spectrum management there could he a fourth and a fifth national analogue frequency for which religious organisations and persons will still not be allowed to compete. For free and fair competition in a democracy, a principle which this Government endeavour to embrace, everyone should be able to put a bid forward. Even if there is only one national analogue frequency or one apple in a basket, religious groups should be able to put forward a bid alongside everyone else. Everyone else, be they, as it is now, pornographers or criminal organisations, can apply—but not religious groups. I certainly do not see why the Government are so worried about religious groups.

We supported the Bill because we believe that it is fair. It encourages competition—open, fair and free competition—with safeguards enforced by the noble Lord, Lord Currie, who we have become used to seeing and hearing in this Chamber. He has been present for every stage of the Bill, which is most encouraging for the future. But the government amendments are riot fair. This is not a fair deal.

As past chairman of the National Consumer Council and now president of the National Consumer Federation, I have fought long and hard so that consumers should have access to the widest possible choice. The government amendments would deprive them of this opportunity. For consumers of goods and services to be king, government restrictions must always be kept to a minimum. While I am pleased to see that many restrictions have already been abolished by the Bill, for some inexplicable reason the Government feel it necessary to hang on to this one. We have argued time and again that the Government's logic on this issue is flawed and it is difficult to understand the Government's motivation on this issue.

I echo the words of the shadow Minister in another place, John Whittingdale:

"There is almost certainly no religious organisation that has any great interest in applying for any of the categories of licence that the Bill sets out. In promoting the amendment we do not intend that ITV should be bought by a religious organisation or that a national radio analogue licence should be bought by a religious organisation. All that we, and the religious organisations, are saying, and have been saying ever since this matter first arose, was that they should at least be allowed to put in an application, and that that should be judged according to the usual procedure".

I listened to the Minister as he repeated things over and over again, and I believe that he protests too much and that something is amiss here.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 130A to 130L in lieu thereof, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 130"—(Baroness Wilcox.)

My Lords, my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester is unable to be in his place today. He and his wife are hosting, I hope, a dry lunch for 140 guests at his house, which is part of a programme of welcoming people in his new diocese of Manchester to their home. He is sad not to be here as he has burnt the midnight oil and followed the progress of the Bill most closely.

On his behalf and mine, I shall begin by referring to the comments made by the Secretary of State in another place. She spoke of the value of religious broadcasting and the integral part played by the faith communities in the life of the United Kingdom. I welcome her comments, echoed today by the Minister. The life and work of these communities can never be taken for granted and it is welcome to hear it being so well acknowledged. Faith communities want to involve themselves in their wider communities and the new full deregulation of digital radio licence ownership provided in this Bill for religious bodies will provide them with greater means of serving those communities and enhancing them. In the same way, the improvement of the provisions for public service broadcasting, especially religion on television, will permit this vital aspect of national life and culture to interact with the whole community. We are grateful for those changes.

I also welcome the Secretary of State's comments in another place, repeated here today, about the early lifting of digital licence restrictions for religious bodies, which should bring some relief to them because they have hitherto been excluded from this marketplace.

I turn now to the amendments before the House. From these Benches, we continue to support the complete lifting of the disqualification on religious bodies. There are two elements to the disqualification. The first is that certain licences are not available to religious bodies, and the Minister set out which they are. I believe I can give the assurance that, in any event, the Church of England could not afford to buy any of them and therefore we would not be directly affected in the immediate future. However, for the reasons given, the danger that that could happen is genuine. The second element is that there is, as it is termed in the legislation, a determination to be faced by religious bodies before they can apply for licences.

We look forward to the ending of both disqualifications, although the one relating mainly to analogue services will naturally fall out in due course. However, we recognise that the amendments are a step in the right direction. Therefore, despite certain reservations along the lines of the principles set out by the noble Baroness, we want to give a cautious welcome to the amendments, as echoed in yesterday's statement by religious leaders across the board. Our reasons are as follows.

First, the licences still restricted are relatively few, numbering 20. I believe that in a sense we can discount that restriction in the short term, especially as they are analogue licences. Secondly, the notion that religious bodies will face a determination is less satisfactory. In some ways, it is unfortunate that that is on the face of the Bill. We look forward to the time when the availability of spectrum means that those restrictions can be released.

On the other hand, we believe that some controls need to be retained in order to protect children and vulnerable people from exploitation. That might well be done through the normal processes of Ofcom. However, we should not underestimate the need for a certain amount of caution as we deregulate broadcasting and allow religious bodies access across the board.

At present, that is to be achieved through ownership restrictions. We believe that ideally there would be another and better way. It is hoped that the ministerial review, announced yesterday and referred to again by the Minister, will address what the long-term safeguards for religious broadcasting should be like. But we need to be honest that religion can be a force for both good and bad in the world. While I fully accept the basic principles enunciated by the noble Baroness, I believe that we must be fairly down to earth and honest about the role of religion in the modern world. To my mind, that is not an argument against religion. The best things in life can be converted to the worst, and that is a general rule.

Why are the amendments a step on the way? They are cast in terms, exactly as the Minister said, which create a positive climate in favour of religious broadcasting. In that sense, we reverse the presumption against it. That is why, while acknowledging the force of the arguments advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, ultimately I am not persuaded that this House should seek to insist on its original amendment.

This legislation marks a sea-change from the previous regime under the 1990 and 1996 Broadcasting Acts. I remind the House that yesterday's statement involved the right reverend Crispian Hollis, Bishop of Portsmouth and Roman Catholic spokesman for communications in England and Wales, the reverend David Deeks, Co-ordinating Secretary for Church and Society for the Methodist Church, and other Church figures, together with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. In their statement, they welcomed the Government's amendments as being good progress towards our ultimate goals.

When I was a teacher in higher education, I remember that if I had a student whom I considered to be at least on the way to where he should be, I used to give sympathetic understanding if I felt that he was not yet quite there. In a sense, that is how we feel about these amendments. Perhaps I may also add that my friend, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, who is chairman of the Archbishops' Council communications group, has also indicated his support for the position set out in yesterday's statement.

For those reasons, while caught a little by forces pulling me in two directions, ultimately I wish to give the Government my support on this occasion.

My Lords, my name appeared with that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester at an earlier stage of the Bill when we tabled amendments to what was then Clause 261. Our objective was that more positive regard should be paid to religious broadcasting. We are grateful that the Government responded to that and we now have a far better Bill in that regard. Like others who have spoken, I believe that progress has certainly been made.

It is odd to disagree on this matter with a right reverend Prelate, who should, after all, be my master. However, I cannot help feeling—perhaps it is my East Anglian background—that he was a little too supplicant in what he said. The analogy of the student was somewhat odd. The Government are not our student; they tend too much to be our master.

I believe that a principle is involved here. Although, as a good lawyer of the common law school, I believe that one should err in favour of pragmatism rather than principle, because principles can throw dust in one's eyes, I do not accept a pragmatic reason for overturning the amendment that we put into the Bill.

Perhaps I may remind the House what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, in introducing the amendment, as he did so fully. He said:

"The highest bid is a proxy for popular appeal".

That is a very modern statement, is it not? It does not matter who it comes from—pornographer or crook; money is the answer. Then he said that it was different if the moneybags was a rich religious organisation. Thus, apparently, money is no longer the dominant indicator of popular appeal.

If we are talking about popular appeal, it is just as well to remember that according to the latest census, which has recently been published, well over 80 per cent of the people of this country still describe themselves as "Christian". Noble Lords may wish to dissent from that, but that is how people see themselves.

My Lords, perhaps I may dissent and say that the figure was 71.8 per cent. However, in Cheshire it was more than 80 per cent.

My Lords, if the right reverend Prelate had waited, I would have gone on to say that it was Cheshire to which I referred.

Oh!

My Lords, honesty forbids me from pursuing that line. However, 71 per cent is not bad. I believe I was confusing the figure with that for all religious denominations, including Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Confucians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and so on, which came to well over 80 per cent.

I am perplexed as to how, whether in logic, principle or pragmatism, one can hold the view that money talks when it comes to such bodies, except if it is religious money. I say that particularly in an age where, even if one is not religious—whether one is a convinced atheist or an agnostic—there is a general sense of a lack of spirituality in the life of the nation and an excess of materialist influence. It is odd that an eroticist can purchase one of these radio channels and that that is all right.

The truth is that provisions in the Bill will allow Ofcom to cut out anyone who is not "a fit and proper person" or someone who is not going to be responsible or who is going to be exploitative. That is the answer to the fears expressed by the Minister regarding the potential for a religious purchaser of one of these channels. However, as the right reverend Prelate said, it is a long shot. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept the Commons amendments.

My Lords, I, too, am very concerned about the Government's proposals and I support the noble Baroness's amendment. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said. We certainly have not had a clear explanation as to why this particular group should he treated differently from some fairly dubious other groups, which apparently would be looked upon equally favourably.

Also, we have been told again and again that the regulation of this country—we have just heard two examples of how tough it would be—is sufficiently strong to deal with almost anything: for example, unsatisfactory foreign owners coming in. We have the plurality/public interest test available, quite apart from the other aspects. We are told that this concerns only a few licences. I think I heard the Minister correctly in saying that restrictions will be removed as and when. If they are going to be removed eventually, why not now?

I praise the Government for the considerable thought they have given to this matter. That is not a contradiction in terms. Obviously, they agonised over this and have gone a long way to include the religions of this country in what they are doing in the Bill. Also, I see the attraction of setting up a government body in which these as well as other religious issues will be discussed, no doubt in a slightly less frenetic setting. I have still not heard a good reason as to why the particular restrictions which exist cannot be removed.

I remind noble Lords—I rather hope that we shall be reminded again in a moment or two—that many people regard the continuing of these restrictions as a human rights issue and one where, clearly, if they persisted the Government could be called to account. I very much hope the Government will think again, although I congratulate them on certain concessions they have made.

My Lords, I welcome the changes, of which the Minister told the House, in the amendments proposed by the Commons. However, in so doing I register with the House the concerns that led to a change of thinking by the Government, which they very generously stated had occurred.

The first was the very simple proposition that if one has a system of broadcasting which is opened up to all to apply, it is unreasonable and discriminatory to isolate any particular group in society from the right to apply. The only two exceptions provided for by the Bill, other than religious broadcasting, are political parties and advertising agencies, each of which, in a democratic context, it can readily be accepted can justifiably be excluded.

The first point of concern is that of discrimination. I seriously invite those on these Benches to consider how they would feel if a trade union or a group of trades union, and a gay and lesbian organisation wanted to acquire a radio licence and were told that they were not allowed to apply. Surely, that would be regarded as basically discriminatory. I do not see why, logically, those involved in religious broadcasting should be any less advantaged than others.

Secondly, that is why, when they defended the claim before the European Court in Strasbourg about this question a couple of years ago, the Government accepted that this law was a breach of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act but explained that it was necessary in the particular context of our society for the one and only reason of spectrum scarcity.

Thirdly, the question arises of whether spectrum scarcity, within the words of the Human Rights Act, is representative of a pressing need and necessary in the interests of democracy so as to justify this exclusion from application by religious broadcasters. I am gratified to see that in these amendments the Government have gone a considerable way to extend the area in which application can be made.

However, I want to raise three technical points. The first is that of analogue and only three channels. France and the Netherlands have just changed their analogue system dramatically, considerably to increase the number of channels available. If the reason for spectrum scarcity is really technical and temporary—transient—it is difficult to see how a legislative disqualification should be permitted to continue. If it is to continue, what are we doing about analogue channel distribution?

Secondly, there is the question of multiplex. If there are several hundred of these channels and one creates a multiplex system in which every eight or 10 are put into a multiplex unit, common sense justifies the owner of the multiplex acquiring it and distributing the slots as he or she thinks fit in commercial terms. But the Bill denies a religious organisation the right to have a multiplex licence. It puts the religious broadcaster at the commercial mercy of the multiplex owner and makes it very difficult to understand in market terms how a religious broadcaster will acquire an individual slot. I have mentioned analogue and multiplex digital systems because we are basically talking of radio.

The embarrassment we face, not politically but as a state of affairs in our country, is that at present people are talking of going outside the UK to get licences in Spain or France to broadcast back to the UK—an absurd position—or we face foreign owners outside the European Union broadcasting in, especially on cable or satellite. Otherwise, we would be caught by the disqualification requirements. All I ask is that we give continued and urgent consideration to that particular problem if, as I understand it to be, the key question is spectrum scarcity.

My next—penultimate and short—point involves the question of equality. The House may not understand that when we talk in this context about religious organisations, the statutory definition is really any company or people in a company, who have significant religious connections. That is what is meant: companies. I should like noble Lords to consider the following facts. Mr Rupert Murdoch's organisation, News International, is a major international company in the media field. In the United States of America it, or its associates, owns Zondervan, the biggest and most reputable Bible and religious publishing company. Zondervan is closely connected in this country with HarperCollins UK and has a portion of an interest in an Anglican publishing house called Fount. The word I mentioned is "equality". Is Mr Murdoch's application for a licence for anything to be considered equally with the religious broadcasters when he has those associations to his company? It might be said that these limitations do not apply to people abroad. If that is correct it does not sound equitable. If it is said that they do apply to people in this country, why is he not caught?

I merely give an example of how experts in the field, civil servants, can get themselves into a mindset which eventually can reach a stage which borders on the ridiculous. I do not think that the Government want or intend that. So, I vastly welcome the consultation that they promised, which I hope they will allow experts to attend. I understand that a few weeks ago the Government were sent expert comment about spectrum scarcity—including some from an expert they use themselves—saying that it was not a real issue. No reply has yet been received. It is very important in this field for Ministers to use their own judgment when dealing with experts and advisers. I think that is why, when the Minister and the Secretary of State cast their minds to this topic, they made such a significant change; but, surely, there is more to come.

This is a memorable little parliamentary occasion because of its irony. The Benches opposite, which now proclaim the value of human rights and that the dignity of the citizen should apply, were in their time the very Benches that introduced this legislation. I admire their Damascene conversion. It may be belated, but I hope it will continue when we look at other Bills in this House which involve human rights and discrimination.

I hope also that the ingenuity and flare of the Minister, which he has displayed so well during the passage of the Bill, will continue to be directed at getting rid of this last little piece of law in this country, which uniquely is the only country in Europe that has this limitation.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, with his usual acuity, has brought us back to the issue. With his unrivalled track record in dealing with human rights questions and issues of discrimination, he has reminded us that this is ultimately an issue that involves discrimination. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, spelt that out at Second Reading. I said in a speech at the time that if she brought this issue to a Division, I would support her in the Lobbies. I shall do so today.

My noble friend Lady Howe has also rendered the House a service by reminding us, as has the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that the issue comes down ultimately to a question of discrimination. I think that a double discrimination is involved here. It is not simply that we are debarring people from having the same opportunities as others merely because of their religious beliefs, but, ironically, it is possible for people outside this country—a matter alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, a moment ago—to broadcast into the United Kingdom over the heads of the authorities in this country via satellite. Some of the very worst kinds of religious broadcasting that should exercise the minds of your Lordships are able to come into the United Kingdom via satellite. So it is double discrimination.

We prevent people in whom we would have great confidence, such as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, who spoke earlier, from our own Church of England and other churches in this country, from having the opportunity to broadcast, while we allow the Televangelists or others who often focus on matters such as fund-raising and so on to broadcast into the United Kingdom.

So I think that the Government have recognised there is a problem here. In his speech earlier the Minister said that we have made much progress and have moved a long way from the position we were in at Second Reading, which is a demonstration of why the amendments considered in Committee and on Report have been of real worth. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome the fact that the Government have moved their position, but I think the basic issue of discrimination, raised by the noble Baroness at Second Reading, will still stand if the Bill were to proceed in an unamended form. We should bring that issue to the attention of another place and ask them whether they will go that extra bit of the journey referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan.

So, without being unnecessarily provocative and recognising that ultimately another place will have its way in the matter if it so decides, and welcoming the progress that has so far been made, I think it is worth trying to go further on this basic issue of discrimination against those in this country with a religious outlook.

My Lords, the trouble with the conference that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, looks forward to with such hope and confidence is that it will take place after the Bill has reached the statute book. We are actually making the law for now, not as it may be in a few years' time. We are legislating, it seems, for the spectrum that is available now rather than as it will be in a few years' time. The question I cannot avoid asking myself, and therefore the Minister, is: if the other provisions in the Bill are insufficient to regulate religious broadcasters, how will they be sufficient to regulate anyone else? If the provisions are not sufficient to regulate anyone who broadcasts, the Bill itself is defective and should not be on the statute book anyway.

If Ofcom is not sufficient to regulate religious broadcasting now, how will it become so when the Minister proposes to remove restrictions when more spectrum is available. There seems to be a conundrum: either the thing works or it does not. If it works, it should control everyone; if it does not, it is not lit to control anyone. All that is against the background of the threat to human rights and the proposed referral to the United Nations Commission at Geneva under Article 10, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, has obliquely referred.

I ask your Lordships to bear in mind also what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said at the beginning. He said that we are living in a period when the whole tone of social understanding and behaviour is very much influenced, if not governed, by the media and what goes on in it. The Minister made a strong comment at the beginning about the availability only for the time being of three programmes on analogue terrestrial radio and said that not one of those should be dominated by a religious faith, but nothing about a multiplex which was open to all faiths. Why not a multi-faith broadcast on a multiplex station? All faiths have a right to be heard on air and the debate between them should be free for people to make up their own minds. I think therefore that the Bill is defective. It is also a gag which should not be applied in this respect.

My Lords, in the early stages of the Bill we supported the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. However, during this debate we have listened to two very important statements: one from the Minister himself, which I think was none the worse for its fullness and for the degree of movement it showed in the Government's thinking; and the other from the right reverend Prelate.

At this stage of a Bill, it is incumbent on this House to listen to statements such as that made by the Minister. I know that will bring some disappointment to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who were hoping for our support today, and indeed to colleagues such as my noble friend Lord Phillips who is looking for a certain consistency. It will also come as a disappointment to the Centre for Justice and Liberty, which has been a vigorous campaigner for change.

Anyone listening to the debate would concede that considerable progress has been made and that both the Government and the Churches are approaching this issue in a constructive spirit. I have more confidence than the noble Lord about the promised conference. I certainly hope that that conference will deal not just with the position of specialist radio and television stations, but with the perhaps even more important fact that we want mainstream religion to be kept on mainstream channels. We do not want it to suffer the same fate as politics and be pushed out into the ghettos and the further extremes of the schedules because we have been reminded that there is still a great religious undercurrent in this country.

In such circumstances, I always fall back on the advice of probably one of the greatest general secretaries of the TUC, George Woodcock, who said that good trade unionism consisted of a series of shoddy compromises. And sometimes so does good politics.

The religious arguments have been well made during the Bill's passage. The Government have responded constructively. I hope that the Conservatives now feel that enough is enough. If they do not, in the light of what the Minister and the right reverend Prelate said, it would be frivolous to send the Bill back to another place and we shall support the Government in the Lobby if there is a Division.

My Lords, I continue to be surprised at the Government's opposition to the amendment. They have certainly moved; we appreciate that.

When the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that 80 per cent of the country was Christian, he was quickly corrected by the right reverend Prelate, who rightly said that 71 per cent was Christian, and 80 per cent in the diocese of Chester. But of course, the Bill is not just for Chester; it is not even just for England and Wales; it is for the United Kingdom. If Scotland and Northern Ireland are still to be considered as part of the United Kingdom, because Presbyterianism and Roman Catholicism are strong in both countries, I can quickly upgrade the percentage from 71 back to 80; 80 per cent of this country is Christian.

I noticed that the Minister four or five times claimed assistance from Church leaders. The right reverend Prelate said that Church leaders across the board were giving a cautious welcome to the Government's position. What exactly does "across the board" mean? Who are these Church leaders "across the board"?

There is an interesting development here in Britain—not so much in the United Kingdom, but in Britain—of a great growth in evangelical Churches involving many in the black community. There is also a council of free churches, including the United Reformed Church. Are any of those Churches included in "across the board"? Do they support the Government's position?

My Lords, this has been a deeply serious debate and I am grateful to all who have taken part in it. Perhaps I may start by referring to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, because something he said so misunderstands the Government's position that it would be wrong for me not to correct it at the outset. Just before he sat down, he described our position as discrimination against those who have a religious outlook. Nothing could be further from the case.

My personal position is well known—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, knows it; he knows that I am not a religious believer. But that is entirely irrelevant. If we consider the Bill's progress through this House and legislation since 1990 and 1996, it will be seen that in every respect regard for religion, for religious broadcasting and for the rights of the Churches to be heard has been high on the Government's list of priorities. I think that the noble Lord. Lord Alton, understands that point.

On the issue of ownership of broadcasting channels, which is, after all, what we are debating, apart from three national analogue stations for which there is spectrum scarcity—and only while there is spectrum scarcity, not thereafter—we believe that restrictions should be maintained. Only for the 16 ITV franchises—which are, after all, monopolies of independent television first choice, so to speak, in their geographical areas—and for Channel 5. which is a national channel, are we proposing to retain restrictions. For all the other channels—and there are about 900 of them—restrictions that existed under the 1990 and 1996 Acts will be removed by the Bill.

On the question of the religious content of broadcasting. which is by no means the same thing as religious ownership of broadcasting channels, I believe that there is universal recognition that the role of religion in our society has been fully recognised in the definition of public service broadcasting and in the standards required of all public service broadcasters—not just the BBC but all those who aspire to public broadcasting status, which, unlike in other countries, includes the vast majority of broadcasting in this country in terms of audience.

We have listened and introduced amendments to protect the interests of religion in broadcasting and—I say to myself and to my noble friend Lady Whitaker if she is present—and other beliefs. The issue of respect or otherwise for those who have a religious outlook is not before us.

Specific points have been made and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and others deserve a specific answer. She and others, notably the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred to human rights. We have rules on these things. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has approved our position. We respect its judgment on that; it is respected across both Houses and across all political persuasions. Applications to the European court for a ruling that our position is wrong have been declared inadmissible by the court. There is no case to be made under the European Convention on Human Rights that we are outwith those rules.

The noble Baroness mentioned the plurality test as being an influence on our judgment. The important point is that the plurality test applies only to mergers. We are here discussing the possibility of acquisition by the highest bidder of a particular national analogue station, which would fall outwith the merger regime. Therefore, the fact that we have applied and strengthened the plurality test during the Bill's progress does not detract from our argument about the restrictions.

Points were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, about pornographers and criminals, by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, about eroticists and by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about others who would be inappropriate to own television or radio stations. Of course that is the case. Ofcom has the responsibility of deciding who is a fit and proper person. Surely it is not being argued—we are certainly not arguing—that religious organisations are not fit and proper persons. They may comprise admirable people. Our point is quite different: it would be unfair in those limited cases of spectrum scarcity or local monopoly to allow religious organisations to bid and not to make clear to them that it is Parliament's decision that they should not be allowed to bid. That would be putting off onto the regulator that which should be a decision of Parliament.

My Lords, I am very seized of the point about equal treatment of all. Why, when the only issue now appears to be spectrum scarcity, pick on this one category to exclude from bidding? That must be discriminating against them and in favour of the rest.

No, my Lords, because the others can be excluded on the grounds that they are not fit and proper persons. I should be shouted down if I said that religious organisations were not fit and proper persons. Forty religious organisations hold broadcasting licences in this country. They are and can be fit and proper persons. That is not our argument. Our argument—to which I shall turn next—concerns the widest possible choice, an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. That is the point about those local monopolies and national analogue radio stations.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester very fairly recognised the dangers of a rich sect buying a licence. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, disagreed, but it was a fair point. It could happen; there are sects, particularly in the United States, representing, perhaps, a minority view in a religion but with the financial power to buy out TalkSport, Classic FM or Virgin 1215. I do not think that any noble Lords would think that that supported the range of religions in this country, let alone the range of popular choice.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way and am sorry for interrupting his flow. He talks of the rich, American, nutty religious organisation buying in that way. Does he not accept that they would be caught by the "fit and proper person" test if they were sufficiently exploitative and nutty? However, if they comply with that test, what is the difference between such a sect and a commercial bloke with real attitude who wants to put across a whole set of ideals and values that might be, in the eyes of some, unhelpful to the public weal?

My Lords, I did not use the words "exploitative" or "nutty"; the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, did. We have had the bidding procedure for 13 years and it has worked perfectly well until now. There have not been the kind of problems that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, anticipates. The motivation for bidding high to run a national analogue station is to reach a large audience. That is what makes for popular radio and what people want. We fear that the involvement of those with non-commercial instincts in those matters might restrict the range of choice for customers.

The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, made several points, to which I shall attempt to respond. He started by talking about political advertising. I want to take the opportunity of what he said to clarify a remark that I made earlier, perhaps in jest, to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, that the Government believed that the ban on political advertising is in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights. I should have said that we were unable to make a statement on the front cover of the Bill that the provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights in the terms required under the Human Rights Act. It is a significant restriction. We believe that there are strong legal arguments that the ban would survive challenge. Nevertheless, for the avoidance of doubt, we made that caveat to the statement that we normally make.

The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said that other countries do not have spectrum scarcity of analogue radio as they have broken it up. That is why we are talking about only the three national analogue stations. There are no restrictions on religious broadcasting on the many local analogue stations. The noble Lord said that religious organisations would be at the mercy of a multiplex owner. The evidence of that is to the contrary. There are religious organisations holding licences under multiplexes owned by others.

The noble Lord talked about equality. I did not quite see the point of the argument about Mr Murdoch, but I knew that he had to come into the debate at some stage—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, refrained from mentioning him.

My Lords, I must tell the Minister that the idea of Mr Murdoch being refused Channel 5 on the grounds that he is a religious broadcaster has many attractions.

My Lords, I shall leave the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Brennan, to fight that out.

The procedure has worked unchallenged since 1990, and I see no reason why it should not continue during what I hope will be the relatively brief period of spectrum scarcity. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said that we were the only country in Europe. I could go wider than Europe; hut, to take one example, in the Netherlands all broadcasters must produce programmes that reflect the full range of religious and philosophical tendencies. That would be difficult for some religious broadcasters. I think that the noble Lord would agree that that would be what others have called discrimination.

My Lords, perhaps I may assist the Minister. I was not dealing with countries that do not allow religious broadcasting in the public sector because it is against their constitutions and so on. My argument was directed at the independent sector.

My Lords, it is exactly in the independent sector that we allow religious broadcasting. There is no conflict. I have provoked several noble Lords to their feet by attempting to answer as literally as I can the points raised in debate. I must return to the fundamental point.

My Lords, I point in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, because it appeared that the Minister was beginning to make his winding-up speech without answering the noble Lord's very pertinent question.

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester listed those who took part in the statement issued yesterday. It included the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and representatives of the Catholic Church and the Methodist Church. I do not think that I used the phrase "across the board". I am sure that in the time available it was not possible to reach all branches of the Christian religion.

My Lords, my question was not who was included, it was who was excluded. The right reverend Prelate said that there was support "across the board" for the Government's position. I wanted to know whether the council of free churches, the evangelical churches or the United Reformed Church were involved. They are important sections of the Christian community in the United Kingdom.

My Lords, I am not claiming that all parts were involved.

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, the group comprised the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester; the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portsmouth, who speaks for the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales; the Reverend David Deeks, the co-ordinating secretary for church and society in the Methodist Church, in which he holds a very senior position; Peter Blackman, the director of the Churches Advisory Council for Local Broadcasting, which is soon to become the Churches' Media Council—clearly, he would hold a remit for a whole range of organisations, although I do not know the details of his contacts—and Andrew Barr, chairman of GRF Christian Radio, who was previously head of education and religion in BBC Scotland. Given the nature of the event, the group cannot include everybody. However, it is quite wide-ranging given that it was put together at very short notice.

My Lords, I do not think that I can go further than what has been said.

Clearly, there are those within and outwith the Christian religion who have not been involved in these debates. If I may so, I do not think that that detracts from the very powerful speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and his recommendations to the House.

As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, says, there are issues of such profound principle that we go back to the House of Commons and say, "Do not only think again once, but think again twice". That is what the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is asking today. The noble Baroness based her arguments on a point of principle rather than one of detail, and I respect her for that. However, the issue of principle that we are discussing is that, so far as is reasonably practicable, we should encourage the greatest possible diversity and plurality, and the highest standards of broadcasting, in this country. We would be making a mistake if prematurely—I say "prematurely" deliberately—we removed remaining restrictions from those few licences that still suffer from spectrum scarcity, thereby running the risk of purchasing by sects that did not reflect the wide variety of demand for high quality broadcasting in this country. I urge those of strong religious belief, in particular, that they should recognise the extent to which the Government have gone to heighten and to encourage the role of religious broadcasting, and not to send the issue back to the House of Commons.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, both today and at earlier stages in the Bill. Nothing alters the fact that the Government are bringing in a Bill that is flawed. It is discriminatory to single out religious organisations in primary legislation and ban them from even entering the competition for certain categories of broadcasting licence. We stand by the principle and I wish to seek the opinion of the House.

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

moved Amendment No. 32A:

My Lords, Amendment No. 32A, as the noble Baroness said, relates to Clause 16, which defines the term "capital expenditure". The clause begins by saying that the term is normally to be interpreted in accordance with proper practices, as defined in Clause 21. Clause 16(2)(a), however, enables that definition to be varied by regulations. The Bill will allow regulations to be used to widen or narrow the accounting definition of capital expenditure. The amendment would remove the power to exclude from the definition any expenditure that is currently treated as capital expenditure.

The power is a continuation of one that has existed under the present system since 1990. It has not been exercised often. The main occasion was when it was used to solve a problem relating to local authorities' investments. Numerous authorities lost money when some commercial banks holding their investments went into liquidation. In due course, they received reimbursement from the liquidators. For highly technical legal reasons, that reimbursement would have counted as capital expenditure for the authorities and would have had an adverse impact on their resources. The regulation-making power was used to ensure that the reimbursement did not score as capital expenditure, thus protecting the authorities concerned. That problem is, fortunately, now in the past, but it illustrates the desirability of preserving the regulation-making power.

Clause 16(2)(b) will enable the same result to be obtained by issuing directions to individual local authorities, but that is not a satisfactory way of dealing with an issue affecting a large number of authorities. I hope that, with those reassurances and the example that I gave of why we need the powers. the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation and, particularly, for the example. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it would be good if parliamentary counsel could come up with something that, more or less, said "for highly technical legal reasons" and not "as a general matter".

It was useful to have that little exchange. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 33:

My Lords, I hope that I can he helpful in respect of this amendment. Amendment No. 33 seeks to add a new subsection at the end of Clause 18 which would give authorities powers to issue guarantees in respect of companies, subject to certain safeguards.

In Grand Committee, on 4th June, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, moved a similar amendment to Clause 18 about the power of local authorities to become involved in companies limited by guarantee. That debate helpfully clarified that the intention was to assist parish councils. It is not always possible for us immediately to discern the exact purpose behind an amendment. That is a genuine issue. It is not always possible, partly because of protocol, to pick up a telephone in order to clarify the purpose. That Grand Committee debate clarified the intention behind that amendment. However, as the intention was not evident from the wording, my reply did not deal specifically with parishes.

Since that debate, we have, as the noble Lord said, had an opportunity to consider the proposal further. I have written to noble Lords about that. We are clear that the amendment raises important questions about the role and powers of parishes. However, before deciding on legislation, we would need to explore the full implications in consultation with parish councils and their representative associations. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that, at this late stage in the Bill's progress, it would be impossible to complete that work in time to include a new provision. However, we would be happy to consider separately any further views that noble Lords or parish councils might wish to put to us.

Local government Bills are like buses—one is always coming along. I have no idea what is in the Queen's Speech, but we can be certain that another local government Bill will be coming along fairly soon. I hope that with those reassurances the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for those comments. I think that the position has been clarified, and we appreciate the help that has been given. I am sure that there will be further discussion, particularly between the local authority associations which represent parish and town councils and other small bodies, so that the position can be clarified in future legislation for their benefit. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 34:

Leave out Clause 26.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as noble Lords will appreciate from previous discussions in Grand Committee, this is a very important part of the Bill, about which all parts of local government have very strong reservations. This clause gives the Secretary of State the power to set a minimum level of reserve for a local authority. It is a power that it is wrong in principle for the Secretary of State to seek to take and it is a power that will be ineffective in practice.

Ministers have said that they are seeking this power as a reserve to enable them to deal with a small number of authorities. I will return to the issue of a reserve power in a moment. First, however, I want to address the question of whether this power will actually do anything to prevent local authorities from getting into financial difficulties in the future.

The Select Committee did not think that these powers would prove effective. It said:

"We did not receive any evidence that had these particular measures been in place they could have prevented financial imprudence".

It would be interesting in the light of that to hear from the Minister under exactly what circumstances these powers might be exercised. However, I note from the ODPM's memorandum to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform that these circumstances,

"cannot be foreseen at present".

So the Secretary of State is taking power which no expert thinks will work, which local authorities and the LGA oppose, and which he is not quite sure how to exercise.

The memorandum to the Select Committee stated that the exercise of this power would be through the negative resolution procedure,

"as the powers might have to be exercised rapidly".

However, as an examination of the Bill reveals, these powers cannot be exercised rapidly.

The Bill does not prevent an authority from running down its reserves to a level below that set by the Secretary of State during the course of a year. The Bill refers only to an out-turn position at year's end. By that time the damage will have been done. We might then have a situation in which local authorities required to meet a statutory obligation at year's end have to scramble around to make the necessary savings. It is conceivable that, under those circumstances, the focus will be on meeting the short-term target and not on the long-term implications for the community or the financial health of the authority.

One can see some extremely painful decisions being taken by local authorities—such as the closure of elderly people's homes, the withdrawal of grants to voluntary bodies, reductions in services—simply to meet a figure stipulated by the Secretary of State. In the long term, breaching this minimum level of reserve might actually save an authority money if the alternative is to take drastic action in the short term to meet it.

That is why reserves are a highly sensitive local issue—a point recognised by CIPFA in its evidence to the Select Committee on the Bill. I wonder how the Secretary of State is going to set the level of reserve and whether he will take into consideration and take responsibility for the effect on services that having to meet this requirement could mean. Local people will find it extremely hard to understand why homes are being closed and services cut because the Secretary of State believes that the authority should keep a certain amount of money in the bank.

Finally, I should like to clarify the Minister's intention in introducing this provision. In Grand Committee the Minister said that this was a reserve power that he hoped would never have to be used. However, he then went on to refer to an Audit Commission paper that suggested that something like 20 per cent of county councils and 30 per cent of metropolitan councils had inadequate reserves. The Minister stressed the word "inadequate". They were, he said, not low levels of reserves but inadequate levels of reserves.

The Minister suggested that the Government would be acting irresponsibly if they did not act on this finding of the Audit Commission in the Bill. If we take at face value those comments from the Minister, then it seems to me that a very large number of authorities are likely to be affected by this provision and that these powers are not reserve powers at all. One thinks of rate capping; it was introduced for one or two authorities but eventually we were all rate-capped. Perhaps he can confirm that having an inadequate level of reserve, as identified by the Audit Commission, will not be the trigger for invoking these powers, in which case it is hard to see how the Government can meet the concerns of the Audit Commission.

I hope that the Minister has listened to the representations I know he must have received from experts on this issue and that he will think again about the need for the clause. I beg to move.

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Maddock and I have added our names to Amendment No. 34. In a Bill about freedoms and flexibilities, this is perhaps the most indigestible clause. I was looking for an appropriately courteous adjective—having initially written "offensive". Now I have used both. The Select Committee to which the noble Lord referred with regard to minimum reserves was quite clear. It quoted evidence from CIPFA at some length. With regard to the adequacy of reserves, the CIPFA witness said:

"there is not a general problem".

On the issue of specifying reserves and balances, we believe that it is a very local decision and judgment as to the level at which balances should be set. The Select Committee report continued:

"Some councils may choose to operate with low levels of reserves—provided that they are prepared to take appropriate action as and when necessary".

It made the point that:

"A clear national statement from Ministers about what is an 'acceptable' level of reserves may also make it far harder for individual authorities to deviate from national standards".

I thought that was interesting in the light of the Minister's comment in Grand Committee that the Government should like CIPFA's guidance to be followed, but that it is not. Admittedly, he acknowledged that that was in a small number of cases, but it does not seem to lie wholly easily with the evidence quoted by the Select Committee. I confess that I have not read the whole of CIPFA's evidence.

I think that the Minister referred to the existence of balances when he rather critically said that authorities go to their balances in order to meet problems. The fact that they have balances tends to support our view that they are in control and on top of their spending. I made the point in Grand Committee that sometimes authorities build up rather more of a war chest than some people might like to see, but perhaps that is a political rather than a technical managerial issue.

In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, gave very practical and powerful examples about how reserves can become a sensitive local issue if the authority is scrambling around to make savings at the behest of the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh—I am sorry that he is not in his place to add his voice—put it rather well when he asked whether this is a power that the Government really want because it would be very difficult to exercise.

In Grand Committee, the Minister suggested that some of us were paying lip service to what he called a mythical system of democracy. I know that democracy in action is never quite what some of us would like to see. Nevertheless, it is an important principle. The principles of democracy and autonomy are very important to us. They are so important that a clause—the provisions of which we are told are no more than reserve powers, but which could be applied generally and widely or even universally—needs justification, which so far we have not heard.

Autonomy requires capacity building. We were asked for reasons why we did not like this clause. So to give another reason, the capacity of individual councillors and councils is undermined by a clause such as this which states, "Look to central government. We will make sure you keep on the right lines". I support the amendment.

M y Lords, I should like to add to this debate. I do not think that I did in Committee. On recollection from when I was the leader of a council, the advice from our director of finance was that two months' salary was the minimum a council should have in reserves so that there is always money with which to pay the staff. We would have at least that, but my Labour opponents would tell us continually that we should spend all the reserves and that we should not have any. There are variable views on what minimum reserves should amount to and on what they should be based. That is a proper democratic debate. That is how a council and local authority should run.

The questions being raised for the Minister today are: how does one assess what a minimum reserve should be? How or why should it be the responsibility of the Audit Commission to define that? As with all budgetary control, the emphasis for responsibility is laid on the shoulders of local authority members. If they are given the responsibility to do everything else, there is no reason why they should not be responsible enough to decide how much is needed in minimum reserves. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is very apposite. I support what my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said.

My Lords, I support my noble friend in all that he said. The reason why I pricked up my ears is that I understand this is a reserved power which the Government hope they will never use; it would be convenient to have it. I believe that, as a matter of principle, governments should not be given powers unless they have a fairly clear idea of the circumstances in which they would use them and that they would like to be able to use them for a useful purpose. As I understand this clause, it gives Ministers a power which they do not know if they will ever use and do not know how they would use it if they had to. If I am wrong, I hope that the noble Lord will correct me. But if I am right, it should not be in the Bill.

My Lords, in a Bill that is essentially deregulatory and confers freedoms and flexibilities on local government beyond their wildest dreams, I do not really feel that I have to apologise for Clause 26. I should like to say, almost colloquially before I turn to the technical aspect. that it refers to reserves that are required to be put in the budget, but are not necessarily held throughout the year. I do not think that the analogy exists that an old folks' homes might have to be closed in order to maintain the reserves. That does not stand the test. It may be that the reserves are needed to keep the old folks' homes open. That may be what was needed because the budget ran over. There is a defence to be made of this clause and I shall seek to do so.

Clause 26 is a vital element of the financial management framework established by Part 2 of the Bill. Most authorities know that adequate reserves are essential to the smooth provision of local services. The noble Baroness gave an example from her own experience. They are not a luxury or the imposition of the auditor. Authorities have to make their budgets in the face of uncertainty about demands which are sometimes caused by last-minute decisions of government—if I might put it that way. Budgets are made a long time in advance of the year and conditions change. So they do not always know the demands their services will face. Reserves are a means of allowing for uncertainty. Any well-managed authority would wish to be able to deal with uncertainties. Most authorities make sensible provision for reserves, but they cannot work out every eventuality. That is the whole point of the exercise. They do not know exactly what they will need to cover, but they can make reasonable provision on the basis of a responsible assessment of the risks. That is all that is asked of them.

CIPFA's guidance and Clause 25 both reinforce good practice processes for deciding on the appropriate level. But we all have to face the fact that a significant number of local authorities are not making sufficient allowance for reserves. Moreover, as I have said, in the context of the deregulatory effect of this Bill, it is quite sensible for the Government to include Clause 26.

A myth seems to have developed that the clause has been inserted because of the deficiencies of a very small number of notorious cases, so I shall not apologise for repeating the figures. Two years ago the Audit Commission reported that 10 per cent of authorities were considered by their auditors to have inadequate reserves. Last year the figure was 12 per cent. which represents no fewer than 58 local authorities. Some 21 per cent of English county councils were included in that figure, along with 31 per cent of the London boroughs, that is, 10 out of the 32 boroughs. By any calculation, those are significant numbers. Unlike some of the suggestions made in Grand Committee, we are not prepared to dismiss these assessments as auditors being overly cautious so that we may disregard their words. No responsible Government or Ministers could do so, which is why the clause has been included in the Bill.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, can the Minister tell us what proportion of either the percentage or number of authorities reported as having inadequate reserves ran into difficulties?

My Lords, that is not the point. It is hoped that none of them ran into trouble. Even though they were holding inadequate reserves, it is hoped that none did so. The noble Baroness seems to be making the case that if no authority ran into trouble then it did not need the reserves in the first place. That, I think, is a wholly irresponsible approach from someone as senior in local government as the noble Baroness has purported to be throughout our debates.

I do not want to bring in a note of discord, but I was goaded into making that remark. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to speak.

My Lords, Hansard would not have recorded that I sought to put quotation marks around the term "inadequate". My point was that I wished to draw attention to inconsistencies between what really happens and the inevitable very cautious approach of professional auditors.

My Lords, the classic phrase to use in response to the noble Baroness is to say, "If we did not do this and something went wrong, the public in those local authorities would say, 'You saw this coming and you did nothing about it". That would be the charge laid against the Government and we are not prepared to be put in that position.

We have made it clear that Clause 26 will be applied only to councils that are disregarding the advice of their chief financial officers and heading for serious financial difficulty. There would be no blanket minima and the advice given by the chief financial officer and any observations made by the auditor would be taken into account in setting the minimum. The authority would be consulted before the minimum was set.

I turn now to the other myth that has developed about this clause. The suggestion has been made that the minimum applies to the reserves that an authority must actually hold throughout the year. It does not. It applies to reserves which an authority must allow in its budget. Those with far more expertise in local government than I—everyone has far more expertise than I because I have never been in local government—will understand the distinction. Reserves are put in the budget to be used if they are needed to deal with unexpected contingencies that may arise during the year. There is nothing in Clause 26 to stop that happening. That is the whole reason for having reserves and insisting that authorities make adequate allowance for them.

Let me say a little more about why the Government have included this clause. The current concerns I have already outlined, but when the new freedoms and flexibilities contained in the Bill—which have received almost universal welcome—come into force, there will be a new situation. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that they represent an absolute bonfire of red tape up and down the country, giving authorities the freedom to borrow, to charge and to trade. However, all those activities involve financial risks. Therefore it is essential that authorities operating the new freedoms have fundamentally sound finances. This is the purpose of Part 2 as a whole, and Clause 26 forms a vital part of that.

In the December 2001 White Paper, in which we announced the new freedoms, we also set out our policy on authorities that got into financial difficulties. We made it clear that in the most extreme cases financial assistance would be available from central government. But in return the Government are entitled to expect that authorities will themselves hold sufficient reserves to deal with less serious problems.

We would like to think that the CIPFA guidance and Clause 25 would be sufficient. We are sure that in the majority of cases that will be so, but the CIPFA guidance has been available since 1995 and we still have the situation described in the Audit Commission reports. Given that, no responsible government, when putting forward the extent of the new freedoms in this Bill, could ignore these concerns. By the way, I believe that this was understood in the other place, where no Division was called on this clause. Members saw this as a quid pro quo for the bonfire of regulations currently in place on local authorities.

My Lords. I am interested to hear that. However, I have always suspected that red tape is one of the most non-combustible materials known to man.

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the bonfire of red tape goes beyond the wildest dreams of those in local government as regards what they will be able to do with their new freedoms—without government interference or diktat. That is the whole thrust of the Bill and there is wide consensus on it between all the parties concerned in both Houses of Parliament as well as outside in local government. So a major change in local government finance is being brought about, starting, it is hoped, in the next financial year if the Bill receives Royal Assent in time.

This clause represents a modest, technical protection just in case things go wrong in a small number of authorities.

My Lords, speaking for a moment as a local authority leader, I think that the Minister has exaggerated the effect this legislation will have on the wildest dreams of local authority leaders. If he would like to see a piece of legislation that goes beyond the wildest dreams of local authority leaders, please let me write it for him.

Obviously certain parts of the Bill will allow more flexibility, in particular on borrowing under the prudential arrangement. But I am disappointed that the Minister does not seem to realise that this clause negates a tremendous amount of goodwill that the Government have generated through the Bill. All parties in the Local Government Association regard Clause 26 as offensive and not really necessary.

The Minister said that he does not understand local government finance. When a local authority sets its budget at the beginning of the year, it has to say how much it has in its reserves and how much it expects to have in its reserves at the end of the year. Along with trading, payments and other activities, that is a part of the budget process. Because Essex is a large authority. its reserves as stipulated by the Audit Commission would be around £15 million, which is a lot of money. If we hold £15 million at the beginning of the financial year, we might aim for a reserve of £17 million according to our trading performance. The reserve might rise or fall during the course of the year, but that is the way in which most local authorities operate. That is why we feel that the clause is unnecessary.

The draft Bill appeared some time ago now, and whatever one thinks about comprehensive performance assessments, they have had an effect. I say that because before I came to the House this afternoon, I spent an interesting morning with the newly appointed monitoring auditor from the Audit Commission to my own local authority. During the CPA process, those monitoring auditors now talk to leading authority members and officers about the level of reserves. Indeed, we are given performance stars on it. Whether we like it or not, it is a part of the CPA process. Since we are all striving for more stars—fortunately my own authority has four stars in this respect—that alone provides a new protection. Audit Commission monitoring auditors talk to local authority members about the level of reserves and look at the way the money is being managed.

That is why it is so very offensive that the Government want to take the power in Clause 26 when the Bill is supposed to be a deregulatory measure. I was pleased to hear the new chairman of the Audit Commission say that he would "die for deregulation" and that he wants to see more of it. But this provision means further red tape. It is very disappointing that the Government are persisting with this power, which they keep on saying they do not want to use, but could be used. It should be remembered that if money has to be used to top up the reserve, it has to come out of services. The money cannot come out of thin air. If it is essential to retain the level of reserves, that often means reducing the level of services. We think that that should be a local decision, made with the guidance and assistance of auditor.

My Lords, the noble Lord has completely ignored my point. We have made it clear that Clause 26 will be applied only to councils that disregard the advice of their chief financial officer. That is what we are talking about here. I repeat: it will be applied only to councils that disregard the advice of their own chief financial officer.

M y Lords, apart from two or three authorities that I know of—and I have been involved in this—none has ever done that. Therefore, why do we need this kind of clause in the Bill? I repeat, it is offensive to local government. It is seen as an extra piece of unnecessary red tape when the Bill is supposed to provide freedoms and flexibilities. It would not have received unanimous condemnation from all political parties in the LGA if they believed it was a piece of legislation the Government should put into the Bill. I wish to test the opinion of the House.