Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 138, in

clause 3, page 3, line 43, at end insert 'for equal or equivalent access to all forms of regulated communication'.

Mr Peter Atkinson (Hexham, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 154, in

clause 3, page 4, line 3, at end insert—

'(n) the desirability of promoting apparatus and services which are accessible to, and usable by, as many people as reasonably possible and to the greatest extent possible without the need for special adaptation or specialised design.'.

Amendment No. 139, in

clause 3, page 4, line 5, after 'consumers', insert ', including disabled, elderly and low income consumers,'.

Amendment No. 155, in

clause 3, page 4, line 6, after 'service', insert 'access'.

Amendment No. 158, in

clause 10, page 10, line 34, leave out second 'and'.

Amendment No. 140, in

clause 10, page 10, line 37, at end insert—

'(f) To promote awareness and understanding of the issues in paragraphs (a) to (e) above among people whose disabilities, age or personal circumstances might otherwise impede their access to information.'.

Amendment No. 159, in

clause 10, page 10, line 37, at end insert 'and

(f) to bring about, or to encourage others to bring about, a better public understanding of the educational and literacy benefits of electronic media services for those with disabilities including subtitling for persons who are deaf or hard of

hearing and audio-description for persons who are blind or partially-sighted.'.

Amendment No. 141, in

clause 12, page 13, line 6, at end insert—

'(6A) In particular, OFCOM shall give consideration to the advisability of authorising the Content Board to establish a committee or panel to advise on the interests of people with disabilities or special needs resulting from age or personal circumstances.'.

Amendment No. 156, in

clause 13, page 13, line 25, at end insert 'with particular regard for variations in consumer experiences as a result of disability, age or personal circumstances.'.

Amendment No. 142, in

clause 13, page 13, line 36, at end insert—

'(g) the extent and nature of variations in consumer experiences as a result of disability, age or personal circumstances.'.

Amendment No. 143, in

clause 17, page 18, line 43, at end insert—

'(4A) The committees established by the Panel shall include a committee representing the interests of disabled and elderly people; and any such committee shall include a majority of members who are themselves disabled people or of pensionable age.'.

Amendment No. 144, in

clause 23, page 22, line 18, at end add 'having regard to the need to make the information or advice accessible to persons with disabilities'.

New clause 5—Function of promoting inclusive design—

'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to take such steps, and to enter into such arrangements, as appear to them calculated—

(a) To bring about a better awareness and understanding of inclusive design principles, techniques and standards among—

(i) the designers and manufacturers of apparatus designed or adapted for use in connection with electronic communications services or associated facilities; and

(ii) the providers of electronic communications services;

(b) To encourage the designers, manufacturers and service providers mentioned in paragraph (a) to adopt inclusive design principles and techniques in the development of new apparatus, facilities and services; and

(c) to bring about a better public awareness and understanding of inclusive design in relation to electronic communications apparatus, facilities and services.

(2) References in this section to ''inclusive design'' are references to designs which result in apparatus and services which are accessible to, and usable by, as many people as reasonably possible and to the greatest extent possible without the need for special adaptation or specialised design.

(3) References in this section to electronic communications services includes websites.'.

Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)

We are grateful to the Minister for agreeing to move the knife. For the benefit of members of the Committee who are not party to such discussions, we believe that this group of clauses is likely to contain more important issues that might otherwise remain undebated than the following group contains. None the less, we are anxious to make progress.

The amendments relate to people with disabilities, the elderly and people on low incomes. We agree with the Government that it is vital that the needs and interests of such people, especially those with disabilities, are recognised and furthered under the

Bill. We warmly welcome clause 3(3)(i) and its specific statement that Ofcom must have regard to

''the needs of persons with disabilities, of the elderly and of those on low incomes'',

but, as the Minister knows, several organisations, in particular the Royal National Institute of the Blind, have questioned whether that reference goes far enough. The amendments probe whether the existing wording is adequate, or whether it needs to be strengthened to have the effect and impact that the Government intend.

Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 would ensure that Ofcom's general duties encompass a firmer focus on the importance of access for the disabled, the elderly and those on low incomes. It is important that access for those people should, as far as possible, be equal or equivalent to that for others. Amendment No. 140 would ensure that the disabled and other excluded groups benefited from Ofcom's media literacy work. Amendment No. 141 would enable the content board to give informed advice on the provision and quality of content services—such as subtitling, audio description and signing—for disabled people, and on the representation of disabled and older people in the media.

Amendment No. 142 would ensure that Ofcom does not overlook or under-represent the experiences of disabled and older people in its research work. Amendment No. 143 would highlight for the consumer panel the interests of those with disabilities, which could be an important part of its work. Amendment No. 144 would ensure that the advice given to disabled people is available in accessible formats. That is a big objective. I do not think that we have to take the Committee through what it would mean in practice for broadcasters, but we recognise what its effects would be. It is important that advice to disabled or elderly people is available in a format with which they are familiar and which ensures that they will receive the message.

New clause 5 addresses an important issue relating to those who design and produce apparatus such as televisions, radios and remote controls, as well as zappers—I have lost count of the number of those in my house. Such apparatus should be user-friendly for disabled and elderly people. Even at my tender age, I cannot read the wretched pages before me without my glasses, and it is absolutely hopeless trying to do so when one is driving down the motorway and must be in the Whip's Office to see the Chief Whip by 11 o'clock.

There is a standard joke in my house: when all else fails, read the instructions. Many devices are now highly technical, so it is important to ensure that people get maximum use from them. I commend the wording of new clause 5, because it does not put a requirement on anyone. It encourages and tries to persuade those who manufacture such devices to have a thought for the disabled and elderly who will have to use them.

The issue is not simply whether people can be expected to understand how equipment works; it is how they can make the best use of their equipment.

Some of the buttons are so small, and the lettering underneath so tiny, that people cannot see them. If we are to move into a digital future that even the elderly and those who are very short sighted—including those who can hardly see at all—can get the best from, it is important that we spend a few moments considering whether the Bill goes far enough in ensuring that those matters are properly addressed by Ofcom and the media industry. Although the Minister might suggest that the wording is already adequate, it is important that the Committee addresses the issue and provides time to consider the needs of vulnerable people so that we can ensure that they can enjoy all the benefits of the future digital age.

Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

We share many of the concerns of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) about access for disabled people. Amendment No. 154 tries to cover some of the same ground as new clause 5, which deals with access devices. It is important to address that matter because the Ofcom process is based on the assumption that the market will provide. In telecommunications and broadcasting, the market will often provide, but we are concerned that the market might not provide effectively for people with disabilities and specific access needs unless there is a stronger duty on Ofcom to ensure that they are able to talk to manufacturers and providers of services in a way that encourages them to offer such provision.

There are good examples of how the market is currently delivering. Microsoft has spent a lot of time and trouble building accessibility programmes into Windows software; that has become increasingly mainstream. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, access has still not been provided in many respects, specifically with regard to the physical layout of devices and the features that are available on hardware, as opposed to software in which there have been great strides forward. Amendment No. 154 seeks to tackle the issue by saying that Ofcom must intervene; it must have powers to take steps to encourage accessibility when the market is not delivering.

Amendment No. 155 is slightly broader in scope, although it, too, refers to access. It is clear that it means access for disabled people, but in the amendment we are suggesting that access should be a major driver for Ofcom in a general sense, in addition to the other drivers outlined in clause 3. We are suggesting that there should be a specific reference to access, so we are thinking not only about disability, but about issues such as quality of access to telecoms services and universality of access. The inclusion of the word ''access'' strengthens Ofcom's ability to act in such areas.

Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 deal with public understanding and media literacy especially in respect of disability. Ofcom could play a major role. When one visits other countries, one frequently discovers that they have higher levels of subtitling. That offers a good indication of where nations have got to with media literacy, and many countries have more subtitling on mainstream television than the UK has historically had.

The Minister stated that the Government intend to encourage more subtitling and to improve other forms of accessibility that have a significant impact on the quality of individuals' lives. We are seeking to put that in the Bill, or at least to initiate a debate about the way in which Ofcom will be able to do that and the extent to which it will have real teeth to encourage that process.

Subtitling is an old media example of accessibility; there are also new media examples. As radio is increasingly delivered in digital format, it can become less accessible in some ways, because more visual input might be required to access a radio service. Ironically, radio, which has traditionally been fine for people with sight impairments, can be made more difficult when it is combined with digital technology, because, in effect, one has to see what is on the screen to use the radio set. There is a range of complexities that technology will not resolve unless thought is put into its development. We would like Ofcom to have a role in ensuring that the thought is there and is conveyed to the manufacturers of equipment and the suppliers of services.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman may be reassured to know that Blaupunkt in Germany is now working on large-screen displays and the BBC at Kingswood Warren are considering the use of a form of—believe it or not—attenuated subtitling with digital radio transmissions. Whether that will be practical in reality is a different matter.

Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful for that intervention. It is exciting to learn things so early in the morning—to be educated at 9:15 about the details of the new technology being developed. The hon. Gentleman has a point: technology works both ways.

Technology provides potential solutions, but they must be rolled out. Solutions can be cheap if they are mass marketed. Creating a hardware or software device that increases accessibility would be expensive as an add-on for a few consumers, but could be very cheap if it were built into all devices as standard. That is the type of decision that we want to be made.

The market will deliver in some areas. Where it does not, Ofcom is the appropriate body to deal with the matter, but only if it has an access remit. It is not there only to advise that services should be available. There was a long debate about citizens or consumers, but all the British public, to use that technical term, should be able to access the services available. That will require some thought to be given to the many consumers who have some difficulty in accessing mainstream services.

Amendment No. 156 mentions the consumer experiences of people with disabilities. We make explicit reference to that group because it is important that the requirement is fed into the Bill. If there are pressure points where a service is not being delivered effectively but could be if a small change were made, those points will be notified by consumers. That consumer voice must be taken to the heart of Ofcom, so that when there are grumbles and potential

solutions have been identified, they are fed through the consumer process and get to the decision makers. They are a valuable form of input.

The Minister will be aware of the many and various groups representing disabled people that effectively articulate their interests and convey them to decision makers, but if Ofcom is not set up to allow for such a channel of communications, the result could be a lot of needless frustration—people banging on the door rather than being invited in to sit at the table. Amendment No. 156 suggests that groups and individuals with particular interests in access for disabled people should have a seat at the table rather than having to batter down the door.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford, Conservative)

I shall not detain the Committee very long, but I wanted to add one or two comments to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, who moved the amendment.

In his response, the Minister will probably say that the Bill already includes provision for Ofcom to take account of the needs of disable people. That is undoubtedly true—see clause 3(3)(i). However, disabled people are concerned that their needs form only one of three categories in one of 13 different factors that Ofcom will have to take into account. Our purpose is to strengthen the need for Ofcom to bear in mind the wants and needs of disabled people. That is the purpose of many of the amendments. We will not necessarily press all of them, but we want the Minister to put on record that Ofcom must always have that important need at the front of its mind.

Much has been achieved already through the advance of technology. Digital television has enabled subtitling to be available on a wide scale, and many broadcasters have woken up to the fact that it is in their commercial interests to provide it. We are told that 1 million people use subtitling whenever they can, and 5 million people use it frequently. It may not only be deaf people who use it, but people who find it difficult to understand English. That is why broadcasters have seen a commercial interest to provide it.

The needs of people who are blind or partially sighted are a little harder to meet. Audio description technology is available, but often expensive to provide. I am reluctant to impose a great burden on small companies, especially those that might find it difficult to meet the cost of providing additional audio description. I am reluctant to mandate provision, but if it is possible to provide the technology at a cost that is not enormous, we should encourage it. I do not want Ofcom suddenly to extend its powers into the manufacture of electronic apparatus and remote controls, because that would represent a huge expansion. We must concentrate on promoting awareness.

New clause 5 relates to inclusive design. It is important because as more and more happens on our screens, the inability to access material on screen will make life harder and harder. It is important to make access to material on screen as easy as possible for people who might have difficulty. Inclusive design

is an important way of doing that, which is why new clause 5 contains terms such as ''bring about'' and ''encourage''. The new clause's purpose is not to mandate but to urge the industry that is responsible for manufacturing items to bear in mind that some people will find it very difficult to manipulate small keys or read small text. It might be quite easy to do something to meet those needs.

I have outlined the purpose of the amendments. As I said, we might not press them, but it is important to put on record the fact that the issue with which they deal is vital to many people.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

I welcome the points raised by the hon. Members for Ryedale, for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). The Government are committed to an inclusive society. That is a central tenet of our policies and it is right that the Committee should thoroughly discuss of the interests of persons with disabilities, the elderly and people on low incomes. Although the Bill has been subject to mild criticism—nothing more than that—I believe that I can show that we are ensuring that the interests of several of the most vulnerable groups in our society are taken into account.

Clause 3(3)(i) requires Ofcom to have regard to the needs of persons with disabilities, the elderly and people on low incomes when performing all its general duties. Clause 16(4) requires Ofcom to ensure that when appointing members to the consumer panel, the panel will be able to give informed advice about, among other things,

''the interests of disadvantaged persons, persons with low incomes and persons with disabilities''.

Clause 16(6) gives the consumer panel a duty to have regard to such people. Clause 24(3) gives Ofcom a duty in relation to employment in broadcasting and training

''to take all . . . steps as they consider appropriate for promoting the fair treatment of disabled persons''.

Clause 325 requires holders of broadcasting licences who meet the thresholds to promote the fair treatment of persons with disabilities.

Clause 293 requires Ofcom to draw up, publish and ensure compliance with a code giving guidance on the extent to which television services

''should promote . . . understanding and enjoyment by . . . persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, and . . . blind or partially-sighted''

and the means by which that should be promoted. The code will apply to all licensed broadcasters including, for the first time, cable and satellite broadcasters. I will set out the targets for the codes because they are important: 80 per cent. of all programmes and 90 per cent. of programmes on Channels 3 and 4 are to be subtitled; 5 per cent. of programmes are to be signed; and 10 per cent. of programmes are to be audio-described. I will say more about that last one in a moment because the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam has raised the issue. It is an important matter and one that I am worried about.

We want those targets to be met by the 10th anniversary of the start of the service or of the

commencement of these provisions for cable and satellite broadcasters—who, by the way, have been extremely co-operative. They have been pioneering in some of their work and have been doing things off their own backs, which has been refreshing. The universal service order, a draft form of which will be available shortly, aims to safeguard the interests of disabled end users and to ensure access to, and the affordability of, publicly available telephone services that are equivalent to those enjoyed by all other end users.

The hon. Members for Ryedale and for Sheffield, Hallam spoke about audio-description models. We are making a lot of progress in other fields but I am worried about that one. I do not know what has happened over the years, but there seems to be a disruption between, on the one hand, the Royal National Institute of the Blind and other groups who represent the interests of people who are blind or who lack some visual faculty, and, on the other hand, the manufacturers and the Government.

About eight months ago, I pulled together a seminar of everybody involved and I was quite shocked at the lack of progress. I do not think that that is anyone's fault, but it is a problem. Part of the problem is in defining the market. How many people would want to buy such a service? How much would it cost? What about affordability and the right to access the service? Technical issues arise and I hope that Ofcom will ensure that progress is made. As I say, I was surprised and disappointed that progress had not been made in recent years.

The hon. Member for Ryedale made an important point about design. The market in this sector, as in many others, is completely bemused by meeting the demands of young, fit people. Some art colleges in this country are working very hard. For example, the Royal College of Art has a long-running programme on design for age, which addresses some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman raised—for example, the size of buttons, and whether people who are over 55 have enough strength in their hands to open bottles. [Laughter.]

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam asked about the seriousness with which we take the size of visual displays and lettering on televisions and even on digital radio. People assume that, because we are switching to digital, everyone will benefit, but it may not benefit everyone. We must ensure that the change takes account of everyone's capacity, not only that of Mr. and Mrs. Average.

Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

As digital advances, the temptation is to make everything multimedia. By definition, that will mean that people have to use all their senses to get full enjoyment of the product. As the Minister suggests, the risk is that digital will encourage us to make things less, not more, accessible.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

Absolutely—I could not agree more. It is proper that we debate design, and I want Ofcom to encourage manufacturers to produce new equipment that is better designed for people with disabilities and without.

The Government have been active in raising awareness about information and communication technology among people with disabilities through initiatives such as ICT learning centres, IT for all and UK Online computer training, and through the provision of financial support for the work of the full mobility group, which is an umbrella group of disability organisations that has done excellent work in improving access to equipment for disabled people.

I repeat that the Government are committed to an inclusive society. The Bill will help us deliver that as part of a raft of measures and I would not have it any other way.

Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He has certainly taken on board all the points that have been raised. Should further queries emerge, there might, perhaps, be an opportunity to return to those matters when we come to deal with the relevant clauses. In the spirit of the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)

I beg to move amendment No. 174, in

clause 3, page 3, line 48, after 'Kingdom', insert 'with particular regard to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland'.

Mr Peter Atkinson (Hexham, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 176, in

clause 7, page 8, line 23, at end insert—

'(4A) If the part of the United Kingdom referred to in subsection (2)(c) is Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, OFCOM must consult with the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly as appropriate before carrying out such an assessment.'.{**w8**}

No. 177, in

clause 11, page 11, line 20, at end insert—

'(4A) In making such appointments with respect to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, OFCOM must consult with the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly as appropriate.'.

No. 178, in

clause 12, page 13, line 12, at end add—

'(7) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to ensure the establishment of advisory content committees for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.'.

No. 184, in

clause 16, page 18, line 5, at end insert—

'(3A) In appointing persons to be national members of the Consumer Panel, the Secretary of State must consult as appropriate with the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly.'.

No. 186, in

clause 16, page 18, line 29, after 'State', insert 'in consultation with the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or Northern Ireland Assembly as appropriate.'.

No. 189, in

clause 17, page 19, line 5, at end add—

'(7) It shall be the duty of the Consumer Panel to establish advisory consumer panels for—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland.'.

New clause 8—Duty to establish and maintain National Advisory Committees—

'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to establish and maintain National Advisory Committees for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

(2) The Chair and membership of these committees shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.

(3) In making such appointments in respect of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State shall seek nominations from the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly respectively.

(4) The National Advisory Committees may review all of OFCOM's work in respect of their individual territories.

(5) The National Advisory Committees may issue such recommendations to OFCOM or the Secretary of State with respect to their territories as they see fit.

(6) The National Advisory Committees shall produce an annual report on their activities.'.

Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)

The amendments relate to Ofcom's dealings with the devolved Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Before I launch into my explanation of the amendments, Mr. Atkinson, I apologise to the Committee for being late this morning. I am moving my flat as we speak, although as hon. Members can see, I am not physically present at the move, so I am taking a leap of faith. I hope that I shall return to a flat that is full of furniture and that I have not been moved out without being moved in.

It will help the Committee if I explain how the amendments hang together. Although they are grouped under clause 3, several amend other clauses, some are consequential to amendments to clause 3 and others are part of a belt and braces approach to what Ofcom might do. Amendment No. 174 would amend clause 3(3)(l), which currently states that Ofcom must take into account

''the different interests of persons in the different parts of the United Kingdom''.

I welcome that as a step forward. It would, however, be useful to refer specifically to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These days, when we say, ''different parts of the United Kingdom'', we know that that means the devolved Administrations. It will be interesting to find out what will happen in England in the light of regional assemblies Bill.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford, Conservative)

If the clause is amended to say that Ofcom should pay regard in particular to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is not the implication of that that it should pay less regard to people who live in England?

Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)

Far be it from a member of Plaid Cymru to suggest such a thing. We are asking Ofcom to consider the different needs of the different parts of the United Kingdom. The demands of the devolved Administrations will appear on Ofcom's radar very early on and it is important that we flag that matter in some of the duties that we give to it. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford should not consider the amendment on its own. It is important that he

recognise that it fits into a pattern of amendments that are intended to amend the hierarchy to achieve a better integration between Ofcom and the devolved Administrations.

I readily accept that I will not get all these amendments. That is why I have taken a belt and braces approach, starting with the more minimal demands and moving on to demands for a more comprehensive infrastructure for Ofcom with regard to the devolved Administrations.

Mr Chris Bryant (Rhondda, Labour)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that he will not get all his amendments. I hope that he is letting himself down slowly.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that amendment No. 174 to clause 3(3)(l) fails to acknowledge that there may be many more similarities between rural or semi-rural areas in England, Wales and Scotland than there are similarities between those countries?

Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)

No, I do not accept that at all. The rest of paragraph (l) will still read:

''and of those living in rural and in urban areas''.

That is a UK-wide remit for Ofcom. I accept that there are rural areas in Wales that have much in common with rural areas in Cumberland, Devon and other places that might have trouble with broadband, for example, and I see no problem with that.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

Canary wharf.

Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)

It may even come to that.

Amendment No. 176 would amend clause 7, which gives Ofcom the duty to produce impact assessments. My amendment makes it clear that if Ofcom produces an impact assessment that relates to activities in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, it should consult with the devolved Governments in those territories. I think that the amendment is reasonable. Ofcom should, in terms of good practice, consult with the devolved Governments anyway, but I am keen to put the provision in the Bill because there is nothing in it at the moment that gives any direction to Ofcom about consultation with devolved Governments. We would be very remiss to take things forward as they are.

Amendment No. 177 would amend clause 11, which relates to the content board. The amendment would ensure that appointments to the board of members who represent people living in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—a move that I welcome—are made in consultation with the devolved Governments. Amendment No. 178 would amend clause 12 to establish an advisory content board for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The advisory board would advise Ofcom on content issues, so there would be a wider panel of membership available to deal with the interface with devolved Governments. In an English context, there will soon be regional assemblies. The advisory content board would deal with regional government and would filter through the more pertinent issues for the Ofcom content board to deal with.

Amendment No. 184 would amend clause 16 similarly to how amendment No. 177 would amend clause 11, but would do so in respect of the consumer

panel. The Bill provides that people representing Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should be appointed to the consumer panel. Those appointments should be made in consultation with devolved Governments. Amendment No. 186 is consequential to amendment No. 184. It would insert an acceptance of the fact that, as the Secretary of State has the right to remove members from the consumer panel, he or she should consult, for example, the Northern Ireland Assembly before removing a member of the consumer panel representing Northern Ireland. It is a pretty reasonable amendment.

Amendment No. 189 would amend clause 17. It is similar to amendment No. 178, and would establish advisory consumer panels for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The amendment would be particularly relevant to the work of bodies such as the Broadcasting Council for Wales, which seems to be disappearing under the infrastructure of the Bill. It is worth keeping that body in the Welsh public political sector, and creating such bodies in the other devolved administrations.

New clause 8 would put a duty on Ofcom

''to establish and maintain National Advisory Committees for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.''

I hope that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford has now realised that I have not forgotten England in my amendments. Whether I include England simply depends on what is relevant to a particular passage in the Bill.

The national advisory committees would seek to assist Ofcom in its work in respect of the individual countries of the United Kingdom. The national advisory committees should be able to review Ofcom's work and, for example, publish an annual report for the devolved Governments. They would be independent of Ofcom because appointments to them would be made by the Secretary of State. They would introduce an element of wider citizenship into the debate on Ofcom. I will not repeat all my citizenship arguments from two days ago, but I will say more about the importance of citizenship in the context of Welsh public policy and in the wider context of devolved government.

Having explained my amendments and having told the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) that I do not expect all of them to be accepted, I should tell the Committee where the amendments come from. Some hon. Members may consider them to be a narrow, nationalist plot dreamed up in the back rooms of Plaid Cymru. That would be a reasonable assumption for an hon. Member who had not read the submission from the Government in the National Assembly for Wales, who are not a narrow, nationalist Government but a Labour and Liberal Democrat Government.

All the amendments in my name, apart from No. 174, arise directly from recommendations and requests from the Liberal Democrat Minister for Culture, Sport and Welsh Language in the Labour Administration in Wales. I am therefore looking forward to seeing where support for the amendments will come from. Those requests came in a formal letter

about a decision of the National Assembly for Wales that was taken on 9 July. They are requests to the Secretary of State for matters to be included in the Communications Bill.

Of course, the National Assembly for Wales started with a bigger request that we cannot discuss during debates on this Bill because it was discussed during proceedings on the Office of Communications Act 2002. That bigger request was for a person nominated by the National Assembly for Wales to be on the Ofcom board. I understand that the Scottish Executive made a similar request and that the Northern Ireland Assembly also debated the issue, although I do not know whether it made a formal request to the Government. However, both Scotland and Wales asked specifically for a member from their territories on the Ofcom board.

We had that debate in the Standing Committee that debated the Ofcom Bill, and we lost the argument. However, I want to ask the Secretary of State, through the Minister, about hierarchy. The request from the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Executive to have a representative has been turned down, but the question then arises of how Ofcom will work with the devolved Administrations. We are Westminster MPs working on UK-wide legislation that will have a real impact in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In those areas, there are expectations and a democratic demand that will have to be met in the Bill.

As I say, the specific request for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be represented on the Ofcom board has been turned down. That means that when debating these amendments and considering the five existing regulators, we start from a position that is a significant step back from the position of the devolved Administrations. There is a Welsh board member on the Radio Authority; there is a Welsh board member on the Independent Television Commission; there is a Welsh Advisory Committee on Telecommunications; and there is the Broadcasting Council for Wales. Therefore, hon. Members can see that there is a pre-devolution infrastructure in Wales—predating the establishment of the Welsh Assembly—giving it a voice on broadcasting and telecommunication issues, which are the two main areas in the Bill. I am concerned that the infrastructure in the Bill does not seek to replicate even that level of representation for Wales. These amendments do not seek to move the devolution settlement forward. I am simply trying to establish that Ofcom and the Bill will operate in ways that replicate or extend the pattern of representation that we had in the past—even though that was inadequate on occasions.

The central issues arise in new clause 8, which would establish a type of communications council for Wales. The Welsh Assembly requested that. It wants a council to be established to deal with all the relevant issues, but not in a statutory way: the council should be able to debate and review all the issues arising from

the Bill, and then to present a report on its conclusions to Ofcom for consideration.

The Welsh Assembly seeks to establish, not a separate statutory infrastructure, but a citizens' voice in Wales to debate all communications issues and to which Ofcom must be prepared to listen. That council would be in a position to produce a report for the Welsh Assembly to debate, so it would have the weight of that august body behind it as well. That is the Welsh Assembly's central secondary backstop. Having failed to gain representation on Ofcom, it said, ''Okay, if we are not going to have someone in Ofcom, let us at least have a communications council for Wales.'' New clause 8 is designed to achieve that.

Two further issues centre on the activities of the consumer panel and the content board. I am grateful that the Bill will now place someone on those bodies who represents Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, because that is a step forward. However, that person will not be representing their nation's devolved Government. The amendment seeks to strengthen the ties between Ofcom and the devolved Governments and Administrations by saying that those representatives should at least be appointed in consultation with the devolved Governments.

The Strategic Rail Authority has a similar process. It is nothing new to have UK-wide bodies with members who represent parts of the UK—in particular, those that have devolved Governments—and for such members to be appointed in consultation with those Administrations. In the Strategic Rail Authority, that happens in respect of both Wales and Scotland, so there is an individual who—in theory, at least—can at any time produce a report of relevance to Wales and Scotland.

Mr Chris Bryant (Rhondda, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman appears to be seeking a fully devolved responsibility for broadcasting. Would he like S4C to be devolved to the Welsh Assembly?

Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)

First, I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can conclude from these rather tame amendments that I am going for fully devolved broadcasting in Wales. On the second point, the hon. Gentleman may care to read my party's manifesto because it is pretty clear about that. Of course Plaid Cymru's ultimate aim is to devolve broadcasting to Wales—our ultimate aim is to devolve most things from Westminster to Wales. However, it would stretch even the credibility of the hon. Gentleman to claim that the amendments do anything along those lines, because they fall short even of what the Labour Government in Cardiff requested.

In the amendments, I am trying to strengthen not only the integration and interface between the devolved Governments and Ofcom, but the views of consumers and citizens—or the public interest, if we cannot use the word citizens—in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland about the working of Ofcom. A further request from the National Assembly for Wales was that Ofcom should not meet only in London. I was pleased to hear what the Minister said on Tuesday about bringing Ofcom out.

It is valuable to refer to what the First Minister of Wales said last night. He made an important speech in which he rejected new Labour values and stated:

''In other words, in welfare markets, producer choice, rather than consumer choice, is too likely to be the outcome.''

Rhodri Morgan says that he wants a rejection of the increasing tendency of Westminster legislation to address only consumer choice issues; he wants it to address universal provisions instead. That is relevant to the debate surrounding Ofcom and to the debate that we had on Tuesday. Without revisiting that debate, I think that my amendments would strengthen the public interest in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by giving the public in those countries—and in England, in several respects—a way off calling Ofcom to account. That would not be statutory, but Ofcom could be called to account using a democratic process through the devolved Administrations.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Peter Atkinson (Hexham, Conservative)

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the Committee that we have been sitting for almost an hour and we have to deal with 24 clauses and 13 groups of amendments by 5 pm. I ask members of the Committee to bear that in mind while they are speaking.

Mr John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland, Labour)

I shall try to be brief, Mr. Atkinson.

After reading the amendments, I find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford for what I hope will be the first and last time in Committee. That will certainly not do my political credibility any good. He is absolutely right that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) showed a bias toward the Celtic nations and gave no thought to England. That is totally unfair because the Bill should not give special handouts but should be even-handed. Amendment No. 174 is slightly biased.

I believe that amendment No. 176 is a delaying amendment that would slow the process because an Assembly or Parliament would have to be consulted before anything could be done. That is not what Ofcom is there to do. It is there to act as quickly as possible and to get the job done, whether that is appointing and reappointing people or just doing its general work. If a precedent were set that there should be discussion with the Scottish Parliament or one of the Assemblies, the process would be automatically slowed. That is not what the people of this country want.

Amendment No. 177 is slightly different. It has merit because if one is going to employ somebody, perhaps some form of consultation should occur. However, such employment should not be decided by the Assemblies or the Parliament but by Ofcom. Ofcom is paid to pay such employees; the Assemblies are not paid to pay Ofcom to pay people.

Amendment No. 178 might also have merit, but if it were accepted, the body would grow. The body of Ofcom would develop legs called Scottish Ofcom, Welsh Ofcom and Northern Ireland Ofcom. If and when regional assemblies were introduced, we would have regional Ofcoms. The body would become so

large and unmanageable that the board would have great difficulty running the show.

Mr Eric Joyce (Falkirk West, Labour)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill permits the establishment of content bodies in Scotland, Wales or wherever Ofcom deem appropriate? It is simply a case of leaving things flexible rather than making them compulsory.

Mr John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland, Labour)

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I must have missed. I agree that when Ofcom deems a body necessary, one should be established. However, the Scottish Parliament or the Assemblies in Northern Ireland and Wales should not be the powers that drive such bodies forward; Ofcom should be in charge of them. If there is too much political input into the body, we cannot be surprised if it makes political decisions.

One of the Opposition's complaints has been about who will be appointed to the Ofcom board. It would not matter who was appointed, they would still complain, but the more we politicise a body such as Ofcom, the more complaints there will be, from politicians as well as the general public. The most important thing is to provide a service to the people and not to have too much interference at the end of the day.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion says that new clause 8 is not a nationalist plot—he could have fooled me. It has the fingerprints of nationalism all over it. That he wants to separate us all into little boxes of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and that England is excluded is no surprise, especially to our opposition in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman tabled his amendments and will be disappointed. The only amendment that I can support in any way at all—I shall listen to the Minister's reply before I decide whether to support it—is amendment No. 195.

Mr Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

I rise to support the general thrust of the amendments, although I share the concerns that amendment No. 174 is seriously defective.

The Bill makes Ofcom a United Kingdom-wide body, which is absolutely right. Certainly, many of the economic and market considerations that Ofcom will address are genuinely UK-wide issues and should be dealt with on that level. However, some cultural, consumer content issues that make sense for national or, in the case of ITV, regional considerations must be taken into account. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion observed that he had adopted a belt-and-braces approach in tabling so many amendments—that is certainly true. It would not make sense to implement all of them, but the Minister may entertain some of them.

On the duty to consult, the objection just raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) was rather thin. We are talking not about statutory consultation with the general public but about consultation with the Minister responsible in each of the devolved Governments. I would not have thought that a phone call, fax or e-mail between ministerial offices exchanging a few biographies was

likely to delay matters unduly. At the most, it would be a question of only a few days. The Government would do well to entertain that amendment.

As for the suggestion of establishing the various committees or panels, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, several bodies in Wales and elsewhere already exist to deal with such issues. What objection can there be to some such body being included in the Bill? I accept that the Bill makes a nod in that direction, but the Government must be aware of the sensitivities that have surfaced in the past when Bills have merely made provision for bodies to exist rather than requiring their establishment. The general thrust of the amendments is sound, and I support it. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I particularly wanted to speak to the amendments because I supported so much of what the hon. Member for Ceredigion said when we debated the Office of Communications Act 2002. I congratulate him for noting the change in the Bill. At least we now know that there will be representatives from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on the content board as well as offices established. Previously that was not to be the case.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

That is not true.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

If not, the Minister can explain the matter to us in his response, but we discussed it in great detail at the time—[Interruption.]—The sedentary interventions of the hon. Member for Rhondda are only slowing me down. I am trying to make a brief speech. However, I shall give way to him.

Mr Chris Bryant (Rhondda, Labour)

If the hon. Gentleman puts his memory back into gear, he will recall that, during discussions on the Ofcom Bill, the Minister made it clear that both issues would be met.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Yes, but the hon. Gentleman is missing the point. The Minister said that such matters would be met only because the hon. Member for Ceredigion kept referring to them.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

God knows, I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman, but if he can put his memory into gear, he will recall that that Bill was about setting up an organisation that could form itself, nothing else.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

It is not my intention to go out of order and delay proceedings. I wanted to make only a brief contribution to the debate. I recall there being a heated debate at the time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion on speaking with such passion, but I do not recall great enthusiasm from Ministers for either representatives on the content board or regional representation. It is particularly important that such issues are being dealt with today. I also hope that the Minister will respond to the interesting point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion, namely the fact that the Strategic Rail Authority has a structure for dealing with devolved bodies. I do not want to be too prescriptive, but if the Minister can stop chuntering and listen for a moment, perhaps I can ask him to explain the difference

between the structures of the Office of Communications and the Strategic Rail Authority.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

We are here to talk about Ofcom, not the Strategic Rail Authority.

Throughout the process of establishing Ofcom as a new fully converged regulator for the whole of the communications sector, we have made it clear that its board must remain small and not bogged down by bureaucracy. It must be flexible enough to respond quickly to fast-changing circumstances in a sector where change is happening at great speed.

To be effective, the Ofcom board must act collegiately and strategically. It cannot be representative of the many varied interests and stakeholders. In its recent report, the Better Regulation Task Force recommended that the boards of economic regulators should be made up of a mix of executive and non-executive members and that they should operate on a functional basis and not be made up of representatives of stakeholder interests. I endorse that approach.

Clause 3 obliges each member of the Ofcom board to have regard to the interests of different parts of the United Kingdom when carrying out their functions. The board as a whole is charged with that requirement, not just one member of it. Amendment No. 174 would require Ofcom to have particular regard to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As I have said, the obligation under clause 3(3) relates to the United Kingdom as a whole, and that obviously encompasses Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford reminded us, 49 million people happen to live in England as opposed to 5 million in Scotland, 2.9 million in Wales and 1.7 million—tops—in Northern Ireland. We must have a sense of perspective when considering such matters.

Mr Chris Bryant (Rhondda, Labour)

Clause 3(3)(l) concerns those living in rural and urban areas. Will the provision allow Ofcom to consider in particular congruence between constituencies and areas in England, Wales and Scotland such as former mining constituencies?

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

Yes, it certainly would—not that the hon. Gentleman represents a former mining constituency, although I am sure that he is not suggesting that he is. However, his question is important.

It is interesting to consider the make-up of this Standing Committee. I calculate that we have four Welsh Members, six Scottish Members and fifteen English Members. I want to break down the English membership; it is important to do so—although I can see you glancing at the clock, Mr. Atkinson. We have two from Yorkshire, six from the midlands—although what comprises the midlands is a subject for geographic debate—one from the east of England, one from London, two from the south, one from the north-west and two from the west.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford, Conservative)

I am the last person to advocate the idea of regions. My constituents in Essex do not consider themselves part of the same region as the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for South

Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). However, we both come under this Government's curious creation of an eastern region.

Mr Peter Atkinson (Hexham, Conservative)

Order. We have had our fun, but shall we get back to the Communications Bill?

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

The Government are committed to ensuring that the interests of the nations and regions are properly represented in Ofcom and in the structures that will be established. David Currie has visited Scotland and Wales and has listened carefully to the views of the devolved Administrations and others.

Mr Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore, Labour)

Does the Minister acknowledge that the cumulative effect of many of these amendments will be to strengthen the hand of the devolved Administrations? I do not want to underplay the role of those Administrations, but does the Minister acknowledge the importance of Members of this House in setting up Ofcom in its regulatory role?

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

My hon. Friend makes an important point, with which I agree. These are not devolved matters; they are matters for this House. The board is considering options for the structure of Ofcom and the needs of the regions and nations will be taken into account.

New clause 8 would require Ofcom to establish national advisory committees for each nation. Hon. Members must bear it in mind that the vast majority of the functions and responsibilities of Ofcom are not—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has just made clear—devolved matters. They will be carried out by Ofcom on a UK basis. We acknowledge that there are areas of crossover with matters that have been devolved. However, we believe that our proposals for Ofcom are the most appropriate means of dealing with those areas. It would not be appropriate to require Ofcom to establish committees—especially committees empowered to review the activities of Ofcom and to make recommendations in areas where the nations' devolved Administrations have no remit. The provisions of the new clause 8 are therefore not acceptable.

The Bill already requires the content board and the consumer panel to have members who can represent the views of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Through such mechanisms, the interests of the nations will most appropriately be represented.

Many amendments demonstrate a misunderstanding of the methods of appointment to the content board and the consumer panel and the powers of both to establish different committees. Appointments to the content board will be a matter for Ofcom. Amendment No. 177 seeks to require Ofcom to consult the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly when making such appointments. However, those are not public appointments. Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will have any role in making those appointments. Quite rightly, the Westminster Parliament will not have a role either.

I cannot therefore see any reason for the formal involvement of the devolved Parliament or Assemblies, as required by amendment No. 177. When considering such appointments, we shall expect Ofcom to consult the relevant territorial departments and, through them, the devolved Administrations in order to seek nominations for suitable candidates. We envisage that such consultative arrangements could be set up in a memorandum of understanding between Ofcom and the relevant Secretary of State for each nation. The final appointments will, and must, be a matter for Ofcom.

Amendment No. 178 would require Ofcom to establish content advisory committees for each nation to advise the content board on carrying out its work. Ofcom already has a power under the Office of Communications Act 2002 to establish advisory or executive committees as it sees fit. The Bill will enable Ofcom to authorise the content board to establish advisory committees of its own.

We are likely to return to a discussion of the way in which the consumer panel operates during a later sitting. However, amendment No. 186 would require the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly on the removal of the chairman and members of the consumer panel. Clause 16(8)(b) relates to all members of the consumer panel and not only those who represent national interests. There is no need for the Secretary of State to consult with the Parliament or Assemblies on the removal of every member of the panel, which the amendment would require. The amendment is fatally flawed. I would expect the removal of members representing the nations to be preceded by the same type of informal consultation that preceded their appointment.

Amendment No. 176 would require Ofcom to consult with the Scottish Parliament and the Assemblies before it carried out an impact assessment under clause 7 and on any important proposals that were likely to have a significant impact on the general public in parts of the United Kingdom. I find it difficult to see what such a requirement might achieve. If Ofcom believes that such an assessment is appropriate, it will be important for that to be undertaken as quickly as possible. A requirement to consult would cause delay before the assessment could be started. The reason for an assessment would be to consider the impact that the proposals might have. Nothing will prevent the Scottish Parliament or the Assemblies from making representations to Ofcom about any assessment, and Ofcom would have to take such representations into consideration. Therefore, we resist the amendments.

Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)

It will not surprise anyone when I say how disappointed I am by the Minister's response; I had hoped that he would say a little more. I am grateful to him for his explanation of the appointments system, and I think that the Committee can be grateful for that, but he should have explained more about how Ofcom relates to the devolved Administrations.

The Minister rejects the amendments on the basis that the issues are not devolved—full stop. However, economic development is devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, so it is spending millions of pounds on the provision of broadband throughout Wales. Is the Minister really saying that the National Assembly cannot have any consultation with Ofcom on a range of economic influences? [Hon. Members: ''He is not saying that.''] Well, that is the impression that I got. I got the impression that an assessment on such issues as broadband in Wales would take too much time if there were consultation with the National Assembly.

The Minister misrepresented amendments Nos. 186 and 189. It is clear that the Secretary of State's power to remove a member of the consumer panel in consultation with the devolved Administrations is appropriate, and it clearly relates to the person whom the Secretary of State appointed to the panel in the first place. The amendments are consequential. The Minister failed to answer any of the questions asked by his party's Government in Cardiff about how Ofcom relates to the devolved Administration.

I am grateful to the hon. Members for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) for their comments. They gave general support to the idea of ensuring that there is a fruitful working relationship between the devolved Administrations and Ofcom. I am afraid that that will not be the case. I am worried that the devolved Governments will jump up and down complaining about decisions by Ofcom which affect their economic areas, and that they will have no say in the decisions. That may create tension that could be resolved, if not by my amendments, then by amendments along the same lines.

Mr Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore, Labour)

Although I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's arguments, many of his amendments would put into the Bill the requirement to consult the Welsh Assembly. In effect, he is trying to advance devolutionary arguments. As a pro-devolutionist, I hope that when that argument comes before the House, it will come through the front door, not scuffing its feet on the carpet of the tradesman's door, as some of these amendments do.

Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)

We hear that argument from Labour Members time and again. However, I ask the hon. Gentleman, who is an intelligent, perceptive Member of Parliament, to consider the amendments carefully; there is no devolution in them. Nothing is devolved to the National Assembly for Wales in the amendments. [Interruption.] Nothing is devolved in the amendments. I am not going to debate the matter with the hon. Gentleman across the Room. The amendments do not devolve anything from Ofcom to the Assembly or any other body in the United Kingdom. All they seek to do is achieve a better consultation arrangement with the devolved Administrations.

It is clear that I will not get the support of the Government for my amendments. Nevertheless, there

is a point of principle at stake in some of them. They may not be perfect—they were produced by one person, not by a team—but although I shall withdraw amendment No. 174, I hope that I may press amendment No. 177 to a Division when the time comes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Peter Atkinson (Hexham, Conservative)

I am prepared to grant a Division on amendment No. 177, but that will happen when we have debated the group of amendments under clause 11.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 132, in

clause 3, page 4, line 13, at end insert

'and publish the reasoning for the resolution of any conflict between their general duties.'.

Mr Peter Atkinson (Hexham, Conservative)

With this we may discuss the following: Amendment No. 197, in

clause 3, page 4, line 13, at end insert

'and make public the reasons for their actions'.

Amendment No. 2, in

clause 3, page 4, line 24, at end add—

'(9) OFCOM's report under paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Office of Communications Act 2002 (c. 11) (annual report) for each financial year must contain a statement by OFCOM summarising those circumstances where, in OFCOM's opinion, they have been required to reconcile general duties which have been in conflict with each other and how they have sought to do so in the circumstances.'.

New clause 6—Duty to publish and meet openness standards—

'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to publish a statement setting out the standards they are proposing to meet with respect to openness in—

(a) the carrying out of their different functions; and

(b) providing reasons for any decision made to persons who, in their opinion, are likely to be affected by the matters to which it relates.

(2) OFCOM may, if they think fit, at any time revise the statement for the time being in force under this section.

(3) t shall be the duty of OFCOM in carrying out their functions to have regard to the statement for the time being in force under this section.

(4) Where OFCOM revise a statement under this section, they must publish the revision as soon as practicable.

(5) The publication under this section of a statement, or of a revision of a statement, must be in such manner as OFCOM consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of the persons who, in their opinion, are likely to be affected by the matters to which it relates.

(6) OFCOM's report under paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Office of Communications Act 2002 (c. 11) (annual report) for each financial year must contain a statement by OFCOM summarising the extent to which they have complied during that year with the standards set out under this section.'.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford, Conservative)

At our sitting on Tuesday, we spent some time debating whether sufficient prominence was given to clause 3(3)(b), which is on the principles of regulation, as recommended by the better regulation task force. The Minister was clearly not persuaded by our argument that those principles should be given stronger prominence. The amendments focus on the first of those principles, that of transparency. They would strengthen the

requirement on Ofcom to be transparent in its decisions.

Amendment No. 132 refers to clause 3(6), which states that:

''Where it appears to OFCOM that any of their general duties conflict with each other in a particular case, they must secure that the conflict is resolved in the manner they think best in the circumstances.''

That is a fairly unremarkable requirement. The amendment would require Ofcom to publish the reason for its decision where there had been such a conflict between its various duties. As we have already debated, given the scope of Ofcom, its many duties, the speed of development of the technology in the sector for which it is responsible and the huge importance of the decisions, there is no doubt that conflicts will arise. Clearly, Ofcom will in some cases have a difficult task in deciding which requirement to give prominence to. Those who will be affected by that decision—both users and providers—should be entitled to know what has led Ofcom to reach a decision. That is the purpose of amendment No. 132. New clause 6 is designed to achieve the same objective.

During earlier debates, and particularly during the Joint Committee's debates, consideration was given to whether Ofcom should hold its meetings in public, and it was decided that that may not be appropriate. I do not wish to contest that. However, there is already a requirement on Ofcom to publish a statement on how promptly it is meeting its requirements. The purpose of new clause 6 is to place a similar requirement on Ofcom to publish a clear statement about what it is doing to achieve standards of openness. All Committee members want Ofcom to be open: it is important that everyone who will be affected by it—and, as I have said, they will represent a huge range of interests—understands the way in which it reaches its decisions and the factors that it takes into account. Both amendment No. 132 and the new clause are designed to achieve that objective.

Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)

I thank the Minister for his comments on regionalism. At this moment, I am also supposed to be on the Committee that is dealing with the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, so his remarks provide a novel way of combining my obligations.

Amendment No. 197 arose out of much of the evidence that the Joint Committee heard about the need for Ofcom to be transparent. Several comments were made about the need to understand where Ofcom is coming from, particularly with regard to appeals. The amendment is intended to ensure that when Ofcom makes decisions it explains why it has made them.

As the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said, this is an area where there are fast-changing technologies; what may have been the right decision at one time may no longer be appropriate shortly afterwards, and if the reasons behind decisions are explained people can see what is happening. If Ofcom sets out its reasons, that will contribute to creating the culture of openness and transparency that we all want. Where there are conflicts—particularly

those involving European directives—it becomes much more important to accept the reasons.

Recently, there has been much criticism of regulators. It has been suggested that some of them have tried to undermine—or, at best, ignore—Government policy, and there are campaigns to make them more accountable to Government. It is important that Ofcom sets out the reasons for its decisions, but I am relaxed about how it does that; it does not matter whether it is done in an annual statement or at the time of the decision.

Where there are conflicts between the different stakeholders—such as the work force, different industries, the company making the complaint or the appellant—it is important for them all that the reasons for Ofcom coming to a certain conclusion are made transparent so that everybody understands what the issues are, rather than feeling that Ofcom's decision has appeared out of the ether. That is particularly true for those who make appeals.

Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I shall speak to amendment No. 2, which is in my name and that of the hon. Member for North Devon. Its purpose is substantially the same as that of the amendment moved by my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, and that in the name of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). It differs from them simply in that, where Ofcom is seeking to reconcile conflicts between its general duties, it is required to set those out in a statement in the annual report. The amendment does not insist that Ofcom gives its reasons when each decision is made.

That is not to say that the reasons for decisions should not be offered when the regulator makes them. However, for the benefit of the wider stakeholders and businesses that are affected by Ofcom's responsibilities, it is important that individual decisions should have reasons attached to them, when that is appropriate. There should also be at least one statement in the annual report in which significant conflicts between general duties are brought together, so that Ofcom has an opportunity to set out how those conflicts are being reconciled. Those who would be affected by Ofcom's decisions, particularly in the early stages, should be able to see the manner of its thinking. That is as close as we could get in the drafting of the Bill to the proposal in paragraph 92 of the Joint Committee's report.

Our proposal tried to balance the desirability of Ofcom achieving the greatest possible transparency in its decision making and the risk that that would require it to provide a

''potentially formulaic explanation of all its decisions by reference to its general duties.''

That would be burdensome on Ofcom and tedious for the stakeholders, which is one reason why I felt that Ofcom should have the opportunity to address the issue by publishing in the annual report a synthesis of how it performs its general duties. However, any sensible regulator that encountered a novel decision would certainly publish reasons for such a decision.

In their response to the Joint Committee the Government generally agreed about the principle behind what was intended and the need to strike the balance that I mentioned, but they did not see a need for that to be expressed in the Bill. It would be extremely undesirable if Ofcom were to publish its annual report and not refer to that issue. Ofcom does not need that flexibility, so we could perfectly happily prescribe the duty in the Bill.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I shall speak briefly in support of amendments, provided, that is, that I get no hostile interventions.

The Federal Communications Commission in Washington D.C., with which I am familiar, has an especially open policy. One of the reasons for that is to avoid judicial reviews. The Radio Authority has, on occasion, revoked a licence—usually quite rightly, in my view—and suffered a judicial review. That is because it does not have to give a reason, either for revoking or awarding licences.

I feel that the workings of Ofcom would be a little more reasonable if they were more open. The policy of both the Opposition and the Government is that government should be open and fair, and the amendment is a natural extension of that.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

I believe that the amendments are important and measured and I am glad that they have been raised. I will resist Nos. 132 and 197 and new clause 6. I will, however, explain to the Committee why I accept amendment No. 2 in principle.

We expect Ofcom to be a model of good regulatory practice. In some parts of the Bill that is explicit; for example, in clauses 6, 7 and 8. However, throughout the Bill it is implicit that Ofcom should be transparent and that it should be accountable for its actions. I am wary of new clause 6, which appears to provide a rather bureaucratic approach to an integral part of Ofcom's operation. The concept of a statement of openness is worthy, but I am not sure that that is necessary, particularly when one considers the Office of Communications Act 2002.

Paragraph 22 of the schedule to that Act makes Ofcom subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and paragraph 23 applies the Public Records Act 1958 to Ofcom. Taken together, those provisions mean that Ofcom's duty to maintain records and respond to requests for information is the same as that of other official bodies. Clause 3(3)(b) requires that in its undertaking of regulatory activities Ofcom should have regard to the principles of good regulatory practice, which include accountability and transparency. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East made that the central theme of his contribution, as did the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. More specifically, we would encourage Ofcom as a matter of course to set out the reasoning behind its decision when there was a conflict between the duties.

I listened to the strong views expressed by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford in support of amendments Nos. 132 and 197, which would insert

such a requirement in the Bill. I have noted those views and I am particularly sympathetic to amendment No. 2, which would require Ofcom to include in its annual report a summary of decisions made under subsection (6). That was also proposed by the Joint Committee and it suggested that that was the right approach. If the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire does not press his amendment, I will be happy to accept it in principle and return with an appropriate amendment at a later stage.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister. I am slightly hurt that he has picked out the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire rather than the one in my name, but I am sure that it does not indicate any partiality.

I appreciate the Minister's promise to try to amend the Bill to reflect the wishes that are felt on both sides of the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.