Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 204, in

clause 6, page 7, line 9, after 'secured', insert ', or may be furthered or secured'.

Mr Peter Atkinson (Hexham, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment No. 128, in

clause 6, page 7, line 11, at end insert—

'(c) to seek the views of persons providing services and facilities in relation to which OFCOM have functions on which of these functions should be subject to review.'.

Amendment No. 3, in

clause 6, page 7, line 16, leave out 'and'.

Amendment No. 4, in

clause 6, page 7, line 18, at end insert 'and

(c) whether the procedures for self-regulation offer adequate opportunities for public scrutiny and for reporting on those activities to OFCOM, to the Secretary of State and to Parliament as appropriate.'.

Amendment No. 50, in

clause 6, page 7, line 18, at end insert—

'(c) whether persons with sufficient commercial knowledge of the persons who may be subjected to the procedures are consulted.'.

Amendment No. 122, in

clause 355, page 307, line 7, at end add—

'(4) OFCOM's competition functions should form part of the review of regulatory burdens by OFCOM as described in section 6.'.

New clause 2—Duty to establish and maintain Competition Board

'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to establish and maintain a committee to be known as ''the Competition Board''.

(2) The Competition Board shall consist of—

(a) a chairman appointed by OFCOM; and

(b) such number of other members appointed by OFCOM as OFCOM may determine.

(3) In appointing a person OFCOM must have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the persons appointed are experts, both users and suppliers of electronic communications, working in the industry who have a commercial knowledge of the market.

(4) Before appointing a person to be chairman or another member of the Competition Board, OFCOM must satisfy themselves that he will not have any direct financial or other interest which would be likely prejudicially to affect the carrying out by him of any of his functions as chairman or member of the Competition Board.'.

New clause 3—Functions of the Competition Board—

'(1) The functions conferred on the Competition Board must include, to such an extent and subject to such restrictions and approvals as OFCOM may determine, the carrying out on OFCOM's behalf of—

(a) functions in relation to ensuring that there is a constant process of evaluating the level of competition in the market, assessing possible moves to self-regulation, and between ex ante and ex post regulation;

(b) functions in relation to determining the matters to which a regulatory impact assessment should relate; and

(c) functions in relation to addressing and managing the issues of concurrent powers between OFCOM and the Office of Fair Trading.

(2) The power of OFCOM to determine the Competition Board's functions includes power to authorise the Board to establish committees and panels to advise the Board on the carrying out of some or all of the Board's functions.'.

New clause 4—Duty to establish and maintain Economic Panel—

'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM, in accordance with the following provisions of this section, to exercise their powers under paragraph 14 of the Schedule to the Office of Communications Act

2002 (c. 11) to establish and maintain a committee to be known as ''the Economic Panel'' to give advice to OFCOM on economic theory and practice in relation to the exercise of their functions under this Act and, in particular, in relation to the following matters—

(a) the nature and operation of markets for electronic networks, electronic communications services and associated facilities;

(b) the interests of providers of such networks, services and facilities as well as those of consumers;

(c) the promotion of competition between such providers; and

(d) economic regulatory policy.

(2) The arrangements made by OFCOM under this section must also secure that the Economic Panel are able, in addition to giving advice on the matters mentioned in subsection (1), to make arrangements for the carrying out of such research relevant to the giving of that advice as they think fit.

(3) It shall be the duty of OFCOM, in the carrying out of their functions, to consider and, to such extent as they think appropriate, to have regard to—

(a) any advice given to OFCOM by the Economic Panel; and

(b) any results notified to OFCOM of any research undertaken by that Panel.'.

New clause 7—Industry consultation—

'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to establish and maintain effective arrangements for consultation about the carrying out of their functions with—

(a) suppliers in the markets for the services and facilities in relation to which OFCOM have functions;

(b) suppliers in the markets for apparatus used in connection with any such services or facilities.

(2) The arrangements must include the establishment and maintenance of a panel of persons (in this Act referred to as ''the Industry Consultative Panel'') with the function of advising OFCOM.

(3) It shall be the duty of OFCOM, in the carrying out of their functions, to consider and, to such extent as they think appropriate, to have regard to the views given to OFCOM by the Industry Consultative Panel.

(4) The members of the Industry Panel shall be appointed by OFCOM and shall comprise a chairman and such other members as OFCOM may determine.'.

Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)

I will speak to amendment No. 204 and, if he catches your eye, Mr. Atkinson, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) will speak to the other amendments.

On Tuesday afternoon, I raised the important question of self-regulation and the opportunity that the Bill and the creation of Ofcom, as a single overarching regulator, provide for self-regulation in television and broadcast advertising. It may be useful to remind the Committee about how broadcast advertising is currently regulated. It is subject to statutory control with pre-clearance by self-regulatory bodies. Television advertising is the responsibility of the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority regulates radio advertising. Advertisements are pre-cleared by the broadcast advertising clearance centre for television, and the radio advertising clearance centre for radio. Under clause 307, Ofcom will take over the ITC and Radio Authority responsibilities. However, clause 3 places a duty on Ofcom to have regard to the promotion and facilitation of self-regulation.

Clause 1 gives Ofcom the power to contract out its functions and clause 6 places a duty on Ofcom to keep its functions under review. Clause 6(2)(a), to which the

amendment specifically refers, requires Ofcom, in reviewing its functions, to have regard to the extent to which the general duties under clause 3 can be achieved by self-regulation. That is the framework that we are examining. However, subsection 2(a) is couched in the past, not the future, tense on the extent to which the general duties that Ofcom is

''required under section 3 to further, or to secure,''

stating that they

''are already furthered or secured by effective self-regulation''

However, there is no self-regulatory body for broadcast advertising.

I indicated earlier—and the Minister did not contradict me, although he had many questions to answer—that Ministers agree that self-regulation is a sensible development for Ofcom to pursue in the future. That is why we suggest, on the advice of the Advertising Association that it would make sense to do so, to cover the opportunity of future self-regulation by inserting into the Bill via amendment No. 204 the words:

''or may be furthered or secured''.

The subsection would then read:

''In reviewing their functions under this section it shall be the duty of OFCOM—

(a) to have regard to the extent to which the matters which they are required under section 3 to further, or to secure, are already furthered or secured or may be furthered or secured by effective self-regulation.''

My point might seem technical, but the drafting of clause 6(2)(a) needs attention. Either amendment No. 204 or something similar at a later stage is needed.

The issue is vitally important to the Bill and to the future of regulation under Ofcom. Broadcast advertising regulation is a prime candidate for Ofcom to achieve a less bureaucratic regime than has hitherto existed. There will be self-regulation, but Ofcom will retain back-stop powers. Clauses 307, 309 and 310 give Ofcom banning powers in respect of certain advertisements. We will debate those clauses later, but I do not want anyone in the Committee, or anyone who studies this debate, to think that self-regulation means that Ofcom will be powerless to deal with offensive material. It will not be—it has those powers now.

The Committee has to face up to the fact that television advertising will be a significant—perhaps the most significant—means of delivering new broadcast services. Developments in multichannel broadcasting, new approaches to retailing such as online sales, and changes in viewing and listening habits mean that we no longer live as we did when the Minister and I were kids, when people could watch only the BBC or ITV, and anybody who watched ITV saw the adverts. It is not like that any more. Traditional certainties of viewing patterns have been undermined by technological and sociological changes.

This nation leads Europe in the quality of our advertising, marketing and incentives industry. I remind the Committee of my entry in the Register of

Members' Interests, which shows my long association with incentives and promotions. We are market leaders in Europe. The industry recognises that brands now need to be able to advertise, market and promote their products across several platforms at the same time. That is not easily achieved with any speed or certainty if regulatory structures overlap. It is clearly undesirable for one important regulatory structure to require pre-clearance while all the others are self-regulatory. Within the European Commission, there is an advanced self-regulatory regime for sales and promotion throughout Europe. The self-regulatory tide is flowing in the right direction.

Mr John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that self-regulation has not worked? I am thinking about tobacco advertising in particular, where advertisers have misused self-regulation. Laws have had to be brought in to govern such advertising.

Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)

One should not consider the value of self-regulation throughout the media and marketing world on the basis of views on what should and should not be permitted in tobacco advertising. The House and the European Commission have come to a clear judgment on that, and I do not think that the tobacco industry is a particularly good example of self-regulation not working.

Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)

No, I will not give way, because we are straying away from the point of the amendment.

The Minister will, I think, support the concept of self-regulation. We are seeing media convergence on a number of different platforms. We should try to achieve one set of rules for the different media and those rules should take account of the different contexts of those media.

Despite the interventions, I will not detain the Committee with a lengthy argument on the advantages and benefits of self-regulation—although I would gladly do so if time permitted. However, I will say that self-regulation is fast and flexible. As the Minister knows, the advertising and broadcasting industries are keen to develop proposals for consideration by Ofcom, with the support of the Advertising Standards Authority. All that is for the future, but it is important that the Bill allows for that opportunity. I urge the Minister to consider the amendment very carefully and to ensure that what we want is not accidentally, inadvertently and unintentionally constrained by the Bill's wording.

Before I sit down, I urge the Minister to resist amendment No. 4, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for North Devon. It makes no sense to impose a requirement on the new self-regulatory body to report to the Secretary of State and Parliament.

Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

If my hon. Friend reads the amendment, he will find that that is not a requirement. The amendment states that it should happen if

''the procedures . . . offer adequate opportunities . . . as appropriate.''

There is no requirement in the amendment.

Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's assurance that the amendment is quite not as bad as it might be, but I still think that it is pretty bad. We are providing an opportunity for Ofcom to report to Parliament. Although a self-regulatory regime for broadcast advertising would be a welcome development, I understand that it would still be within Ofcom's gift to take back any duties, powers and functions that it sees fit. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on amendment No. 204 and resist amendment No. 4.

Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)

I shall be brief. The hon. Member for Ryedale talked about self-regulation. The Joint Committee recommendation that the Government accepted was about accredited self-regulation. There is a fundamental difference between the two. The powers rest with the regulator but the regulator actually uses the powers in self-regulation through codes of practice. The crucial difference is that the powers exist but the fact that they are exercised in a self-regulatory way makes them effective. Simply leaving things to self-regulation without such backstop powers gives rise to the problems about which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland talked. Accreditation is crucial, and transparency and accountability also matter.

Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)

I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 128 and 50 and to new clauses 2 to 4 and 7. They are complementary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said but take things further. We know that all involved in this vital industry have huge concerns about the regulatory burden and how it will be reviewed. I suspect that we all want a light touch and as little regulation as appropriate, and the amendments reflect that.

The purpose of amendment No. 128 is to introduce a requirement to consult the industry on the regulatory functions that should be subject to review. I would have thought that that was eminently sensible. Ofcom's requirement to review the regulatory burdens that it places on the communications industry has been welcomed throughout the industry, as has talk of effective self-regulation. It is only sensible that the regulator makes a regular examination of its regulation to determine which aspects are outdated or unnecessary. We want to see whether we can improve those provisions and to include improvements in the Bill.

It is all too easy for a regulator to become detached from the industry that it regulates. New technologies and new developments will always call existing regulation into question, which was the experience with Oftel, the Independent Television Commission and others. An example of that is the emergence of interactive television, which developed rapidly beyond anything envisaged in the ITC's codes. Amendment No. 128 would insert a requirement that Ofcom should seek the views of service providers on the aspects of regulation that they believe should be reviewed. That neither undermines Ofcom nor requires Ofcom to act on the industry's views. However, it will be a useful mechanism and allow the industry to give its input into a regular review of Ofcom's regulatory functions. The

amendment is not offensive, and would help both Ofcom and the Government.

Amendment No. 50 is similar, but approaches the matter from a slightly different angle. As part of the regulatory review process, Ofcom will need to consult businesses with commercial experience of the particular markets under review. The size, variety and pace of development of converged markets will mean that often only the increasingly wide variety of businesses—both suppliers and users—working within the markets will have an appropriate understanding of when regulatory adjustment is required and in what way. Consulting with businesses will be particularly important when deciding when to move from ex-ante to ex-post regulation, a core issue when supporting the process of convergence.

Looking at the matter from a different perspective is the competition board proposed under new clauses 2 and 3. I am sure that Ofcom will be staffed by people who are highly qualified to make decisions about the required regulation, size, variety and closer development of converged markets, but because of that closer development, often only those working in the markets will know when regulatory reform is required and on what basis. To remain productive, Ofcom should listen to business on a more systematic basis than is currently provided for under the Bill. The effectiveness of the Bill will have a far-reaching impact on business competitiveness, which is why it is important that the business community has a proper statutory voice that is guaranteed in primary legislation.

Let us consider another angle; instead of a competition board, an economic panel could be established. It will be a particular challenge for Ofcom's board to balance the different demands on its time and resources. The consumer panel and the content board will go some way to ensure that their respected spheres of responsibility are regulated sensibly and consistently. They will act as champions for their areas. At present, however, there is no equivalent body within Oftel, for example, to deal with economic regulation and the amendment would correct that position in respect of Ofcom. Why should such a body be needed? I met some members of the Ofcom board last night at the Radio Authority's reception and very sensible they were, too.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

That is reassuring.

Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)

I was being polite. I was slightly concerned about the political leaning of one or two of them, but never mind.

The natural tendency of the Ofcom board is to focus on supposedly the more interesting area, the regulation of television content. The media have already commented on that. It would be useful for economic regulation to have its own champion. It is also worth noting that Ofcom will exercise concurrent jurisdiction under the Competition Act with the Office of Fair Trading. The economic panel's role should encompass guidance on how that jurisdiction relates to the sector's specific powers under the Bill.

At present, it is unclear how the main Ofcom board will address issues of decency and taste, on the one

hand—that will be interesting for the media—and, on the other hand, complex issues such as forward-looking, incremental cost modelling and price setting for the communications networks. The economic panel proposed under the new clause would fulfil a vital function for our beleaguered telecoms sector. Telecoms is a much bigger industry than the television sector. It is a highly capital-intensive business and, to invest, companies need to access global capital markets. The ability to raise capital, and the cost of doing so, is a constraint on the ability of companies to invest.

Both the availability and cost of capital are determined by the riskiness of the industry in which a company does business. By international standards, the United Kingdom regulatory environment has been seen historically as a relatively low-risk base for telecoms companies. By taking a consistent, intellectually rigorous approach to economic regulation within the communications sector, the economic panel would deliver much-needed certainty for such businesses.

I turn finally to new clause 7, which, again, is about industrial consultation. It is another way to ensure proper consultation with the industry that the regulations will affect. It concerns advice about the consequences of regulation. The Committee will have seen that all the amendments and new clauses are designed with one overriding purpose in mind. Consumers already have their panel—their voice—but industry does not. One has to ask where does the Department of Trade and Industry stand in the argument?

Mr John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland, Labour)

Should there be a place for employees? The hon. Gentleman has talked about consumers and industry, but not about employees.

Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)

I am happy to answer that point. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not see the issue in terms of a division between employees and management, but in terms of all those who are involved in industry. I hope that every part of the industry takes account of employees' views, whether of the senior managing director or of the lowliest person in a company who has just joined as a teaboy at 16 or 17. However, I am interested to see old Labour rear its ugly head.

How is the DTI standing up for this important industrial sector; those creators of wealth? One might ask, ''Where is the DTI Minister?'' I understand that he is in Japan. Well, that is fine; I am sure that he has important business there. However, the DTI should be making its voice heard on the protection of important industrial sectors.

The value of broadcasting, and particularly of telecommunications, is immense and growing. That sector has huge economic importance. For example, hon. Members will be aware that the mobile telephone companies produced £22 billion in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent auction. We are sure that Ofcom will try to act wisely. One, or all, of the amendments—or even a similar amendment—would

give to this vital industrial sector a genuine voice regarding its regulation. Such a provision should be included in the Bill and we expect the Government to recognise that.

Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The group of amendments covers different aspects of the topic of regulatory burdens. I endorse lead amendment No. 204. I imagine that the Government would argue that the purpose of clause 6(2) is to allow Ofcom to consider the extent to which the objectives and functions of self-regulation are currently being met and to consider where it might withdraw from future regulatory burdens. That would, by implication, leave room for self-regulation to develop. However, that is not accurately represented in the Bill.

The purpose is to permit the growth of self-regulation as a way to meet Ofcom's objectives. That would be difficult if the alternative to Ofcom fulfilling its functions directly were self-regulation, under which Ofcom would withdraw and leave the way open for that to happen. That would be to miss the purpose of the clause, which, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East rightly suggested, is intended to promote a range of regulatory mechanisms, including co-regulation—what the Joint Committee called accredited self-regulation—which is the maintenance of a regulatory function in the hands of the industry with backstop powers for Ofcom. Amendment No. 204 would assist with that and amendment No. 4 would also help.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby does not agree. I received a fax last night from the Advertising Association, which disliked the amendment for the same incorrect reason. That body had not read the amendment carefully enough and did not realise that it would not reimpose self-regulation requirements. In fact, the amendment reflected the desire of those who drafted it to show the desirability of co-regulatory outcomes, for those who are engaged in self-regulation are not necessarily free from the obligations to transparency and accountability.

If we could escape from regulation—because self-regulation in the industry is so effective that reporting through Ofcom to the Secretary of State or Parliament is not required—that would be fine, and a genuine self-regulatory outcome. However, we are not looking at that alone. I hope that we are also studying where we can expand the frontiers of self-regulation to include more of the functions that would normally be conducted by the regulator. We hope that Ofcom will do more in this respect than has so far been the case.

Broadcast advertising is only one example. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby does not think that we are talking about only a code of broadcast advertising; we are addressing a wide range of functions. In some instances, there may be every reason for there to be transparency and accountability back to the House, or to whatever mechanism is set up in this House. That is precisely what the Joint Committee suggested, in paragraph 71, should be one of the criteria that is reflected. That is reflected directly into clause 6(3). Clause 6 (3) (a) and (b) seem to relate directly to recommendations from

the Joint Committee, but that Committee went on to refer to the transparency and accountability of a self-regulatory body, including the requirement to publish a full annual report on its activities so that is available to Parliament.

I do not want to be as prescriptive as that about how that transparency or accountability might work, so the structure of amendment No. 4 permits Ofcom to see what opportunities would be appropriate for accountability through Ofcom to the Secretary of State and Parliament. I should be interested to hear from the Minister to what extent the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 presents a difficulty in respect of this line of accountability back to Parliament, and if it does present a difficulty other routes may be available. For example, if Ofcom wishes to do so, there is no reason in principle why it could not seek a regulatory reform order to achieve the same objective. That could then incorporate those mechanisms of accountability that we require. Therefore, I urge Committee members to support amendment No. 4.

The Joint Committee looked at other material relating to economic boards, competition boards, economic panels and so forth. It saw no rationale for the creation of an economic or competition board as such. The reason for that is straightforward. The Minister was wrong to suggest that Ofcom is not primarily an economic regulator; it is primarily an economic regulator. If one alienates from the board of Ofcom its function in relation to competition or economic analysis and regulation, I wonder what Ofcom would have left to do.

The content board is established because of the experience of having to deal with a range of those issues and the time and the trouble that it consumes.

Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend not think that, in the discussions that will go on in Ofcom about regulatory review, the voice of active and practical industrial experience should be heard? Things rapidly change in this fast moving industry. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that Ofcom is well briefed—that it is forced to be so—about what is happening in industry. There is no reason why it should have to act on such information, but it must know what is happening.

Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is urging Ofcom to do the thing that Ofcom is free to do anyway; to establish an economic panel. Some of the other new clauses in relation to a competition board or an economic board seem to be alienating from Ofcom's board its primary responsibility. It is perverse to build that into the statutory structure. Ofcom will have to have regard to its impact on industry, but why is the consumer panel in the legislation? That is precisely what that is intended to achieve. If Ofcom feels that that is not sufficient, it has the discretion to add to it under the Office of Communications Act 2002.

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

We want Ofcom to be an example of good regulatory practice. Clause 6 is one of the clauses that enshrines that principle. It puts in place a mechanism to ensure that regulatory burdens are

kept to a minimum, and that that minimum is the one that is necessary to achieve Ofcom's objectives. The mechanism is straightforward and transparent. Subsection (1) requires Ofcom to review its activities in order to ensure that it is not imposing or maintaining unnecessary regulations. Under subsections (4) to (6), it must publish a series of statements setting out how it intends to secure that requirement over successive 12-month periods. Subsection (8) gives Ofcom the flexibility to revise the statement if necessary.

Amendment No. 128 would require Ofcom to seek the views of industry on which of its functions should be reviewed. I am wary of putting in the Bill a specific reference to industry but not to other groups, including consumers, who are likely to have views. Ofcom needs to be inclusive and receptive to the needs of all of its stakeholders.

Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)

I understand what the Minister is saying, but surely the industry needs to be consulted in some way. That may happen anyway; we are trying to make that consultation a requirement in the Bill. There is a consumer panel, so why should not there be a statutory requirement to ensure that industry is consulted? In particular, the DTI—which is, allegedly, a champion of business and is co-sponsor of the Bill—is not, in this instance, championing business at all.

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

I cannot speak for the DTI, but having served—as they sometimes term it—three and a half years at that Department, I am not sure that it does anything other than sponsor industry sectors. However, I am thinking hard and am sure that I will come up with something else.

Amendment No. 128 would require Ofcom to seek the views of industry. I certainly expect that Ofcom will do that. As hon. Members acknowledged, we have strengthened the role of self-regulation when it is not specifically provided for elsewhere in the Bill. The Bill puts in place a framework that will enable Ofcom to use self-regulatory approaches in carrying out its functions.

It is important that statutory regulation is not Ofcom's sole option, particularly as self-regulation can be an effective alternative. I more than take the point of amendment No. 204, which would allow Ofcom to consider not only whether self-regulation is already securing or furthering duties, but also whether it may do so still further. The amendment is sensible and would enable Ofcom to look to the future, as well as to the present. However, I am advised by parliamentary counsel that the use of the words ''may be'' to mean that something is likely to happen in the future is not as clear as it might be. There are lots of very wealthy lawyers in the world, and we must be careful about such things.

I am happy to accept the amendment in principle and, if the hon. Member for Ryedale withdraws it, I shall return with an appropriate amendment at a later stage.

Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)

I am very grateful to the Minister. I said that the matter was a technical one and that the wording might not be entirely accurate. Given how

such things used to work in Standing Committee, we probably would have sought to change ''may'' to ''shall'' had ''may be'' been in the Bill.

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

Yes, I remember those days. I am not sure whether I regret their passing.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford, Conservative)

I am sorry to divert the Minister, but he made an interesting point about the fact that when self-regulation is possible, it is preferable to statutory regulation. There have been one or two rumours to the contrary. A good example of self-regulation is the Press Complaints Commission. Will the Minister make it absolutely clear that there is no question that Ofcom or any other body might seek to replace self-regulation with statutory regulation?

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

I am not a man to indulge in rumours.

Mr Peter Atkinson (Hexham, Conservative)

I think also that that matter is a bit beyond the scope of the amendments.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Atkinson. [Laughter.]

Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)

The Minister is off that particular hook.

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

Quite.

Subsection (3) sets out two criteria that Ofcom will need to consider whether the self-regulatory body is sufficiently independent from industry, and whether it is adequately funded. I know that the hon. Member for Ryedale will have no argument with that. Ofcom can, of course, also consider any other criteria.

To be able to deliver full account if its activities, Ofcom would need to report on any self-regulatory activities. Accountability of the self-regulatory body is therefore implicit.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.