---

Lord Gordon of Strathblane moved Amendment No. 82:

Page 23, line 6, after "providing" insert "telecommunications,"

The noble Lord said: The whole purpose of the Bill is to bring together the regulation of broadcasting, telecommunications and some ancillary activities. It therefore seems strange to make provision in Clause 24(1) for training for broadcasting but say nothing about telecommunications. My amendment seeks to remedy that omission by the simple insertion of the word "telecommunications". Other amendments in the group are more specific with regard to other matters. I am not worried about that. I invite the Government either to accept the amendment or, if they feel that it is not sufficiently all- encompassing, to introduce their own amendment which is. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 83 and 84, which stand in my name. I wish to speak also in support of Amendments Nos. 85 and 86. My amendments are very similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, except that they seek to insert the words "telecommunications, internet". We consider that that term is all the more encompassing in terms of what the Bill should cover.

We all recognise the importance of the development of opportunities for training and retraining, particularly for employment in an industry as fast moving as broadcasting. I feel, however, that training and retraining in telecommunications skills and the

15 May 2003 : Column 389

Internet are as important as training in television and radio services. We should like to know, therefore, whether the Government consider that training in those broader areas is relevant.

There is another purpose behind the amendments, however. How will Ofcom decide what form of training is appropriate in such a diverse industry? Will the Minister explain how Ofcom will be in a position to decide what constitutes an appropriate level of training at any one time? Training strategies can be very specific to individual companies depending on the level and type of activity being undertaken and will depend to a large extent on a range of detailed factors which may be known only to the company concerned.

There are now literally hundreds of channels in the broadcasting sector, including many specialised services dedicated to music, sport, ethnic minorities and so on, and new forms of broadcasting, including pay-per-view and interactive offerings. Is it the expectation that Ofcom will know best how to allocate the resources of the relevant companies for their training needs and for the training needs of other very different players in the industry? Would Ofcom be empowered to dictate the training budget of, say, the shopping channel, QVC, or the documentary broadcaster, Discovery, or to transfer resources from one to another, for example, to fund training for other broadcasters' news or drama productions? We would appreciate some clarification from the Minister on that.

I turn to Amendment No. 85, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam, Lord McNally, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Hussey. We understand that the clause requires Ofcom, inter alia, to take all such steps as it considers appropriate for promoting equality of opportunity in relation to employment by those providing television and radio services and the training and retraining of persons for such employment. This reference to equality of opportunity refers to equality of opportunity between men and women and between persons of different racial groups. Subsections (6) and (7) would give the Secretary of State power to add any other form of equality of opportunity which he considers appropriate by affirmative resolution.

I have read the memorandum of the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, to be found in annex 6 of the report of the Joint Committee on the draft communications Bill which records that the department says that the power to extend the clause to other forms of equality is intended to allow the clause to be brought into line with general equality law if it should be extended in the future; for example, to age or religious discrimination. The House of Lords Select Committee found that explanation unconvincing, as do we on this side of the Committee.

At present, primary legislation would be required to extend equality law in the future. That legislation would and should have a clause making consequential amendments to previous Acts and one of those amendments would be an amendment to this clause

15 May 2003 : Column 390

extending its width so as to be consistent with that new legislation. If the primary legislation is passed extending equality law, it is almost inevitable that there will be a provision amending this clause which will stand or fall with that primary legislation.

I cannot envisage any problem with that course. The explanation given by the department is, we believe, wholly unconvincing. I ask myself why. I have always been impressed by the ability of the civil servants in the department. I have no doubt that they will agree with me that the explanation is unconvincing. I am drawn to the inescapable conclusion that there is another agenda here. We should like to know whether the Secretary of State has plans to extend general equality law by resolutions of both Houses rather than by primary legislation. Those are specific points which we should like the Minister to answer. In particular, what are the Government's intentions with regard to extending general equality law?

I turn to Amendment No. 86. I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in relation to backstop powers in respect of training. I refer specifically to support for the proposed new clause by Channel 4 which says that it welcomes,

"the amendment in the name of Lord Puttnam and others to give OFCOM backstop powers to impose a training levy on broadcasters".

I mention Channel 4 but a number of other stations have been in touch with us which very much support the amendment. Indeed, last night at the UK Film Council I was lucky enough to see a prescreening of the new film, "Nicholas Nickleby". That brought home to me the tremendous importance of skills and training in that field so that we can encourage more investment in this country's film industry. I refer to the calibre of the artists that we encourage. But we need to maintain that commitment to skills and training. We need resources and we need commitment from Ofcom.

There is strong support for the proposed new clause. Channel 4 says that in its view it enhances rather than constrains commercial as well as creative effectiveness. In an industry so completely dependent on talent for its long-term success the surest way to make Britain's communications industry the most dynamic and competitive in the world—the ambition expressed by the two sponsoring Secretaries of State in their joint introduction to the policy paper accompanying the draft Bill—is to give real teeth to training obligations. At present a minority of broadcasters, one of them being Channel 4, bear a hugely disproportionate share of the training costs for the whole industry.

We very much look forward to the Minister's response on the amendments.

Lord Carter: I tabled an amendment in the group. Amendment No. 270B deals with equal opportunities and the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. Clause 330(1) deals with equality of opportunity between "men and women" and,

"persons of different racial groups".

15 May 2003 : Column 391

That also picks up the wording of Clause 24. Clause 330(2) asks for the promotion of,

"the fair treatment of disabled persons".

Why the distinction between equal opportunity for men and women and persons of different racial groups, and only fair treatment for disabled persons? It would be helpful if we removed "fair treatment" and inserted "equality of opportunity", so that disabled people were on the same footing.

That seemed to deal with the problem, but I then looked at the earlier draft Bill. Here the mystery rather deepens. Clause 224(1) of the draft Bill has the same preamble as the present Bill, but it has four paragraphs. Paragraphs (a) and (b) deal with men and women and persons of different racial groups, as in the present Bill, but paragraphs (c) and (d) have disappeared from the present draft. Paragraph (c) reads,

"between disabled persons and persons who are not disabled".

Paragraph (d)—it is the first time that I have seen the construction—reads,

"between persons who have had disabilities and persons who are not disabled and have not had any disabilities".

Therefore, in the draft Bill, equality of opportunity for disabled people was on all fours with gender and ethnicity. The draft Bill also included a subsection (2) that called for the fair treatment of disabled persons. In the present draft, equality of opportunity has disappeared from the first subsection and we are left with only fair treatment.

There is an argument that "fair treatment" allows for positive discrimination. That may be so; one would wish to take advice on it. "Fair treatment" seems fairly subjective, whereas we all know what "equality of opportunity" means. It occurred to me to look at the draft Bill only yesterday, so I tabled an amendment this morning that is not on the Marshalled List. It will probably be reached next Thursday, not this afternoon, but it would restore to Clause 330(1) the words in the draft Bill.

The Minister has an easy solution that would save the time of the Committee. We could restore "equality of opportunity" for disabled people in subsection (1) and leave subsection (2) with "fair treatment". That was exactly the wording in the draft Bill, and would mean that disabled people would have both equality of opportunity and, if necessary, the positive discrimination used in the arguments about fair treatment.

---