BORROWING LIMIT FOR C4C (Hansard, 14 July 2003)

§ Mr. Timms
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 40, 41, 146, 195, 197, 199, 201, 202, 204, 207 to 214, 224, 225, 227 to 230, 264, 265, 274, 276 and 277.

§ Mr. Timms
The amendments are not related, but they are all technical. Lords amendment No. 39 clarifies 85 that the power to set a borrowing limit for the Channel 4 Corporation is exercisable by order by adding the words "by order" to subsection (1) of clause 199. A number of drafting and minor amendments of various kinds follow.
Lords amendment No. 195 corrects the drafting of clause 386(2)(f) so that it uses the term an international obligation of the United Kingdom", which is defined in clause 398, instead of simply referring to "an international obligation", which is not. Lords amendment No. 199 corrects an error in clause 398.
The Bill provides for television multiplex services or general multiplex services to carry digital radio services. Consequential amendments were necessary to ensure that the penalties for contraventions relating to digital radio programme services take that into account. Some of the provisions necessary to achieve that were already in the Bill, but other such amendments needed to be made. That is the purpose of amendments Nos. 207 to 214, 224, 225, 227 to 230 and 274. They also make some minor corrections to related amendments to schedules 13 and 15.
Amendments Nos. 264 and 265 are designed to clarify the effect of certain transitional provisions relating to newspaper mergers set out in schedule 18. Lords amendment No. 264 ensures that the powers to make orders containing transitional and consequential amendments set out in subsections (2) and (3) of section 276 and section 277 of the Enterprise Act 2002 apply to transfers of newspapers or newspaper assets that take place prior to the newspaper merger provisions in the Bill coming into force. Lords amendment No. 265 clarifies that clause 395 does not apply to the order-making power under section 91(6)(a) of the Enterprise Act. That order-making power remains governed by the general provisions that apply to order-making powers in part 3 of that Act—in section 124.
Lords amendment No. 276 corrects a minor drafting error in the repeal schedule. It is consequent on an amendment made on Report and reinstates an omitted conjunction. Lords amendment No. 277 makes a minor amendment to the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 to amend the definition of "programme services" used in that Act to take account of changes introduced by the Bill to the provisions on which that definition relies.
Lords amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are drafting amendments that replace the references to television broadcasting services in clause 202(4) with references to television programme services. That aligns subsection (4) with the remainder of the clause. Lords amendment No. 146 is a minor amendment to correct a drafting error. Lords amendment No. 199 aligns the definition of consumers in clause 398 with the definition of customers in the clause by inserting the words "or in connection with" in subsection (5)(a). Lords amendment No. 197 corrects an error in clause 396(6). The change in wording will require Ofcom to allow a period of not less than one month for representations to be made on any proposal by it to make an order or regulations.
Lords amendment No. 201 is a minor drafting correction. Lords amendment No. 202 has been drafted to allow any order under clause 403 bringing provisions of the Bill into force to make transitional or transitory provisions in that connection. That will give greater 86 flexibility to ensure a smooth transition from the existing law to the new legal regime in the Bill. Lords amendment No. 204 is also a minor amendment that makes specific provision for Scottish partnerships in relation to the contempt of court provisions in schedule 11. I commend the amendments to the House.

§ Michael Fabricant
As the Minister has said, these are on the whole minor amendments that merely restructure the Bill to make it more readable and legal. However, it is interesting to note that when the Bill was considered in this House, we were told, in effect, that it was perfect. Every time the Opposition tabled amendments to try to make the Bill more appropriate or legally viable, we were told that they were not necessary. I am therefore pleased that the Minister has accepted that, like so many Bills that Governments of all parties introduce, this perfect Bill required amendment.
I wanted particularly to ask the Minister a question about Lords amendment No. 39. It is a simple but interesting amendment, as it amends clause 199 by inserting "by order". Clause 199 is not so short. As the Minister said, it deals with the borrowing limits for C4C. Does the provision apply only to C4C, or does it apply also to S4C, and is a similar amendment necessary as a result? Both channels operate within a similar structure, as they are owned by the former Independent Broadcasting Authority, which is now the Independent Television Commission.
As the Minister said, the order refers to the limit on borrowing. Subsection (2) refers to the sum that the outstanding borrowing must not at any time exceed, but does it also provide for any regulation of the interest rates payable by C4C? Is there any obligation on C4C to seek alternative sources of funding to ensure that the moneys are not borrowed at a rate that it would be difficult for C4C to repay without damaging programming? Finally, will the Minister explain precisely where at present C4C receives its funding from when it borrows as opposed to the funding that it receives from advertising revenue?

§ Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal)
Will my hon. Friend explain why he has not drawn attention to subsection (6), which requires that the Treasury's consent is required for an order to be made under this part of the Bill? Can he conceive of any circumstances in which any Secretary of State could make an order without the Treasury knowing and giving its consent? Does he know of any other occasion where it is necessary to make this provision? After all, it is one of those open secrets that the House knows but to which it does not usually refer.

§ Michael Fabricant
My right hon. Friend has raised an interesting and important point. I am tempted to speculate whether it is the power of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer that has managed to produce subsection (6), which provides specifically that the Treasury's consent is required for the making of the order. The question needs to be addressed by the Minister. Does the hon. Gentleman have any explanation for why "order" is referred in subsection (2) but not in subsection (1), except by the amendment that is before us? Is this merely a correction, or is there a subplot, as alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)?
87 These are important questions that need to be answered. In future years, when we deal with other issues that arise from our consideration of Bills, will the Minister accept that Bills are not always perfect in their drafting, and that sometimes the Opposition will come up with proposals that perhaps the Minister could accept - rather than us having to wait until this late stage of consideration for his acceptance?

§ Mr. Timms
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the attention of the House to Lords amendment No. 39 and clause 199, and for the searching questions that he has raised about the contents of the clause. We never said in Committee that the Bill was perfect. We said that it was a good Bill, but he will recall, as a member of the Committee, that there were several occasions in Committee when we accepted amendments tabled by his hon. Friends. We certainly never claimed that the Bill was without flaw.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is not any subplot as he feared. The reason for the amendment is to add to subsection (1) at the end "by order", so that that leads on to the references to the order in subsection (2). The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) asked about the requirement for the Treasury to give its consent. That is a common feature of many pieces of legislation, including those for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible in the past. The requirement in the Bill is not an innovation.
The House can be reassured that this is an unexceptional amendment. It is designed to clarify—perhaps slightly to correct—the form of words in the Bill.