After the section regarding Channel 4, we move onto the fifth section, entitled "Independent television services". So, that's ITV, then, amongst others.

Clause 23 : Determination of Channel 3 licence areas, Clause 24 : Initial expiry date for Channel 3 and 5 and public teletext licences and Clause 25 : Initial expiry date: consequential provision were not debated at all, as there were no amendments, so they were passed in an instant. Clearly they must've been a bit boring.

Clauses 23, 24, 25 passed - no amendments

Clause 26 : Report by OFCOM on public teletext service. Lord Howard of Rising just had a quick query regarding subtitles provided via teletext - he was concerned that turning off analogue teletext would also turn off the ability to get subtitles. Lord Young of Norwood Green made it very clear that "because subtitles are provided on the same platform as teletext on analogue, the public may assume that the existence of analogue subtitles relies on the continuing provision of teletext", but that the subtitles are provided by the channels themselves, not the teletext provider. So, even if there is no teletext, the channels must still provide subtitles. So, that answers that question, then.

Clause 26 passed - no amendments

Clause 27 : Power to remove OFCOM’s duty to secure provision of public teletext service was also not discussed at all. Jesus, we're rattling through this section. The government must've got something right, at last.

Clause 27 passed - no amendments

Clause 28 : Appointed providers of regional or local news. Well, this was where the big debate came. The first debate came from the fact that money not used from the BBC's licence fee would be used to fund the digital switchover, and money not used from that would be used to fund the new local news consortia. The Tories don't like the idea of public subsidy for any kind of news, partly because they think that it will affect impartiality, and partly because the news consortia should be able to stand on their own two feet, rather than being able to defeat rivals thanks to a government hand-out. My personal view on this is that local news needs this subsidy because the traditional profit-driven model isn't working now. Come to think of it, why should there be any local news if there is clearly no market for it?

Nevertheless, Lord Davies of Oldham reassured the Tories that there would be no "top-slicing" of the licence fee, first and foremost, though he's not sure exactly where the money will come from. He picked up on Lord Howard of Rising's suggestion that "we might be inhibiting radical new news concepts. I have an awful feeling that by radical we mean a British version of Fox". (Lord Howard came back with "I must say that [Lord Davies] loves to chase that fox"). On the subject of Fox, he made clear that the government's position is that "the independence of news broadcasters should be maintained, and public resources have a role to play in that". Having seen ITV and Sky's news output, I think there is no doubt in that for me.

Lord Lucas tabled an amendment which was accepted by the government. It was to prevent someone disqualified in the Broadcasting Act 1990 cannot be appointed a news provider under this clause. The government agreed with this, of course.

There was a bit of a probe regarding some ambiguity around Ofcom specifying the "form" and "character" of news content. Lord Howard's reason for concern was that "allowing the regulator to set the character and form of any news that the appointed person produces sounds rather Orwellian. Are we to be treated to Ofcom's version of events? Will the character of such news be slanted to look favourably on regulators, governments or anything else that the appointed person cares to think about?" Lord Davies agreed that Lord Howard's suggestion was "something sounding like "Ofcom news" - if ever I heard of something out of George Orwell, that would be it. But that is not our intention". He made it clear that "Ofcom is not to be involved in editorial decisions", and such a thing would not be allowed to happen.

Lord Puttnam and Lord Bragg came out in support of impartiality in news. Lord Puttnam quoted James Murdoch (son of Rupert), and Lord Bragg quoted a few other people. The general tone of their combined speech was that plurality of news output shouldn't occur at the expense of impartiality. Fox News was brought up again, and the suggestion that it is the most trusted name in American news is extremely worrying, and something that the UK wants to stay away from as much as possible. Lord Davies broadly agreed, remarking that "we all spend a great deal of time berating the weaknesses that are identified from time to time in our democratic practices... it is necessary to step back and recognise those things that we do well that are important in sustaining our democratic traditions". It seems to be agreed that TV news' impartiality must be maintained since "newspapers spend an awful lot of their time on comment", so they're pretty much a lost cause. If there is a suggestion that "television news is considered to be the most trusted of news sources by audiences, there is little doubt that it is thanks to the impartiality rule, which is why the Government are eager that that should continue".

Lord Howard once again complained about how public money (aimed at local TV news) could be used to fund newspapers, as that would be unfair to local rivals. Lord Davies reminded the House that since they're using public subsidy to support local news in the first place, then "the issue is not the plurality of newspapers but whether there is one there at all". He insisted that Lord Howard's amendment would limit the funding to television, which would be a step backwards as times change. Lord Howard, again, insisted that his question wasn't answered properly, but this time I think it was: the government's position is that funding will go to local news consortia, whether it includes newspapers, television or whatever. Limiting it to just TV would not help. Lord Howard was still not happy, but never mind.

Clause 28 passed - Amendment 233ZF agreed

Clause 29 : Broadcasting of programmes in Gaelic was a tiny clause which just removed a few bits from the Broadcasting Act 1990 relating to showing Gaelic language programmes in Scotland. Obviously, not a big debate, then.

Clause 29 passed - no amendments