We're now onto the fourth part of the Bill, simply titled "Channel Four Television Corporation". Clauses 21 and 22 were to update Channel 4's remit.

Clause 21 : Functions of C4C in relation to media content. There was plenty to talk about when it came to the issue of Channel 4, which is, like the BBC, a public service broadcaster but, unlike the BBC, is commercially funded, not by the taxpayer. Lord Howard of Rising was worried that the new remit might downgrade the quality of C4C's output, because they're moving into areas beyond their single terrestrial channel. Lord Puttnam, deputy chairman of Channel 4, assured everyone that the clause is fine as it is with regards to C4C's output, giving the moving of educational output online as an example.

Lord Howard raised another question which, puzzlingly, didn't get a satisfactory answer. It may be normal for politicians to not answer questions directly in interviews, but this was very unusual to see it in the Lords. The question was very simple: the Bill, as drafted, says C4C must participate in "distribution [of films] by means of electronic communications networks". Lord Howard simply wanted to know if this meant it was "compulsory for Channel 4 to invest in streaming films over the internet", rather than being just an option. He was worried that they would be forced to stream other people's films over the internet, which might be bad for their budget. Lord Davies of Oldham replied that the section in question merely ensures that C4C "includes in its services films that reflect UK culture". He pointed to the "sheer weight of the economic, financial and, to a degree, cultural domination of the American industries. If I were addressing a French audience about the necessity of advancing French interests with regard to films, I would have nothing but universal applause".

Lord Howard (and myself) was not convinced by this. Lord Davies had made a nice reassurance, but it didn't answer the question: do they have to stream films online? He probed again. Lord Davies still repeated the same answer. Lord Howard became a little frustrated, and suggested he read Hansard afterwards. A very odd exchange. Perhaps Lord Howard should've been more direct? The Lords are often too wishy-washy in their questions, so they get wishy-washy answers.

Surprisingly, we had an amendment agreed to, and not from the government. Baroness Howe of Idlicote, while pronouncing 'genres' in an unusual way (I think she's forgetting it's an English word now), she suggested an amendment to ensure that C4C's output remains international in flavour, when it comes to things like Channel 4 News "widening the international news agenda". The BBC's charter apparently has the explicit aim to "bring the world to the UK", so she wanted the same from C4C. The government were happy with that, C4C were happy with it, so it passed.

Clause 21 passed - Amendment 231A agreed

Clause 22 : Monitoring and enforcing C4C’s media content duties. This clause wasn't actually debated, but after Clause 21, Lord De Mauley really wanted a new clause to limit the regulation of C4C by making them produce a report, instead of "yet another inexorable layer of bureaucracy" imposed by Clause 22. Nobody else seemed to agree with him and his party, but he tested the opinion of the Committee anyway, and lost by 143 to 65. The Tories' hopes dashed again.

Clause 22 passed - no amendments