I beg to move amendment No. 370, in page 115, line 4, at end insert—

"(ca) modifying networking arrangements (within the meaning given by section 39(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c.42));".

The Broadcasting Act 1990 contains a power, in section 193, for the Secretary of State to amend networking agreements by order as a result of a merger or a monopoly report under the Fair Trading Act. The Broadcasting Act requires the regional channel 3 licensees to enter into networking arrangements for the purpose of enabling regional channel 3 services, taken as a whole, to be a nationwide system able to compete effectively with other television programme licences provided in the UK. An application for a channel 3 licence must be accompanied by networking arrangement proposals. When an application has been duly made, the Independent Television Commission, the economic regulator for the sector, must send details of the networking proposals to the OFT and must not award a licence unless it appears to the ITC that the proposals are satisfactory.

The order-making power in section 193 of the Broadcasting Act is similar to the order-making power given to the Secretary of State to amend licences in other regulatory regimes as a result of an FTA report. Schedule 8 to this Bill contains amendments to other sectoral legislation to extend the order-making power to allow the OFT and the Competition Commission to modify licences and to allow that order-making power to be triggered following a report under the powers in the Enterprise Bill, rather than an FTA report. Amendment No. 375 brings the Broadcasting Act regime, which deals with the networking arrangements, into line with the other regulatory statutes. That is because, under the new regime, the OFT and the Competition Commission will be the decision makers in most cases.

Amendments Nos. 370 and 371 require both the Secretary of State and the Competition Commission to have regard to the duties of the ITC, as stated in section 2(2) of the Broadcasting Act, when considering amending networking arrangements as a remedy in a market investigation. Parliament has given the ITC those duties, and it is right that the Competition Commission and the Secretary of State, when considering modifying networking arrangements, should act with regard to them. Amendment No. 372 amends the definition of "sectoral regulator" in clause 160 to include the ITC.

These sensible amendments will bring the provisions in the Broadcasting Act into line with the new regime. I commend them to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move amendment No. 314, in page 115, line 19, at end insert—

"(k) modifying the conditions of a licence granted under the Wireless Telegraphy Act.".

I rise only to give the Under-Secretary the opportunity to intervene on me and confirm my growing suspicion: amendment No. 314 may already have been covered by one of the Government amendments that we have just considered.

"modifying the conditions of a licence granted under the Wireless Telegraphy Act."

That was a spectacular own goal. I shall plough on by saying that the role of the Radiocommunications Agency, and the licences that it issues under the Wireless Telegraphy Act and the associated regulations, are covered neither by the Bill nor by the Government amendments, as the Under-Secretary has been good enough to confirm. I think that the CBI raised the point that the issue is very important in many markets that use electronic information technology. It is not entirely clear why it should not be included in the Bill, but clearly the Under-Secretary has given the matter deep thought, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 371, in page 115, line 31, at end insert—

`(ca) in relation to any networking arrangements (within the meaning given by section 39(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c.42)), the duties of the Independent Television Commission under section 2(2) of that Act;'

`(fa) the Independent Television Commission;'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

Again, this is a short point. It is not clear to us why subsection (9) says that the commission

"shall not have regard ... to any relevant customer benefits".

Again, I can help the hon. Gentleman. Subsection (9) ensures that the commission must take into account only those issues that fall within the scope of the relevant statutory functions and not the standard set of customer benefits. The amendment gives the Competition Commission discretion to consider customer benefits alongside its duty to take account of regulator statutory functions. A standard set of customer benefits is set out in clause 126.

The benefits to consumers are defined in terms of lower prices, higher quality and greater choice of goods and services, and are covered in some form in most regulator statutory duties. For example, Oftel has a duty to promote the interests of consumers in respect of price, quality and choice, and a duty to promote research into the development and use of new techniques. Parliament has given the regulator its statutory duties, which must be taken into account when the regulator performs its function. It is right that the Competition Commission should have regard to those duties when considering relevant action.

However, although all the regulators have a duty to promote or facilitate effective competition, certain regulators do not have an explicit duty covering each of the standard set of customer benefits. For example, Ofwat has no specific duty relating to innovation. It is likely that in practice the regulator would consider the benefits of innovation in his duty to promote or facilitate effective competition, but it is not always explicit in the statutory functions.

The Competition Commission has discretion to take into account the standard set of customer benefits in market investigations in "normal" sectors. In regulated sectors, the discretion to consider customer benefits is replaced by a duty to take into account regulator statutory functions. However, if it is uncertain whether the standard set of customer benefits is included in the regulator statutory functions, we agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to revisit the wording in subsection (9) to clarify that. Therefore, I agree to consider his amendment further. In the light of my remarks, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw the amendment.

I am most grateful to the Under-Secretary and I look forward to seeing her amendments later. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 160, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.