I am not sure that the Minister's assurances take us further forward. He says, for example, that the regime applied to cable and satellite operators is the same, because if a cable operator were to provide its own channel, it would be subject to those powers, whereas a satellite operator that did not provide channels would not. That theoretical argument is undoubtedly correct, but the practical effect is that, in the present market, cable operators have to be outside the arrangements and satellite operators do not. The Bill's provisions appear to be discriminatory.

Although the Bill states that Ofcom should use its Competition Act powers in preference to its Broadcasting Act powers, it is left to Ofcom to decide whether that is the more appropriate way to proceed. That an appeal to the tribunal is available in respect of competition purposes is something, but the Minister appears to concede that Ofcom may use its Broadcasting Act powers for purposes that do not relate to, for example, content regulation, taste and decency, or standards, which come under part 3, but that do relate to economic matters, even though they do not necessarily come under the competition requirements of clause 3(1).

I have a feeling that the Minister is confirming my fear that it is at least possible that Ofcom may interpret its general duties to impose conditions using its Broadcasting Act powers, which most people would see as economic regulation rather than content regulation. Even though the Minister has not reassured me, I shall not press for a Division, as I suspect that the subject will be debated again later in our proceedings. We are to debate some procedural safeguards that might help under amendments to clause 305 that stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 304 ordered to stand part of the Bill.