Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 12 January 2010. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Digital Economy Bill [HL].


Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, as the Minister said, the debate that we have just had represented all dimensions, and this amendment follows on from that very neatly. I shall not indulge in a Second Reading speech, as both my noble friends Lord Razzall and Lady Bonham-Carter made our approach to the Bill very clear. Of course we recognise the issues surrounding internet downloads. We recognise that problem and the need to provide better enforcement of copyright to protect creators. If we do not protect copyright, we shall not have a creative economy. However, as the Minister said, we have to get the balance right. This amendment provides a general framework, an umbrella if you like, for getting the balance right. All sorts of amendments will arise before we have finished with these clauses, but the areas where we want to see changes—I have no doubt that my noble friend Lady Miller agrees with me on this—concern the quality of evidence that is presented, the burden of proof and the necessity of ensuring that sanctions are proportionate, codes are clear, costs are fairly apportioned, thresholds are proportionate, and that the overall scheme of things is not oppressive to those who it is claimed are in breach of copyright. I am sure that we will discuss these aspects in further Committee sittings. We believe that the language of the new EU telecoms directive is important in these areas. I bow to the superior knowledge of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, in this regard. Indeed, his speech was largely devoted to the language of the new telecoms directive, which specifies that a balance must be struck between the different interests and rights. That seems utterly apposite to these provisions. We may express a range of different views, but I was struck by the fact that nobody denied that the interests of creators had to be protected. On the other hand, I do not think that anybody in this Chamber believes that we need a draconian, disproportionate way of enforcing those rights. I am sure that many of these aspects will be dealt with by the end of the Committee stage. I believe that we can usefully use this framework in that process. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c434 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Codes of practice Broadcasting Computer networks Copyright Digital broadcasting Broadband Sky Communication Fees and charges ICT EU law Infrastructure Emergencies Internet Ofcom Radio frequencies Telecommunications Security Satellite communications Subscriptions Television licences
Legislation
Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk