---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, of course the Government do not disagree with the sentiments expressed so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Whitty, and preceded by all other noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. We are, of course, committed to the fact that we need to promote the use of internet access services to access copyright material offered by copyright owners via legitimate channels. We have always made that clear. I am not sure that constant repetition throughout the Bill does a great deal of good in these terms. We have always made it clear that there will be a three-pronged attack. The enforcement actions in the Bill back up—rather than exclude—moves to develop the commercial markets. We all see the advantages that can derive from exploitation of the new technology available to us. In addition, we will educate consumers about the value of copyright so that there is a wider appreciation in society of that situation. However, saying that we are all in agreement on that—and the Government agree with every sentiment that has been expressed positively in this debate—does not mean that it is appropriately expressed in this amendment. Would this amendment be useful in this context? Indeed, would it be reasonable? Let us be absolutely clear. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, tabled the amendment; he is not, I hope, underestimating the fact that there are considerable additional costs in the preparation of Ofcom’s annual report. We are, therefore, engaged in a cost-benefit analysis of whether the benefits which the noble Lord suggested with regard to the amendment would be advanced by the amendment and would justify the inevitable costs involved. What are we dealing with in this part of the Bill? We are tackling the online infringement of copyright. Therefore, it seems somewhat inappropriate that we should be involved in such a discussion on this proposal. Of course, the level of legitimate traffic is interesting—I do not deny that—but is it crucial to the objective that the Government are seeking with the Bill? Under subsection (4)(b) of the proposed new Section 124F of the Communications Act, Ofcom already has an obligation to report to the Secretary of State on the steps, ""taken by copyright owners to enable subscribers to obtain lawful access to copyright works"." Therefore, we have the constructive dimension with regard to copyright. Requiring Ofcom to go even further and assess the current levels of such legitimate activity would scarcely bring additional benefits in comparison with the obvious costs involved in making this significant imposition on Ofcom in the preparation of its annual report. I assure the Committee that the Government are, of course, concerned that we should promote exactly the issues which the noble Lord, Lord Howard, first raised and the benefits from ensuring that we increase the activity and the legitimate traffic in every way that we can, and particularly that we ensure that our fellow citizens do not fall foul of the law when they do not intend to. However, I ask the noble Lord, is the cost worth it?