Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Fowler (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 26 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, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, referred to the report by the Select Committee on Communications, The British Film and Television Industries—Decline or Opportunity?. I say, slightly counter to what the noble Lord has just said, that a great deal of the evidence that came to us from those industries showed their deep concern about what was happening on file sharing. This cannot be cast to one side—it involves not just the film industry but many other areas as well. There is legitimate concern out there. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, asked me to state that. Our attitude is that, because of that concern, we supported the Government’s decision to introduce regulatory measures to combat unlawful peer-to-peer file sharing. We also went on to say—this was raised earlier this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in one of his many interventions—that we welcomed the decision of some companies in the audio-visual industries to change their business models in order to meet the legitimate demands of their customers while generating returns on their investment in content. Those two things went side by side; I reiterate that today. The music industry, for example, has taken those words to heart. This House has to face the fact that threats change and develop and that new threats come along. We cannot simply close our eyes to that and say that there is no way of combating that. The UK music industry supports Clause 17; we cannot ignore that either. I heard about the ability we might have to introduce new primary legislation. We need to be careful about that. Camcording crime is a new threat—the threat of illegal camcording. There is no question about the illegality of that. There is no question that people are exercising their freedom in some peculiar way. It is organised crime. People are going into cinemas, making recordings and selling those recordings. They even have tripods and are highly organised. I have not yet, though I undoubtedly will, heard any serious defence in this debate of that practice. At the moment, however, the legal position is anything but clear. I asked the Minister what the Government’s attitude was. He said they were taking advice but I shall tell him. The Government’s attitude is that they are waiting for a test case on the Fraud Act 2006. This questions the argument that new primary legislation can be brought in quickly and be put into effect. Certainly no new primary legislation has been put into effect here. Perhaps the Government do not consider that to be very important, but again I have to say that the film industry regards it as extraordinarily important. There is still a lot in the clause to be debated before we get to Report and to serious decisions on it, but we have to face the fact that there is a continuing and changing threat to some of the most important creative industries in this country. We must recognise that because our creative industries are some of the most successful in the world and we want them to develop. That is the whole purpose, surely, of what we are trying to do in this area; we are trying to help those industries. At the moment, the balance in this debate—I have felt this for several days now—is being tipped entirely the other way and we are giving all kinds of succour to those who do illegal things. I hear what people say about that and I respect it, but it would be very unwise of this House to give the message that it condones illegal actions in any way. I in no way, shape or form throw to one side the important constitutional arguments of my noble friend on the opposition Front Bench. They are important arguments and we need to consider them very carefully. I rather doubt whether swift new primary legislation at every stage will be the answer, but we must find a sensible practical solution that will satisfy not only the public and public rights but the industries. I say again that the film industry and the music industry—and television, for that matter—are vital for this country, and we should support them. If we find defects in the clause, okay, let us look at them, but we also need to find a solution or we will let those industries down.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c1352-3 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Codes of practice Costs Computer networks Copyright Communication ICT EU law Film Libraries Internet Higher education Electronic commerce Mobile phones Ofcom Music Radio frequencies Registration Universities Technology Video piracy Subscriptions Internet service providers Statutory instruments
Legislation
Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk