---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, while I can agree with some of the sentiments expressed in the suggested new clause, I do not think that in practice it adds anything to the Bill. I listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Whitty. I can understand the use of a bit of hyperbole to make a case, but to say that we are moving straight into a protectionist regime and sanctions is a misconception and an unreasonable description of what we have spent many days discussing. We were adopting an educationist and gradualist approach. We are not doing anything threatening. We would send out a very modest advisory letter, which was exaggerated. As regards saying that we are moving into protectionist technical measures, we are not doing that. It would take a year before we would even consider them, which would be after an Ofcom report. As on many occasions, I plead for a more measured analysis of what we are trying to do. To address the noble Baroness, those letters are part of the educational campaign. I am afraid that I cannot follow the logic or rationale of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, who wants to take everyone to court now. I thought that we were moving away from that. He said that we do not need this and that we could just use the measures. Millions of people are engaging in peer-to-peer file sharing, as we have discussed on numerous occasions. We know that in many cases these people do it because they think that that is what we do on the internet. We know that there is a need for an educational process for those people, which is why we have adopted this gradualist approach. On several occasions, we have made it clear that the reason for this part of the Bill is to reduce significantly the level of online infringement of copyright, not just because widespread unlawful activity should not be condoned but, I should like to stress, because we see it as a vital ingredient in doing what my noble friend Lord Whitty wants; that is, to develop a flourishing and sustainable digital economy where people gain the fruits of their labours. My noble friend Lord Maxton also seemed to think that. As to whether streaming is legal, it depends on what it is used for. There can be legal and illegal examples of streaming. Where a streaming service is licensed by the rights owner, it is legal. Most iPlayer viewing is streaming. But unlicensed streaming will not be legal. I cannot pronounce on the services for which my noble friend is paying. Alongside enforcement, which properly remains at the heart of the responsibility of the owner of the copyright, has to be education, with which I agree, and the development of attractive legal alternatives. There are quite a few legal alternatives out there. It is not as though there are not any. We constantly talk about an environment in which there are no legal alternatives. It is just that the illegal alternative has become an attractive first option and changing that will take a bit of time and education. That is exactly why we will not move into sanctions early on. However, while the Government’s purpose is very clear, there is no need to include a new clause as proposed by the amendment. The clauses speak for themselves in terms of their effect, which includes elements within the progress reports produced by Ofcom that will track the efforts of copyright owners to ensure that they play their part in this. We are not expecting copyright owners to go down just one route, but also to develop the alternative. The proposed new clause would have no effect and we believe it to be unnecessary. As to the contribution from my noble friend Lord Puttnam, with whom I usually find myself in agreement, in an ideal world perhaps we would subject this Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny. But I can recall some of my noble friends and Ministers telling me that, even where we have had pre-legislative scrutiny, it has not stopped hundreds of amendments—as though there is a process of collective amnesia. I would not decry it because I can see the benefit of what my noble friend has suggested. Where perhaps I disagree slightly is the description that this process of scrutiny is a spatchcock. Of course, it will change. We have submitted dozens of our own amendments. Why? Because we are reflecting the genuine concerns of the House. However, that does not mean that the essential structure of the Bill and what it is trying to achieve will not emerge at the end of this process. With or without Clause 17, it still has a very important purpose. I see I have spurred my noble friend—