| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Davies of Oldham: On the latter point, my Lords, editors pride themselves on being able to open up to the public a range of issues of national moment; when they are the issue of national moment, it is only right that they should be similarly exposed to public scrutiny-and, of course, the Press Complaints Commission has a role to play, in part, in that. Certainly the commission would contend that it does a great deal of good work by stealth-independent sources
3 Mar 2010 : Column 1450
Baroness Buscombe: I declare an interest as chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. As with any organisation worth its salt, we welcome constructive criticism and take it on board. Indeed, the commission will be meeting shortly to develop its thoughts in response to the report of the media Select Committee. I remind the Minister that the commission recently set up a review of its governance to test its credibility, its proactivity and its strength in light of the need to be independent and effective. I can also reassure the Minister that a record number of people are coming to us, to good effect, including members of the-
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: I recognise your Lordships' problems. This is a time for questions, not statements.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I paid tribute to the work of the Press Complaints Commission and to the latter points the noble Baroness identified. I am aware of the work being done by the commission in response to the Select Committee report. As I indicated, that report is only one week old; that is why we in government also need to make a measured response. There is no doubt of the strength of several of the recommendations and I am sure the House will expect the Press Complaints Commission to take them very seriously.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, in considering the Select Committee report, could my noble friend give an indication of how the Government will respond to the point about the commission being more proactive? In particular, could they explore the suggestion, which has been reviewed previously, that it is high time we had more declaration where conflicts of interest arise-for example, where people write financial articles when it is known that they have interests; and where people write political columns when it is known that they have direct family interests? These issues should be brought to the attention of the public. What are the Government's views on this?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords there is no issue about what is good practice: the better newspapers follow it but some do not. While arguing, as it does, for self-regulation and emphasising its crucial role in a democracy of throwing light upon dark corners, it certainly behoves the press, when it is being challenged, to be open in its responses.
Lord Mawhinney: My Lords, bringing the Minister back to the Question, will he be more explicit about the Government's plans around the independence of the commission? In answering, can he define independence from whom or what?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, independence is an alternate to government regulation, to which the Government are opposed. They are in favour of
3 Mar 2010 : Column 1451
Lord McNally: My Lords, thanks to the Guardian and the Select Committee report, we know how abjectly the Press Complaints Commission failed in dealing with the News of the World hacking case. Does not the Minister find it extraordinary that Mr Andrew Coulson, on whose watch as editor of the News of the World these abuses took place, should now find himself the principal adviser to the man who wants to be our next Prime Minister?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is a week of expressing concern about some appointments in the higher ranks of the Opposition. On the more general issue, the Select Committee in the other place was very concerned about the inadequacy of the Press Complaints Commission in looking into phone tapping. It was also extremely critical of what it regarded as obfuscation and avoidance of declaration by News International. We expect the Press Complaints Commission to learn lessons from the inadequacy in that case.
Lord Strathclyde:My Lords, is the Minister aware of any complaint made by the Liberal Democrats to the PCC about the stories of Mr Michael Brown, a convicted fraudster, who has given the Liberal Democrats £2.5 million, which they have still to pay back?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am not aware of any such complaint but that is probably because no one else is either. We might reduce the tension over this issue a little in this place and leave it to the other place to discuss these engagements.
Lord Snape: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the effectiveness of the Press Complaints Commission and the noble Baroness-who has not yet mentioned the salary that she is paid to chair the commission-can be seen every morning in the free, fair and impartial way that the British press conducts itself?
Lord Davies of Oldham: The press is meant to be free, my Lords, and we hope that it is fair but we certainly do not expect it necessarily to be balanced in any individual journal. That is why we have different regulation for television, where we expect a degree of objectivity. We expect the press to be partial. That does not mean that the press ought not to be concerned about journalistic standards, which certainly mean that reports should be as accurate as a journalist can make them.
Lord Dykes: Apart from replying to the anxieties over so much of the printed media and one television service in this country being owned by people who reside overseas and do not pay UK taxes, could the Minister please respond to the very important point
3 Mar 2010 : Column 1452
Lord Davies of Oldham: That is an important consideration but the noble Lord will appreciate the consequences of any fines imposed by the Press Complaints Commission. They could easily lead to legal action. Whether we want a great many of these issues solved through the law courts or by more effective regulation by the Press Complaints Commission is a very interesting point. The noble Lord will forgive me if I say that the Government are not pronouncing on the issue in their response to the Select Committee, until they have looked at it very carefully.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
First Reading
3.38 pm
The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.
European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Stabilisation and Association Agreement) (Bosnia and Herzegovina) Order 2010
European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Stabilisation and Association Agreement) (Bosnia and Herzegovina) Order 2010
8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Motion to Approve
3.39 pm
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 1 March.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I have two questions concerning the order. First, how soon will the asymmetrical trade preferences come into force? Secondly, what will be the length of the transitional period for the free trade area? I raise these points because the Bosnians need to have tangible benefits as they move towards EU membership.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I regret that the noble Lord was obviously not able to be present in the Moses Room when we debated this issue. It is the Government's intention to encourage Bosnia-Herzegovina, and this treaty seeks to do so. I do not have the detailed information to hand on the points that he made, but I will certainly make the requisite inquiries and write to him.
3 Mar 2010 : Column 1453
Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Display of Prices) (England) Regulations 2010
Protection from Tobacco (Sales from Vending Machines) (England) Regulations 2010
Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Display of Prices) (England) Regulations 2010
Protection from Tobacco (Sales from Vending Machines) (England) Regulations 2010
Motions to Refer to Grand Committee
3.40 pm
Moved By Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
Digital Economy Bill [HL]
Bill Main Page
Copy of the Bill
Explanatory Notes
Amendments
Report (2nd Day)
3.40 pm
Clause 8 : Contents of initial obligations code
54: Clause 8, page 10, line 35, at end insert-
"( ) that the code makes provision to ensure subscribers do not incur any cost in meeting their obligations under section 124A;"
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, once again it falls to me to propose an amendment against the tide of the House as noble Lords exit, so I shall read out my first paragraph slowly to make sure that everybody gets the full flavour of the proposal. In moving Amendment 54, I shall speak also to Amendment 108.
The aim of this amendment is to ensure that the initial obligations code includes provision to guard against subscribers notified under Clause 4 facing any costs in responding to a notification. We on these Benches seek reassurance that subscribers-essentially, consumers-will be able to challenge any notification without cost. Amendment 108 has a very similar intent. The aim of that amendment is to clarify that subscribers notified under Clause 4 by their ISP that their internet connection has been linked to online copyright infringement will not directly bear the costs of the proposed scheme.
Consumer organisations strongly oppose consumers having to pay to appeal. The Explanatory Notes to Clause 15 state, at paragraph 77, that,
- "most of the costs of subscriber appeals to an independent person ... should be funded by industry, so that a subscriber does not face significant costs in making an appeal".
Why should not all the direct costs be borne by the industry, whether ISP or copyright owners? I beg to move.
3 Mar 2010 : Column 1454
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I support this measure. "Subscriber" means the person who pays the bill on an IP address, so this also includes, for instance, universities. Last night I had an interesting conversation with the security people at Queen Mary, University of London, and discovered that, whereas last year they got about 50 to 100 copyright infringement reports from American legal firms demanding that they do something about it, they are running at 50 a month this year. It is clear that the Americans are grouping to have a bigger drive once this Bill is passed. We do not want to see universities cut off, so they will probably have to undertake appeals. I do not see why an education establishment should have to pay the cost of this sort of thing in order to protect rights holders.
Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, we return once again to the question of costs. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the subscribers, the majority of whom are legitimate users of the internet, should not bear the costs for the behaviour of the minority. As has been said in previous debates, although we realise that ISPs may have to bear a proportion of the costs of sending out the letters and compiling infringement lists, this proportion must be judged so as to impact as little as possible on subscribers.
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Baroness's amendment. To ask ISPs to bear a part of the cost burden for a process over which they have absolutely no control seems extremely unfair. It is entirely in the hands of copyright owners how much they spend on identifying breaches of copyright. They choose-
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but I think that the noble Lord may not have noticed that Amendment 110 has been degrouped,
Lord Howard of Rising: My humblest apologies.
3.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Lord Young of Norwood Green): My Lords, when a cost is placed on industry, ultimately there is a high likelihood that the consumer pays. It would be impossible to audit all ISPs to ensure that none of the cost associated with the notification process was passed on to consumers. Whether ISPs absorb all the costs of notification is a commercial matter for them, but if they pass all of it on, we do not think that that will be significant. Our high-end estimate is that the annual cost to a consumer per year would be around £2.50. We are not saying that that cost should be passed on but we are pointing out one of the difficulties of audit relative to the size of the problem.
Amendment 108 is slightly different in that it would prevent the cost-sharing order passing on any of the cost of appeals to consumers. In large part, we agree. For practical purposes, we envisage all the costs associated with appeals falling on to industry, but not completely. There is an argument-here I refer to a comment that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, made when he talked about a "minority"-that a large number of people,
3 Mar 2010 : Column 1455
We understand the principle and do not in any way want there to be an adverse effect, preventing genuine appeals by charging a cost penalty. To make matters completely clear, I stress that we are not saying that we think such a fee should be introduced, as that also raises practical issues, such as looking at the need for exemptions and so on, but we think that we should leave the option open. Therefore, minds are by no means made up on this but I have drawn noble Lords' attention to some of our concerns.
I hope that in the light of my comments the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful clarification. My reason for bringing up this amendment again at this stage is that I think it was lost in the thickets of another grouping in Committee.
The Minister's comments in respect of both Amendments 54 and 108 are reassuring. Clearly, Amendment 108 relates to exceptional circumstances, and I very much hope that the code will reflect that. Of course, we very much hope that the Minister is correct about the sum of £2.50 that he mentioned in respect of the earlier amendment. Consumer organisations need to look at what he said to see whether they are adequately reassured by it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
54A: Clause 8, page 10, line 35, at end insert-
"( ) that takes into account circumstances whereby injunctions under section 97B as inserted by section (Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement) of the Digital Economy Act 2010 may be brought"
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 120A. First, I apologise for the slightly artificial introduction of this amendment at this point in the proceedings. The use of a paving amendment, Amendment 120A, at this juncture is simply a result of the desire of the signatories to the amendment to ensure a proper debate in prime time in this House of the merits of Clause 17 and our proposed substitute for it.
In Committee, the view on these and other Benches was that Clause 17 should be left out of the Bill. Without going on at great length, our reasons were various but essentially boiled down to concerns about the scope of the clause and its ability to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Amendments tabled by the Government in Committee arguably, in the view of the Constitution Committee, extended its scope. New government amendments have been put down on Report which are claimed to narrow the
3 Mar 2010 : Column 1456
The Government claimed in their evidence to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that they need to respond to technological change. In Committee, the Minister used the term "future-proofing". Yet in our view, despite reports such as the Gowers review of intellectual property, which was excellent in many ways, the Government have failed after many years to bring forward legislation to make the reforms that have been suggested. The super-affirmative procedure contained in Clause 17 is not an adequate substitute for Parliament's established way of dealing with matters of complexity and importance through primary legislation. Despite government assurances, from personal experience I can attest to the difficulty of changing or contesting secondary legislation in any way. As the sub-committee of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recognised, primary legislation is more suitable for these kinds of changes.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |