Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No.126, in

clause 47, page 47, line 5, at end insert—

'(h) conditions requiring devices used to reproduce, convert, retrieve or access data or content through electronic communications networks or services to include technological security systems in compliance with such standards as OFCOM consider appropriate for protecting personal data, protecting copyrighted content and empowering parents to protect children from harmful content.'.

To some extent, we had this debate when we considered the general duties of Ofcom under clause 3, but it is worth returning to briefly because it is a point of huge importance. The amendment is a probing amendment but it is designed to get on the record the importance of the whole issue of copyright. The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, who responded to our debate on clause 3, is no longer with us. We now have a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry—a Department that in many ways has a lead role in dealing with issues of copyright. I am therefore keen that the Minister should have an opportunity to respond to my brief contribution.

There is no doubt that at the moment the threat to copyright is most significant in the music industry. That is not covered by this Bill and we do not argue that it should be, but over time that threat will affect more and more of the creative industries. When we eventually achieve broadband or even broadband plus, extremely fast download speeds will enable people to access video streaming with perfect reproduction of films. There is a danger that the film and video industry will be subject to the same problems as those suffered by the music industry. People will access and take material off the internet for which they do not pay any charge to the person who has created it, thereby bypassing the copyright requirements.

Our main concern is that the Bill, which is supposed to set the framework for many years to come, seems not to recognise that real danger and does not allow Ofcom any remit to take account of future technological developments. I do not want to press the amendment because I do not think that it is necessarily the right approach, but I hope that the Minister will be able to say a word about it. It is an important issue.

Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of developments that are going on in the United States at the moment? There are negotiations between Hollywood and television set and set-top box manufacturers to address the problem of the copyright protection of films. They might circumvent his amendment.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford, Conservative)

I am aware of that. As I said to the hon. Gentleman when the subject last arose, I prefer a self-regulatory solution. It would be vastly preferable if the industry could get together to agree a common standard and devise a mechanism to protect copyright, and I do not suggest that Ofcom should impose a standard over the heads of the industry. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether he sees a role for Ofcom in encouraging the industry to come together in the way that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) rightly identifies.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

I readily accept that it is important that we tackle problems of the abuse of copyright and the other issues listed in the amendment relating to the need for parents to protect children from harmful content, intrusions on personal privacy, and so on. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford for drawing the Committee's attention to this matter again. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. He is right in the example he gives and in a host of other areas. Some promising technological developments in protection measures for rights management should help to deal with some of the music industry's current serious problems, but other industries might face similar problems in future.

Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)

Is it my hon. Friend's view that Ofcom and comparable bodies should participate in the current discussions to ensure that solutions appropriate for one country are not imposed on this country and other EU member states?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The lead will have to be taken by the industry, but it will be important that Ofcom stays in close touch with the industry's views as technology develops. I have had discussions with some people in the industry and I am sure that Ofcom will want to do the same.

The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford did not make a strong case for the amendment, which presents several difficulties. It would not be right to hint at national steps to mandate technical standards when it has not been proved that self-regulatory solutions are ineffective. We hope that they will be effective. The issue is international and should be dealt with internationally rather than from one country's perspective. It is right to draw attention to the prospects for significant technological advances

—my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East is right to say that Ofcom should keep a close eye on them—but it would be a mistake to go further in the way that the amendment suggests.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford, Conservative)

I did not intend to press the amendment, but was hopeful that the Minister would confirm that Ofcom should have a role in that debate.

I am grateful to him for doing so, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.