Before I bring you my round-up of Clause 17, you'll have noticed a change around the blog. I've been fiddling with the settings a bit, but the main point is the labels on the right, to make it easier for you to focus just on a particular bit - or to find something from the past that you want to see. It's for my benefit as well, of course. Anyway, there you go.

Clause 17: Power to amend copyright provisions. Well, I knew from 2nd Reading that there would be a lot debated on "the eagerly anticipated" Clause 17, and I was right. Lord Young of Norwood Green got things underway by trying to make clear what the clause was for, but Lord Howard of Rising on the Tory bench was having none of it. He said that the clause - which allows the Secretary of State to alter copyright law through secondary legislation, thereby ignoring Parliamentary scrutiny - shows "a contempt for Parliament which has been demonstrated all too often by this Government". He goes on to point out that with the 'super-affirmative process' (the form of secondary legislation that the government insists will still retain some parliamentary scrutiny), there is "no chance to insist on amendments", and although it's possible for either House to throw out a resolution, in practice, this almost never happens. Despite Lord Puttnam's protestations, he insisted that "the supremacy of Parliament is more important" than protecting intellectual copyright - this is obviously as much an issue of principle as anything else.

Labour's Lord Whitty was obviously more favourable, but he did agree that the clause is too wide-ranging, and unlike Clauses 4 to 16 might not only be used to combat unlawful peer-to-peer file sharing. There was an allusion to Henry VIII, as is expected of such a clause, though Lord Whitty's view was that if the clause "were used for all sorts of copyright protection in that context, it would undoubtedly be a Henry VIII use of powers". Thus, it should be more narrow. Lord Puttnam dug his heels in and declared that "it is foolish to pretend that, somehow or other, primary legislation is the way through. It is not".

The ever-present Lord Lucas piped up with "we know what steps people will take if they wish to continue to file-share illegally. They will use cyberlockers, encryption and proxy, and the Government, as my noble friend on the Front Bench has said, have no clue what to do about these things. Nor do I; these are very hard things to deal with". The response from Lord Young was that he was "not sure that we have not been focusing on it, but he is right to say that that will present another challenge". As usual, he made some good points, though, such as that rights holders should "give customers what they want, charge them for it, and get tough if they do not pay", rather than simply "stick with legislation and be tough with customers who misbehave". He insists that the industry needs to give customers "what they want, how they want it, and when they want it. Then we will reduce this problem substantially. That is the right way in which to protect our copyright" (he says 'our' as he is a copyright holder himself, which of course makes his remarks even more refreshing).

Lord Howard returned to his point that "the Executive [Labour, in other words] take more and more power away from Parliament, which as a point of principle should be opposed at all times, if it is not a matter of national survival". He was surprised that nobody picked him up on his comments regarding the unlikelihood of houses throwing out resolutions. "Eight times since the war in the House of Commons and three times in this House does not seem to be a very effective brake on anyone or anything. But if I was on the other side and wanting to do things, it would be a very effective way of getting absolute power while pretending not to have it." This last comment received a few 'hear, hear's from the chamber.

Lord Young came back with a lengthy reply, which he apologised in advance for. He said he would "try to keep it short, but if I do not cover the waterfront, I will not have been a contender-if noble Lords will pardon the pun, which those in the cinematic area will recognise". Groan. Anyway, Amendments 211A and 211B from the government were agreed to, but that was secondary to the idea that Clause 17 should even be in the Bill at all. Lord Clement-Jones began the broadside with a rather long speech, the gist of which I'm sure you can guess. Lord Triesman of Labour (and chairman of the Football Association) completely disagreed with Lord Clement-Jones's remarks. He used BT and Napster as two examples where things happened so quickly that bad things were tough to stop.

The Earl of Erroll was clear on his view that the law shouldn't just be about sending a message and educating people. "Laws have to be effective or they are pointless. Sending messages that do not work merely debases the law in the public's eyes, because then they just ignore it." He made a curious point about 'mashups', saying that the clause could be used to "loosen copyright, which might be a good idea, so that mashups, for instance, were no longer a grey area. I could take a short clip from one of the films of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, overlay it with a bit of music by one of the noble Lords here, put my own content underneath it and put it on YouTube, at which point I would have breached maybe three copyrights. This is going on the whole time". There are millions of such things on YouTube, it's true, so something could be done.

Lord Howard did a bit of name-dropping, on an interesting point: "I said to the managing director of Nintendo, which after all is one of the biggest games things in the world, "What are your views on illegal activities?" I was privileged - I got number one interpreter, I could have had number one, two, three or five but I got number one for this important question. He said, "Could you do something about Spain and China?" I did not like to tell him that my influence in the United Kingdom is pretty abysmal, but when you get to China it is absolutely sub-zero. However, they said that because it is illegal in these countries and we are putting in provisions like these, they sell enough to make the whole thing work. Therefore, from his point of view - I am not saying whether he was right or wrong - he was not worried". Anyone who has followed Nintendo since the 80s like I have, you'll know that Nintendo have always been very draconian when it comes to using their stuff. Interesting anecdote, though.

Lord Razzall made a good point about the clause, given that it's essentially a clause to say that the government may get it wrong, and would like to change it in the future. He said that the "Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill has been going on for years and years. Why do the Government not put a clause in the Bill that says, "Oh, by the way, we are going to amend the constitution, but we might get it wrong so let us put in the power to amend it again by the affirmative resolution process?". Why do the Government not do that?" A good question.

Lord Young joked that the Earl of Erroll "took chunks out of the wonderful work of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. "Chariots of Erroll" is a frightening concept". He also gave an example of Samuel Johnson's Journey to the Western Isles being "pirated almost immediately in Ireland, so plus ça change in this matter". Lord Clement-Jones appreciated the reference, quipping that when "a man is tired of the Digital Economy Bill he is tired of life. I am sure that this show will run and run". He pointed out that the fast track process was used for the Video Recordings Bill (re-enacting the 1984 Act because it wasn't reported to the European Commission) and I agree that that Bill went through very quickly indeed, so this new "constitutionally inappropriate way of changing the law" shouldn't be used. The clause was agreed to, but clearly we'll get back to this another time. In his final word on the subject, Lord Clement-Jones brought out a chuckle by saying that if the clause wants to send a message to people, "I think the Post Office is a much better way of doing it.".

Clause 17 passed - Amendment 211A & 211B agreed