House Of Lords Has Serious Concerns About Digital Economy Bill

from the amendments-to-come dept

We've already pointed out how Lord Lucas seems to be quite concerned about the ridiculousness in the Digital Economy Bill, and has proposed a series of amendments to help get rid of these problematic elements. However, it looks like some others in the House of Lords are equally concerned as well. Michael Scott points us to the news that the Lords' Human Rights Joint Committee has put out a report that is highly critical of the more controversial points in the Digital Economy Bill, starting with the pressure on ISPs to disconnect users under a three strikes plan:
The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to have the power to require ISPs to take "technical measures" in respect of account holders who have been the subject of copyright infringement reports. The scope of the measures will be defined in secondary legislation and could be wide-ranging.

We do not believe that such a skeletal approach to powers which engage human rights is appropriate. There is potential for these powers to be applied in a disproportionate manner which could lead to a breach of internet users' rights to respect for correspondence and freedom of expression.
There are also grave concerns over section 17, which would effectively let the Business Secretary change copyright law at will:
The broad nature of this power has been the subject of much criticism. In correspondence with us, the Secretary of State explained that the Government intended to introduce amendments to limit the power in Clause 17 and to introduce a 'super-affirmative' procedure. The Government amendments would limit the circumstances in which the Government could use their powers to amend the Act by secondary legislation and would provide a system for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny.

Despite the proposed amendments we are concerned that Clause 17 remains overly broad and that parliamentary scrutiny may remain inadequate. We call for a series of clarifications to address these concerns.
On top of that, they're still a bit skeptical even of requiring ISPs to send notices when a user is accused of infringement, noting that while they don't think this would be a restriction on human rights or freedom of expression, they would like "a further explanation of why they [the backers of the bill] consider their proposals are proportionate."

Definitely nice to see that this bill isn't just getting rushed through, and there are some folks who are heavily questioning the more ridiculous parts of the bill.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Enrico Suarve, Feb 12th, 2010 @ 1:29am

    Is it just me?

    Or is anyone else getting their realities merged and picturing Lord Lucas in a Jedi robe?

    "Ah Darth Mandelson... You can strike me down but I will become more powerful that you can possibly imagine"

    Obviously it helps that Mr Mandelson is already way on the dark side, but I can't help wondering who will turn out to be the emperor in act4...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Fentex, Feb 12th, 2010 @ 1:32am

    Aristocratic Lords protect liberty

    It's really quite amusing, while also being horrible, that the personal freedoms and liberties of Britons have been best protected for years now by the unelected body of aristocrats in the house of Lords.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    eclecticdave (profile), Feb 12th, 2010 @ 2:46am

    Re: Aristocratic Lords protect liberty

    > It's really quite amusing, while also being horrible,
    > that the personal freedoms and liberties of Britons have > been best protected for years now by the unelected body
    > of aristocrats in the house of Lords.

    Yes it is ironic - although the House of Lords is no longer exclusively populated by true aristocrats - they reformed that some years back.

    They also tried to complete the job a couple of years ago IIRC, trying to turn Lords in a 100% elected body - the danger here is unless you're careful you end up with the same party controlling both houses and being able to push through bad stuff like this without any resistance. (Sound familiar?)

    Although an elected upper house is theoretically better, in practice the Lords have been very good at keeping the government in check on a number of important issues in the past.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Call me Al, Feb 12th, 2010 @ 2:50am

    Re: Aristocratic Lords protect liberty

    I've long fel that the House of Lords were the guardians of freedom and libery in the UK. They have the opportunity to do the right thing because they aren't so much at the mercy of the baying mob of popular opinion. The fact that they threw the 42 detention laws back at the government made me cheer for them and Lord Lucas' indepth analysis of the Digital Economy bill is very heartening. The Commons barely gave it a glance.

    Quite frankly I have far more respect for the Lords then I do for the Commons who I generally feel are a collection of snivelling cowards ready to jump into bed with the first large wallet to cross their paths.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Ben Robinson (profile), Feb 12th, 2010 @ 4:35am

    Helpful but could be ignored

    As much as it is helpful that the lords are exmining this bill closely, they are ultimately toothless. Through the Paliament Act the house of commons can overrule the Lords and push through any legislation with a majority vote.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 12th, 2010 @ 4:58am

    Interesting.
    In the UK government, someone actually reads the proposed bill before voting on it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    ethorad (profile), Feb 12th, 2010 @ 5:12am

    Re: Re: Aristocratic Lords protect liberty

    Completely agree there. I'd rather the second house wasn't elected by popular vote, as they then don't need to pander to either business bribes, or populist agendas. Instead they can get on with the business of running the country.

    Of course you need some form of system for choosing who is going to be in the House of Lords. I just don't think it should be by public vote.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Call me Al, Feb 12th, 2010 @ 5:28am

    Re: Helpful but could be ignored

    While the Parliament Act is always a possible generally bills get dropped rather then forced through with that Act as it is seen as a parliamentary bludgeon which goes against the spirit of our governmental structure.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Feb 12th, 2010 @ 6:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Aristocratic Lords protect liberty

    While I agree that the Lords are currently more effective in doing the people's will than the Commons, I'd argue that is merely a symptom of the problem with the system behind the Commons. If you accept the house of lords as necessary then you may as well give up on democracy altogether.

    It might be worth mentioning again that Mandelson got back in through the House of Lords.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Feb 12th, 2010 @ 6:51am

    Re: Is it just me?

    "but I can't help wondering who will turn out to be the emperor in act4..."

    Rupert Murdoch ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Feb 12th, 2010 @ 7:38am

    Re: Re: Helpful but could be ignored

    The Lords can certainly delay a bill - and with an election coming up that could be enough to kill it.

    The parliament act is rarely used - because having to use it is seen as a major poilitical emberassement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Feb 12th, 2010 @ 10:22am

    Re: Is it just me?

    "Obviously it helps that Mr Mandelson is already way on the dark side, but I can't help wondering who will turn out to be the emperor in act4..."

    Just a guess, but probably someone from either the Rockefeller or Rothschild famalies...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    john, Feb 14th, 2010 @ 2:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Aristocratic Lords protect liberty

    Generally , Upper houses protect against the tyranny of the majority. The UK has a first past the post voting system & that can mean that the majority party in the lower chamber did not get a majority of the total votes cast ,in any 3 cornered election contest. Few people when they voted at the last election gave much thought to copyright issues. This is an issue radically affecting a lot of common law concepts of economic property rights. It should be a matter for the next government to ponder.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    ethorad (profile), Feb 16th, 2010 @ 4:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Aristocratic Lords protect liberty

    A lot of countries have a bicameral government, I don't think that means we should give up on democracy.

    To my mind (one of) the advantage of the Lords is that it is filled using a different process to the Commons. If the Lords were all directly elected, we'd end up with two houses of Commons so we might as well combine into one.

    Agree that it's unfortunate that the government can stack the house of Lords for political purposes - also putting people in there so that they can take on cabinet posts etc when they aren't elected (Mandelson, Sugar spring to mind).

    Comes down to how do we fill the second house:

    • Voting - I don't like as wouldn't be different to the Commons
    • Hereditary - Somewhat of out of favour these days
    • Appointed - but who does the appointing, and how to prevent it becoming too party political
    • Lottery - Run it like a jury system, or conscription, with people required to do 2 years service, although getting higher earners (above average intelligence?) to do this could be hard

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This