Digital Economy Bill

And so Harriet Harman has announced that the Digital Economy Bill will get a second reading in early April – and in response to questions from Douglas Hogg MP and Tom Watson MP (and when was the last time they were on the same side of a political argument) has implied that the bill will not get line by line scrutiny in the Commons and will instead go into the wash up procedure.

My concerns in relation to the legislation are technical (I do not generally download material other than podcasts enjoying the tactile element of CDs and DVDs – and have no idea how torrent things work).

Last Friday I wrote to my MP as follows:

 

Dear [MP - amended for privacy]

I am a lecturer [snipped for privacy]. This is the first time I have written to my MP, but I am particularly concerned about an issue currently within Parliament that I feel may have a serious social impact affecting all sectors of society – but with a particularly serious impact on some of the most vulnerable. I am worried about reports that the Government is planning to rush the Digital Economy Bill into law without a full Parliamentary debate using the wash up pre-election procedure.

The proposed law is controversial and contains measures that are of concern me from a technical and societal perspective. While I am not an IT lawyer I have been following the arguments raised by colleagues with extensive expertise in this area (including Andrew Murray at the London School of Economics; and Professor Lilian Edwards at the University of Sheffield (author of Law and the Internet)). Professor Edwards in particular has identified a number of technical problems with the legislation – including a problem that will cause difficulties for Universities and other providers of wi-fi.

Much of the provision of our teaching now is dependent on the delivery of teaching materials through the internet. In law, for example, we have a variety of databases – which allow ready on-line access to case law, legislation, and academic commentary from around the world. To encourage students to access this material we have a number of wi-fi points around the campus. Such wi-fi accessibility allows students to use personal laptops to access the net while working within the University. Sadly the terms of the bill will cause difficulty for the University, in that if a student downloads copyright infringing material – the University becomes the target not the individual breaching the copyright. While Universities (and others) can police those using its own computers, this becomes more difficult with an open wi-fi system – meaning that given the current restrictions the only appropriate response may be to withdraw the service of an open wi-fi network to the detriment of students, staff, and scholars from other institutions (at home and overseas) visiting our institutions.

While this potentially detrimentally affects my employer I am additionally concerned about the impact on other providers of public access to the internet including local libraries. We are very fortunate in the area to have recently had a new public library open at Meadowbank, Polmont. The way in which the legislation is structured will potentially impact on the library if an individual member of the public infringes copyright. Action against the library (who would be the appropriate defender in any proceeding as the Bill is structured) will have an impact on many of the vulnerable members of society whose sole access to the internet – and the various benefits thereby conferred – is dependent on ready public access in such a public venue.

The concern I have expressed above is shared by the British Library and JANET (the Uk education and research network – see their concerns as expressed at 

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=410184&c=1).

I have also noted that the Chartered Institute for IT has called for further consideration of the bill due to potentially detrimental effects to participative citizenship. They have expressed concern that the recent amendments to and around the Bill have included proposals that could radically affect the internet in ways that are difficult to predict and is concerned that hasty decisions could increase digital exclusion and harm those most in need of and most positively affected by internet access and capability.

I would agree with the Chartered Institute that there should be wider public debate and time for this Bill. And given the importance of the legislation, and the potentially detrimental impact throughout society, I would have grave reservations about any inclusion of this Bill in a Parliamentary wash up’.

Most people concerned about the hasty passage of the bill are in favour of a central objective of the bill in taking proportionate action against those who infringe copyright. However, the mechanisms by which this is proposed to be dealt with (not targeting the infringer, but in many cases targeting third parties), the various technical difficulties and potential adverse impact in my view deserve proper scrutiny. Many people (including internet experts such as the people and bodies quoted in this e-mail, and internet service

providers) think it will damage schools, libraries, universities, and businesses as well as innocent people who rely on the internet because it will allow the Government to disconnect people it suspects of

copyright infringement. I am also conscious that senior Labour

party figures in the Lords such as Lord Whitty have been concerned about the bill’s hasty progress, with a concern that the bill has been rushed through in an undemoctratic way.

I would be grateful if – given this background – you could use your best offices to ensure that the government do not rush the bill through in the wash up thereby denying proper scrutiny and debate for this legislation.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely
 

The MP responded indicating that he shared my concerns.

Today I have written to him again.

Dear [snipped for privacy]

Further to my earlier e-mail I have noted in watching business questions today that the leader of the House has announced that there will be a second reading debate on the Digital Economy Bill for early April. I am concerned that she is not answering questions on whether or not the bill will form part of the wash-up procedure but the implication of her answers (particularly to Douglas Hogg and Tom Watson’s questions) suggest that the government intention is that the bill will go into wash-up.

I am in favour of many aspects of the bill, but am concerned that failure to give the bill line by line scrutiny (particularly to consider some of the Lords amendments) and to address the technical drafting points (of the type raised by Professor Lilian Edwards in her on-line publications on the topic), and real concerns that have been expressed by JANET, the British Library, and other library services in relation to the prospect of disconnection as a remedy – meaning that they may be forced to close wi fi access, undermines the legislative process.

Given that in my day to day work I deal with the interpretation of legislation – and in explaining that to students – I wish to ensure that legislation is well drafted and good for society as a whole. I am concerned that there are some aspects of this legislation that do not satisfy these objectives.

I am very grateful to you for expressing your general agreement with my earlier e-mail – and trust that there is still time to persuade ministers that the bill should come back for proper scrutiny after the election and not end up in the wash-up procedure.

Yours sincerely

 
 

When I teach statutory interpretation to students I usually explain that in my view discerning the "intention of Parliament" is meaningless because most MPs do not really address the terms of the legislation in front of them. However, as will not be te position with the Digital Economy Bill the democratically elected MPs at least have the text of the legislation in front of them to give line by line scrutiny.

The wash up procedure denies that possibility.

There will be no line by line scrutiny.

the controversial amendments inserted in the House of Lords will not be properly debated in the rush to get this on the statute book before the election.

I would like to see the bill back in the next Parliament to be given proper scrutiny. I would like it back for the drafting to be improved. I would like it back to allow the concerns of those that will be directly affected by it (ISPs, providers of wi fi, &c) to allow their views to be properly addressed.

But apparently that is beyond the government. And beyond the opposition. And judging by the silence from the Lib Dem front bench spokesman today, beyond the Lib Dems too.

To hell with the lot of them.

About these ads