Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Whitty (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 12 January 2010. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Digital Economy Bill [HL].


Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, my name is on this amendment and I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, has said. I refer to the deletion of the reference to "allowed". I think what "allowed" means in different circumstances would be subject to different interpretations if it ever went to the courts. Clearly, it does not just include internet cafés, but all the educational and equivalent institutions that we referred to earlier as well. It also relates to the individual family, teenagers and all their friends and it could, with a wider system, involve neighbours who are tapping into it. It is clear that if "allowed" means simply a passive "did not stop", a lot of people become vulnerable. This is where the issue of proportionality comes in. It is not the equivalent of certain other measures where the owner is legitimately the person who suffers. If you are a small business and one of your employees conducted the infringement, if you are a university, college or library and any visitor could have done it, or if you are a family with a lot of visitors, then closing down or even seriously reducing access to broadband and to the internet in general has a disproportionate effect. The issue of proportionality is very much bound up with this clause. It is important that the Government at least give us some reassurances that the code, the guidance, or the thresholds above which any measures should be taken make it clear what, if anything, the actual subscriber should have done to provide for a prima facie defence against such charges. At the moment, I do not think the contemplation of the code deals with that. I would argue that, particularly in relation to educational and other institutions, some exemption needs to be provided in the Bill. The Minister’s colleague has already said that he is going to write to us on communal provision and we will undoubtedly return to the debate on these issues at that point. Therefore I will allow the Government a little time. However, this is a big issue about the practicality of this Bill and the measures under it to which the Government will have to give more satisfactory answers.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c454-5 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Codes of practice Broadcasting Computer networks Copyright Digital broadcasting Broadband Sky Communication Fees and charges ICT EU law Infrastructure Emergencies Internet Ofcom Radio frequencies Telecommunications Security Satellite communications Subscriptions Television licences
Legislation
Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk