Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 18 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, the amendment seeks to preserve the position of internet service providers as "mere conduits", in the terms of the electronic commerce directive, which makes it clear that where a service provider simply acts as a carrier of information they cannot be held responsible for the content of the information they carry. Let me make it abundantly clear for the record that it is no part of our intention here to deprive ISPs of their "mere conduit" status. It seems to me entirely right that mere conduits cannot be expected to be responsible for all the content carried over their networks. However, I would caution your Lordships that this House cannot make legislation that dictates the interpretation of European legislation. I fear therefore that this amendment, although I support its aims, would not in fact achieve any practical result. Our belief is that what is proposed in this Bill will not prejudice the position of the ISPs under the electronic commerce regulations for two reasons. First, all it does is provide a formalised process to enable copyright owners to provide information that they already can, and sometimes do, provide to ISPs, so there is no real change here. Secondly, when they receive copyright infringement reports, ISPs will be acting as mere conduits under the e-commerce directive and, as such, the test for determining liability is not actual knowledge. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary in practical terms to achieve the effect that noble Lords have in mind, nor would it be capable of achieving the desired aim were it to be agreed. I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State, but we believe that everything we put into legislation takes into account the legal position of internet service providers. We understand the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, about putting ISPs in an illegal position. Clearly, that would be counterproductive, to say the least. But, having checked out the legal position for the reasons I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured and able to withdraw the amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c809-10 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Access Data protection Codes of practice Appeals Broadcasting Costs Computer networks Copyright Digital broadcasting Broadband Communication Fraud ICT Exemptions Intellectual property Libraries Internet Educational institutions Ofcom Radio frequencies Schools Subscriptions Internet service providers
Legislation
Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk