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 effect of the amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord De Mauley, would be to expand the existing subsection (1)(d) in Clause 8 so that, rather than it being a general requirement for the code to limit the time for which internet service providers keep information, this would be capped by a maximum timescale of one year or less. It is important to remember the nature of the code. The idea and expectation is that this should be drafted by industry, taking into account the concerns and interests of consumers. I stress that; sometimes we lose sight of that important safeguard. This is the real involvement of stakeholders. As such, we would expect it to be a pragmatic document, with fairness as well as effectiveness at its core. It is right that there should be a considerable degree of flexibility in what it says and how it works. Against that, I understand the thinking behind the amendment and the sensitivity over personal information being held for longer than absolutely necessary. It is, in practice, difficult to think of circumstances in which it would be necessary to keep such information for longer than a year. Indeed, there might be something to be said for a shorter period. I am also aware of concerns raised by the consumer magazine Which? about legal action taken on behalf of some copyright owners which could be left hanging for years. It is a fine balance between giving certainty on the period for which information can be kept and allowing those drafting the code sufficient flexibility. Noble Lords will see that this is an issue that the outline of the initial obligations code clearly recognises as one that the code will need to address. On balance, it is reasonable to leave this as a matter on which we can trust the code to agree a pragmatic solution. Taking into account that, as I said, the stakeholders—both industry and consumer representatives—will be involved in the formation of the code, I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord will feel capable of withdrawing the amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c855 
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