Proceeding contribution from Stephen Timms (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 7 April 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Digital Economy Bill [Lords].
Digital Economy Bill [Lords]
We want to remove clause 18, the text of which was inserted in another place on a joint initiative of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. New clauses 1 and 2 contain amended provisions, and I hope I can persuade the Committee that our approach is the right way to proceed. We have set out why we did not think that the clause 18, which was inserted by the other place, would work and our concerns about introducing such provisions in such a way and at such a time. We have also set out why we think the text in new clauses 1 and 2 would have the same benefits, but ensure proper consideration, including full consultation and proper safeguards. The key benefits of the amended approach are that, as a power to introduce regulations, which is what we are providing for, it is enforceable; it does not immediately fall foul of the technical standards directive, as the existing text would. There will be proper opportunities to consult on the measure and for Parliament to consider it via the now famous super-affirmative procedure, with any recommendations having to be taken into account. The Secretary of State must consider the proportionality of the regulations and the evidence that they are necessary to deal with infringement that is having a serious adverse effect. We can also ensure that any security law enforcement concerns are properly taken on board. In addition, should such regulations be introduced, the court from which an order was being sought would need to consider carefully legitimate uses and users affected by any order, as well as have due regard to freedom of expression. We certainly do not want the clause to be used to restrict freedom of speech. We want to ensure that the safeguards are properly considered and that ISPs do not have an incentive to block sites purely on the basis of an allegation, for fear of bearing costs—although we also need to ensure that ISPs are not allowed to flout a decision of the court. Essentially, our view is that the costs should be borne, not by the ISPs, but by those seeking a court order. The new clause we propose does the job of dealing with online infringement other than unlawful file sharing, which is dealt with by earlier parts of the Bill, but adds safeguards to ensure that the position of internet intermediaries and citizens are properly protected. On that basis, I commend the amendments.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 508 c1135
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Access Disclosure of information Capital investment Copyright Broadband ICT Infrastructure Intellectual property Internet Ofcom Telecommunications Regulation Taxation Internet service providers
- Legislation
- Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 20:55:43 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_637665
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_637665
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_637665