Digital Economy bill passed by House of Lords

House of Lords have debated the bill for the final time

The House of Lords today passed the controversial Digital Economy bill, despite last-minute attempts yesterday by members to change the included copyright legislation proposals.

The members’ calls, during the final reading of the bill, were rejected and now 'three strikes' plans to tackle illegal file sharing, which would see culprits kicked off the internet after multiple attempts to download copyrighted material, are likely to go ahead.

So too is a clause in the bill, called Clause 18, that will let ISPs restrict certain web sites from their users.

While the bill is now set for its debate in the House of Commons, there is a growing possibility it will escape full scrutiny, and be given just two readings as the general election draws near and more bills head for the 'wash-ups'.

The government has said it may introduce an alternative Clause 18 in the wash-up period, which would be a break with tradition in how UK policy is normally passed, but would show just how controversial the bill is.

If the bill is given just two readings in the House of Commons, the public will lose the ability to pressure MPs to change any of the proposals contained within it. During the wash-up period, the government debates the bill with the opposition parties behind closed doors.

The House of Lords debated three amendments to Clause 18 yesterday but they were all rejected or not moved.

Clause 18 replaces the government’s already contentious Clause 17, which would give future ministers the power to introduce new rules without going through the parliamentary process.

Last week Clause 18 caused uproar when it emerged that it had been proposed by the music industry body the BPI.

Labour peer Lord Larry Whitty criticised both the 'three strikes' legislation and Clause 18. He called Clause 18 “more draconian” than the government’s previous clause. He said the bill is undemocratic.

He also said the three strikes legislation had put "police powers" on ISPs which are reluctant to accept them.

"We have threatened several millions of our citizens with exclusion from the internet by administrative decree, with dubious means of identifying who was actually the perpetrator of the alleged infringement," he said.

“We have seen the government, putatively this House and other political parties backing protectionism rather than competition and innovation, moving towards an exclusion of people from digital access rather than the inclusion that the rest of the bill – which I fully support – provides. It has landed us with a pretty much unenforceable law that will get a penny back to the rights owners whom the legislation was intended to support.

“There is a very widespread opposition to the bill from individuals who feel threatened, from parents who are concerned that measures will be taken against them because of their children's use of the internet and from employers who are worried about the same thing in relation to their staff."

Whitty argued that parliament would soon regret the Digital Economy bill and that ideally it should have been based on how new business models can be developed between rights holders, ISPs and lawful file sharers to combat illegal downloading.