The parties have begun what amounts to a long election campaign. There has to be an election before early June at the latest. The assumption is that the election will be on 6 May. That means that the number of parliamentary legislative days between now and dissolution is limited. However, within the Palace the legislative process is rumbling along as if it is a normal session.
However, as the days progress, what is being said privately is starting to seep into the formal deliberations. That is, that some of the Bills presently being considered may not have completed all their stages by the time that the election is announced. If that happens, there is a discussion between the parties in what is known as ‘the wash-up’ to determine which Bills can be agreed and rushed through before Parliament is dissolved. If there is to be an election on 6 May, Parliament is likely to sit up until Easter and then return for two or three days immediately after Easter for the wash-up.
During committee stage of the Digital Economy Bill yesterday, for example, Lord Clement-Jones from the Liberal Democrat benches, said in respect of technical measures covered in the Bill: “I urge the Minister to think very carefully about this. If he genuinely wants the Bill to pass and not get lost in the wash-up in the other place, he will have to demonstrate that these provisions are copper-bottomed in how they operate. I just give that warning.”
Another Bill that may well be caught in the wash-up is the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. The Government keep adding things to it, but they do so as the time to get the measure through recedes. The Bill still has to have its final committee day in the Commons. It then has to go through its Report stage and Third Reading before it comes to us. Given the gaps we have between each stage of a Bill, it looks increasingly unlikely that it will have completed all its stages by Easter.
In the wash-up, each opposition party essentially becomes a veto player. There has to be agreement on what Bills, or the particular parts of Bills, are to be rushed through before dissolution. Otherwise, the legislation is dead. On some Bills, I suspect such an outcome would not be unwelcome.
While I’m familiar with the terms I’ve never understood the mechanics of the wash-up. What exactly do the parties ‘do’ and what can they ‘not do’ or ‘do’ to rush the bill through or stop it rushing through? Is this just the threat of tabling spoiler clauses and insisting on debate of each clause of a bill therefore extinguishing all available time?
“Otherwise, the legislation is dead. On some Bills, I suspect such an outcome would not be unwelcome.”
Said with masterful understatement my Noble Lord !
With respect to the impending UK general election, one item currently in the press concerns amending the constitutional renewal bill by adding a provision for an ‘Alternative Vote’—to be in place for early 2010.
According to Philip Webster, AV is a ‘system under which voters cast their votes in constituencies in favour of a first, second and third candidate. The votes for the third candidate are redistributed and the person wining more than 50 per cent of the final vote is elected.’
By this definition, AV is not a species of proportional representation, but rather a sort of first-past-the-post plus, ergo the 50 percent provision that ensures a majority instead of a plurality of the vote.
From a conservative perspective, it sounds like a win-win situation: the constituency link is maintained (as the prime minister asserts), along with parliamentary accountability, while MPs no longer will be under the stigma of mere plurality election that suffers from widespread public opprobrium. (I wonder, for example, if Chancellor Darling would have had as much deficit-cutting influence after the Hoon-Hewitt aborted coup if he had been a PR-listed MP.)
What is your Lordship’s stance on AV?
I would like to urge my Lords, in the Digital Economy Bill, not to just look to the Minister for a demonstration of reliability of operation of the Bill. In a modern world where the internet has become a mainstay of the economy and of learning this Bill should NOT be rushed in anyway. It is complex in technical terms and needs very, very careful consideration.
I would say to my Lords given the personal/business interests of so many within the House have concerning this Bill and obviously the economics concerning Copyright issues, that any new Government that may be formed post election would have to consider these proposals again. Knowing that it will have to be bought up again but with good time to consider the issues, I ask that it is not in anyway rushed.
This Bill could have repercussions on millions of lives, especially that of our young and of people innocent of any wrong doing. They deserve that the Bill gets the scrutiny and consideration it deserves without the need for haste. If there is not the time to scrutinise properly I ask it be put aside as any forthcoming Government WILL have to look into these issues with better time to study them.
Thank you.
Nothing, if mixing metaphors, is a “copper bottomed wash up”
I wonder whether Lord Norton’s preference is for putting through the Constitutional reform bill or losing it down the drain?
This particular poodle, who is never gong to discuss politics again after June 2010, will feel well relieved of his lead if it does go through, unwelcome bath or not!
[I shall just wish Carl well in his future career in local government]
I pass no comment at all on this article.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6991021.ece
I merely point out that some of the comments which have been left by the readers of the article are mildly amusing..
Thanks – I didn’t know the term ‘wash-up’ in this context.
You use it alongside “rushed through”. This can’t be good, especially in circumstances as exist today where the ruling party is expected to be kicked out.
“alongside “rushed through” ”
It sounds like school slang, “Bum’s rush” !!
Not good!
My Noble Lord Norton, if I may take this slightly off topic and make some comments on the Digital Economy Bill which I am watching at present recorded on the BBC. 3 hours 38 minutes of which I am an hour or so into.
The Government speaks of getting subscribers to implement protection both on the PC and in the Router. Most people will put anti-virus on their PC`s but generally cheap ones, these are not alway`s adequate and any form of protection is not 100% safe. Setting the router to block certain sites requires a technical ability beyond that of the general public and of course the sites needed to be blocked would need to be updated constantly. The setup of such protections would be costly, involving in most cases a professional and yearly subscriptions. ISP`s could of course be forced to supply such but the cost to them would be enormous.
On the subject of the Notification of infringement the Government will not state if it should be sent electronically or by post. It infers that in cost terms electronic is the preferred method, a lot of people would not receive such notifications as they tend to use online mail services such as MSN`s Hotmail or Live service and DO NOT use the ISP`s account which is not obligatory. Any notification has to be sent to the subscriber by post, the noble Lord for the Government mentioned mobile users who they may not have an address for, pay as you go users. These users when signing up for the first time have to go through the ISP and there is generally a requirement for address.
Electronic mail can go astray, mail servers fail, spam filters filter wrongly at times or the consumer makes mistake in setup. Royal Mail, although not once what it was is far more reliable albeit slightly more costly.
As I have stated previously most copyright infringement does not occur using peer 2 peer any longer and it seems to be this the noble Lord, Lord De Morley refers to time and again.
If I may when I have watched the remaining two hours post more I should like to do so.
Apologies to Lord De Mauley whose title I wrongly spelled.
The Government benches seem extremeley confused on a lot of issues and the Bill appears a mess to interpret.
The Government put forward at the start of the debate that routers and perhaps PC`s should block certain software or sites, as I stated this would be beyond normal capabilities of the consumer. Later when Lord De Mauley put forward to block certain sites, known as filtration as I believe Australia has introduced, the Government stated this could not and would not be done, referring in most part only to peer 2 peer filesharing. They certainly seem confused on this issue and it needs clarity.
Peer 2 Peer sharing is not only for illegal purposes, Spotify praised just yesterday is legal and got the accolade it deserves from the Music industry.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/rorycellanjones/2010/01/music_spies_a_spotify_sunrise.html
On the subject of Infringers lists the Government state these would NOT follow an infringer and would not contain names or addresses, simply the ISP account and details of infringement. This leaves open a door to escape any technical action by leaving your ISP before the third and final letter stating technical measures are to be implemented. The slate is then wiped clean.
The Lords for the Government are confused and are very unsure of facts some of which seem hypocritical. I would be very unsure about any accusation they at present could make regards infringement and that is without hearing what technical measures to catch possible infringers would be foisted on ISP`s at a cost of 25% to the ISP. The noble Lords for the Government having stated that ISP`s would legally still only be seen as a conduit requiring the ISP by law to make judgement of a criminal offence based possibly on equipment they have not tested seem`s absurd. This appears to be stating the ISP is neutral yet also expecting it to legally police.
If the ISP has knowledge of a criminal act it, of course, has a duty to act. The ISP cannot be neutral if this bill is implemented, if it has the equipment to detect crime, to not do so puts it in peril of legal action.
My noble Lord Young states that the measures used to find copyright material downloaded cannot discern legal, illegal or the type of files. He states quite clearly “Deep Packet Inspection ” will not be used so not infringe data protection. If this is so then most illegal downloads will not and cannot be found, being in compressed “Zip” or “Rar” files.
The noble Lord Young and Davies state that Libraries and schools will not be exempt in anyway, they may however get help to block such illegal use. Education & Library institutions are exempt from copyright as in the copyright law covering education purposes.
There appears no real technical measure from the Government to discern what maybe quite legal downloads from illegal. As I have previously stated it is not illegal to upload for backup purposes onto a server and then download at a later time. Presumably these will be picked up as illegal downloads.
Relating to the Appeal process, the Government do not state what level of evidence will be acceptable to clear your name nor if there will be any help in technically being able to get the evidence. Having put a music CD on your computer, legally one may not keep the receipt for “x” years. Backing that up to a server which sometime later you download after your CD is ruined may result in an accusation of illegal download, however proof of your legal ownership will be difficult if not impossible.
There may also be, as in the case of child pornography, the defence of a virus or trojan downloaded it onto your machine. This has been a successful defence in child porn cases before. NO anti-virus to my knowledge is 100% successful nor is any person immune to accidently pressing the wrong key at times, indeed as we grow older we all tend tp do it. Once on your machine these things can completely take over, your machine can become a “bot”.
After 3 hours and 38 minutes I am convinced there is not enough technical knowledge or clear design in the Government Bill. Ultimately if it moves forward we face hikes by ISP`s in cost, hikes in professional help required for security and the professional pirates will still thwart all measures.
I apologise Lord Norton for this being the wrong place I will copy and paste to the Digital Bill thread if I can go back that far. Sorry.
Please see my latest in the Digital Economy thread re a suggestion as a solution for all sides.