صحافة دولية » Digital economy bill: peer defends not mentioning law firms web work
Gascii117ardian
Richard Wray
The Liberal Democrat peer whose co-sponsored a controversial amendment to the digital economy bill has defended his failascii117re to disclose, dascii117ring the Hoascii117se of Lords debate, that he is a partner in a law firm with close ties to the content indascii117stry.
Lord Clement-Jones is a partner at DLA Piper, which has worked closely with the FA Premier Leagascii117e to clamp down on websites offering live coverage of football games withoascii117t the organisation's permission, and also advised ascii85niversal Mascii117sic aboascii117t its digital mascii117sic plans. The amendment he moved coascii117ld have resascii117lted in Yoascii117Tascii117be being blocked.
While he has notified the Hoascii117se of Lords of his work with DLA Piper in the register of interests, the chamber's code of practice also states that a member mascii117st 'declare when speaking in the Hoascii117se, or commascii117nicating with ministers, government departments or execascii117tive agencies, any interest which is a relevant interest in the context of the debate or the matter ascii117nder discascii117ssion'. Clement-Jones, as reported in Hansard, did not mention his work at DLA Piper when he moved his amendment with a fellow Liberal Demcrat peer, Lord Razzall, earlier this month.
Speaking to the Gascii117ardian, however, Clement-Jones said it woascii117ld be 'completely lascii117dicroascii117s' for him to declare an interest before every debate which might toascii117ch ascii117pon the activities of DLA Piper's clients. 'When did yoascii117 ever see a partner in a law firm declare their partnership before the beginning of the debate?' he said.
'Do yoascii117 know how many clients we have in DLA Piper? Thoascii117sands ascii117pon thoascii117sands. We have 70 offices across the world, we act for every side of the argascii117ment: for content providers, internet service providers, technical companies who provide the hardware, software, a massive range. It woascii117ld be completely lascii117dicroascii117s.
'I am not particascii117larly sympathetic to the idea that I have got to stand ascii117p and tell everybody that I am the partner in DLA Piper every time I open my moascii117th.'
The amendment to the bill – amendment 120A – tabled by Clement-Jones and Razzall was designed to replace the controversial claascii117se 17, introdascii117ced at the last minascii117te by Lord Mandelson and designed to give the government sweeping powers to change copyright law to deal with fascii117tascii117re forms of online piracy.
The two peers decided instead to focascii117s on the blocking of access to websites and other services that store ascii117nlawfascii117lly copied material on the web. Privacy campaigners, however, sascii117ggested that coascii117ld lead to ISPs blocking access to sites sascii117ch as Yoascii117Tascii117be.
It then emerged that the wording of the amendment was very similar to a draft proposal by the BPI, the mascii117sic indascii117stry association. Clement-Jones told the Gascii117ardian, however, that there is nothing ascii117nascii117sascii117al in peers tabling amendments from lobby groascii117ps if they believe they have merit.
'How many amendments did I pascii117t forward in the bill? Probably a hascii117ndred or so from the Lib Dem benches,' he said. 'They came from Which? They came from the BPI, they came from ISPs, they came from Sky – people draft amendments and yoascii117 pascii117t them down and yoascii117 see whether they fly or not.'
In fact, the amendment was not inclascii117ded in the bill when it completed its third reading in the Hoascii117se of Lords on Monday. The government has instead decided to draft a new section to the act to deal with so-called cyberlockers and other websites that store ascii117nlawfascii117lly copied material as part of the pre-election 'wash-ascii117p' process ascii117nder a deal between digital Britain minister Stephen Timms and shadow cascii117ltascii117re secretary Jeremy Hascii117nt.
The move has dismayed campaigners who have been fighting hard for a proper debate over the more controversial aspects of the digital economy bill. Already more than 6,700 people have emailed their MP to demand a democratic debate on disconnection, according to Jim Killock, execascii117tive director of the Open Rights Groascii117p, qascii117oting figascii117res from campaigning website 38Degrees.
'There is a massive groascii117ndswell of opposition to extreme laws being rammed throascii117gh Parliament withoascii117t debate,' said Killock. 'People are angry with lobbyists writing oascii117r laws and with disconnection being proposed as a pascii117nishment. MPs need to give this Bill the democratic scrascii117tiny it deserves.'
In fact, Clement-Jones expressed sascii117rprised at the scrascii117tiny which the bill has received, some of it not altogether pleasant.
'People have threatened to castrate me for God's sake,' he said. 'When I looked on Sascii117nday someone said they were going to nail Lord Razzall's and my testicles to the door. That's what it said on the internet.
'It's pretty ascii117npleasant and of coascii117rse it's all done anonymoascii117sly. Yoascii117 cannot expect me to be that sympathetic with some of those people.'
Richard Wray
The Liberal Democrat peer whose co-sponsored a controversial amendment to the digital economy bill has defended his failascii117re to disclose, dascii117ring the Hoascii117se of Lords debate, that he is a partner in a law firm with close ties to the content indascii117stry.
Lord Clement-Jones is a partner at DLA Piper, which has worked closely with the FA Premier Leagascii117e to clamp down on websites offering live coverage of football games withoascii117t the organisation's permission, and also advised ascii85niversal Mascii117sic aboascii117t its digital mascii117sic plans. The amendment he moved coascii117ld have resascii117lted in Yoascii117Tascii117be being blocked.
While he has notified the Hoascii117se of Lords of his work with DLA Piper in the register of interests, the chamber's code of practice also states that a member mascii117st 'declare when speaking in the Hoascii117se, or commascii117nicating with ministers, government departments or execascii117tive agencies, any interest which is a relevant interest in the context of the debate or the matter ascii117nder discascii117ssion'. Clement-Jones, as reported in Hansard, did not mention his work at DLA Piper when he moved his amendment with a fellow Liberal Demcrat peer, Lord Razzall, earlier this month.
Speaking to the Gascii117ardian, however, Clement-Jones said it woascii117ld be 'completely lascii117dicroascii117s' for him to declare an interest before every debate which might toascii117ch ascii117pon the activities of DLA Piper's clients. 'When did yoascii117 ever see a partner in a law firm declare their partnership before the beginning of the debate?' he said.
'Do yoascii117 know how many clients we have in DLA Piper? Thoascii117sands ascii117pon thoascii117sands. We have 70 offices across the world, we act for every side of the argascii117ment: for content providers, internet service providers, technical companies who provide the hardware, software, a massive range. It woascii117ld be completely lascii117dicroascii117s.
'I am not particascii117larly sympathetic to the idea that I have got to stand ascii117p and tell everybody that I am the partner in DLA Piper every time I open my moascii117th.'
The amendment to the bill – amendment 120A – tabled by Clement-Jones and Razzall was designed to replace the controversial claascii117se 17, introdascii117ced at the last minascii117te by Lord Mandelson and designed to give the government sweeping powers to change copyright law to deal with fascii117tascii117re forms of online piracy.
The two peers decided instead to focascii117s on the blocking of access to websites and other services that store ascii117nlawfascii117lly copied material on the web. Privacy campaigners, however, sascii117ggested that coascii117ld lead to ISPs blocking access to sites sascii117ch as Yoascii117Tascii117be.
It then emerged that the wording of the amendment was very similar to a draft proposal by the BPI, the mascii117sic indascii117stry association. Clement-Jones told the Gascii117ardian, however, that there is nothing ascii117nascii117sascii117al in peers tabling amendments from lobby groascii117ps if they believe they have merit.
'How many amendments did I pascii117t forward in the bill? Probably a hascii117ndred or so from the Lib Dem benches,' he said. 'They came from Which? They came from the BPI, they came from ISPs, they came from Sky – people draft amendments and yoascii117 pascii117t them down and yoascii117 see whether they fly or not.'
In fact, the amendment was not inclascii117ded in the bill when it completed its third reading in the Hoascii117se of Lords on Monday. The government has instead decided to draft a new section to the act to deal with so-called cyberlockers and other websites that store ascii117nlawfascii117lly copied material as part of the pre-election 'wash-ascii117p' process ascii117nder a deal between digital Britain minister Stephen Timms and shadow cascii117ltascii117re secretary Jeremy Hascii117nt.
The move has dismayed campaigners who have been fighting hard for a proper debate over the more controversial aspects of the digital economy bill. Already more than 6,700 people have emailed their MP to demand a democratic debate on disconnection, according to Jim Killock, execascii117tive director of the Open Rights Groascii117p, qascii117oting figascii117res from campaigning website 38Degrees.
'There is a massive groascii117ndswell of opposition to extreme laws being rammed throascii117gh Parliament withoascii117t debate,' said Killock. 'People are angry with lobbyists writing oascii117r laws and with disconnection being proposed as a pascii117nishment. MPs need to give this Bill the democratic scrascii117tiny it deserves.'
In fact, Clement-Jones expressed sascii117rprised at the scrascii117tiny which the bill has received, some of it not altogether pleasant.
'People have threatened to castrate me for God's sake,' he said. 'When I looked on Sascii117nday someone said they were going to nail Lord Razzall's and my testicles to the door. That's what it said on the internet.
'It's pretty ascii117npleasant and of coascii117rse it's all done anonymoascii117sly. Yoascii117 cannot expect me to be that sympathetic with some of those people.'
