Reply (finally) from Meg Hillier MP on the Digital Economy Bill

After 2 emails to Meg on this issue alone, finally I get a group response. Please see below for the vague, non-committal, generic email.

Thank you for contacting me about the digital economy bill. Please accept my apologies for the group response. I have had a great number of e-mails about this bill.

I agree with you that the bill should have time to be properly debated in the House and I have raised my concerns about the timing of the progress of this bill.

When Parliament is prorogued (i.e suspended before the election) all remaining bills are put into what is commonly called the wash up. This is a process which requires both major parties to agree which bills they pass into law. Early signs are that the digital economy bill may be agreed between Government and opposition.

A number of people have also written to me specifically about the copyright of ‘orphan works’. I am concerned about how this part of the bill will affect photographers (professional and amateur) and I have spoken to the minister personally about this.

I have been reassured somewhat that even if the bill is passed next week, the measures effecting photographers need not be enacted in regulations (legislation after a bill becomes law to enforce certain parts of it) if photographers do not want it. This means that even if it’s passed, we can work to stop the proposal being enacted and I would take this up after May 7th if returned to Parliament.

Thank you for taking the time to write to me about this issue. I will keep you updated with any developments.

Yours sincerely

Meg Hillier MP

****** New: I replied today – see below:*******

Good afternoon Meg,

Thank you for your reply.

It is good to know that you are concerned with the timing of the progress of this bill. I appreciate you voicing your concerns and speaking to the minister personally about the issue of orphan works. I am glad to see that, after the second reading, clause 43 of this bill has been dropped, that was something that would further distort the balance of intellectual property in favour of those with deeper pockets.

Something I am still concerned about, however, is the amendment to clause 8. In particular, the wording: “…is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright”. One angle of the problem is obvious – the wording ‘is likely to be used’ could include sites like wikileaks, as argued by John Hemming at th second reading, or even sites which have *not yet* committed copyright infringement. (I’m sure I don’t have to quote article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or even use the phrase ‘innocent until proven guilty’.)

The other side of the coin is the growing number of free anonymity software available. I’ll leave you to research these in your own time, but these essentially mask IP addresses in different ways and are widely available and will have the effect of send illegal downloading underground. (This is an important factor as to why any monitoring of Internet activities is not only a breach of human rights, but a pointless and very expensive waste of resources).

As you said yourself, many people are upset by this, and also feel very strongly about it (please see WWW.TWOMONTHSNOMUSIC.BLOGSPOT.COM for more details, this is a blog written by Patrick (twitter handle @patrickolszo) that I found through reading other people’s views on twitter. He is a music fanatic has decided to boycott music for 2 months as a personal protest to the digital economy bill.)

In light of your comments and assurances that you were worried too, I’d like you to explain to me why you did not attend the second reading of this bill, please? You said in your email that many people had contacted you about this bill; you said yourself that you were concerned and worried by the timing and the fact that you were not able to debate it in Parliament and so this leaves me with a sense of confusion as to why you were not present.

I should remind you that you work for us. You are our elected representative and I question your ‘sincerity’ that you did not turn up to a reading of a bill you know provokes strong reactions in the constituency. This is fast becoming an election issue for many, especially of the younger generation, and so I welcome your explanation.

Yours sincerely,

Saronimo
N1

Science and the General Election 2010

The third in the series of debates about Science and the General Election 2010, the panelists were Lord Paul Drayson (Labour), Dr. Adam Afriyie (Conservatives) and Dr. Evan Harris (Liberal Democrats) and was chaired by Susan Watts, editor of BBC Newsnight.

All three of the panelists came at the debate from a different angle. Although they are all vying for our vote, Labour has a recent track record and a corner to defend, The Conservatives are ‘the opposition’ and Liberal Democrats were in the enviable position of being able to make what appeared to be clear and specific policy.

Lord Paul Drayson kicked off the introductions by stressing the importance that Labour feel science plays in the future prosperity of our country. Since coming into power the have doubled the science budget and British citizens have received more Nobel prizes than any other country, outside the USA. Lord Drayson said he would like to see the ‘transformation’ of jobs in science, but also claims Gordon Brown ‘gets’ science and has the ability to look at the big and the small and, together with his predecossor, Blair, they have all presided in a ‘renaissance’ in British Science.

Dr. Adam Afriyie was the next to outline his Party’s position: fixing the economy… After a drawn out few minutes discussing various Labour failings in the economy (including the relevant facts of STFC cutting research grants by £1bn and withdrawal from 26 projects) Afriyie moved onto science by linking it into the new economic mode proposed by the Conservatives. We heard from him a 3 point plan: 1. Education – curriculum and incentives. 2. Stable Funding – ring fencing and a multi-year science budget and 3. Delivering the right conditions for innovation – ensuring strong jobs for science.

Dr. Evan Harris was the final panelist to deliever his introduction. After a bit of light banter with the crowd he started by informing us of some statistics rebuking Labour’s claim of a 50% increase in the science budget- citing a corresponding growth in GDP which results proportionally in less growth in real terms than Labour is claming, but still more than ever happened under the Conservatives. Not to mention many other items coming under the umbrella of the science budget than previously had done. Harris commented that we are above only Italy in the G7 countries in science budget and compared out stimulus of a VAT cut to that of Germany, France and USA, all of whom have invested in science and technology. He then moved onto their proposals, which centered heavily around education: cutting tuition fees; cutting graduate debt, looking after postgraduates, post doctorates and science teachers; ensuring that science is a feasible career for women to continue to work in and ensuring that universities use our tax money to fill their science places before inventing more media degrees to fill. He then discussed libel law and how they are being used to silence scientists… and then he ran out of time!

The debate quickly moved onto a few questions from Susan Watts of newsnight, including, predictably, one about a hung Parliament in which the panelists were largely in agreement with one another that this would not necessarily be a disaster for science – it is a unusual area for policy in that respect. Watts followed this up with a question aimed specifically at Afriyie, attempting him to specify whether cuts would be made in attempt to ‘shore up’ the economy. All three panelists ha a chance to speak, but it unhelpfully became a series of ‘he said-she said’ – although by this point it was become increasingly clear that, in many ways, Labour and Lib Dems are on the same side of the [ring] fence on this issue.

We saw questions from the floor, including from a first time voter about investments into space programs (at which point it was revealed that Dyson manufactures his vacuum cleaners in Malaysia, unlike the satellite manufacturers who have prospered under Drayson, who have factories in the UK); a question about students loans; a question from Sense about Science asking whether the panelists support proposals being embedded into ministerial code (which was followed by political bickering when Afriyie said he ‘would love to see this’ and was accused being non-commital); a question asking whether panelists would approve of a science advisor in the Treasury (Afriyie claimed that he had been lobbying for a ‘evidence based policy approach instead of policy based evidence’ and that he would like to see new MPs being given ‘science induction lessons’ – to which Harris suggested starting with current MPs and cited the recent Chris Grayling knife crime statistical fail as an example. He then used the opportunity to enter into a soliloquy chastising the recent use of statistics to distort facts and, conversely, the ignorance of statistics that have resulted in the recent dismissal of Professor Nutt on drug policy. Harris received the only spontaneous applause of the night.); following that was a question about women in science, which warranted almost typical answers in all panelists (Drayson suggested picking out women as ‘one to watch’ and ensuring the money follows them and they are presented as role models, Harris gave a thoughtful answer suggesting target them young, breaking stereotypes and finding where the discrepancies between women going into science and women continuing it for years arises and Afriyie suggested career advice and diverged away from women almost immediately going back to his self-promotion on his lobbying, suggesting studies on what policy actually affects peoples’ decisions.) we then heard a question from Martin Taylor of the Royal Society who asked about ‘long term maintenance’ of science, (which promted Afriyie to suck up to Martin Taylor and the other 2 to shoot Afriyie down; bickering ensued. This was halted by Watts who turned back to Taylor to ask him if he had a clear enough answer or if he would like clarificaton! He said he would like it, but I fear did not get it!)

Having spoken to some ladies who worked for Cancer Research UK and having looked at the various comments on twitter, it seems that funding is a specific area that needs some serious work yet wasn’t given the address it deserved, and so desperately needs, by panelists on the night, but, as we were reminded by all three panelists, (and a fair point it is, too) it isn’t for politicians to decide where the funding goes. Perhaps a debate for another day?

By the time their summary came round, I was able to form an opinion based on what I had seen from the candidates.

Lord Paul Drayson for labour had to toe the party line and defend his corner. He has only been in the role for 18 months and, while I’m sure the sentiment is not unanimous, from where I am standing he hasn’t done that bad a job in that short time. It was clear that he would like to be given the chance to continue on the role. As Harris pointed out, there were examples of fudging statistics in the claim that science spending had gone up by 50%. Nothing new there.

Dr. Evan Harris was clear, passionate, made specific suggestions about specific questions and I don’t think I heard once ounce of rhetoric from him. Of course, Lib Dems are in the position to be able to be seen to be making these promises having been in perpetual third place, but science is something they obviously hold in high regard, which is where it should be.

Contrasting with Harris, Dr. Adam Afriyie for Conservatives can barely talk the talk, let alone walk the walk. He carries himself well and is a good orator, generally speaking, but as we all know, science is not an area where being ‘general’ is accepted. He avoided answering questions directly, was non-committal without acknowledging that he was being non-committal (quelle surprise for a politician, I know!) and seemed, in actual fact, out of his depth talking about science issues.

In my eyes, Dr. Evan Harris won that debate. I think he engaged with the audience, was specific, passionate and was clearly a scientist first and politician second. The problem is, as we know, that scientists sometimes have problems interacting with the general public, and there might be a chance that Afriyie will charm the masses – which will result in the science budget being cut, of course, unlike with either of the other 2 parties.

However, the election is not just about science, and is not to be fought between just the three main parties (as I must keep reminding myself, we are in a democracy!) so the quest continues!

Homeopathic Methods Applied as a Case Study.

I recently read ‘What actually gets taught on a homeopathy course: part 1’ revealed by Professor Colquhoun in his website and it got me thinking about application of these ‘scientific’ methods. Since the treatment is often constructed based on the idiosyncrasies of the ailment at the hands of a ‘trained professional’, this leaves the root of the problem often open to interpretation.

‘Like with Like’ is the claim made on The Society of Homoeopaths website. So, for a person suffering with insomnia, ‘coffea’ could be recommended (a thoroughly watered down coffee) – to generalise, a substance that would cause symptoms in an otherwise healthy person is used to create a remedy.

On that note, I’ve imagined that ‘The Economy’ has walked though into my ‘pretend diagnosis’ room (sounds about right). Poorly and unsure of the root of the problem, given the length of time between acknowledgement of a problem and any diagnosis or action, I’m not surprised she sought alternative therapy. Not that I want to propogate a self-fulfilling prophesy, but unless something dramatically alters, we’ll see a Conservative government voted into power within the next year and this probably means that deregulation will be among the diagnoses of the financial woes presided over by The Labour Party in the past 12 years. So if I were a Conservative* Homeopath* I might concoct a remedy based on regulation watered down so much that there appears to be very little substance left. That sounds familiar.

When labour came into power 1997 after the systematic deregulation and privatisation of many public services by a conservative government, they tried to claw back some financial regulation with the introduction the FSA and FSMA 2000. Consolidating 7 regulatory bodies into 1, their watered-down, ambiguous Primary Objectives appear to have, without going into too much detail, errr… failed. Not only that, but they have kept very quiet about their accountability,  allowing blame to lie with individuals who are supposedly authorised, regulated and penalised by themselves. In fact, the Principles of Business are so watered down they leave many of the judgement calls on ethos and even individual trades to the very people that profit from them, and retaining what some may opine to be very little substance themselves. Hmm…

The continued application of such ‘remedies’  with, at best, zero proof of efficacy is commonplace in policy making, displayed by the recent dismissal of Professor Nutt. You’d think that drugs policy would be one of the easiest areas to turn into a near exact science. Legislation could easily be based on scientific results from data collected in studies relating to physical/mental health rather than applying the same old ‘classification rehashing’ to a problem caused by prohibition and characterised by criminalising addicts. Apparently not.

I really hope** that the next government discontinue the use of out-dated methods of applying remedies, we’ve come a long way scientifically in the last 100 years and we don’t really need to still be using the same archaic MO.  Regulation and state-control are not necessarily the enemy; poorly justified, ambiguous, unaccountable, watered-down regulation, however, is.

* I’m not.

** While my hope is rational, it is wasted. So instead I heartily look forward to the ribbing that the main parties get when their ‘science’ is put under scrutiny.