The Government’s actions are intended to take effect later this year, and will implement the Consumer Rights Directive, which was approved by the European Union in October last year.

The EU has proposed several changes to the current data protection regime, including granting individuals a “right to be forgotten” by allowing them to force organisations to delete personal data they hold and making non-EU based organisations subject to EU data protection law if they store personal data of EU citizens in the “cloud” (i.e. storing the data on an Internet-based network rather than on local servers).

The Culture Minister responded that:

-          A “right to be forgotten” would give the public false expectations. His argument was based on the ease and speed with which data can be copied and circulated on the Internet, to the extent that the Government would be unlikely to pass a law into force that it was impossible to enforce.  After all, how could one organisation promise that someone’s photos had been permanently deleted when someone else may have copied them from that original site?

-          It was questionable how feasible it would be to enforce EU law against non-EU organisations and there was the possibility that the law would stifle innovation and economic growth in the sector.

The full text of the speech can be found here.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) have been informed of the breach and the business secretary, or his office, could be liable for a fine of up to £500,000 if the ICO finds that data protection law has been seriously breached.

The paper states that the principles of cloud computing, where file and programs are stored effectively on the Internet, must comply with the strictest principles of data protection and privacy. It goes on to argue that a watchdog body should be formed to regulate cloud computing services, with an emphasis on transparency of cloud computing operations.

The Government commissioned Ofcom to produce a report on how effectively the website-blocking provisions of the DEA could be enforced. The report considered:

-          the technical means available of blocking websites, which it concluded could not be 100% effective and could be widely avoided; and

-          how effective the DEA could be when compared to section 97A of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), under which an ISP’s actual knowledge of copyright infringement using its network could be grounds for the granting of an injunction by the courts. The report concluded that the DEA method would be slow, expensive and uncertain when compared to the CDPA route.

The Ofcom report concludes that any DEA system would be ineffective, and that website blocking should be only one of a number of alternatives to reducing copyright infringement online. The Government’s announcement follows a recent case considered by the High Court in which BT was ordered to block a copyright infringing website known as Newzbin 2 under the provisions of section 97A of the CDPA. Following the ruling, some questioned whether the relevant sections of the DEA are actually necessary – the courts seem capable of dealing with the issue of blocking on a case-by-case basis under the CDPA.

Whilst the section 97A method can also be long and expensive, the Newzbin ruling shows that the method is a realistic option. When compared with the DEA, its requirements are also much easier to understand and invoke – the CDPA requires the demonstration of actual knowledge on the part of an ISP that its network is being used for copyright infringing activities. The DEA, on the other hand, has a number of requirements, including having evidence of the amount and type of material available, as well as the need to show that, before a website can be blocked, the operator of the website as well as the ISP has been warned of the possible consequences of the infringing activity.

The Digital Economy Act requires Ofcom to introduce a system to reduce web piracy by ensuring co-operation between rights holders, such as record labels, and Internet service providers (ISPs).

Under the proposals put before Parliament, ISPs would need to warn a subscriber three times that they are breaking the law by file-sharing, after which, if the subscriber continues to be active in file-sharing, the ISPs must pass the details of the subscriber to the rights holder to allow them to enforce their rights.

The proposals split the cost of the system between copyright holders, who must pay 75% of the costs, and ISPs, who must pay the remaining 25%. The reasoning for this seems to be that it is copyright holders that benefit and therefore they should pay for the system, but ISPs are critical of the cost split as they do not benefit at all – they argue the rights holders should be responsible for the full cost of the system.

The proposals seem to be a step in the right direction for the Digital Economy Act. However, at the same time as the proposals have been laid before Parliament, the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has asked Ofcom to review whether such a clampdown on file-sharing by blocking access to file-sharing, copyright infringing websites, or part of those websites, is practicable. Many critics of the Digital Economy Act argue that blocking websites is not workable and extremely expensive.

This Government seems to be doing what the last government should have done before passing the Digital Economy Act in a rush before dissolving Parliament – seeing if the law is actually viable. However, there is confusion at the way in which it is pressing on regardless, especially as there is a judicial review in play too.

The licence will replace the current Click-Use Licence, so that users will not need to register or apply for consent to re-use data. The new licence will also cover wider forms of data.

To see the UK Government Licensing Framework, click here: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/uk-government-licensing-framework.pdf.

The European Commission is considering a new Directive on Consumer Rights. The Government asked businesses and consumers whether they agreed with an extension of laws concerning unfair contract terms to cover other elements of a particular transaction that may not be its core focus, such as holiday surcharges and luggage frees. The question posed by the Government was whether such charges needed to be justified as not being ‘unfair’ to the consumer.

It was not surprising that business responded negatively, arguing that market forces and competition already kept prices fair, and that additional regulation was not needed. Consumers argued that such ‘side-show’ charges were not necessarily paid attention to be consumers, and therefore they required protection in this area as well as the core charges.

The Government anticipates having the discretion to implement such regulations domestically if it chooses, rather than the issue being dealt with at EU level.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of Upload-IT, comments: ‘This is great news for citizens and the media, but this raises concerns for suppliers to the Government that confidential material within their documents may be disclosed to their competitors. On the other hand, it may provide an opportunity to spy on what their competitors are doing!’

This is the first Budget of the new Government and will be the first Budget where the Office of Budget Responsibility, also announced today, will provide the forecasts for the economy and public finances.

The most concerning tax measures we may hear about are:

• Changes to CGT – possibly increasing the rate to up to 50% for high earners.
• Increase of the rate of VAT – up to an expected 20%.

In terms of CGT, if you hold an asset which currently stands at a gain, and which you would consider disposing of in the short to medium term,  you need to consider whether you should take action before 22 June to secure tax at 18%.

It may be possible to crystalise a gain even if you don’t have a buyer lined up, although this needs careful consideration, please let me know if you would like to discuss this.

The proposals include forcing companies to allow customers to pay off their most expensive debts first; increasing the minimum monthly repayment level to encourage customers to pay off their debt faster; preventing companies from raising customers’ credit limits without being asked; and imposing tighter rules on increasing interest rates on existing debt.

The consultation ends on 19 January 2010.