You might have seen some reports recently about illegal downloading, particularly of films and computer games. Many big US companies (mostly the ones who produce the films, games and music that is most often copied) are now in discussion with EU governments to try and come to some agreement over the policing of the illegal copying. There is an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being thrashed out at the moment and the main proposal is that the ISP (Internet Service Provider – the company who provide your Internet service) might be given the responsibility of monitoring Internet use and being responsible if an individual uses the iInternet for illegal downloading. They would be expected to do this by simply judging  by the size of files downloaded who is copying films for example and who is not. Of course since there is no way of telling what exactly someone is downloading – it might just be a huge file of their own movie for example – this is being described as a massively disproportionate response to the problem.

We all recognise there is a problem – and this can certainly be seen by asking teenagers or other young people whether they feel illegal downloading is problematic. The Independent quotes a recent survey where 70% of those aged 15 to 24 do not feel guilty about downloading music for free – which is of course acting illegally. So, what is the government supposed to do?

There seems to us to be a mood in the government recently of massively unproportionate responses to quite straightforward problems. They identify a problem (or they seem to find dramatic examples of what they think are problem) – and then identify a particular group in society who needs to take responsibility for this. So, for example if a particular citizen wants to download illegally it is the person who provides their Internet connection who is responsible. As Rhodri Marsden says in the Independent, ‘the absurdity of holding third parties responsible has been highlighted so many times that the parallels are almost cliches – landlords being liable for criminal activity by tenants, Royal Mail being prosecuted for delivering a threatening letter…..” It’s no surprise in some ways that the government is looking to actually find people to blame for problems – after all there is an election coming up in a couple of months.

For us at UIC a more relevant parallel, but not a less worrying one, is the way the government is expecting schools and colleges to monitor the behaviour of foreign students coming to the UK to study English. Since April last year, language schools, colleges and universities have had to sponsor students coming to study in the UK and are then responsible for monitoring them – the consequences of not doing this properly can be quite devastating. For example if a student applies to a college, gets a visa, comes to the UK but disappears … and the college reports this to the UKBA as it is required to do then that you might think that should be enough. However, if a college reports too many people not attending (and there is no number attached to this at the moment) – the college can simply have its licence suspended. No explanation required – and in January this year over 100 colleges were suspended. Many have subsequently been inspected and reinstated but unfortunately some have taken legal action against the government and won – disproportionate response! This morning (Wednesday 3 March on the day the majority of changes were introduced) at a meeting in the House of Commons which was attended by well over 100 representatives form the EFL industry as well as MPs from all the main political there was broad agreement that the measures introduced by the UKBA were completely inappropriate. The shadow Immigration minister Damian Green said it was “not so much a sledgehammer to crack a nut as a sledgehammer aimed at entirely the wrong object”.

None of us as citizens mind being responsible or helping the government put into practice any sensible workable policies. What we all object to is increasingly ‘big brother’ demands from government, civil servants developing powers where they become unaccountable – even to parliament, no honest consultation with affected parties and where developing policies – no apparent understanding of the sector they currently have in their sights.