---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am intrigued that what seemed to be a relatively straightforward drafting amendment has provoked such an extensive debate. Clearly, having lunch with the Bill team ought to be recommended for anybody participating in this debate. I am sorry that I have not yet had the opportunity to do so. The point that I was trying to make, which is very straightforward, is that a lot more advice is required for anybody who is subject to a copyright infringement report. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, does not support me in this. I do not know why one particular type of advice—that is, on what to do in relation to those networks that use wireless telegraphy—should be singled out and put into the text of the Bill. Clearly, the code will need to deal with all sorts of issues that the subscriber to whom an alleged infringement report is sent has to deal with. Why are we singling out advice regarding wireless telegraphy? The only point I was making is that that seems inappropriate and it would be better to put this advice and the requirement for the advice in the code, including all the extensive detail that no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, in their lunches with the Bill team, will be able to devise to ensure that the appropriate advice is given to the potential infringer. That is all I was saying. I am happy to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 64 withdrawn. Amendment 65 Moved by