---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, are designed to change the way in which the requirements for notifications to subscribers are expressed in the Bill. The amendments are not in any way objectionable, and I certainly accept the noble Lord’s assurance that they are intended to be helpful, but we do not think that they are necessary. They do not change at all what the notifications to subscribers must contain but they look to express them in a way that reduces the number of subsections from seven to six. Amendment 69 changes the focus of the final paragraph of new subsection (5) in Clause 4 from requiring a notification to include anything else required by the code to requiring it to comply with other requirements of the code. This proposed wording mirrors that in subsection (2), which relates to copyright infringement reports. I understand the point here but we do not think that the amendment is necessary. New subsection (4) in Clause 4 requires a notification to be sent if the code requires it—that is, when it should be sent. This should be read in conjunction with new subsection (7) in the clause, which sets out how a notification is to be sent. This will ensure that a notification complies with any provisions in the code relating to timing and delivery. New subsection (5) requires a notification to include anything that the code requires in relation to content. I cannot think what other sorts of provisions the noble Lord thinks the code might contain about the notification that sit outside timing, delivery and content. That being so, I think that the Bill as drafted covers his concern and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.