---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, in due course I will withdraw the amendment, but I am puzzled by paragraph 48 on page nine of the Explanatory Notes. If the Government’s position were as the Minister has just explained it, the paragraph would have said, "The intention is for the code to set out what constitutes a serious repeat infringer, taking into account all the relevant factors, such as those explained by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall". It does not say that; instead, it says: ""The intention is for the code to set out a threshold number of CIRs, for example 50"." If the Government’s thinking has moved on from when the Explanatory Notes were written—that is, the Government are now saying that it will be not just a number but something much more complicated—then when they come back on Report they need to explain exactly how they envisage that the Explanatory Notes will be altered to reflect what the Government want. The important point here is that we believe, and this is intrinsic—in fact it is explicit, never mind intrinsic—in what other noble Lords who have participated have said, that whatever decision or recommendation the Government are coming to about how to define a serial infringer should be in the Bill. It should not be left, as the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said, to people—he might even have said "bureaucrats"—in a dark room coming up with a decision or recommendation that none of us will have an opportunity to comment on. This is an important point, and I commend the Minister to look at Hansard and take the advice of his noble friend Lord Whitty to take it away, think about it and perhaps come back on Report with something on which we can all agree. In the mean time, I am happy—no, I am prepared—to beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 76 withdrawn. Amendment 77 not moved. Amendment 78 Moved by