---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

As I sought to explain, we first thought about three months; we are now considering whether one month would be more appropriate. I was trying to share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, about retrospection, because I recognise that it is an important issue. That does not mean to say that I necessarily accept the terms of the argument. I sought to identify how we have made arrangements to take account of that issue without thinking that the amendments advance the cause. The reason that I referred to the term "retrospective" is, first, because the issues were forcefully advanced in speeches at Second Reading; and secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said, the word "retrospective" is pretty significant in legislation. We do not think that the provision is retrospective. The clause provides that copyright infringement reports received by an ISP during a period defined in the code will need to be acted on by the ISP, once it passes a certain threshold set out in the code. There is nothing retrospective about that; it is ongoing, because it is a question of the threshold being reached; but it is not retrospective. I hope that noble Lords will accept that the Government listened to the Second Reading speeches, knew that this issue was of some concern, and have done considerable work on it. We are seeking to create a framework that will work and is acceptable. It would not be improved by accepting the amendment. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, will feel able safely to withdraw his amendment.