---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

This issue can be debated at two levels. It can be debated at the level that I started with, and on which the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, picked up, which is that we do not like the retrospective nature of the provision, because legislation should not be retrospective unless there are overwhelming reasons. I do not agree the Minister that this not retrospective. The Bill states that if, ""the threshold is reached, rights or obligations apply in relation to a time before it was reached"," So someone who thought that they were acting perfectly innocently—the internet service provider—and who did not perceive that there were any significant infringements suddenly, because the threshold is reached, has to go back and produce figures for a period before it arrived at that point. That is clearly retrospective. At the second level—as so often with this Bill—the devil is in the detail. The detail is particularly for mobile telephone operators. It is a significant task and, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, said, often an impossible task for them to capture the detail to comply with the obligation set out in subsection (5)(b). The Minister did not quite go as far as to say that the Government had an open mind on the issues, but he suggested that they were thinking about them. I urge him and his officials to hold further consultation with those ISPs most affected before the Bill is finally put to bed. This is a major issue not only of principle but of detail. Of course, in the mean time, I am happy to—no, I am prepared to—withdraw the amendment. Amendment 93 withdrawn. Amendment 93A not moved.