---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

That brings us back to Amendment 33, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, remembers because it came from his Benches and was attacking the problem from exactly that point of view: that we should encourage the courts to think of this as the proper way of dealing with copyright infringement rather than, as is happening at the moment, the massive use of Norwich Pharmacal orders even where there is supposed evidence of single infringements. We will take what the Minister said seriously and, if we come back to this on Report, it will be on the basis of understanding exactly what happens when you take complaints to the solicitors’ regulatory bodies. There are certainly other ways of doing this. The orders are being sought on the basis of allegations that information has been downloaded. As the Minister said at an earlier stage, there is no known way of doing that legally. Perhaps we can just say that a Norwich Pharmacal order may not be granted in respect of an allegation of downloading material. Since there is no known method of doing that legally that would seem to be a reasonable way of shutting off this particular attitude. Certainly, in terms of dealing with the perceived wrong, we shall be keen to return on Report if we can find a sensible way of doing that. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 129 withdrawn. Clause 9 : Progress reports Clause 9 : Progress reports Amendments 130 and 131 not moved. Amendment 132 Moved by