---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

Let me try to reassure the noble Lord. Preparations will not in any way short-circuit the requirements of Ofcom to collect the evidence and prepare the progress reports—all the things that were outlined previously. It might help if I elaborate on the sort of steps that we have in mind. In order to make an assessment of whether technical obligations should be imposed on internet service providers, Ofcom will need to consider all the various technical obligations that could be imposed, how effective they would be and what unintended and unwanted side effects they might have. Once a conclusion was reached about the best technical obligations, it would not be possible to bring such an obligation into effect until the requisite code had been drawn up and notified for a three-month period to the European Commission under the technical standards directive. Also, the relevant order would have to go through the proper procedures here and in another place. All that takes a considerable amount of time—time during which harm would continue to be done to our creative industries. However, it is right that it should take that amount of time. We stand by the assurances that we gave noble Lords that this is a graduated process. We are about prevention. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, shakes his head, but we have given our commitments. The graduated process has been defined in the Bill—from the first stage of action to the last letter of notification. All that will take place. The progress reports have to be made by Ofcom. We talked about the full progress reports and it was accepted that they would be necessary in the first year. None of that has been removed; it all remains in place. I am puzzled by the idea that, just because we investigate what preparations will be needed to introduce technical measures, which we have defined in this clause, it is all a fait accompli and implementation will just take place. That cannot happen. I reiterate what I said earlier: preparations taking place would not pre-empt any decision. No positive decision would have to be taken just because a code existed in draft form. However, that would allow for a swift imposition of technical measures if it were deemed necessary. That is the point that we are trying to make. I absolutely agree with all noble Lords who have expressed concern. We do not want to rush into technical measures. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, it would be totally counterproductive and would totally undermine what we are trying to do. We said that we are serious about trying to change behaviour. That is still our main focus. We will review the situation after a period of time. We do not believe that it is necessary to state in the Bill whether that should be one year or two, but it would be at least a year. If, after that period and after a succession of progress reports, we find that there has been no real change in behaviour and that there is a need to introduce technical measures, we will then have the means to do it. There is no question of that preparation somehow being a device to short-circuit the assessment process. After all, we want to make sure that we get the technical obligations right, so we are using that preparation time wisely. It does not in any way undermine all the previous commitments. I do not believe that there is anything in the legislation that allows one to draw that conclusion. I understand the concern. There is no difference between us about the concern to ensure that, in changing behaviour, we get all the other points right first and do not rush into this. We absolutely accept those concerns. I hope that, in light of the explanation and assurances that I have given, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.