Proceeding contribution from Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 3 February 2010. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Digital Economy Bill [HL].
Digital Economy Bill [HL]
My Lords, as I understand it, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the order appointing the manager details the steps that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the registry to take to remedy its failure, or the consequences of its failure, being those that the registry should have taken, and which the manager must ensure are taken. The clause allows for the order to include these steps. Further, the Bill is clear that the purpose of the manager’s appointment is to secure that the steps identified by the Secretary of State are taken. We want the shortest possible intervention necessary to restore the efficient and effective functioning of the domain name and organisation. That is our clear intention, and I hope that in the light of this assurance, the noble Lord will feel capable of withdrawing the amendment. Amendment 228A would make it a requirement on the face of the Bill to ensure that the manager limited his actions to ensuring that the registry remedied the failure, and any consequences of the failure, which have been set out in the order appointing the manager. Those are the two explicit circumstances in relation to the role—ensuring that the registry remedies the failure, and any consequences of the failure. I can further assure the Committee that the Secretary of State would have no interest whatever in the manager doing anything other than correcting the failure of the registry. The clause already makes it clear that the manager is being appointed solely for the purpose of securing that the registry takes the steps that the Secretary of State considers appropriate to remedy the failure. Furthermore, new Section 124O of the 2003 Act introduced in Clause 19(1) restrains the manager from doing anything more than is necessary to comply with the order, and we feel under the circumstances that this amendment is not necessary. There was a comment about pay; perhaps I should come back to the Committee on that, but I share the concern that we keep the pay to a reasonable and acceptable level.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 717 c225-6
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disability Children BBC Broadcasting Computer networks Broadcasting programmes Commercial broadcasting Channel Four Television Communication Digital technology Hearing impairment Finance Fees and charges EU law Film Equipment Internet Journalism Motor vehicles Public appointments Older people Recycling Political impartiality Public service broadcasting Ofcom Radio frequencies Radio Local broadcasting Visual impairment Registration Road traffic Waste disposal Television channels Satellite broadcasting Teletext Channel Three Digital switchover help scheme Global navigation satellite systems Television licences
- Legislation
- Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-31 10:31:58 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_618969
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_618969
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_618969