---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, the concerns expressed in the amendment tabled by myself and my noble friend Lord Razzall are very similar to those in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, except they are perhaps more defined in terms of libraries or educational or cultural establishments. We had a good debate in Committee, but there was great sense of disappointment, I think, that libraries and universities were classified for the purposes of the code simply as subscribers. Such classification will make them migrate away from what might be thought as being their ordinary course of duty as a cultural or educational establishment towards becoming ISPs themselves. Ironically, they may have rather fewer duties as an ISP than as a subscriber. That would be a regrettable step, because one is forcing them into a situation which would not otherwise occur if there were satisfactory exemptions for them. However, I accept that the Minister has within the constraints of the definitions that he has provided tried to be helpful. A paragraph in the note that he has sent noble Lords states: ""There is the potential for the code to offer some flexibility and reflect the particular positions of libraries and the like. Ofcom will consult on the code in due course"." That libraries with fixed terminals are rather different from universities with wi-fi was explained in some detail in the factsheet that the Government have put forward. Nevertheless, the defences need to be set out very clearly in the codes, and we are not there yet. We have therefore brought back Amendment 34 to see whether the Government can make a slightly better fist of being clear about the way in which the code will work and the defences that are available.