---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, these amendments are, on the face of it, reasonable and it is easy to understand and appreciate the intent behind them. However, they are not necessary and would slow the adoption and approval of the code. A quick summary of the process that the code must go though will help to explain why. Ofcom will have either to develop or approve a code to underpin the initial obligations. It knows that any code must fully comply with existing legislation, including data protection and privacy, before it submits it to the Secretary of State. But before the code gets the Ofcom stamp of approval, it would have been developed with stakeholders and put out to consultation. The Information Commissioner’s Office responded to our earlier consultations on online copyright infringement and I would expect it to be similarly involved in the code consultation, if not the code development process itself. The code then requires the approval of the Secretary of State before ultimately coming before Parliament for approval. As part of that process we must be sure that it complies with all legislation and not just that concerning data protection or privacy. Therefore, the code will have been developed with stakeholders, have gone through a consultation, had Ofcom approval, and had the Secretary’s of State’s approval and that of Cabinet colleagues before it reaches Parliament. It is hard to believe that in all that time the important issues of data protection and privacy would not have been fully investigated and checked. Finally, I have little doubt that before approving the code the Information Commissioner would want to consider or consult on it, thus elongating the approvals process further. Formally requiring the Information Commissioner to approve the code is not necessary and could add significantly to the time for the approval process. In the light of that explanation on the fullness of the consultation process, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.