---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, who it is nice to see again in his place in a more positive frame of mind. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his very useful, rather forensic comments. In response to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, I do not think that during the course of the Bill we have had confusion about the role of ISPs; I think we have all been very conscious of their limited duties. That is why, as my noble friend Lord Razzall indicated, this amendment is so controversial so far as concerns ISPs, leading to a letter in the Financial Times from quite a number of them. Let us not forget that a lot of the proponents in this are in business. Of course, many copyright owners are businesses—some large and some small, such as photographers—but some on the ISP side are also very large businesses, so this is not simply a case of big business against the small person. That has needed to be emphasised in this debate. I thank the Minister, in particular, for his reply. Of course, there is many a slip between cup and lip, and the debate will now move to the other place. I take it from the Minister—and hope that this is the case—that this is not a reintroduction of Clause 17 but a much more targeted approach to consulting over regulations with a specific target. In view of the controversial nature of the proposals that we tabled on Report, which I more than discovered in the reaction of members of my own party, I hope that, when drawing up the new regulations, Ministers will be very keen to observe one or two points. Perhaps the Minister will find these reasonably useful, certainly as regards the available research. I hope that the regulations will be very rooted in the evidence of copyright infringement and of the amount of downloading that takes place from the prevalent overseas websites. I also hope that, when they consult, the Minister and his colleagues will respond to the concerns of those who believe that site-blocking is a serious step, both technically and legally. I welcome his undertaking to have an extensive consultation on the regulations. However, it is incumbent on those who are absolutely dead-set against this kind of measure to demonstrate just how these new models can be set up unless there is adequate protection against copyright infringement. I think that we have debated that matter throughout the past three months but the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is clearly unconvinced that some incentive, apart from pure education, is needed to persuade people to download legally. I think that we need to be fairly clear on that score as well. I also hope that the Minister will make sure, when the Government consult, that the safeguards which we have tried to build into this clause—both in the original amendment and in these ones—will very much be reflected in the regulations in order to make sure that the operation of any web-blocking mechanism is proportionately applied. Most importantly, we on these Benches have had many representations from all sides of the argument that there should be a full and proper consultation period. I hope that this will not be just a quickie in the course of the next few months but that all stakeholders will be consulted. I accept that as a criticism of the amendments which we put forward from these Benches and I hope that the Government do not make the same mistake. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 14 withdrawn. Amendment 15 Moved by