---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, it is always slightly disconcerting to get an answer before you have asked the question, but I shall do my best to respond on the hoof to the Minister’s statements. I took my basic text—I do not think that he has deviated very strongly from it—from his letter to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, of 11 March. I think that the Minister was exercised by the phrase "the majority of copyright owners". He raised a number of points in the letter that were similar to what he has said today as regards authors not always being copyright owners but perhaps having an interest in the outcome of an application for extended licensing and the Government not believing that a simple majority would be equivalent to the critical mass of representation required. He said that including the concept of the majority of copyright owners in the Bill would not be right and that he had encountered the same problem regarding the concept of "substantial" in relation to Amendment 155B. I understand some of those issues. However, the amendments that the Minister has put down may be similar in effect—the Minister used that phrase—but are not the same. In particular, the phrase, ""factors to be taken into account in deciding whether to authorise a licensing body to grant copyright licences"" is somewhat vague. Does it specify only factors to be taken into account before authorising a body to grant licences, or does it require consultation before an already authorised body grants a particular licence to a particular user? Certainly, many of those affected by these extended licences believe that both are required. We disagree about the legal impact of "substantial proportion" in Amendments 29 and 37. Contrary to what the Minister thinks, we believe that these give clear instructions to the drafters of the regulations. For instance, in the context of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, "substantial proportion" has a clear meaning—for example, through judicial interpretation of Section 16. Therefore, we have a drafting legal issue but the more substantive point is that we do not believe that the government amendment fits the bill. I beg to move.