Skip to main content

1-50 of 51 results for subject:Injunctions

Legislation X
Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

More
Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10 (51)

Subject

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

My Lords, I want to address some of the points that have been raised, starting with those made by the noble Lord Clement-Jones, who expressed a concern once again about the position of libraries, universities and wi-fi cafes. It might be helpful if we put on record a number occasions...

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1726-7
House
House of Lords

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 5. 5: Page 19, line 42, after "provider" insert "or owner"

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1727
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I very much associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. They were very well put. I think his analogy is closer than he likes to admit in relation to memorising and format shifting—it is almost exactly what has happened. The world has only just...

Member
Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1725-6
House
House of Lords

My Lords, although I share with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, some of the reservations about additional safeguards, I welcome these two amendments. Indeed, I could hardly do otherwise as I moved a similar amendment at an earlier stage of the Bill in the Lords. However, they do not go...

Member
Lord Whitty (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1724-5
House
House of Lords

My Lords, when Clauses 4 to 17 were discussed by my honourable friends in the other place at Second Reading, they were broadly supportive of the provisions but made it clear that their support would be conditional on three additional conditions which they believed needed to be put in place...

Member
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1724
House
House of Lords

My Lords, as this House debated on several occasions during the Bill’s passage, imposing technical obligations is undoubtedly a significant, and probably controversial, decision. That is why Clause 11 requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the assessment prepared by Ofcom as to whether they should be imposed,...

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1723
House
House of Lords

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 3 and 4. 3: Clause 11, page 15, line 25, after "unless" insert— "(a) the Secretary of State has complied with subsections (6) to (10), and (b) " 4: Page 15, line 27, at end insert— "(6) If the...

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1723
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I was pondering the response of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I did not know whether to describe it as a Damascene conversion or a volte-face. Nor did I know the cause of the change, although I suspect that it may have had something to do with the...

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1722-3
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I should like to make a few comments on this proposed new clause. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we should leave out the proposed new Clause 18 which the Liberal Democrats produced at the last moment and we should leave out the Government’s proposed...

Member
Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1720-2
House
House of Lords

My Lords, on Report—the Minister clearly set out the history of the provisions—these Benches, together with the Conservative Benches, proposed a new clause to give courts the power to grant injunctions for internet service providers to block access to certain online locations which host copyright material. This new clause was...

Member
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1719-20
House
House of Lords

My Lords, the Government’s amendments contain several technical and substantive improvements to the original. The improved consultation measures that Amendment 8 contains are welcome. I will therefore support these amendments should the noble Lords to my right continue to object to the very clause they moved and supported on Report.

Member
Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1719
House
House of Lords

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2, 6, 7 and 8. 2: Page 11, line 23, leave out from "transparent" to end of line 26

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1718
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2, 6, 7 and 8. This will have the effect of removing the Clause 18 text inserted in this House. Amendments 7 and 8 introduce two new clauses to replace Clause 18. I...

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1718-9
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I have been involved in the debate exclusively on Clause 43. It had admirable intentions to free up orphan works and make possible extended collective licensing. It was a victim of the bad programming by the Government, which results in the messiness that we have had to experience...

Member
Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1716-7
House
House of Lords

My Lords, the specific question was: are the Government going ahead with the pilots? Our understanding on these Benches is that the Government are not going ahead with the pilots.

Member
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1717
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I will respond generally to what seems to be the Lib Dems’ rallying cry in this process about the wash-up being a stitch-up. Inevitably, during the wash-up process I cannot help thinking of that quote from Hobbes about life being "nasty, brutish and short". There is an element...

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1717
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I am sorry to make the Minister jump up and down in this final session and I hope that I will not have to make him do that many times today but the fact is that the identity of those running the pilots is already known. The contracts...

Member
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1718
House
House of Lords

I cannot say any more than I have done. As I say, whichever Government are in office after the election will have to take that decision. They will need to decide whether public funding should be used.

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1718
House
House of Lords

So the answer is very clearly yes—those pilots will not be going ahead in the immediate future unless this Government are re-elected.

Member
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1718
House
House of Lords

The pilots are separate from the provisions in the Bill as the pilot process has been run by the Government. It will be for whichever Government are in power after the election to decide whether they will award and fund the IFNC pilot contracts. Signing the contracts will again be...

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1718
House
House of Lords

I cannot add any more to the points that I have made. I do not disagree with the noble Lord. With regard to the points made on copyright by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, I thank him for his thanks. It was a pleasure to co-operate to try to resolve...

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1718
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the chairman of the Select Committee. I declare an interest, having served on it. This is a terrifyingly worrying step that is being proposed. It is absolutely crucial that the BBC news—for which I, too, have huge regard in...

Member
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1716
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1, as well as Amendments 9, 10, 13 and 14. The first amendment leaves out Clause 1, thus removing the requirement in the Bill for Ofcom to promote investment in electronic communications networks...

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1713
House
House of Lords

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1. That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1. 1: Clause 1, leave out Clause 1

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1713
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I do not share the concerns expressed so far about the ending of these consortia having control of local news for two reasons. First, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, with whom I have disagreed in the past over new technology, expresses himself unfortunately when he says that we...

Member
Lord Maxton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1715-6
House
House of Lords

My Lords, my criticisms of these amendments are not quite as general as those of the noble Lord. I regret very much that, under Amendment 9, Clause 29 will perish. The House and the public need to recognise that we are likely to face an even greater problem in regional...

Member
Lord Fowler (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1714-5
House
House of Lords

My Lords, this is a sad outcome to a Bill that started with promise. At the outset of the passage of the Bill through this House, almost all noble Lords accepted that we needed provisions that would avoid the scenario so graphically set out in the recent EU study that...

Member
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1713-4
House
House of Lords

As someone who is not a professional journalist and has no high regard for them, I think it is of major benefit that the news is not provided by professional journalists. My second reason is that the consortium for the Scottish region had been granted to a consortium made up...

Member
Lord Maxton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1716
House
House of Lords

The difference, surely, is that under the current system that news is provided by professional journalists. Under what the noble Lord is describing, there are no professional journalists.

Member
Lord Fowler (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1716
House
House of Lords

I thank noble Lords. It has been a long and winding road. I cannot quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the nature of the finished product. The Bill may not be perfect, but in doing its best to protect the creative economy, which is what is at...

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1734
House
House of Lords

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 13 and 14. 13: Leave out Schedule 2 14: Line 2, leave out from "copyright" to "to" in line 3 and insert "and about penalties for infringement of copyright and performers' rights" Motion agreed.

Member
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1734
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I have the utmost respect for the Minister. It is not a rule, I think, that the privilege amendment is moved by a privy counsellor, but it is the usual custom. Although the Minister is enormously distinguished, I do not think that he is yet a privy counsellor....

Member
Lord Trefgarne (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1733
House
House of Lords

I, too, thank the Minister for his patience with all the opposition parties. I only hope that his damaged hip is not a direct result of the Digital Economy Bill.

Member
Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1734
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I do not want to delay the House, as I can see serried ranks around me—unusually for the Digital Economy Bill. I thank the Minister for his courtesy throughout the passage of the Bill. We have had our disagreements, most latterly over the product of the wash-up. That...

Member
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1733
House
House of Lords

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 12. That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 12. 12: Page 60, line 3, leave out subsection (2)

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1733
House
House of Lords

My Lords, this is the privilege amendment. This is one of the last amendments and, before I conclude my remarks, this is a fitting moment for me to pay tribute to my Bill team—or part of it—over there in the Box, ably led by Colin Perry. They have performed a...

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1733
House
House of Lords

8A: As an amendment to the motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 8, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree". 8A: As an amendment to the motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 8, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree"....

Member
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1733
House
House of Lords

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 9 to 11. 9: Leave out Clause 29 10: Leave out Clause 43 11: Page 59, line 44, at end insert "and the entry in Schedule 3 relating to the Public Lending Right Act 1979 (and section 47 so...

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1733
House
House of Lords

I spoke to this earlier, so it is probably better to say simply that I support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in that it would be better to leave this to another Parliament. The very dangerous original Clause 17 has now been eliminated and replaced by Clause 18 put forward...

Member
Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1730
House
House of Lords

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 8. That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 8. 8: Insert the following new Clause- "Consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny (1) Before making regulations under section [Power to make provision about injunctions preventing access to locations...

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1732
House
House of Lords

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 7, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

Member
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1730
House
House of Lords

I spoke to this amendment when I spoke to Motion 2.

Member
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1730
House
House of Lords

7: Insert the following new Clause- "Power to make provision about injunctions preventing access to locations on the internet (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the granting by a court of a blocking injunction in respect of a location on the internet which the court...

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1729-30
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I will take the Minister’s assurance, because I suspect that that is true. I am not quite sure how it works in certain circumstances, but I do not want to delay the House at this stage. I am sure that others are much more aware than I am...

Member
Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1728
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I was intending to respond—to reassure the ever watchful noble Lord, Lord Elton. It is clear that the effect of the amendment is that Ofcom is to have regard to steps taken by a provider in relation to contravention of obligations notified to that provider, and steps taken...

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1728
House
House of Lords

6: Leave out Clause 18 Motion agreed. Motion on Amendment 7 Moved by

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1728
House
House of Lords

5A: Line 1, leave out "or" and insert "and"

Member
Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1727
House
House of Lords

My Lords, the aim of Commons Amendment 5 is to tidy up the text of enforcement of obligations and correct a small drafting error. It has no other purpose. Likewise, Amendment 11 in the group is a tidying amendment that aligns the commencement of the substantive provisions on the public...

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1727
House
House of Lords

Briefly, I did not quite seize what the noble Earl was saying at the end of his delivery to us. It seemed to me that the government answer was a syntactical one, merely saying that the construction of the sentence was right. The noble Earl's objection is that there is...

Member
Lord Elton (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1728
House
House of Lords

I do not intend to waste any time on this; it is just that when I looked at the amendment, I could see that "or owner" followed exactly the pattern of the rest of the clause. It suddenly occurred to me that the steps taken to mitigate or prevent a...

Member
Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
718 c1727-8
House
House of Lords