I beg to move Amendment 15, page 8, line 25, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

The Second Deputy Chairman:

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 35, page 8, line 29, after 'case', insert

'or in relation to a particular class of internet service providers or subscribers'.

Amendment 14, page 8, line 33, at end insert-

'(c) specifies reasonable rights and obligations in relation to a subscriber that is a library, an educational or cultural establishment, hotelier or internet cafe as a provider of networks operating between an internet service provider and a user of the network.'.

Amendment 29, in Clause 10, page 14, line 31, at end insert-

'( ) an economic and social impact assessment as to whether any application of the technical measures will be proportionate to its likely affect on, inter alia, subscribers, households, businesses, users of wi-fi networks, not-for-profit organisations, libraries, educational establishments and the internet network; and'.

Amendment 43, in clause 13, page 16, line 35, leave out 'and' and insert-

'( ) that those provisions are proportionate to their effect and take into account the impact upon, and relevant arrangements made by, an educational establishment, prescribed library or accredited museum in order to achieve what the provisions are intended to achieve; and'.

I shall be very brief indeed. The House will know that I have already raised the concerns expressed by very many people about universities, libraries, small businesses, wi-fi cafes and the like. These organisations often have a very large number of users on a single system and could very easily fall foul of the legislation unless we ensure that that does not happen.

In Another place, my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones tabled an Amendment to solve the problem, and he was given an assurance by the Government that it would be dealt with in the obligations code to be drawn up by ofcom. Since that time, however, no amendment to that effect has been forthcoming from the Government-perhaps because we have had so little time to discuss any of these issues.

Therefore, to save the Government time and to help them out, we have drafted an amendment that would give effect to the promise that they made in another place. In that spirit, I hope that the Government will be willing to accept it.

I have tabled some of the amendments in this group. Amendment 35 is really a reaction to the Bill's economic impact assessment which, frankly, was fairly hopeless. It did not look at the impact on libraries, hotels, internet cafes or any other institution that might have wi-fi. The problem is the lack of clarity about what constitutes a service provider, and the amendment would enable ofcom to define special categories of service provider, such as libraries, universities and institutions, that provide open wi-fi networks.

Amendments 29 and 43 deal with how we assess the technical measures that need to be taken. The aim is to provide some safeguards to ensure that such measures are proportionate. Obviously, we could take a technical measure to remove internet access from a parent because their child had been infringing, but that parent might sustain a small business in their home, employing a number of people. We should be removing those people from employment. There are many examples showing that the technical measures might be unfair and disproportionate to the infringement that had taken place. The amendments would provide protections in the Bill, so that Ofcom had an obligation to measure its proportionality and fairness.

I rise as a parent and a former president of the National Union of Journalists to humbly suggest to the Committee that the labourer is worthy of his hire. If someone puts his intellectual effort into writing an article, making some music or creating something, it should not be stolen from him and handed out free through the power of the internet.

As a parent, I have to say that it may not be the most unwelcome thing in the world for a father or mother to tell their child, "Actually, you can't spend all evening on the internet." I understand why the Liberal Democrats-representing big capitalism-generally oppose the measure, but as a socialist I am astonished that any Labour MP-

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear the earlier parts of this debate or Second Reading yesterday. He has just walked into the Chamber and expressed astonishment, but there are legitimate concerns about people having access to justice if allegations of copyright infringement are made under the Bill. Those are the people we are standing up for-our constituents who may lose their livelihoods as a result of the Bill's being bounced through in an hour. I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have had a more proportionate response to our legitimate concerns.

I have been following the debate in great detail. In the very last debate of this Labour Government, some of my hon. Friends are telling my journalist colleagues and others that they do not have the right to protect that which they have created, and to have some modest share of the value they add to our economy, because that would represent problems for wi-fi providers, internet café owners or hotels. That is not something I am happy with, and that is why, in the last, dying hours of a Labour Government, I am doing something that may be difficult for colleagues, which is to support a Labour Government. I do so not from Labour loyalty, but because I profoundly believe that the explosion of the net-of information provision-which I welcome, must not deny those who add value to it their chance to have some share of that which they produce.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

A Liberal Democrat asks me to give way. We are in the last dying hours of this Parliament. That party has always stood up for the rich and the privileged against the rights of journalists and trade unionists. I will not give way. If he wants to make another speech, he can do so.

I agree that what we are doing on infringement must not undermine our efforts to ensure that there is good public access to broadband and to rich content. Everybody will agree that that is important. We should not act to make commercial provision something that coffee shops, pubs or hotel chains will have to think twice about.

We need to put the provisions in context. It would not be right to introduce a large and growing loophole in what we are doing. If we did so, there would be serious consequences for providers. We need to keep that concern in mind.

Universities tend to take tough action against students or staff found infringing copyright, not just because it is unlawful, but because it clogs up valuable resource-bandwidth needed for legitimate use, including file sharing of research. However, I agree that libraries, universities and the rest need to be sent appropriate advice on reasonable steps that they can take to protect their networks. I agree that there might well be a case for such institutions to be subject to a different threshold than other subscribers. It would be rather silly-it would not make sense for anyone-if a big hotel faced the same threshold as an individual before being added to an infringement list.

I said on Second Reading that we would not approve any code that did not take full account of the needs of such subscribers. I repeat that now, and I think that it is the reassurance that Mr. Foster said that the Government gave in Another place. No Amendment is needed to give effect to that. The code will require the consent of the Secretary of State, and I am happy to confirm again that we would not give consent to any code that did not properly take account of the position of libraries and educational establishments.

There is a type of case that is not covered by the Minister's reassurance. Somebody might park outside my house with a laptop, access my signal and abuse it without my knowledge. What would happen if such an abuse occurred and it could be traced back to me?

In such a case, my hon. Friend might receive a letter in due course informing him that an infringement had occurred on his internet access. He would then have the opportunity to protect that access.

How?

My hon. Friend could introduce a password so that somebody driving up outside his house would not be able to use his access. The letters that are sent out will have to give such advice and explain what people can do.

There are a number of things that libraries and others can do to prevent infringers from using their connection. For example, they can apply controls so that particular file-sharing sites with unlawful content are blocked at the subscriber level, which would be more difficult for an ISP to do more generally. Alternatively, they can block particular protocols or limit the bandwidth available so that file sharing on such connections is unrealistic. Such measures would allow libraries to prevent widespread infringement, but would still permit people to enjoy good online access.

I hope that I have provided some reassurance to hon. Members and that the amendments will not be pressed to a Division.

In light of the Minister's assurances, and because I am conscious of the time available, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.