I beg to move Amendment 2, page 11, line 23, leave out from 'transparent' to end of line 26.

The Second Deputy Chairman:

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Clause 18 stand part.

Government new clause 1- Power to make provision about injunctions preventing access to locations on the internet.

Government new clause 2- Consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny .

We want to remove Clause 18, the text of which was inserted in Another place on a joint initiative of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. New clauses 1 and 2 contain amended provisions, and I hope I can persuade the Committee that our approach is the right way to proceed.

We have set out why we did not think that the clause 18, which was inserted by the other place, would work and our concerns about introducing such provisions in such a way and at such a time. We have also set out why we think the text in new clauses 1 and 2 would have the same benefits, but ensure proper consideration, including full consultation and proper safeguards. The key benefits of the amended approach are that, as a power to introduce regulations, which is what we are providing for, it is enforceable; it does not immediately fall foul of the technical standards directive, as the existing text would.

There will be proper opportunities to consult on the measure and for Parliament to consider it via the now famous super-affirmative procedure, with any recommendations having to be taken into account. The Secretary of State must consider the proportionality of the regulations and the evidence that they are necessary to deal with infringement that is having a serious adverse effect. We can also ensure that any security law enforcement concerns are properly taken on board.

In addition, should such regulations be introduced, the court from which an order was being sought would need to consider carefully legitimate uses and users affected by any order, as well as have due regard to freedom of expression. We certainly do not want the clause to be used to restrict freedom of speech. We want to ensure that the safeguards are properly considered and that ISPs do not have an incentive to block sites purely on the basis of an allegation, for fear of bearing costs-although we also need to ensure that ISPs are not allowed to flout a decision of the court. Essentially, our view is that the costs should be borne, not by the ISPs, but by those seeking a court order.

The new clause we propose does the job of dealing with online infringement other than unlawful file sharing, which is dealt with by earlier parts of the Bill, but adds safeguards to ensure that the position of internet intermediaries and citizens are properly protected. On that basis, I commend the amendments.

On Second Reading, I acknowledged that two thirds of current illegal activity on the internet, which is costing our creative industries dear, comes from illegal peer-to-peer file sharing, but the other third comes largely from persons downloading material from illegal websites, often hosted in Russia and that part of the world. Clearly, that is wrong and action is needed.

Having got rid of the all-embracing Clause 17 in the original Bill, which gave the Secretary of State unfettered powers, my colleagues in Another place thought it appropriate to table an Amendment to deal with the problem of illegal websites. However, we did so in the certain knowledge at that time that we would not have got it all right and that it was likely to be the subject of extensive debate in this House. As I freely acknowledged last night and I repeat now, there is considerable concern in the community about that amendment; however, there is also widespread concern about the new clause now proposed, which has many faults.

First, the new clause penalises sites that facilitate access, or that are

"used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright."

That is too wide ranging and even puts sites such as Google at risk. Injunctions can be used against sites that are not only making such material available in the present, but that have done so in the past and that "are likely to". That is hardly a good basis for the principle of innocent till proved guilty.

There is not enough indication that the rights holders must take reasonable steps to notify the site owner before seeking an injunction. The proposed injunctions are indefinite, which is inappropriate, and the injunctions would, it appears, not cover all service providers. Infringing customers could therefore simply move from one provider to another, as Derek Wyatt said earlier. There are many faults in new clause 1. For the reasons that I have given, and because of the House's total lack of ability to scrutinise the proposals in detail, we will vote against amendment 2.

To be absolutely clear, in the other place, the Liberal Democrats proposed an Amendment to the Bill, and argued vehemently in favour of it. Here in the House of Commons, they are now arguing against it. Am I right in understanding that to be the situation?

Of course the hon. Gentleman understands the situation absolutely correctly; he was present in the House on Second Reading when I made it perfectly clear. However, a person who has significant problems drawn to their attention is foolish if they do not take any notice of them, particularly in circumstances where, because of the Government's failure to provide adequate time, there has been no proper detailed consultation. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is willing to accept new Clause 1.

That was the most elegant of U-turns; it was beautifully put. It highlights the point that we have detailed and onerous decisions to make. I simply point out that the Bill has been incompetently rushed through the House of Commons, and many of the measures will need to be revisited at a future date.

Let me just remind Mr. Foster that what we are doing is taking powers to make regulations. The issues that he has raised can, will and should be fully scrutinised through the super-affirmative procedure when the regulations are drawn up.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 197, Noes 40.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings in the Committee, the proceedings were interrupted (Order, this day).

The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.