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 through the wash-up. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has made the valid point that there were some points which ought to have been discussed in another place, particularly the releasing of—and giving attention to—photographers.
It is interesting that, yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made a significant contribution about post-legislation scrutiny. Of all Bills, this is one which should have had pre-legislation scrutiny. It would have been, I am sure, a very effective Bill had the time been made available for that. I am assured by my own party that if it forms the next Government, it intends to bring back at an early stage a Bill to rectify the deficiencies which sadly exist in the present one. I hope that the party opposite, if it should be in power, would have similar intentions. Lastly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for the help that he has given us with the Bill and, certainly in my case, to meet certain of my objections and concerns.
Digital Economy Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Viscount Bridgeman
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 8 April 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Digital Economy Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
718 c1716-7 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 21:01:02 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_638471
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_638471
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_638471