Clause 10 : Obligations to limit internet access: assessment and preparation. Well, this was a major stumbling block. One of the most controversial aspects of this Bill has undoubtedly been the idea of restricting people's internet access. Unsurprisingly, there was a lot of spirited debate as a result.

Everybody chipped in, pretty much. Amendment 140, which kicked off the debate, was to make Ofcom wait two whole years before deciding if they should use 'technical obligations' - the euphemism for restricting or cutting off people's internet. The basic government position, made clear by Lord Faulkner of Worcester, is that if war on file-sharers breaks out, Ofcom will be ready (I'm paraphrasing, naturally, but that's the gist). Their reasoning is that, if they do need to bring in technical measures, they'll need "a good deal of work, analysis, consultation and a three-month notification with the European Commission" - by which point, of course, much time may have been wasted. I suppose you have to prepare your army in case you need to go to war: if Britain had to wait until the Nazis invaded Poland before training their army, we know what would've happened.

The others around the chamber were dismayed at this announcement. The Earl of Erroll pointed out that, amidst the government's talk of the 'softly, softly' approach, it "was implied that we were suggesting Armageddon in our amendments by saying that they would be introduced immediately. I think that the Minister has just told us that Armageddon is going to happen almost on day one". Lord Clement-Jones found the new revelation "breathtaking". He said he could compare it to "preparing for war in 2002 without any UN resolutions, but that may be a slightly extreme example". Lord Lucas disagreed: "I think that the Government have learnt their lesson, which is why they want to prepare for the occupation before they declare any public intention of a war".

In the ensuing debate, Lord Howard of Rising reminded Lord Young of Norwood Green that, despite all the assurances by Lord Faulkner, this would be "abused sooner or later by somebody". He echoed the arrest of "old ladies who get up and read out lists of the Iraqi dead in front of the Cenotaph". Lord Young of Norwood Green insisted that the government didn't want to "rush into technical measures". However, no amount of reassurance would satisfy the chamber, and we won't hear the last of this, I'm sure.

On a lighter note, Lord Mandelson tabled several amendments, which pleased Lord Clement-Jones: he thought that "for a brief moment, the Minister [was] dispensing sweetness and light". On the subject of limiting speed, Lord Young pointed out that "the subscriber would still be able to operate e-mails and various other features", which reminds me of the Panorama documentary's suggestion that using email would be affected. Hmm.

Lord Lucas also made such a simple observation: if your ISP limits your connection, why not just subscribe to another one? Yeah, it's a pain, but how can the government stop it? Well, Lord Young agreed that "changing an ISP is an option. We have no intention of creating a blacklist, but it is inconvenient, especially if they change too often". That sounds a bit crap, really, as it does make the whole idea of speed restriction sound pointless, but he did insist that they'd get back with a better answer in the future. Lord Clement-Jones echoed the thoughts of Lord De Mauley, who believes that "the primary reason [for these measures] is to prevent ongoing copyright infringement, not to act as a punishment". I hope that remains the intention.

Still, this debate rolled on. Lord Lucas was dead against 'reconstructing traffic', or basically spying on people's internet activity. The ability for the government to read your emails and see what you're looking at can be done through surveillance which "is available, under particular circumstances, to the security services, but should not be there to protect EMI". It's one thing keeping an eye on terrorists, quite another assisting a record company in their pursuit of profit. I was a little confused with the Earl of Erroll's assertion that "if you are trying to restrict access to a website, it is not your ISP that would do it, but the host of the website". Really? Can't an ISP block access? I'll bow to the Earl's knowledge on this, as he's proved that he knows his stuff.

Lord Young made it very clear, however, that they were talking about "the possibility of blocking access to particular types of traffic. I stress that it is certainly not to look at the contents of any of the subscriber's traffic or to change the contents in any way". So, peer-to-peer stuff, then. Lord Maxton wanted to know the technical details about this from Lord Young, but the Minister had difficulty in finding out the answer he was supposed to give. The simple answer was, "we'll get back to you".

As usual, the Earl of Erroll came back for the techie stuff. It seems that the government, as I said, is more interested in stopping unlawful peer-to-peer activity, rather than websites, but the Earl pointed out that Skype is also peer-to-peer. He hoped that the government wouldn't attack people's Skype usage because they thought it was file-sharing (which, of course, they couldn't find out without reconstructing traffic, which is what everyone is against). Lord Lucas, mischievously, ended the debate after the mention of Skype by saying that "more and more people are using image over IP, so you can no longer answer your telephone in your bathrobe or less. You have to be very careful and rush for the make-up before you pick up Skype. With that horrible thought, I am very grateful for what the Minister has said". Cheeky.

As the day's debate drew to a close, Lord Faulkner insisted that suspending a subscriber's service was a measure "which we hope will never need to be employed". On Lord Lucas' amendment about paying rights owners compensation to get your internet working again, the Earl of Erroll made the important point that "lawyers tell me it's not illegal downloading, it's unlawful downloading" (I'm, for once, not quoting Hansard, as their transcript of what he said actually seems wrong). This is "a civil breach of copyright, which is a civil offence and not a criminal one", so paying compensation makes more sense than slapping people in prison. Of course, it ends up being very similar to the actions of Davenport Lyons and ACS:Law, but at least the government would be controlling. Lord Young, obviously, thought this idea was crazy, as the Bill intends to change the whole culture of illegal downloading by switching to legal services, not just pay a fine and carry on doing it illegally. There was a minor amendment passed without debate right at the end of the night, also.

Debate continued for a while on 26th January. Very quickly, debate resumed on ACS:Law and Davenport Lyons, about whom "there has been a torrent of complaints to the [Solicitors Regulation Authority]", according to Lord Clement-Jones. Baroness Howe of Idlicote described their actions as "pretty disturbing". Lord Howard chipped in, describing their behaviour as "appalling". Lord Young would go on to say he was "glad that it has at least been reported to the SRA but regret that no action seems to have been taken to date". Given the venom from other members on all sides, he obviously remained diplomatic as he represents the government.

The Earl of Erroll, on the other hand, made the technical points that most copyright "is owned by six large rights holders - copyright holding companies - because they have the originators under contract from day one. Only a very small amount of money filters out to the creators the work. Most of it is rental on the back catalogue owned by large rights holders. We have to keep that in the back of our minds when we are told that this will kill creativity - it is not necessarily so". I refer to my point during my blog post about the Panorama documentary. Lord Puttnam came in, however, to suggest that the creative process would dry up, because investment will withdraw. I still don't agree with that in the case of music, of course, though in Lord Puttnam's area of the film industry, it's a valid point.

The old chestnut of Avatar popped up again. Lord Young said that we "should not kid ourselves that these are just minor downloads of the odd piece of music" when Avatar was downloaded 300,000 times on the first day of cinema release. The Earl of Erroll was having none of it: he said that, in the case of Avatar, "a few downloads has hardly affected it", given its enormous gross receipts. Lord Lucas (who I think is now my favourite Tory) weighed in with a contribution that is worth quoting in full:

"I suspect that we are not going to agree on "Avatar". It seems to me that the industry is being peculiarly stupid about it - it got 300,000 free advertisements. "Avatar" is something that you cannot consume sensibly on a small screen: you need the big-screen experience to appreciate all the work that they have put into it. The immediate consumption of it created an enormous demand for going to the cinema, which has benefited the film enormously. That is the fundament of this - we must get the industry to see this as an opportunity and not as a threat.

We must get the industry to be in there selling these downloads. If the industry had been in there selling at a dollar a time, it would be better off for it and it would still get the advertising. Its refusal to deal with the way that the world has moved on and with what technology makes possible, and its attempt to stick to old ways of doing things and to the idea that you can release a film in the United States today and wait six months to release it in the UK, is a looking-backwards attitude which we should not support through legislation. Yes, we should support copyright, but we should direct ourselves at real losses and not imagined losses. I do not believe that the makers of "Avatar" have lost a dollar; in fact, I think that they have gained a great deal from the piracy. We should not seek to punish people for losses that have not occurred."

Back on topic. He described the actions of people like ACS:Law as "straightforward legal blackmail". I'm sure we'll come back to this at another time, but they dropped it at this point. Lord Lucas' arguments against protecting the copyright holders "puzzled" Lord Young, and he didn't "understand why we should be happy for people to go into cinemas with camcorders and illicitly download material". Er, I think he means 'camcorders, as well as downloading'. It just sounded like you download films with camcorders. Never mind. Lord Lucas made it clear that nobody in the chamber was "defending illegal downloading", however the technical measures discussed will drive users to file-sharing methods that can only be stopped by spying on people's traffic - something that is unacceptable, "particularly as a measure just to protect copyright". He blasted the industry's backward-looking approach, since "we are in a new century and that there are new ways of doing things and making money out of copyright". Lord Clement-Jones, in closing the argument, half-joked that Lord Young's words "will be read with enormous care in years to come when people see the Secretary of State, by edict, imposing technical measures".

Clause 10 passed - Amendment 148A & 155A agreed