My Lords, I am in the slightly strange position of not having moved the amendment, but I want to quickly respond. I was slightly encouraged by what the Minister said about Ofcom having been in regular contact with the IWF. I am not sure that that is mutual; maybe Ofcom thinks it is in good contact with the IWF, but I am not sure the IWF thinks it is in good contact with Ofcom. However, I am encouraged that the Minister at least thinks that that has been the case and that he is encouraging consultation and the continuation of engagement.
9.45 pm
What the Minister absolutely has not said is what role he envisages for the IWF in all this in terms of possible co-regulation. He went swiftly on to talking about other co- regulation arrangements which had not yet been determined. He did not actually say what kinds of co-regulation arrangements might be appropriate with the IWF. Then he went on—he keeps going swiftly on—to say that an MoU with the Home Office is in prospect. This sounds very interesting, but no doubt we will want to know more about precisely what is envisaged as part of the MoU.
Of course, the Minister’s conclusion is that there is no need to amend the Bill because we have parliamentary procedure and draft regulations, and because Ofcom will be consulted and so on. That is all fair enough. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said, this is a probing amendment. If we have done something to speed up the process, all well and good, but the essence of this is to get something cracking. I hope that the debate has at least had some impact, but this is still incredibly vague. We do not really know what role is envisaged for the IWF. The Minister has heard around the Committee the regard in which the IWF is held. He has heard our desire to see that it is an integral part of the protection process and the procedures under the Bill, and to see it work with Ofcom.