---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

Let me be clear about one aspect which has clouded this debate and ought not be introduced again because we have been round the course before. We are not talking about heavy sanctions at this stage but about letters which will be sent out where activity has gone on, perhaps innocently but wrongly. I am being asked to address the matter as though a massive legal sanction is being deployed. We are trying to safeguard copyright. It may be other members of a family who have caused the infringement and, in such circumstances, we will not bring in the full rigour of the law. We will indicate that a transgression has been identified which may have been committed by a fond wife, by a junior member of the family or anyone else within the family. That is why the legislation envisages that the first response will be expressed in very limited terms. I am not prepared to accept the constant reiterations, through these amendments, that a constable and the heavy hand of the law will arrive at a house with an arrest warrant for a signal charge, with a penalty of at least 25 years hard labour, as a result of the transgression. We are not talking about that and it will not do to translate it into such condign terms every time we get into this area. I understand that noble Lords may think and argue in a libertarian way that a transgression has occurred but no action needs to be taken. However, that is not the view of the Government. I am not too sure that it is the view of any noble Lord except when they are arguing the precious case of their particular amendment. The general view, in principle, is that the legislation seeks to deal with an issue which we need to take seriously. That does not mean that every measure in the Bill has a heavy sanction attached to it. I emphasise that because at this point we are identifying who is the subscriber. Is any noble Lord maintaining that such a subscriber has no responsibility for the service they take out? Is any noble Lord maintaining that any Tom, Dick or Harry—whether a member of the family, a casual acquaintance or someone who drifts in from the road and is treated with due hospitality—can commit an offence on the computer and no one should pay any regard to the issue? If that were the case, then quite clearly the legislation would fall at the first fence and would not tackle the problem.