---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

I am not going to attempt from this Dispatch Box to be fertile on the range of defences that might be erected. These amendments have been advanced against a background that members of a family may be guilty—others who have access to a home may cause the difficulty—and I merely indicate that the Bill is graduated to take account of offences of that kind. The challenge has to be laid at someone’s door. It cannot be addressed to a possible member of a family in circumstances where the provider can have only one source of information—the person who commissions and buys the service. We must start from that point. Noble Lords will be emphatic that the range of potential offences can go from the most mild inadvertence, almost, by a young person to the most serious form of copyright infringement. The Bill is designed to take account of that. I seek to reject these amendments on the concept that it is not right that the Bill should identify an individual—a location—against whom the first charge can be laid and who takes responsibility for the computer. I understand the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has re-emphasised. She brought it up earlier with regard to communal facilities. My noble friend Lord Young indicated that we will write about the provision of communal facilities. We recognise that the point needs a response. In dealing with Amendments 43 and 45 I merely seek to establish that there is bound to be a necessity for someone to be identified if a transgression has potentially occurred, and the identification is bound to address the subscriber. I hope noble Lords will recognise—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, emphasised it—that we need to be proportional. I am seeking to reply to that. I am seeking to indicate just how balanced the Bill is in that relation. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, has a rather different perspective with regard to his amendments. I am shaking in my boots at the thought—as the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, indicated—that if an offence occurs on railway trains, for which my noble friend Lord Adonis has significant responsibility, then it is my noble friend Lord Adonis who committed the offence. I will seek to defend my noble friend providing he is not the direct subscriber involved in this issue; I am sure he never would be. I am grateful for the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, has put forward, but I do not think we can adopt them. There are bound to be occasions when a subscriber’s internet service connection is used without their knowledge or consent—where their neighbours use an unprotected wireless hub. I do not think it is wi-fi in quite the way that my noble friend Lord Maxton indicated, but there is the potential for access through an unprotected wireless hub. Clearly it would be a proper defence for the subscriber that such an action had been taken without their knowledge, without their permission and had been—perhaps I will not use the word "hijacked" as I have already been brought to book over that—appropriated by someone. It is important that people are aware that their connection can be used without their knowledge and permission and that there are simple measures that they can take to make such freeloading more difficult. They risk getting into trouble if they do not take the precautions. If we are going to make this legislation effective we have to increase the defences that individuals have with regard to the use of computers, and increase their awareness that giving casual opportunities to others to access the internet via their machines could render them considerable difficulty. I appreciate that there may be some who do not object to unlawful file-sharing or their connection being used by whoever wishes to avail themselves of free, but unlawful content. All the illustrations that have been advanced with regard to these amendments today have been of relatively harmless unlawful uses. However, there are those who would use these opportunities for very improper purposes indeed. We are all too well aware of the problems caused by the downloading of child-abuse images in the wider society. The idea therefore that no one is going to be held responsible when an individual avails themselves of an opportunity through access to someone else’s computer just will not do. We have to have the ability to protect society against illegal actions via the computer which can be for much darker purposes than have been suggested in the debate. I want to emphasise the effect of Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard. It would remove that part of the copyright infringement report that presents the evidence on which the report is based. In my view, the information has to be included as it is the basis on which subsequent action is taken. It is not at all clear how, if such information were not part of this, internet providers would be able to associate the report with their subscriber who is using the IP address at the time of the alleged infringement. It is a crucial part of the build-up of the case in significant circumstances. There is a real problem, as indicated by anxieties in all parts of the House. IP addresses have a dynamic quality—they change every time you log on. Without the information prescribed in the Bill and in this clause, it would not be possible to process the reports. This would mean that the whole system would be inoperable. We need that information. I respect the probings of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, on the matter. I am all too well aware that he has anxieties about the extensive ramifications of public action. In this area I hope he will recognise that if the information is not available then we would not be able to operate the safeguards on which the legislation is based. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.