---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, I have no doubt that the Government will consider that I am becoming very suspicious of them in my opposition to new Section 124A(6)(d) in Clause 4. However, there is a difference between new subsection (5) and new subsection (6). If the Government were to accept the very sensible amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who has suddenly disappeared, which proposes that the very first letter should refer to the possible consequences of infringement, then that would appear in every letter. As I said earlier, it is only right that the subscriber should know the consequences. However, the paragraph that my amendment proposes to leave out refers to the number and nature of copyright infringements. That suggests to me—admittedly, with a suspicious mind—that the notification will be tailored to the individual; in other words, it will refer to the fact that there have been several such infringements already and that the nature of those infringements will be known to the copyright holder or ISP. None of those will have been tested. I might be putting too heavy an interpretation on subsection (6)(d), but it seems to slip stealthily between stages 1 and 2 of the enforcement process. Had the Government been minded to accept the earlier amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the proposal would not be here in this ambitious sense. My central point is that it implies knowledge, and therefore evidence that has not had the opportunity of being challenged. I beg to move.