---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

I will take Amendments 72 and 73 together since they require internet service providers to send notifications of alleged infringement to the billing address held by the internet service provider for the subscriber which, in practice, is likely in many cases to have the same effect as the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Whitty, which specifies that the notification be sent to the postal address. I understand the intention behind this amendment. It is important that these notifications should be delivered in such a way that subscribers will receive and be aware of them. It is arguable that delivery to a postal address is the logical conclusion and more likely to result in the notification being seen promptly than delivery to an electronic address that may be little used or where the notification could be deleted. However, as the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, said, it is also important that these notifications can be processed and delivered in the most cost-effective way and, in some cases, e-mail will be the most effective, as well as cost-effective, route. I would not want to mandate physical delivery, since in certain circumstances that might not work; for example, for mobile networks with pay-as-you-go customers who do not have a physical address. These are matters that can safely be left to Ofcom and the code to determine in detail. For example, it might be agreed that the final letter before a subscriber is included on a copyright infringement list should be sent by both electronic and postal means, possibly via recorded delivery. That is the sort of detail it would be unrealistic to try to stipulate in the Bill, but is a good example of how the added flexibility of the code can be left to ensure that a fair and effective regime is adopted. I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Whitty, but we want to make sure that people are aware of what has happened. In many cases—it may be even in most cases—that will be by means of a letter but, for the reasons I have given, we do not want to rule out some flexibility in relation to electronic communication. In the light of that explanation, I hope my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.