---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, I will speak first to Amendments 78 and 79, since they address the same issue. Subsection (2) in Clause 5 requires the ISPs to be able to compile lists in relation to any "relevant subscriber" that identify all the copyright infringement reports relating to particular subscriber accounts, without identifying the subscriber in any way. The Bill then defines a relevant subscriber as a repeat infringer who has reached any threshold for receipt of copyright infringement reports that might be set by the initial obligations code. These amendments, however, appear to remove the concept of a relevant subscriber, which would require all subscribers to appear on the copyright infringement lists. What is important is that copyright owners should be able to identify the worst infringements to enable them to target legal action against those subscribers who systematically—and, I emphasise, despite many warnings—continue to infringe copyright. I do not believe that the amendment as proposed would improve the operation of the copyright infringement list. In light of that explanation, I invite the noble Lords not to press the amendments. I turn to Amendment 83. The Bill’s definition of which subscribers should be included on the copyright infringement list refers to the number of infringement reports in relation to the subscriber. The amendment would change the wording so that we were looking at the number of infringement reports in relation to the subscriber’s account. There is a serious point here, which we have discussed before. All the infringement reports generated as a result of this legislation will identify accounts, not individuals. It is not possible to associate an infringement with a specific person for the reason that has previously been identified—for example, where two or more people share an internet connection, or even a computer, within a house. However, while the amendment accurately reflects the nature of the copyright infringement reports, it would not make any difference to the meaning of the legislation. Therefore, in the interests of making progress, I again invite the noble Lord not to press the amendment. Indeed, I make a similar point about Amendment 114. The effect of this amendment, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord De Mauley, would not alter the effect of the existing text, It would simply state that the subscriber identified by the internet service provider is a subscriber to an internet service. I suggest that there is no need for such an amendment; it is perfectly clear within the existing text that the subscriber is somebody who thereby receives an internet service. Of course, "subscriber" is defined, in relation to an internet access service, within Clause 16 as a person who, ""receives the service under an agreement between the person and the provider of the service"." Again, since the meaning is entirely clear without the additional language proposed in the amendment, I invite the noble Lords to withdraw this amendment. In answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, about whether there will be an infringers’ blacklist, we have no plans to establish a blacklist of subscribers who have infringed in such a way that the subscribers would have their data passed from one ISP to another—or, indeed, to anyone else. We are trying to link the subscriber to that particular account, rather than a range of accounts.