---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises some important questions about the appeal process, both the appeal against the initial obligations process and in the case where technical measures are established and imposed. The burden of proof is a particularly interesting point. It is, after all, very hard to prove a negative. We have already heard that if the subscriber takes certain reasonable steps, it will be considered a defence against further allegations of infringement of copyright. Does that mean that on appeal it is up to the subscriber to prove that he did attempt to protect his subscription? Will the rights-holder have to produce any further evidence than that contained in the original copyright infringement report to uphold the claim against the subscriber? As ever, we return to the matter of costs. Under the draft SI, the division between the copyright owners and the internet service providers is suggested to be 75 per cent to 25 per cent. How was that figure arrived at? The Explanatory Notes merely suggest that most of the costs should be borne by the copyright owner. The final figure appears to be very much the result of heavy lobbying from both sides. The copyright owners want a 50/50 split while the internet service providers want none of the costs. The Government seem to have made a final decision just to split the difference and have an easy life. That, of course, is rather different from the suggestions in some of the supporting fact sheets. One suggested that the establishment of the appeal process should be 50/50 and the running costs should be apportioned according to who brought the appeal. Is that idea now discarded? I have still not quite got my mind around why internet service providers should pay anything. They are providing the communication link but have no knowledge of what goes down that link; indeed, if they knew, that would raise privacy issues. Perhaps the Minister could explain this to the House.