---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

The noble Lord protests too much if he is slightly hurt by that. I merely pointed out that we have had many repetitive debates where grouping would have enabled us to debate issues. It was no more than that. There is a grouping procedure. I am grateful for the opportunity to do it now but I wish we had done it previously; no more than that. Please, let us not delay the debate further. The amendments would establish a first-tier tribunal as the independent appeals body set up to deal with subscriber appeals about such matters as copyright infringement reports, as opposed to the current intention to set up an independent body under Ofcom’s authority, with a first-tier tribunal only being part of the process should obligations to limit internet access be introduced. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we should be dealing with this in Clause 13 and that this proposal seems to us disproportionate. I do not think that the proposed amendments would be either an improvement or proportionate. It is important to remember that in relation to the initial obligations provisions in the Bill no subscriber will be disadvantaged unless they have legal action taken against them by a copyright owner, in which case they will have the opportunity of defending themselves in court if they consider the case to be unfounded. These are not, therefore, people who might come under the first example of a copyright infringement. We talked about giving a graduated response, and so, as we said, it would be a letter bringing to their attention a copyright infringement and giving them the opportunity to remedy the situation. Meanwhile, it will be important that appeals are heard quickly and efficiently. A first-tier tribunal at this stage, before we have introduced technical measures, will, because of its judicial nature, inevitably take far longer than is necessary or desirable and will possibly increase costs. I believed that the Committee considered all those aspects undesirable. Allowing further appeals to the High Court about a subscriber’s identification in a copyright infringement report, where the ultimate sanction is anyway an alleged infringer being taken to court by a copyright owner, would seem entirely out of proportion, and not a good use of valuable court time. With regard to the costs of appeals, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that he had been convinced of my argument that it is legitimate to have a cost, but not a disproportionate one, to deter mischievous appeals. We therefore believe that Amendments 120 and 125 would be disproportionate and costly, and would be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We will deal with technical measures under Clause 13, should they be introduced. Amendment 124, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would require Ofcom to set up an independent adjudication scheme which subscribers could access in relation to any of the measures in Clause 15. However, the new subsection (4) in Clause 8 and the new subsection (2) in Clause 13 require the codes of practice relating to the initial obligations and any obligations to limit internet access to provide that there is a person who has the function of determining subscriber appeals in relation to activities covered by those codes. These provisions taken together provide an independent route of appeal for subscribers in relation to Clauses 4 to 15. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, in calling for an adjudication scheme, is looking for something substantively different from the appeals process I have outlined. Any appeals will have to consider the strength of the evidence of the copyright owners—we return to this subject again. We do not assume that a copyright owner is necessarily right in alleging that there has been a copyright infringement—that is why there is a right of appeal. A copyright owner may allege that there has been one, but there may have been a technical error or whatever. That is why we do not make such an assumption and why we have introduced a right of appeal. Any appeals will have to consider the strength of evidence that copyright owners, internet service providers and subscribers put before them and reach a conclusion on the merits of the individual case. I have no real sense of how an adjudication scheme would operate differently. I therefore hope that with the explanations that I have given I have satisfied noble Lords that their concerns are already fully covered by the provisions of the Bill, and that they will therefore feel able to withdraw the amendment.