---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

This amendment very properly seeks to ensure that the person responsible for hearing appeals about copyright infringement reports or actions related to the copyright infringement report should have available to him the technical expertise and the relevant information from the copyright owner and the internet service provider to be able to evaluate the evidence for the alleged infringement. I agree with the noble Lord that this is an important issue. Clearly, it will be important that the appeals body set up by the code should be capable of determining whether a copyright infringement notice has been properly generated, so it will require some technical knowledge and expertise of, for example—I stress the importance of this—whether an infringement has occurred; whether the time and date stamp is accurate; whether the IP address was correctly captured and recorded; whether it has been properly handled by the ISP; and whether the subscriber has been properly identified from the IP address and the time and date stamp provided. As I have said on a number of occasions, that means an audit trail, a validated evidence base, not incomplete information. No system is infallible, but we are talking about serious evidence that can be technically validated and proved and that has to be chronologically correct. The need for the appeals body to have the relevant expertise and the ability to require the relevant information goes without saying in the context of what we need to reflect in the Bill and, to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to create public confidence in the system and these procedures. The provisions relating to the code give Ofcom all the powers it needs to ensure that the code is clear on these points and that the appeals body is constituted in such a way as to ensure that they are delivered. One point in the amendment is not so straightforward. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggests that the expertise available to the appeals body should also be available, without cost, to subscribers. Without disagreeing specifically with what I think the noble Lord is seeking to achieve, I must say that I would not put it in those terms. The appeals body will need to apply its expertise to any appeal that comes before it and consider the strength of the evidence that copyright owners and ISPs have presented. I am not sure that there is any need to make that expertise available to the subscriber rather than to the appeals body. On general information available to the public about security measures that can be taken, we have already talked about public education. Such information will be available so that people can understand the process and how the evidence has been obtained. We do not believe that making that available on a nil-cost basis is viable. While the aims of this amendment are not out of line with what we are proposing, it is not necessary to ensure the effect that the noble Lord seeks to achieve. I hope that the explanation I have given is sufficient to enable the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.