---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, this group contains an interesting collage of amendments from the Secretary of State. Perhaps I may start in the middle and work outwards. Government Amendment 177B is of course, as the Minister said, another Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommendation. As ever, we are glad to see that the Government have tabled it, no doubt prompted by Amendment 178 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. Government Amendments 148A and 155A seem reasonably clear too. I think I understand that the purpose is to prevent the possibility of a technical measure falling on a subscriber who has never been the subject of an infringement report. I am a little concerned that only one report might be needed for the subscriber to take the necessary steps to protect his wireless connection and make him liable. Might I suggest to the Government that the threshold should be considerably higher? Perhaps three notification letters should be sent, with the implication that the subscriber is not responding to warnings. As drafted, could we not end up with a system where the three-letter process is watered down to one warning, followed immediately by a technical measure? I hope that the Minister can explain why my concerns are unfounded. Amendment 200A is, I fear, rather more worrying. Why are we suddenly talking about subscribers paying for the appeal in dispute resolution processes? So far, it has always been the responsibility of the ISPs and copyright owners to make sure that their allegations are accurate, and to bear the costs should they fail to do so. I do not see why it is suddenly suggested that subscribers must pay to clear their names if they have arrived at that situation through no fault of their own. Although we agree with Amendment 206A and thank the Minister for it, there are some quite serious issues to be answered here.