---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, I shall take these amendments together as they each have the effect of changing the scope of the technical measures that might be introduced by the Secretary of State. I do not believe that any of them would improve the effectiveness or fairness of the Bill. Removing the possibility of capping somebody’s band width or restricting the speed at which their service runs, or preventing or limiting access to particular material, would be a significant loss in terms of the flexibility of response. Arguably, inconveniencing a subscriber while preserving their access to the information society is the sort of measure that should always be at least considered before resorting to account suspension. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, asked why we would do that. Clearly, it would depend on the level of infringement. If the measure was considered to be a suitable deterrent, the subscriber would still be able to operate e-mails and various other features. We therefore believe that it has a part to play and is a valid measure that could be introduced. It is certainly one we ought to consider before moving to the last resort, having gone through all the other processes, which is account suspension. There is no desire in the first instance to be punitive, but perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that we are trying to prevent people ending up in court. It should be remembered that there is always the option of the copyright owner going to court. We are trying to move away from the position in which the courts are involved unnecessarily and are trying to persuade and educate. That is the basis behind these measures. The list is a reflection of what we would like to do. It is an illustrative list—that is the best I can say. It lists those measures that we expect to be the most useful and appropriate. Furthermore, removing subsection (3)(d) would restrict the measures available to just those listed. The current text makes it clear that it is an illustrative list, leaving room for future developments and changes that might render specific measures ineffective or inappropriate. I believe that such flexibility, recognising that tomorrow will not be the same as today, is an important element and should be retained. I hope that, in the light of those explanations, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.