---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Razzall, signed by me as well. On these Benches we are very pleased to see that the House is generally much more sympathetic to amendments of this nature. Obviously, they have been redrafted to be less exclusive in terms of ousting the courts, but as the Minister himself in his letter to us said: ""There will be occasions where the notification system is not appropriate, and it is important that we allow rights holders some flexibility, rather than tie the hands of the entire creative industries due to the possible poor conduct of some isolated parties"." We took that on board in formulating these amendments. Clearly, we are very strong supporters of the system of graduated response, which as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said is being considerably improved as a result of amendments to the Bill. However, in the meantime we learn of new entrants to the hall of infamy, such as Tilly Bailey & Irvine—the second law firm which I do not think anybody has mentioned in addition to ACS:Law. We also know more about the firm responsible for the investigations, Logistep. As my noble friend mentioned, the activities of these two law firms and Logistep are an embarrassment to the rest of the creative rights industry. We have seen more letters since Committee stage which demonstrate the methods being used by these law firms, which are of a threatening nature—some six or so pages as a first letter is grossly disproportionate. I am delighted to be able to quote for the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, the paragraph that the Solicitors Regulation Authority has sent to both me and the Minister in more or less identical terms: ""We appreciate the impact that receiving letters from ACS:Law is having on individuals, and the need to bring this matter to a conclusion as soon as we are able. However, we have to undertake a thorough investigation to ensure the right outcome in the public interest"." It has assured several noble Lords that it will keep us informed of progress. With respect, I mention to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, that Amendment 100, which he talked about, is on a wholly separate issue—appeals against technical measures—and does not cover the matter in hand. We are pleased that the SRA has said that it will deal with this with dispatch. However, we feel something in the order of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, or those in the name of my noble friend and myself is necessary to remedy this. It is a considerable problem for many people up and down the country and will remain so unless we make sure that the code almost invariably applies in the first instance.