---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, as I have expressed on previous occasions, I sympathise with the concerns—there is nothing between us on the problem. I understand the intent behind these amendments. Though I did not initially receive the letters I am sure I am being included in the loop; I get the letters now. I share the concern: I would liken them to rogue wheel-clampers, if I can use that analogy. There are certainly some law firms which appear to act in a way that some consider heavy-handed or unfair. However, the proper way to control the conduct of law firms is through the independent regulator, and that is what we are doing. Following discussion of this matter in Committee, we wrote to the Lord Chancellor, as has been heard, to bring this matter to his personal attention. As you know, we have received a reply from the Ministry of Justice, and a further letter from the Solicitors Regulation Authority. These letters explain that there have been complaints and a thorough investigation is under way. Like all noble Lords, I wish it could act more promptly and we could bring this to an end. It is fair to say that we expect that copyright owners will want to use this notification system to tackle appropriate cases. Indeed, should the Bill become an Act, the courts may choose to view the approach taken within it as an example of good practice for cases of this sort—although clearly this would be for the judiciary to decide. We believe that the notification system is fair and proportionate, and we hope that it will be effective. However, we do not believe it is right to remove flexibility from the courts and copyright owners in the way these amendments seek to. There will be occasions, as my noble—I nearly said friend—the noble Lord, Lord Howard, quite rightly pointed out, when the notification system is just not appropriate, and there is no justification for adding extra difficulty to those cases. I remind noble Lords that the graduated approach which we seem to accept as the right way forward was really designed to deal with the mass problems of peer-to-peer file-sharing. That is why we talked about behavioural change, and why that was appropriate. However, in certain cases this is not appropriate—for example, where people are stealing or infringing high-value copyright, or where there is a need for action to be taken more promptly—then, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said, we cannot deny copyright holders an alternative approach. This notification system will not be appropriate, and there is no justification for adding extra difficulty to those cases. The right to access the courts is a fundamental one, and to limit this in any way may infringe upon basic human rights, as well as on the free exercise of the property right in copyright itself. It is not that we do not want to be of assistance—we want to help. However, going down the route suggested in these amendments unfortunately will not solve the problem. I will rest on this final point, which is another reason why we cannot accept the amendments however much we sympathise with their aim. The right to take action against a person who has infringed your copyright is enshrined in international and European law. There is also a more fundamental question here: the right of access to the courts and access to redress for a civil wrong. Human rights are engaged, as well as matters of constitutional law. This is a matter that needs to be solved through regulation, not by interfering in these basic rights. It is not that we do not have a great deal of sympathy. In a way, we wish that we could do this. Unfortunately, however, the suggested remedies are not capable of being introduced, and they are not appropriate for the reasons that I have mentioned. I hope the noble Lord will recognise that we have treated this matter seriously and that we will continue to do so. We will continue to press the Ministry of Justice and the Solicitors Regulation Authority to act on this. In the light of the points I have made, I hope he will feel capable of withdrawing the amendment.