---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, once again it falls to me to propose an amendment against the tide of the House as noble Lords exit, so I shall read out my first paragraph slowly to make sure that everybody gets the full flavour of the proposal. In moving Amendment 54, I shall speak also to Amendment 108. The aim of this amendment is to ensure that the initial obligations code includes provision to guard against subscribers notified under Clause 4 facing any costs in responding to a notification. We on these Benches seek reassurance that subscribers—essentially, consumers—will be able to challenge any notification without cost. Amendment 108 has a very similar intent. The aim of that amendment is to clarify that subscribers notified under Clause 4 by their ISP that their internet connection has been linked to online copyright infringement will not directly bear the costs of the proposed scheme. Consumer organisations strongly oppose consumers having to pay to appeal. The Explanatory Notes to Clause 15 state, at paragraph 77, that, ""most of the costs of subscriber appeals to an independent person … should be funded by industry, so that a subscriber does not face significant costs in making an appeal"." Why should not all the direct costs be borne by the industry, whether ISP or copyright owners? I beg to move.