Proceeding contribution from Earl of Erroll (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 12 January 2010. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Digital Economy Bill [HL].
Digital Economy Bill [HL]
This is an example of why we needed the previous amendment, Amendment 34, because it was the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, who quoted the bit out of the European directive which said that these measures may only be taken with, ""due respect for the principle of the presumption of innocence"." In order to presume the innocence, I suspect we need to put in "allegation", just as has been spoken about. This could be a typical example of where the Bill might become non-compliant if we do not add these amendments.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 716 c441
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Codes of practice Broadcasting Computer networks Copyright Digital broadcasting Broadband Sky Communication Fees and charges ICT EU law Infrastructure Emergencies Internet Ofcom Radio frequencies Telecommunications Security Satellite communications Subscriptions Television licences
- Legislation
- Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-01-05 10:24:40 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_607633
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_607633
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_607633