Proceeding contribution from Lord Davies of Oldham (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 8 February 2010. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Digital Economy Bill [HL].
Digital Economy Bill [HL]
My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord was for the moment going to congratulate the Government on an unusual and particularly attractive action, but he did not quite manage the latter part of that phrase. I want to assure him that what we are doing is attractive. We do not want the designated authority to charge unduly burdensome fees by virtue of this legislation, but it must charge reasonable fees to reflect the level of work which is undertaken. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with that. We believe that it is right that the Secretary of State has a consultative role in the fees tariff, which is one stage back from central government authority. It should have a consultative role in the fees tariffs, which should be set by the designated authority. There is no need to have a formal approval process. We want to create a fair and transparent system with every reason to believe that the designated authority will act responsibly and properly in relation to setting the fees. If that were not the case, the whole process of setting up a designated authority could obviously be called into question. We are seeking the power to be exercised by the designated authority and for the Secretary of State to be kept at a distance. I hope that that commends itself sufficiently to the noble Lord for him to feel that his amendment can be safely withdrawn. Amendment 255 refers to the section which makes clear what is covered by a classification certificate and what the certificate relates to. This is particularly pertinent to video games because a change in format can lead to a different perception and impact of the game. This is a practical and effective measure to take account of existing and future formats in a changing technology. It means—this is the most readily appreciable reason why this section is as it is—that publishers will not be able to take several already classified works, cut them and repackage them in a new way and then seek to rely on the previous classification certificate for the work in question. We all know that such cutting and pasting, although the process is slightly more sophisticated than that phrase suggests, can change content. That is why we are seeking to ensure that if changes of that nature are effected, the designated authority could make a new specification if it felt the need to do so, although it does not have to. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, that the present section will commend itself because it is permissive. The designated authority does not have to act, but if it felt the need was there to act, it has the power to do so, which is why I want to defend the section as it stands and to resist Amendment 255.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 717 c555-6
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Children Codes of practice Computer networks Copyright Digital broadcasting British Board of Film Classification Communication Licensing Emergency services Libraries Internet Ofcom Radio frequencies Radio Public lending right Local broadcasting Young people Regulation Safety Video games Classification schemes Streaming
- Legislation
- Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 19:55:20 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620323
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620323
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620323