Proceeding contribution from Lord De Mauley (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 8 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Digital Economy Bill [HL].
Digital Economy Bill [HL]
My Lords, our Amendment 148 in this group addresses much the same point as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. They all seek to clarify the division of responsibility over video work, and raise a concern that the BBFC classification will not be the one by which the product is marketed. Amendment 148 raises an issue highlighted by the BBFC as to how the usual procedure for gathering evidence for a prosecution would operate. As it stands, if the BBFC classification were the one under which a video work was marketed, it would be a straightforward matter for the enforcement body to go to the BBFC to check the material against its records. Will the Minister explain how the video games authority will be able to provide adequate certificates of evidence?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 718 c28
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Children Broadcasting Competition Copyright Digital broadcasting Competition Commission Communication Internet Protection Photographs Pornography Mobile phones Mergers Ofcom Radio frequencies Radio Local broadcasting Performing arts Registration Young people Regulation Safety Video games Television channels Channel Three Classification schemes Internet service providers 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 10:22:24 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_627555
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_627555
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_627555