I beg to move amendment No. 192, in clause 65, page 46, line 13, after ‘is’, insert—

‘(a) an image of an act to which all participants in the production have consented,

(b) an image the production of which involves fictional or staged acts performed by consenting actors,

(c) an image produced for the purpose of responsible education, or

(d) ’.

I am back on my feet again very quickly. In a way, this is much the same debate, but my amendment sets out issues that should not be caught up under the clause. It was also suggested by Backlash, but I shall not repeat its arguments. I have received a paper from Equity, which stated:

“Equity’s remit on this issue is limited to areas where the proposed changes may impact on the work of our members in the entertainment industry.

Specifically we are concerned that the current wording of clauses 64 and 65 could have the impact of criminalising the possession of extracts of mainstream certified films featuring our members.

This is due to the combination of a subjective judgement of whether the images ‘appears to’ have been produced for sexual arousal...whether it ‘appears to’ be an extreme image...and that extracts from classified films are not excluded...As members of the Standing Committee on the Bill have already been informed, even clips from mainstream films such as Casino Royale could become illegal if possessed and distributed in isolation. Therefore, while not wishing to dilute the intention of this proposal, Equity would be keen to ensure that the work of our members was not criminalised in this way.”

I shall not repeat the other arguments that have been expressed. Equity’s point is that people performing legitimately should not be criminalised.