Parliamentary Debates House of Commons Official Report General Committees

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES Public Bill Committee INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BILL [LORDS] Second Sitting Tuesday 28 January 2014 (Afternoon) CONTENTS CLAUSES 21 to 24 agreed to. Adjourned till Thursday 30 January at half-past Eleven o’clock. PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £5·00 PBC (Bill 102) 2013 - 2014 Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of Proceedings in General Committees sent to them are requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office. No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published with Bound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons, not later than Saturday 1 February 2014 STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL COMMITTEES © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2014 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 41 Public Bill Committee28 JANUARY 2014 Intellectual Property Bill [Lords] 42 The Committee consisted of the following Members: Chairs: MR DAI HAVARD,†MR ANDREW TURNER † Birtwistle, Gordon (Burnley) (LD) Pawsey, Mark (Rugby) (Con) Bradshaw, Mr Ben (Exeter) (Lab) † Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry (Bradford South) (Lab) † Doughty, Stephen (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/ † Uppal, Paul (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) Co-op) † Weatherley, Mike (Hove) (Con) † Dowd, Jim (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) † Willetts, Mr David (Minister for Universities and † Gyimah, Mr Sam (Lord Commissioner of Her Science) Majesty’s Treasury) † Wishart, Pete (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) † Hames, Duncan (Chippenham) (LD) † Wright, Mr Iain (Hartlepool) (Lab) † Lammy, Mr David (Tottenham) (Lab) † Zahawi, Nadhim (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) † Lord, Jonathan (Woking) (Con) † Lumley, Karen (Redditch) (Con) Georgina Holmes-Skelton, Committee Clerk † McDonald, Andy (Middlesbrough) (Lab) † Parish, Neil (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) † attended the Committee 43 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Intellectual Property Bill [Lords] 44 I have sympathy with that; it is important to be Public Bill Committee flexible. However, the “broad outline” of the report will include things such as information on legislative Tuesday 28 January 2014 changes and pre-legislative work; information on cross- border co-operation and international negotiations; policy (Afternoon) development work undertaken to address challenges with the intellectual property system; main outputs of the IPO’s economic research programme and how they [MR ANDREW TURNER in the Chair] related to innovation and growth; and an assessment of Intellectual Property Bill [Lords] the IPO’s activities that support business and raise awareness of the importance of protecting IP. Within that framework and the provisions of the clause, we believe Clause 21 that other items could be considered, and amendments 34, 35 and 36 and new clause 3 would help to achieve that. REPORTING DUTY Amendment 34 would include consideration of job 2pm creation in the IPO report. It was mentioned on Second Reading how important the creative industries are, providing Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab): I beg to move 1.5 million jobs, 10% of the economy, and more than amendment 34, in clause 21, page 19, line 1, after ‘to’, £36 billion of gross value added. However, as I think I insert ‘job creation and’. mentioned on Second Reading, it would be entirely wrong to state that IP is the preserve only of specific creative The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss industries such as music and broadcasting. Our value as the following: an economy—our arguably unique value, or second Amendment 35, in clause 21, page 19, line 6, leave out perhaps only to the US—is in the difficult-to-define ‘and’ and insert— juxtaposition between creativity and innovation and the (iii) an assessment of the degree of online copyright impact on production and manufacturing. The fact that infringement and the extent to which identified we have a strong creative industries sector combined search engines and other internet services with a strong science and research base and world-beating facilitate this, and’. manufacturing sectors, including automotive, construction, Amendment 36, in clause 21, page 19, line 10, at end aerospace and pharmaceutical, means that our economic insert— model and future prosperity is very much dependent ‘(2) The Secretary of State must make a statement to both upon IP. Houses of Parliament detailing the findings of the report referred to in subsection (1) and what actions he intends to take The big question for Governments in the 21st century, as result of any recommendations of the report.’. especially in western economies dealing with the aftermath New clause 3—Online copyright infringements: technology of 2008, is: what sort of economic model do we want to companies— pursue? Do we want to compete on the basis of low ‘(1) The Secretary of State will, within three months of this skills, low wages and poor employment protection—is Act coming into force, report to both Houses of Parliament on that how we will consider ourselves to be economically proposals that will have the purpose of ensuring technology competitive in the modern world? Or do we want a companies hinder access via the internet to copyright infringing highly skilled, highly paid, productive and innovative material.’. work force, producing high-value products that the rest of the world will pay a premium to buy? In that context, Mr Wright: It is excellent to see you in the Chair, how IP drives forward job creation is an essential Mr Turner; I look forward to your presiding over our consideration, and on that basis it seems reasonable proceedings. I am sure Mr Havard mentioned that we that job creation should be explicitly included in the Bill made swift progress this morning, as well as how grumpy in clause 21. Innovation and economic growth, which the Minister was. I think we will slow down for our are in the Bill, might not necessarily translate into job consideration of clause 21, not because we have had a creation, so the IPO should consider and report on that good lunch or because of your chairmanship skills, but too. That is the purpose behind amendment 34: to because the clause is so important. It is about what will include job creation as part of the contribution made by be included in and what could be added to the annual the IPO’s activities. report from the Intellectual Property Office. Amendment 35 was prompted by a recommendation The clause requires the Secretary of State to present from the excellent report on the creative industries from to Parliament each year a report that sets out certain the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, “Supporting requirements, such as the activities of the IPO to promote the creative economy”. I am pleased and somewhat innovation and economic growth in the UK, as well as apprehensive that we have in this Committee several how members of the Select Committee who are knowledgeable “legislation relating to intellectual property has been effective in and expert, and I hope they will expand, particularly in facilitating innovation and economic growth in the United Kingdom.” consideration of the amendments, on what the Committee The clause makes it clear, however, that was told and what it found. “references to legislation…do not include a reference to legislation There is a particularly telling point in paragraph 33 relating to plant breeders’ rights or rights under section 7 of the of the Select Committee report, which states that Plant Varieties Act 1997.” “The IPO should do more to help support the creative industries”. It is important to mention that. The BPI is quoted as saying: The explanatory notes to the Bill state that “The measures on the enforcement of copyright need to be “The clause does not describe the content of the report, as the backed up by an Intellectual Property Office that is properly policy activities of the IPO change from year to year.” resourced and focused on defending the rights of UK creators. 45 Public Bill Committee28 JANUARY 2014 Intellectual Property Bill [Lords] 46 The IPO has spent a lot of energy looking at how the rights of need to know what is being done to restrict access to UK companies can be reduced. The BPI would also ask the sites that help someone find illegal or pirated copies, Committee to look at the energy the IPO puts into its role in which brings me to the role of technology companies, enforcing copyright”. particularly search engines, that allow consumers to With digitisation, mass infringement or piracy has find content. To what extent are those companies facilitating become widespread. The music industry has probably illegal access to copyrighted material by putting illegal been the most affected by this development over the sites at the top of their search lists? The hon. Member past 20 years or so with the rise of Napster and other for Perth and North Perthshire mentioned an astonishing online facilities. At the moment, that industry is playing statistic on Second Reading, to the effect—I hope I have catch-up. We have seen a lot of disruption and a lot of this right; he will correct me if I am wrong—that for the traditional record labels fall by the wayside as a result of top 20 singles and albums for November 2013, 77% of what is happening with the internet and downloading, first page search results for singles and 64% for albums but the really interesting development is that legitimate directed the consumer to an illegal site.

Load more