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. I have to say to and innovative business models are being established. the Minister that that surely cannot be allowed to There is a tension that I think it will be interesting for continue. this Committee to explore. If consumers are able to listen to music for free, how can artists make enough It seems perfectly reasonable to suggest that, as part money to create new product? How can consumers be of the IPO’s ongoing work and annual reporting procedures, given a good deal—I note that the Consumer Rights as set out in clause 21 Bill is having its Second Reading this afternoon—while “an assessment of the degree of online copyright infringement ensuring that the creators are rewarded for their work? and the extent to which identified search engines and other What is the appropriate balance between creative industries internet services facilitate this” and technology companies that distribute that content? should be included. As the basis for amendment 35, I Physical sales of CDs are in decline, although I have included the actual wording of the recommendation understand that vinyl is making a comeback, but what from the Select Committee. I thought the report was is interesting is that digital downloads are also on the excellent and I hope the Minister is amenable to such a wane. Digital subscription services such as Spotify and request. Deezer use a business model that is being developed to On a similar theme, new clause 3 proposes that within give consumers access to a vast catalogue of music for three months of the Act coming into force, the Secretary about £10 a month. That shows that legitimate and of State will set out to both Houses firm proposals on innovative business models are being produced and how the Government plan to take action to ensure that that, crucially, consumers want to buy legitimate product technology companies hinder access to infringing material. that does not infringe copyright if it is easy, convenient Again, my amendment was prompted by the sterling and cheap for them to do so. work carried out by the Select Committee. I was struck I have mentioned music, because I am a music lover, by the eloquence and frankly direct nature of the language but I also like video games, and that is another great proposed by the Select Committee in its report. It said British industry that is growing and should be nurtured. this: Online piracy in video games is rife. Sports Interactive “We strongly condemn the failure of Google, notable among makes the “Football Manager” series, of which the technology companies, to provide an adequate response to creative most recent version was downloaded illegally 10 times industry requests to prevent its search engine directing consumers for every legitimate copy sold: 8.5 million individuals to copyright-infringing websites … on the flimsy grounds that some operate under the cover of hosting some legal content. The illegally downloaded “Football Manager 2013”. How continuing promotion by search engines of illegal content on the much income is thereby lost to the industry, which in internet is unacceptable. So far, their”— turn will restrict product development? by which they mean Google and other search engines— Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab): I do “attempts to remedy this have been derisorily ineffective”. not know if my hon. Friend is going to come to this, but The report concluded the section by stating: the other aspect of illegal downloading is that it increases “We do not believe it to be beyond the wit of the engineers the costs for those who buy the product legitimately. employed by Google and others to demote and, ideally, remove Clearly, the rights owner needs to recover the loss from copyright infringing material from search engine results”. so much of it being traded illegally. Amendment 35 would ensure that the IPO actively looks at this matter on an ongoing basis as part of its Mr Wright: My hon. Friend makes an important annual reporting procedure, and new clause 3 would point. People often say that this is a victimless crime, in prompt the Government to bring to Parliament within the same way as stealing from a supermarket might be a three months firm plans to deal with this issue. victimless crime, but we all pay for it as a society. Finally in this group, amendment 36 would ensure Supermarkets mitigate the risk of shoplifting by increasing that the Secretary of State would act on any findings prices. This is no different as an economic model. That and recommendations made in the IPO report. Under point is at the heart of this amendment. To what extent the amendment, the Secretary of State must make a is widespread infringement and online theft facilitated statement to Parliament setting out how he intends to by search engines? Should the IPO know and what is take forward—or otherwise—the recommendations made. the cost to the industry and to our competitive advantage This would allow Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise as a result? the plans, it would provide greater parliamentary I was talking about the video games industry. Like accountability, and it would help push the issue of music, the industry is adopting new business models intellectual property further up the agenda, where it like free-to-play and in-game purchases. Equally, we rightly belongs. 47 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Intellectual Property Bill [Lords] 48

[Mr Iain Wright] with Google about these issues. Clearly, Google makes money from that, but the public interest should be It may well be that the commitment is already implicit put first. in clause 21, given the specific requirements of the I welcome the clause and the amendments that clause, but I would not mind if the Minister made that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool tabled. I clear, ensuring that the Secretary of State will act upon also welcome the Minister’s response on Second Reading. any recommendations and that this will be included in Hopefully he will be equally positive today on the matters the report. I am interested in what the Minister and that we raise, because we do so to strengthen and others will say on this matter. This is a big issue which is support the Bill, and to help ensure that people understand affecting the competitive position of innovative UK intellectual property and the issues around it. firms and it must be addressed swiftly. I hope the Minister is amenable to our suggestions. Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab): It is a I hope you enjoy our little kick-about with intellectual great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. property. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool I very much support what has been included in clause 21. for mentioning the work of the Select Committee. It is, We were all relatively surprised when we saw the clause of course, made up of Members from both sides of the in the Bill, particularly given the IPO’s obligation and House. My hon. Friend was quite right to say that ours responsibility to report in statute. That is a very welcome was a strong report on the impact that the creative development. Like the hon. Member for Hartlepool, we industries have on our economy. I think I mentioned in should look at this as a real opportunity to examine the the report and on Second Reading the importance of IPO and see how it works, to ensure that, when it the creative industries to constituencies such as mine, reports to us in Parliament, we get the fullest and most where we have lost the manufacturing base but are transparent report possible. finding new jobs through the creative industries. We need the opportunity to examine to the nth detail I was heartened on Second Reading by the Minister’s every role the IPO plays in increasing its work and response to the idea of reporting. Not only could we ensuring that we get innovation growth, which is at the hear the good news about the positive things that have heart of everything we are trying to achieve with the happened, but perhaps we could hear some of the bad Bill. On Second Reading, everybody commented on news, and some of the problems that bodies might face. the value of IP-supported industry and the fantastic I mentioned the important role that trading standards contribution it makes to the general economy. I hope play, and while it is not specifically included in the that we will look at the amendments that the hon. clause or amendments, perhaps before Report stage we Member for Hartlepool introduced, to be sure that we can look at which additional bodies could give support are doing all we can to get the fullest possible Bill. to the IPO report. The Hargreaves process has been mentioned on several The need for training came out strongly on Second occasions. I believe it has been generally positive and Reading, and the hon. Member for Hove has alluded to resulted in a number of great initiatives, and we now it. Perhaps there ought to be a report back about the have this Bill in front of us. However, it was also a prospects and the promotion of training as part of the painful process for a number of people in the creative development of IP, for the reason that my hon. Friend industries. Those who served the creative industries set out: lots of businesses and companies still do not found themselves greatly undervalued during parts of know the need or what is taking place. I know that this process. They were told that a lot of the evidence roadshows will help in that, but maybe we can put they brought to Government was nothing more than training in there as well. lobbynomics, and they were patronisingly dismissed when they presented evidence from their industries that 2.15 pm suggested that things needed to be done and addressed. Let me turn to search engines, on which the Select There was a sense that they were told to go away, as if Committee took a great amount of evidence. The Under- they did not really understand the working environment Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the they were in, even though the creative industries had hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), once said that delivered such fantastic success in the past few years. Google had more chance of seeing the Prime Minister When we reach the annual report, it is important that than he did. I think he now regrets saying that, because we can all feel confident in it. All the stakeholders must we remind him of it every time he appears before us. He have the opportunity to contribute to it and examine was making the point also made by the hon. Member it in full detail, and if necessary, see if they could add to for Perth and North Perthshire, that Google has some it to make it better and ensure the proper way forward. work to do here. It is not good enough to keep giving us A lot of the argument was over the economic excuses about why they do not pursue illegal sites. This assumptions. Some truly heroic assumptions were made is an emerging problem, which perhaps we must tackle by the Intellectual Property Office about some of the elsewhere. Hargreaves recommendations. For example, it was said At a surgery on Friday, a constituent came forward that GDP would increase by 0.6%, and that the format who had been charged an extra £50 to buy a driving shifting exception alone would bring something like licence. The first driving licence site which she saw on £26 billion to the economy. That figure seemed to have the internet was not an illegal site—although it was been reached on the ground that there is some sort of not the Government site—but it offered to get driving private copying exception holding back the industry, licences for a fee of £50. Whether on the Consumer and had this measure been in place originally, the UK Rights Bill or elsewhere, we need to have a discussion probably could have invented the iPod, or something 49 Public Bill Committee28 JANUARY 2014 Intellectual Property Bill [Lords] 50 like that. There is also the £600,000 figure put down for this is an area in which there is rapid technological and lifting the parody exception. When we see the report commercial change. We do not know what the issues of from the Intellectual Property Office, we must have the greatest controversy and public interest will be in robust figures that bear some relation to reality if we five years’ time, and it would be absurd if the Government move forward with this. of the day had to come back to Parliament to amend On copyright exceptions, I support the comments of primary legislation so that the IPO’s annual report the hon. Member for Hartlepool on music, which was remained up to date and topical. Therefore, our view is the first creative industry to be part of the digital that the amendments are too prescriptive. revolution because music is easily cloned. The music Amendment 34 refers to employment. Of course we industry is at the interface between digital technology want the IPO to contribute to employment, although it and the traditional models. Where music has gone, the is hard for a lot of what it does to have a direct impact rest of the creative industries have followed. Features on employment. Let me be clear—I hope this helps the that were pioneered for music are now common in all hon. Gentleman with his understandable concern—that other creative industries. It is therefore right that we where there is evidence that particular activities carried look at those things. out by the Intellectual Property Office have had or are Search engines are an issue; the British Phonographic expected to have an impact on employment, its report Industry has sent 5 million take-down notices to Google. can and should include that. I am happy to make it When you search for the name of your favourite band, clear to the Committee that where there is an employment Mr Turner, you will be directed to illegal sites. Something angle, that is absolutely what we expect the IPO to must be done about that. We must be able to challenge cover. We do not think that it is necessary to make this the large technology companies that are the gatekeepers an obligation in primary legislation. of our content industries. Search engines have an important There is then the issue in amendment 35 of copyright function, but when they direct people to illegal sites it is infringement. The hon. Member for Bradford South right that we take an interest and do something to and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire address that. We must ensure that when people search also referred to this. We completely understand its for music they are directed to legal sites, not illegal sites, significance. That is why we have done a lot of work to as they currently are. establish the basic data on trends in online infringement I support clause 21. It is a good thing, and we have of copyright. We published in September last year the the opportunity to make it even better. If the hon. final wave of the large scale consumer tracking study, Gentleman is in the mood to press any of the amendments which Ofcom commissioned. We are working with industry, to a vote, he will have my support. including internet intermediaries, such as internet service providers, search engines, internet advertising bodies and payment facilitators, to address this problem. It is a The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David cross-Government approach in which the Culture Minister Willetts): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Turner. I plays a crucial role. enjoyed the challenge set by the hon. Member for Hartlepool, and the interventions of the hon. Members Should this be specified in primary legislation as an for Bradford South and for Perth and North Perthshire. area that has to be covered every year? We think that would be too inflexible. Again, it might help Opposition We all share the same objective. We want to ensure Members if I give them this assurance: given the IPO’s that the activities of the IPO are reported to Parliament work in this area over the past year, the whole subject of and are more fully accounted for than ever before. online infringement of copyright will be included in the Therefore, the clause is significant. I hoped that it 2014 report. That is a crucial issue of public concern would have been welcomed more generously, because and it will continue to appear in the report so long as it it will place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to remains such. report annually to Parliament about how the activities of the Intellectual Property Office Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con): I appreciate all the “have contributed to the promotion of innovation and of economic points that have been made today. Will the Minister growth in the United Kingdom”. also confirm that the report will specifically allude to It is the first time that the Government have provided the IPO’s educational activities? On Second Reading, I for such an obligation. We are absolutely up for it, suggested a possible amendment, which I am happy not because this is an important subject and there is a lot of to advance here in Committee, provided that there is an legitimate public interest in it. It is a way that we can be absolute assurance from the Minister that this will be held to account. The clause responds to the central thoroughly covered in the annual report and able to challenge of the Hargreaves review, which was for the be debated on the Floor of the House each time. IPO to focus on its core objective of supporting innovation, and therefore growth, in the UK. The publication of an Mr Willetts: Let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s annual report will significantly increase transparency. I work generally, but especially on this Bill. Let me give hope that is shared ground on both sides of the Committee. him my clear assurance: yes, education will be covered The clause is a significant step forward. in the report because it is very important. Its significance The question, which is the linking thread in all the has already been recognised in our discussions today. I amendments, is to what extent we should specify in can give him that assurance. He is right to press for it. primary legislation what the IPO report should cover. He has been a realist about what can and cannot be We are sceptical about the merits of being as prescriptive prescribed in primary legislation. This is not about the as the hon. Member for Hartlepool. The issues that significance of copyright infringement or education or were raised in all three speeches are genuine—they are employment, which are all absolutely valid issues. The hot topics. They are absolutely what we would expect issue before the Committee today is simply whether the IPO to cover in its annual report this year. However, we wish to prescribe in permanent, primary legislation 51 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Intellectual Property Bill [Lords] 52

[Mr Willetts] field is key. He also mentioned—this was raised on Second Reading but it is worth repeating—sites that are what the report should cover. Given the speed of change deliberately designed to look official, but that are, frankly, in the industry, we are wary of being too prescriptive in conning people. He mentioned sites offering driving primary legislation. licences. Before our sitting, I was listening from the Amendment 36 would require the Secretary of State Opposition Front Bench to the Consumer Rights Bill’s to inform Parliament what actions he will take as a Second Reading debate. A Government Member made result of recommendations in the report. Of course, the an intervention about self-assessment—this is the week clause already commits the Secretary of State to lay the when a lot of people will be thinking about their tax report before Parliament. It is a retrospective assessment returns and self-assessment, although I am safe in the of the work of the IPO. We think that the further knowledge that I have posted my return, so I feel quite actions are best set out and laid before Parliament in the smug about that—and said that somebody had been IPO’s corporate plan. That is a separate document. It is make to think that they were looking at the Her Majesty’s not the same as the annual report. The IPO is required Revenue and Customs website and had paid £500 in the to publish it annually. It is agreed with Ministers. It belief that they were completing their self-assessment contains the future work programme for the office and and paying all their tax, although clearly was not the it is therefore something that is publicly open to scrutiny case. What is the Minister doing to make sure that sites and on which Ministers and the IPO can be held to that infringe copyright are identified and that the consumer account. is not harmed? Members on both sides of the Committee have expressed My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and their understandable concerns about real issues affecting Penarth, the Opposition Whip, has been asking a lot of intellectual property. Let me reiterate that the Government parliamentary questions about such practice. He asked completely understand those issues. The Department the Minister for the Cabinet Officer what estimate for Business, Innovation and Skills is committed to “he has made of the number of websites charging for access to working with the Department for Culture, Media and Government online services…if he will take steps to ensure that the Competition and Markets Authority is able to take enforcement Sport and Ofcom on tackling online infringement of action on websites found to be charging for access to online copyright. We are funding the new City of London Government services irrespective of whether a disclaimer statement police IP crime unit to tackle all IP crime facilitated is deployed” through the internet. We have extended the rights to and what other steps were being taken. The Minister of licence for sound recordings used by charities. We will State, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Ruislip, be hosting a major international summit on IP enforcement Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), gave my hon. Friend in London in June. We have carried out extensive research a somewhat complacent response, saying: on the issue of online copyright infringement. All those issues are absolutely live, but the question is whether we “Officials in the Government Digital Service…are leading a cross-government exercise to gather information about the operation set out in primary legislation that they have to be of third-party websites offering services associated with official covered in the annual report. We believe that would be Government services”— excessively prescriptive for what we all agree is a rapidly I do not think that that is good enough. Nor do I think changing scene, so I hope that, in light of my assurances, it is good enough that the Cabinet Office Minister said: the hon. Member for Hartlepool will withdraw his amendment. “Where Government has become aware of websites that make misleading claims in their advertising it has brought these complaints to the attention of the Advertising Standards Authority.Government 2.30 pm has and continues to take direct action to prevent the misuse of Government logos or any suggestion of affiliation with Government Mr Wright: I thank all hon. Members who contributed by these websites.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2014; Vol. 574, to this important debate. The Minister is absolutely c. 315-316W.] right, because we were concerned while drafting the That seems to be a bit complacent. amendments not to be too prescriptive. We have no idea On amendment 35, the question is whether we are what technology is going to be like in a year or five being overtly prescriptive by asking for detail to be put years, let alone 10 or 20 years, so it is right that we are in the Bill. I do not think we are. Online copyright technology-blind because we will not be able to make infringement, and the extent to which identified search things future-proof. I think we achieved that, and it is to engines are helping to facilitate it, has been an issue the credit of the Select Committee that, when looking at in respect of digitisation and online piracy for the past the value and importance of the creative industries, it 20 years—since Napster, and arguably before. Given did so too. rapid technological changes and disruptive technologies, I accept the Minister’s point about amendment 34 I suspect it will be an issue for the next 20 years, and job creation although, in an ideal world, I would regardless of what the technology will look like. It does still like such an amendment to be made. An interesting not seem unreasonable to ensure that it is covered by the article on disruptive technologies in The Economist a Bill so that the conflict between creative industries and week or so ago said that digitisation and technology technology companies is considered to be a key thing might mean that 47% of existing jobs will be obsolete in on which the IPO reports. The Select Committee had a the next few years. The impact on jobs of technology, particularly strong view on that point, so I would like to copyright infringement and wider IP is important. test the opinion of this Committee on amendment 35. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South The hon. Member for Hove made an good point mentioned how, in the light of deindustrialisation and about education and also—almost in passing—asked the move from manufacturing into services, creative the very important question of whether the annual industries are vitally important, so job creation in that report would be debated on the Floor of the House. IP 53 Public Bill Committee28 JANUARY 2014 Intellectual Property Bill [Lords] 54 is often considered not to be worthy of discussion in the It is important that we protect and nurture our Chamber. The Minister did not respond to the hon. comparative advantage, and address the tension between Gentleman’s point, so will he tell us whether the House content and technology that may be in conflict with will be able to debate the IPO report and the Secretary that. I accept some of what the Minister has said, but of State’s response to it on an annual basis? Will will he commit to having an annual debate about IP on Government business managers ensure that we can have the Floor of the House during which the IPO report that debate? may be discussed? I wish to test the opinion of the Committee on Pete Wishart: One of my concerns is that the IP amendment 35—it is not overtly prescriptive, but sensible. Minister has never been a Member of the House of However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 34. Commons. We have never had an opportunity to put our questions to him at Question Time or during the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. passage of such Bills. Does the hon. Gentleman agree Amendment proposed: 35, in clause 21, page 19, line 6, that it is time that the IP Minister was a Member of the leave out ‘and’ and insert— elected House so that we may question him regularly? (iii) an assessment of the degree of online copyright infringement and the extent to which identified Mr Wright: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. search engines and other internet services facilitate IP is far too often seen as a secondary concern that is this, and’.—(Mr Iain Wright.) not important, even though it can be the source of a Question proposed, That the amendment be made. prime comparative advantage for the modern UK economy. People will invest here because we have a robust IP The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 10. regime that is flexible to rapid and often disruptive Division No. 1] technological changes. We need to ensure that that continues. AYES Doughty, Stephen Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) rose— Dowd, Jim Wishart, Pete Lammy, rh Mr David Mr Wright: I give way to a fantastic former BIS McDonald, Andy Wright, Mr Iain Minister. He knows about the Digital Economy Act 2010, so he might be able to shed some light on the subject. NOES Birtwistle, Gordon Parish, Neil Mr Lammy: I hesitated to rise, but this was an appropriate Gyimah, Mr Sam Uppal, Paul moment to do so. It is important that we have an IP Hames, Duncan Weatherley, Mike Minister in this House. The significance of the creative Lord, Jonathan Willetts, rh Mr David economy to British GDP is well understood, and it Lumley, Karen Zahawi, Nadhim needs to grow. The importance of intellectual property is self-evident, so I support what my hon. Friend says. Question accordingly negatived. Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Mr Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right that the creative industries are Clauses 22 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill. something of which the country can be hugely proud. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. Other nations look with envy at the strength of our —(Mr Gyimah.) creative industries and the impact that our creativity and innovation has on things such as manufacturing. 2.41 pm We can design and invent things that are the envy of the Adjourned till Thursday 30 January at half-past Eleven world—a Rolls-Royce engine is proof of that. o’clock.