Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [HL]

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 7th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly join this debate because I am interested in the question of the mutual recognition of conformity assessment. Earlier this year, the Department for Business and Trade said that it would accept CE markings on a range of products for the foreseeable future—or something like that. That led to a certain amount of confusion, with the medical devices industry wondering whether it extended to medical devices. Of course, it did not extend to that industry; the Department of Health and Social Care has that responsibility. If my memory serves me right, the CE marking is certain to be recognised until 2027.

If my noble friend the Minister were to ask me for something we should aim to achieve in the trade and co-operation agreement review, it would certainly be to extend mutual recognition agreements between us and the European Union so that it recognises the UK conformity assessment and we continue to recognise the CE marking. That would afford enormous benefit to the industry.

This is not a mutual recognition agreement; this is giving the opportunity to conformity assessment bodies in CPTPP countries to apply to UK authorities so that, in effect, they provide themselves with UK conformity assessment on their products for trade, presumably within CPTPP countries and with the United Kingdom. Of course, if you are producing products for which you want a UK conformity assessment, being able to do your work according to the UK standards in your own country may well be a useful advantage. That is why it is in Article 8.6 of the CPTPP agreement.

Therefore, I am not sure that we need to worry about the question of “to what standards”. The answer is in the design of this provision. It is to the standard required for a UK conformity assessment. The bodies in any other country that are accredited for this purpose have to work to the same standards as if they were doing so in the UK, so it is pretty straightforward. However, happily, it affords the opportunity to say that there is a step beyond this, which is mutual recognition. For example, among the CPTPP countries one might anticipate, for example in our relationship with Japan at some point, a move on to mutual recognition of conformity assessment, since in many respects the Government naturally are thinking, “That is the territory that we need to go on”. As we develop trade relations and as we develop free trade agreements, eliminating technical barriers to trade should be one of our principal objectives—and this is one important aspect of that.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, explained that this is a probing amendment, so I do not have a great deal to add to what he and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, have said.

I pick up on one point: how do we ensure the conformity of that oversight when the products are coming into the UK? In the sixth group, which I do not think we will get to today, we will look at bringing in a good number of impact assessments and reports. The strongest part of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is the call for the publishing of a report on the impact of provisions on the treatment of conformity assessment bodies. That will give your Lordships’ House and Parliament the opportunity and oversight to ensure that there is no undercutting of quality and services. However, I am happy to support this probing amendment and look forward to more clarity from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

1: Clause 3, page 2, line 7 leave out “wholly or mainly”

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

We come now to Amendment 1, which, strangely enough, is not the first amendment, but there we are. Amendment 1 and Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 all go to the same point; it is just that Amendments 2 to 7 are concerned with the schedules that flow from Clause 3.

We have now moved to the question of the Procurement Act. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, is correct that the trade hacks have got together for this one, but there were procurement hacks as well, of which I was one. Some of us have returned; not many, but one or two of us—and I see that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, a procurement hack, is in his place. It is quite amusing really because it is only a matter of a few months back that we were debating the Procurement Bill. Among other things, it created a mechanism by which the Government could designate, under statutory instruments, that additional countries with which we had entered into an international agreement should be added to Schedule 9 to the Procurement Act as treaty state suppliers, and by extension therefore get the benefit of the treaty state supplier provisions under that Act.

However, the Procurement Act, notwithstanding that it passed through Parliament, has not yet been commenced. We are reliably informed that that will not happen until October 2024, whereas under the CPTPP we are looking to achieve ratification before 16 July 2024—and some time earlier than that, I hope. There is a gap between the commencement of the provisions under the CPTPP and our treaty obligations and the point at which the Procurement Act comes into force and those procurement-related obligations are in our domestic legislation.

This legislation fills that gap by doing two things: using the opportunity to amend the Procurement Act when it comes into force by adding CPTPP as an international agreement in Schedule 9, and, further—which is why the other six amendments are linked—changing the public contract regulations in various respects between now and the point at which they are all replaced by the Procurement Act being brought into force.

Just to make life even more entertaining, the Procurement Act repealed the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act, which we spent quite a bit time on. I am hoping that the power to bring Australia and New Zealand in was achieved by that Act, and it will be overtaken by the Procurement Act.

We come to procurement. Clause 3(3) adds CPTPP to the list of treaty state suppliers in the Procurement Act. It may be that we have a debate about whether Parliament should approve these things in future, but the fact is that, in future, when we have free trade agreements, we will see regulations brought forward under the Procurement Act to add treaty state suppliers, so this is perhaps the last time that we will do this through primary legislation rather than secondary legislation.

Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 sets out which are exempted contracts under the Act. Paragraph 24 of Schedule 2 specifies that, among those exemptions, is,

“A contract awarded under a procedure … adopted by an international organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member, and … that is inconsistent in any material respect with the procedure for the award of the contract in accordance with this Act”.


That latter sentence is pretty much the same in all these provisions, but it is helpful for noble Lords to remember the first part, as that is where this legislation will sit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, it is a constant pleasure to debate with such intellectual firepowers as the noble Lords, Lord McNicol and Lord Purvis, and my noble friend Lord Lansley. It is a joy to learn new things, every day, about the opportunities and benefits of free trade, particularly the CPTPP treaty itself.

However, in this instance, the Government are not keen to accept the amendment, for the simple reason that this strikes me as an absolutely eminent clarification of the procurement relationship between a UK procurer covered by the CPTPP legislation and the international procurer who would not be covered by it. It clarifies the point that, if we are in a minority funding position, we have to be in a majority funding position in order to qualify under our own procurement legislation.

Therefore, this does something very sensible: it confirms that point. I am happy to clarify this further with the noble Lord outside this room, but it would be difficult for procuring agents in the UK who were not in control of the funding process to conform to the CPTPP procurement funding processes or our own national processes. That is why this is clarified. Otherwise, if you have a minority position, you do not have control over it—if you are putting in only a small amount of capital, it makes sense for the international body to make the procurement decisions.

Maybe I have missed something, but this strikes me as quite straightforward. I felt that, of all the amendments placed today, what we were doing here seemed to make things easier and clearer, rather than more opaque.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I intervene just to pre-empt my subsequent remarks. We are in Committee and may not need to return to this on Report, but it would be jolly useful to run through some case studies to examine how this works. My noble friend might help here, but this relates to whether it is exempted from covered procurement under UK procurement law. That may mean that there is less of a problem, but there is none the less a risk that these are procurements that may happen in the United Kingdom—Pergau dam buying consultant engineering services, for example. We might take that and say, “Here is a big engineering project in a developing country, and the procurement includes consulting engineering services in the United Kingdom. Do we need to know whether that it is wholly or mainly funded?” Maybe we could work through some case studies.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. The principle here is ensuring that our procurement laws cover our own activities, so it is right to clarify where that is the case. I am happy to write further on this matter. I do not see anything wrong here and, in fact, I suggested to my officials before this debate that we look specifically at an example that could help to illustrate this—one floated earlier, concerning World Bank funding, would be very good to follow up on. We are happy to demonstrate that. However, this seems eminently sensible, so, unless it were felt otherwise, I would be reluctant to give way on this point, which clarifies the issue very well.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. I sense that the Committee would be happy for us to take this away and look at it. We may or may not need to return to it on Report, but I am grateful to my noble friend for that offer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

8: Clause 4, page 3, line 13, leave out “established by use” and insert “in use prior to that date”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe whether the concept of “established by use” has meaning under the Trade Marks Act 1994.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

This is another technical amendment to a technical Bill. It seeks to understand why the language of the Bill is precisely as it is. We are dealing here with geographical indications—GIs—and the circumstances in which a GI conflicts with a trademark.

What is a trademark? A trademark is something that is registered as such under the Trade Marks Act 1994, and it distinguishes the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. Interestingly, Section 2 of that Act says:

“A registered trade mark is a property right … No proceedings lie to prevent or recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trade mark”.


So our starting point is that there are registered trademarks, in which rights lie, and unregistered trademarks do not enjoy that protection.

We are amending what I think is retained EU law—namely, regulation 1151/2012, Article 6 of which says that, in relation to a conflict between a potential designation for a GI and a trademark, the GI should be refused only if,

“in the light of a trade mark’s reputation and renown and the length of time it has been used”,

it

“would be liable to mislead the consumer as to the true identity of the product”.

That is the context of this. If the combination of the GI and the trademark could mislead consumers, you have a problem and should therefore not allow the GI to be so designated. The bit on misleading the consumer has not been carried through, but maybe it is not necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

As always, I am grateful to noble Lords for their points. Clearly, it is easy to confuse trademarks and geographical indications. With geographical indications, there is a principle of established use, whereas with trademarks, something is either trademarked or it is not. That is why we are comfortable with the language as it sits.

There is no reference in the Trade Marks Act 1994 to the concept of “established by use”, because the concept refers to unregistered trademarks, whereas the Trade Marks Act is concerned principally with protections conferred on registered marks. However, “established by use” has meaning under the law relating to geographical indications.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I remain confused because, in Clause 4(3), “established by use” relates to the trademark and not to the GI. I see the point that my noble friend makes, but where is the concept of a trademark established by use?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I apologise to my noble friend, but that is not how I read it. It is linked to designation—that is, if origin and geographical indication conflict with trademarks. It would be logical that “established by use” is in relation to geographical indications. I am afraid that that is how I have read it. I do not think that there is an inconsistency. As with all things, I am very comfortable having a further look at it, but I think it would be an issue if we took out “established by use” and inserted

“in use prior to that date”,

which could result in applications for GIs being rejected under our amended rule, which is not required under CPTPP.

It is important to note that this authority allows the Secretary of State to restrict the use of a geographical indication if it is likely to cause confusion for any GIs that come in after accession or after this Bill becomes an Act. Clearly, she must have an eye to the UK legislative framework. The provision gives her the power to clarify the geographical indications. I do not believe that I have missed anything, but I am probably about to be corrected.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I hope that he does not feel that I have been tripped up by this. I am very comfortable with what we have drafted. It gives protections in the right way for GIs which are established by use, and it clarifies the difference between those and trademarks. As with all things, it is important that we have a deep discussion about this, so I am very comfortable having further debates about it. We will no doubt return to this matter, because it is important. It is not a political point to make but a technical point to ensure that we are doing it in the right way. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, GIs are a relatively new concept. At the same time, it makes sense to ensure that our historical GIs which have been in established use are properly protected. We have the opportunity to protect them into the future against other GIs that may cause confusion with commercial intent.

I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, but, clearly, we are happy to have further discussions and I am sure that my officials will engage on that at the first possible opportunity.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I am very happy to proceed on the basis he proposes, but I say that the way it is structured at the moment, “established by use” relates to the trademark, not to the GI, so the concept of a trademark established by use in statute when it is not in the Trade Marks Act seems a potential problem. I leave that thought. We will talk about it more and may need to come back to it, just as we did on the preceding group. I am grateful to my noble friend for his willingness to have a good look at it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly. Like others, I will declare whether I spoke at Second Reading—the answer is that I did. I entirely agree with the Minister’s earlier remarks that we should learn something new every day. When I was a member of the International Agreements Committee, I learned a great deal from some of its members who are present today and I continue to learn from them—not least the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Kerr, and my noble friend Lord Purvis.

I will pick up a very small point, which has not quite been covered, on rules of origin. As everyone is well aware, the rules of origin chapters in all our free trade agreements are incredibly complicated, as is the way in which different bodies will have to check whether they have been complied with. I notice with great interest that a report was carried out into whether the UK was suitable for membership of the CPTPP, in which CPTPP countries checked out, through a round of questions and discussions, for example, our ability to comply with its rules of origin requirements. Bearing in mind that we already have trade agreements with a number of CPTPP members—Australia, New Zealand and so on—we know that there are details in the agreement on how rules of origin will be checked out. As part of that procedure, there will be a working party on rules of origin between, for instance, New Zealand and us for its trade deal and one between Australia and us for its trade deal. I have been unable to locate details of whether there is to be a similar committee, ad hoc group or working party that will look at compliance with rules of origin. Can the Minister tell us whether that is the case?

The ultimate arbiter of whether rules of origin have been complied with will be the customs organisations in the relevant member countries. They include our customs services, which will be required to make decisions about whether to investigate particular cases in relation to compliance with rules of origin. Given the possibility that there can be goods coming from, say, Australia to the UK using the Australia free trade agreement or the CPTPP arrangements, with a slightly different rules of origin arrangement, as my noble friend pointed out, this is clearly a very complex issue for the customs authorities. Can the Minister give us an absolute assurance that appropriate support, finances, additional personnel and training are being provided to our customs services to enable them to carry out this difficult task, particularly when other member countries have had time to interrogate whether we are up to scratch but we have not yet had an opportunity to check whether the other member countries are up to scratch?

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I take this opportunity to remind noble Lords of my registered interest as the UK co-chair of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group, in so far as Japan is a member of the CPTPP—and, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, not only a member but a leading advocate of UK membership, for which we are very grateful.

I am reminded by the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, on his amendment, that, in the past, when we have been looking at the free trade agreements into which we have entered with Australia and Japan, in both cases we anticipated that, in time, we would enjoy the protection of our GIs in those countries. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, where Australia is concerned, that was contingent upon the Australia-EU agreement. As far as I can tell, although the Australian Government have undertaken their own study, there is no such agreement, so presumably there has been no action.

My questions are these. First, are we making any moves with our Australian friends under our free trade agreement with them to proceed, notwithstanding the absence of an EU agreement with Australia? It seems very unwise and unhelpful for us to be tied to the EU agreement. Secondly, Japan was very willing to consider it, but it was going to be considered under its procedures and that was going to take some time. Are we making progress? It would be great to know that we are. I think there is a willing and important market for UK goods with geographical indications and so on in Japan, even where Scotch whisky is concerned. I think this is the case in many other CPTPP countries, so it is quite important that we get that GI protection. I hope my noble friend can say something, if not now then at a later stage, about the progress we are making with Japan and Australia on getting our GIs recognised there.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely endorse what my noble friend Lord Lansley has just said. There is considerable room for confusion between trademarks and geographic indications, a relatively new concept, especially the application of restrictions or protections for geographic indications in countries whose language is not only not English but is far away from any language used in the European Union. Consider, for example, suits. A common word for a suit of clothes in Japanese is “sebiro”, which comes from “Savile Row”. Is that not a kind of geographic indication? I think there is scope for considerable confusion there.

The other amendment in this group, Amendment 34, was ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. I worry about giving additional protection to the precautionary principle. Putting too much store by the precautionary principle has led us to be too averse to risk in many aspects of our national life and it is likely to lead to restrictions on the economic growth that we so badly need. Our accession to CPTPP is an opportunity to enhance that growth by developing more trade with the fastest-growing part of the world, including countries which place less store on the precautionary principle. I worry that, if we try to export the unduly cumbersome regulatory regime that we have had until now into countries that are growing faster and which have a more proportionate approach to the subject, it will cause, at best, restrictions on us taking up the opportunities that are available.

Lastly, I entirely agree with the good point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, that our accession may not take effect until a year or more after the passage of the Act, and so the question of the timing of the report being made to Parliament is a very appropriate one.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

9: Clause 5, page 6, line 6, at end insert—
“(3A) In section 206, after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) Prior to His Majesty making an order in Council under subsection (4)(b) the Secretary of State must consult those whom they consider appropriate including representatives of United Kingdom rightsholders.”(3B) In section 208 (countries enjoying reciprocal protection), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Prior to His Majesty making an Order in Council under this section, the Secretary of State must consult those whom they consider appropriate including representatives of United Kingdom rightsholders.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require consultation to take place regarding reciprocal protection for United Kingdom performers in a qualifying country before is it designated as such.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, we come now to the question of performers’ rights. I will not dwell at length on the purposes of Clause 5 but merely focus on the processes that it puts in place in relation to the definition of a qualifying country. There is a central issue here about the availability of the protection of rights holders and performers’ rights in the United Kingdom being part of a reciprocal process for the protection of UK performers in other countries. I am just sweeping the ground ahead of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, who may explain a bit more—or he may not, it is up to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

Can the noble Lord clarify that he would always want that done under the affirmative procedure so that there could be a debate in the House on secondary legislation? I agree with him on the principle that we do not want bits and pieces of primary legislation, but there needs to be some ability to discuss secondary legislation, where appropriate.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Some of them are under negative procedures. It is a judgment, not least in this House as our Delegated Powers Committee will advise us on what judgments to make. I would not endorse a blanket affirmative procedure; it must be based on the relative significance of the decisions to be made. Just because something is laid under the negative procedure does not mean that it cannot be prayed against or objected to, but that must rest with the committee.

There is nothing in the current legislation requiring any consultation with the representatives of rights holders in this country before the definition of a qualifying country is extended. I think it would be right for that to be the case; I suspect the representatives of rights holders would welcome it. In giving the Government this wider power, this is a good moment to add this carefully constructed consultation requirement before they bring an order forward. I beg to move.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, suggests that I should go into great detail explaining the whole issue of performers’ rights. I will disappoint him and other Members of the Committee because I am sure that those with an interest in it know that, basically, it is about performers and, in some cases, record label owners and so on receiving appropriate payment for their performances that take place in another country. It seems absolute common sense that if we do a deal with country X, we arrange it so that if our performers perform there we get payment and vice versa. Reciprocity seems pretty fundamental.

I have produced an amendment which says that in this legislation we ought simply to say that the reciprocal arrangements are with CPTPP member countries. Having raised real concerns about our failure during negotiations to make any progress on a number of intellectual property issues or to provide some of the support that our creative industries were seeking, I nevertheless welcome that this is part of the treaty. However, the question remains whether what I am seeking—a simple reciprocity agreement—is happening. The truth is that it is not.

I am enormously grateful to the Minister, who, after I raised these issues in basic terms as I have just done, wrote to me to explain the situation. I hope he will not mind but, to save him repeating it in his speech, I will read a little of what he wrote to me:

“The changes the Bill makes are necessary for the UK to accede to CPTPP and will expand the basis on which foreign performers can qualify for rights in UK law. In addition to the Bill, the Government will be making accompanying secondary legislation under existing powers”


and various other things to make sure that it all happens. That is fine, but he went on:

“The changes in the Bill will apply not only to performers from CPTPP countries but also those with a connection to other countries that are party to relevant treaties relating to performers’ rights to which the UK is also party. This is necessary to comply with the UK’s national treatment and most favoured nation obligations in those treaties”.


He is saying that if we do something with CPTPP countries, we would have to take into account our other treaty obligations and the impact it would have elsewhere. He adds:

“Beyond these changes, however, the UK has some flexibility under its international obligations around how it provides certain rights to foreign nationals, in particular the right of performers to receive equitable remuneration (i.e. a share of the royalties) when their performances are broadcast or played in public”.


In other words, what we have in the legislation at the moment, as I understand it, are changes that mean that we take account of what is going to happen in relation to reciprocal arrangements with CPTPP member countries as well as a stack of other changes that will take place, affecting our relationship with other countries, with some possible variation in how we deal with them. I absolutely understand that it would make life very easy for the Government to sweep these things up all at once, but it leaves us totally in the dark on exactly who we are dealing with and what the implications are, particularly for the music industry. The music industry is extremely concerned about this. It has told me that it has had discussions with the Minister and officials, that it got the information about all this at very short notice, and that it was unable to make any progress with getting the Minister to see things differently.

Its argument, and that which I would make—it is exactly the same as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—is as follows. If consequential changes are necessary in relation to countries beyond those that are members of the CPTPP, there is plenty of time between now and accession—we debated this earlier and all accept it is nine months away or possibly more—for the IPO to consult on the other issues referred to in the Minister’s letter and for us then to have an opportunity to debate their implications before they are brought in. The legislative arrangements to do that are very clear.

I am deeply concerned that these proposals are coming from the IPO, which in many respects does very good work but sometimes runs ahead of things, as it did with its proposals for text and data mining, for example. They came as a huge shock, were massively opposed and were eventually withdrawn and have not gone ahead—I am grateful to the Government for doing that. I do not want a repetition of that, so I hope it is possible for the Minister to accept an amendment that says, “For the time being, let’s concentrate on reciprocal arrangements with CPTPP member countries but, separately, have consultation on all the other things that the Minister wants to achieve so we can have an opportunity after the consultation to know what the impact will be, and then we can make a decision”.

I want to see that information before I decide whether those changes are right. The Minister may already have seen some information, because the one bit of his letter that I did not read out suggests that the department has already come to a conclusion. It states, at the end:

“As such, we expect the direct impacts of the measures … on UK parties to be small”.


I do not know whether that is true. I do not know what the implications are—nor, I think, do other Members of the Committee. The Minister may have a response that reassures me that we can go ahead in the way that the Government propose, but, given the lack of consultation we have had to date on those other issues, it would be helpful to proceed in the ways that either I or the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, have proposed—both achieve the same end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his understanding of the complexity of this. I hope I have been able to explain to noble Lords the different principles in what we currently look to in our copyright Act and what we are signing up to in the CPTPP. It is certainly navigable. Regardless of accession to the CPTPP, it is already complicated, and there are specific agencies to make sure that these royalties are properly collected and stored.

I am reluctant to accept these amendments today and ask noble Lords who have proposed them to withdraw them, but I am very comfortable with having further discussions. It would be helpful for us to have a good discussion with the IPO so that people feel comfortable that the consultation is going in the right direction and that the right levels of input are being prescribed. The tertiary changes that we may wish to make to protect our music industry and artists would not necessarily be linked to this trade Bill, but they are important.

I am glad that I have managed to highlight and explain the new approach on who is eligible for these resale rights, because I think in the first instance it was assumed that everyone would be. That is not the case. It is important to differentiate that. We are signing up to a new approach in the CPTPP and this clearly forms part of our treaty obligations. It is very relevant that we debate that in some depth.

The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, raised a very good point in his amendment. I hope I can reassure him that this is not retrospective, but it would make sense for performances undertaken before the date to qualify. However, you would not be paid royalties for qualifying performances that were broadcast before the date. Otherwise, everyone would claim for past performances over the 70 years that IP goes back to—that would be totally impractical and inappropriate and is not what we are suggesting at all. Our legal advice is clear that the cut-off date is the day on which this comes into force. Anything following that point would qualify. Historic performances are clearly part of the IP record, but you would not receive royalties for anything from before that point. I hope that reassures noble Lords.

I hope I have covered the points raised. I am very grateful for noble Lords’ input on this important, sensitive and complex area. As is often the case in dealing with noble Lords in this Room, we are talking not about party-political or even political issues but issues of detail that have great ramifications. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is keen to intervene as I may not have covered his points. The order of this is that the first statutory instrument gives the Secretary of State the power to make the changes, after which there is the consultation, and then the second instrument makes the changes. I hope that helps answer his initial point on the order of activity.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My noble friend has referred very well to all the issues relating to the definition of a qualifying performance, but my amendment relates narrowly and specifically not to subsection (2) but to subsection (3). It concerns the question of a qualifying country not simply in relation to the CPTPP and takes a power to make Orders in Council to extend the definition of “qualifying country” in future—not just to CPTPP countries but, potentially, beyond. My noble friend says that the Secretary of State can publish a draft and then consult on it. They can do that, but there is nothing in the legislation to say that they should. I would like to be sure. If my noble friend is saying that such a consultation must take place, I am not sure where it is clear that it must.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

We have not legislated for a consultation—there is no mention of that in the Bill—but we made such an undertaking at Second Reading. It is part of the process and we are very aware of the need to consult.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Is that an undertaking always to consult before making an order under Sections 206 or 208 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

No, I am sorry—it is not an undertaking to consult on the artist performance rights every time changes may be made to the countries that become applicable.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Just to be clear, what my noble friend has said may satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath—is that “Bath” with a short or a long “a”?

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

It is “Bath” with a short “a”.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Try to read that one in Hansard. However, my noble friend has not given me the assurance that I am looking for in the changes to the definition of a qualifying country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, would like me to make off-the-cuff commitments on behalf of the Government. It would be only logical to assume that there would be a degree of consultation in the same way that we are effecting one in this instance but, since I cannot give a firm commitment, I am very comfortable to come back to my noble friend between now and Report.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

That reassurance affords me the opportunity to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.