Intellectual Property Bill [Lords]

Debate between Pete Wishart and Iain Wright

Monday 20th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wright]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is a second consideration. We might have the best framework in the world, but if it is not enforced properly, it is largely redundant. We need to ensure that enforcement is maintained.

It is important to retain our position as No. 1 in the world for IP. We should also reinforce the need to avoid needlessly tinkering with the system. The House will agree that IP needs to adapt to take account of changing circumstances such as globalisation; growing collaboration across firms; and new, often disruptive, technologies such as 3D printing and digitisation. All of those bring many challenges. However, it is also important to be mindful of avoiding changes that undermine business certainty and thereby deter investment and innovation.

It is in that context that the House considers the Bill, which is brief and flimsy. It gives the impression of being the remnants of a much larger piece of legislation—perhaps it is the remnants of the much vaunted but hitherto unseen communications Bill. That reinforces the notion that the Government do not have a strong and clear vision on how to proceed with IP, leaving industry with uncertainty. Ministers could be accused of tinkering and making piecemeal changes that could undermine confidence and investment in our economy.

In many respects, the Government are continuing the approach they used last year with the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, several sections of which are devoted to IP and copyright. They were not discussed with stakeholders, and subsequently there was much alarm within the creative industries. The Act deterred investment in the UK economy. We should avoid that when possible.

As the Minister has said, the Bill is meant to simplify and to provide greater clarity and certainty on the IP framework, but it often does not do so. For example, the Government’s recent design consultation asked whether the Registered Designs Act 1949 should be amended by providing greater consistency between joint ownership provisions for both registered and unregistered designs. All or most respondents to the consultation agreed with the move to greater clarity and consistency in principle, but for whatever reason the Government have decided not to change the law in that regard.

Clause 13, to which I will return, has been mentioned a number of times. It provides a significantly different approach to registered and unregistered design rights. It is as if the Government are saying, “We like consistency in certain areas, but not in others,” which merely provides inconsistency by a different name. The measure is a new inconsistency, so it provides greater complexity and subsequent uncertainty to business. We will want to scrutinise the Government on those inconsistencies in Committee.

That said, much in this slight Bill is to be commended, and the Opposition will not oppose it this evening. For example, clause 8 is welcome. It allows UK implementation of The Hague agreement, which allows for the protection of design rights throughout the EU with a single application rather than multiple applications in each country. That should help small and medium-sized firms to cut down on costs.

I am pleased that, in another place, the Government moved away from implementing that measure via the negative procedure, and that they listened to my noble Friends on the Opposition Front Bench and the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and moved to the affirmative procedure. I hope that that listening exercise will continue in Committee.

Clause 17 enables the establishment in the UK of the unified patent court. The use of the court throughout Europe will provide a consistent and welcome framework in participating European country. It is particularly pleasing for the UK economy that part of the court will be based in London, with the prospect of another part of the country—perhaps Hartlepool—being the location for a second part. I commend the Prime Minister, good European that he is, for helping to secure that.

[Pete Wishart]

One place where one of these divisional courts will not be—so far—is in Scotland. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in ensuring that the Bill is amended so that the Court of Session can continue the centuries-long tradition of ruling on patent cases in Scotland? Without that, the extra costs and burdens on Scottish businesses will be intolerable.

[Mr Wright]

When I was reading Hansard from another place on this matter, many noble Lords mentioned the importance of Scotland as a possible second area. It would be useful in Committee to discuss that and, possibly, the wider point of whether independence for Scotland would help to produce that—or otherwise, as I would suspect.

Exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for continuing programmes of research, as contained in clause 20, will maintain UK universities’ excellent reputation around the world for research, without, as I think the Minister said, forcing institutions to make public research without its being completed or subject to peer review. That is also to be welcomed. There are certain provisions, however, that will need to be looked at closely in Committee, and which might have a detrimental effect on UK-based innovation. The Minister mentioned this point, and I was pleased with his accommodating remarks on the possibility of amendments in Committee. This is a concern for UK-based manufacturing.

Clause 3 extends the qualification of unregistered design rights to the functional designs of companies incorporated in countries that do not offer reciprocal protection for UK functional designs. The Minister mentioned the IP Federation, which has been particularly strong on this point. It stated:

“Under the changes proposed in Clause 3 of the IP Bill, parity no longer exists and UK manufacturers are strategically disadvantaged with additional hurdles being introduced to the manufacture of functional designs in the UK. This will directly impact those engaged in general engineering because of the importance of functional designs which are covered by UK UDR.”

It went on to state:

“The manufacturing facilities of both small and large UK-based engineering companies will be seriously impaired by extending UK UDR to foreign corporate entities. Careful consideration would need to be given to the location of manufacturing facilities as the manufacture of functional articles in the UK will be inhibited. It would become more attractive to move design and manufacturing offshore and to commercially source functional designs from businesses outside of the UK where the copying of functional designs is lawful.”

It is important for the rebalancing of the economy that we in this House do nothing that adversely affects high-value manufacturing in this country. Clause 3, as currently drafted, poses a threat to investment and manufacturing capability in the UK, and could put us at a competitive disadvantage with other parts of the world when considering manufacturing locations. That cannot be right. I am pleased with what the Minister has said. We will examine this matter closely in Committee. I hope we can work together to introduce amendments that do not inhibit UK-based manufacturing.

As has been said, the most contentious part of the Bill is clause 13, which brings into law criminal sanctions for deliberate infringement of registered designs. I think that this will take up a significant part of our deliberations in Committee. On the one hand, as I think I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the Opposition strongly believe in the principle that a person who has created, invented or designed something should derive some protection of ownership in law, together with the right to derive benefit from that creation, invention or design, and that appropriate and proportionate sanctions should be put in law to assert that legal right. If criminal sanctions exist for copyright or trademarks, why not for design, especially when the future UK economy will rely so heavily on innovative design? This is a strong argument, especially when there is already similar protection in other parts of the IP framework, such as for copyright or trademarks. However, the introduction of criminal sanctions with the prospect of 10 years’ imprisonment is a serious matter and must be considered closely by the House.

We will be probing the Government in Committee on whether clause 13 is appropriate and proportionate, whether it would act as a sufficient deterrent to those who deliberately infringe designs—steal, for want of a better term—or whether it would unfairly criminalise those who accidentally or inadvertently copy a design. In another place, the Minister said the arguments were finely balanced. We need to ensure that that balance is well drafted in the Bill. Clause 13 is opposed by many stakeholders working in this field, such as the IP Federation, the Intellectual Property Bar Association, the City of London Law Society, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, and a number of experts and specialists, including Sir James Dyson, as we heard from the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), and the Ministry of Defence.

As I said, we will consider this matter closely in Committee, but what causes me most concern about clause 13 is that, as several stakeholders have stated, criminalisation, with the prospect of up to 10 years’ imprisonment, might have a “chilling effect” on innovation. New products might not come to market or benefit the UK economy because people are reluctant to risk a criminal trial and 10 years’ imprisonment. I suspect that in Committee we will deliberate at length about the nature of innovation—whether there are great leaps forward or whether innovation is undertaken by swinging from tree to tree in the jungle or, to switch my metaphor, by standing on the shoulders of giants. We need to be careful to strike the right balance in order to protect designers’ creativity and ingenuity while avoiding the risk that no further product improvements will be made through adaptation.

There is a second concern with clause 13 that I think the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has mentioned. If the purpose of the Bill is to simplify and make consistent the patchwork, as Hargreaves calls it, of differing rights, I do not see why registered designs should be subject to criminal sanctions, but unregistered designs should not be. During the passage of the Bill in another place, the Government could not provide a logical or rational explanation for that inconsistency. In Committee in another place, the Minister stated quite bluntly:

“The introduction of criminal sanctions for unregistered rights could lead to a negative effect on business and innovation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 June 2013; Vol. 745, c. GC409.]

If that is the case, why are registered designs different? The Minister also said that SMEs

“do not tend to register their designs”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 June 2013; Vol. 745, c. GC395.]

It is difficult to see, therefore, how the Government’s proposals in this part of the Bill will strengthen innovation, prevent infringement for the vast proportion of designs in this country and deter exploitation of small and micro-firms by perhaps more unscrupulous businesses. Registered designs do not imply approval or confer an inflated status, so there is no possible legal justification to treat them differently in this regard.

Many UK businesses clearly see merit in the UK unregistered design right, which helps their competitiveness and commercial position. Why, then, should that right not be protected through criminal sanctions when the Government propose that for unregistered designs? I cannot see anything that would prevent companies from identifying unregistered designs, registering those designs for themselves and then stating to the original designer, “You’ve infringed our registered design. We will bring a criminal case against you for deliberately copying our registered design and you may go to prison for 10 years unless you pay us a large fee or assign the rights of the design over to us to exploit anyway.” How does that protect small and micro-firms or help to promote innovation? I do not think that the Government have offered an adequate explanation for this discrepancy, so we will want to scrutinise it further in Committee.

I think the whole House is united in thinking that a strong and consistent framework for intellectual property is essential if the UK economy is to prosper and thrive in the 21st century. A balance is needed to ensure that the IP regime is consistent and provides certainty, while adapting to rapidly changing economic and technological developments. A balance is also needed between protecting the rights of creators and innovators and not discouraging further innovation or possibly disrupting entrepreneurs, companies and technologies. We hope to work closely and constructively with the Government in Committee to strike those balances and ensure that the UK economy can thrive in the modern world.

BBC (Proposed Cuts)

Debate between Pete Wishart and Iain Wright

Thursday 1st December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely. That was a key feature of the King report. He said that a lot was being lost in relation to Scotland and Wales when it came to national news reporting. Sometimes, we got the funny little story at the end about going up to Loch Ness or Snowdon or somewhere and giving an amusing little anecdote to end the news, but in terms of significant reporting of news concerning Scotland, Wales and even the English regions, there was absolutely nothing.

The King report made another important point, which the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan will recall. Some English journalists had to be sent on devolution training so that they would start to understand the difference between devolved powers and reserved powers and work out how to communicate that to the rest of the nation. They still get it absolutely wrong sometimes. We get it so often that we are becoming a little tired of it in Scotland and, presumably, in Wales and possibly in some of the English regions.

A particular type of approach is required when broadcasting for a nation; we have very different requirements, in terms of how the everyday experiences of the Scottish people are reflected and reported, and how the news agenda is shaped. That is why the cuts will have a disproportionate impact on the people of Scotland. Let me detail what we will experience in Scotland. One in 10 jobs at BBC Scotland is to be lost, and there is to be a reduction of about 16% in the total budget. BBC Scotland’s news operation and support staff will be hit hardest by the cuts. Between 100 and 120 jobs will be lost at the Pacific Quay headquarters in Glasgow by 2016-17. It is feared that production operations, and online and Gaelic services, and perhaps sport, will be cut and hurt. BBC Scotland’s news operation is to lose 30 jobs; 20 jobs will be lost at Radio Scotland. Craft and production will shelve 35 jobs, and operations and support will lose another 30. The whole future of the BBC symphony orchestra is still under review. That is on top of efficiency savings that will cost some 20 jobs.

The future of BBC Scotland’s “Newsnight Scotland” programme—affectionately known as “Newsnicht” down here—is under threat. It is an important feature of the news output and agenda in Scotland. It gives us the only opportunity that we get in the evening to go over, debate, and comment on what has emerged during the day in the Scottish Parliament, elsewhere in Scotland, or down here. I enjoy turning up at 11 o’clock in the evening to contribute to “Newsnicht”.

The problem with “Newsnight Scotland” is that although there has been an assurance from the BBC that it will be maintained, BBC 2 will be making a transition to high-definition television, and there is not the capability or opportunity for opt-outs for the nations or the regions. If the BBC is listening to this, I hope that it will tell us what it will do to ensure that we continue to get “Newsnight Scotland”, because it is a critical feature to so many people who are interested in the daily political and cultural diet in Scotland.

The Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union in Scotland says that the scale of the cuts means that it will be almost impossible to ensure that the job losses will happen through voluntary redundancies; compulsory redundancies are likely. It is so concerned about the scale of the cuts in Scotland that industrial action has been talked about, and might be a feature, unless we get the problem resolved.

People are taking the issue into their own hands in other ways, too. There is a fantastic campaign about “introducing…”, which is a little programme on Radio 1 on a Monday evening, from 10 pm to 12 midnight. There is “introducing…in Northern Ireland”, “introducing…in Wales”, and “introducing…in Scotland”. That is under threat by the BBC. They are great programmes; they give many new artists and bands a radio platform for the first time in their career. They are responsible for the early development of artists such as Paolo Nutini and Calvin Harris. Bands such as Biffy Clyro and Frightened Rabbit sent their first demos to “introducing…”, and they are now to go.

Such is the response to those little programmes on Radio 1 that a petition on the subject has already secured the signature of some 6,000 people—more, per head of population, than the petition to try to save Radio 6. That is how much concern there is about it in Scotland. That is the type of impact that there will be on local services. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who will meet campaigners who are trying to save the programmes. I have not had a response from Mr Thompson; perhaps we could have a discussion about his coming to meet the campaigners, so that he can explain to them why that iconic little programme is to be shelved. The proposal is ridiculous, because it will not save any money; there will still be an “introducing…”; it will just broadcast across the United Kingdom. The individual identities of the programmes, and the opportunity for bands from Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, will be lost. You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, how passionately I feel about the music industry and opportunity for young artists. I really hope that the BBC thinks again.

I have only a few minutes left and a number of issues to raise. The reason I am so annoyed by, and angry about, the BBC cuts in Scotland is that we do not even get our population share’s-worth back from the BBC. We in Scotland are actually subsidising the BBC; we give more through the licence fee than we get back in services. I am appalled that Scotland has to subsidise the BBC for the rest of the UK, just as we have to subsidise the rest of the UK when it comes to resourcing, and the balance of payments to the Treasury. That is a feature that we have had to put up with. If we have to subsidise the BBC’s television and radio services, let us do what we can to protect the services that we have.

We will need a properly resourced BBC, because there will be a few big issues coming Scotland’s way in the next few years. We will ask the people of Scotland to make one of the most substantial and important choices that the nation has ever had; they will have the opportunity to say yes to becoming a normal, self-governing nation, like those throughout the rest of the world.

[Mr Iain Wright]

When?

[Pete Wishart]

It will be in the second half of the parliamentary term, as was set out in our manifesto; that will be delivered. The BBC will have to be properly resourced to ensure that we can continue to inform the people of Scotland about this important choice. That is why we need BBC services to be properly resourced.

Back in 2005, production output from Scotland was below 4%; that was appalling, particularly given that, as I have said, we subsidise the BBC. Progress will be made on that, as the Secretary of State knows. All credit to the BBC: it has improved the situation. We are getting close to our population share target of 9% for production, and there is a commitment to meet that target by 2016. I do not know how cutting the BBC in Scotland so dramatically will help to achieve that. Again, I would like the BBC to explain how we are to hit those production targets by 2016 if we are to cut so deep and so hard in the BBC in Scotland. I hope that the BBC recognises that what I am talking about is not a local or regional, but a national service in Scotland. Our nation is losing out.