Intellectual Property Bill [HL]

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Clement-Jones

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, Clause 13 makes it a criminal offence intentionally to copy a UK or EU-registered design in the course of business without the consent of its owner. It will also be an offence to try to profit from the use of the copy in the course of business. This clause has attracted much debate, both here and in the other place. My right honourable friend David Willetts and I have also had extensive discussions with industry representatives, and I have listened carefully to the views of both large and small design businesses.

A number of industry representatives voiced serious concerns that the drafting of the clause left some uncertainty as to the scope of the sanction. They believed that the clause could be interpreted more widely than the Government intended—a view supported by members of the judiciary. As a result, the Government made two sets of amendments to this clause in the other place to clarify the scope of the sanction, and therefore strengthen its effectiveness. The Government recognise the importance of creating certainty for those businesses that may be affected by the criminal sanction.

Amendments 4, 6, 8, 11 and 12 insert the word “intentionally” into the clause to make it absolutely clear that unconscious and accidental copying should not be caught by the offence. These amendments are not intended to make the offence harder to prove, but simply to clarify that the offence should apply only to intentional copying. It has always been the Government’s aim to create an offence that deters specific, purposeful copying, as can be seen from previous debates in this House. I do not believe that inserting the word “intentionally” into the statute changes this underlying aim.

I now turn to Commons Amendments 5, 7, 9 and 10. These amendments concern the scope of the offence, in the context of assessing whether one design has been copied from another. The amendments replace the word “substantially” in the clause with the phrase,

“with features that differ only in immaterial details”.

I will take just a moment to remind noble Lords that the intention of this criminal sanction has always been to cover exact copies, and copies where the design has been very slightly altered. In achieving this policy aim, the Government have been mindful not to capture the type of differences that can quite legitimately result in the creation of a new design. The amendments help achieve this, so that when making an assessment of whether a design has been copied, immaterial details may be disregarded. It is right that what amounts to “immaterial details” should be determined by the courts in the light of the details of the case in front of them.

The decision to replace the word “substantially” arose from detailed discussions with industry representatives. They expressed concern that the term was not clearly defined in registered design law and could therefore create uncertainty, which in turn could affect legitimate follow-on design. The revised form of wording—“immaterial details”—is more familiar to industry and reflects existing language in the Registered Designs Act 1949, in the context of deciding whether a design is new. By definition, a new design cannot be a copy. The wording provides users not only with a familiar term but gives the courts a more precise test than “substantially”.

These amendments will help remove uncertainty in the criminal sanction that could impact negatively on innovation, but the new wording also reinforces the important point that someone who intentionally copies another person’s registered design will not be excused simply because they have made some immaterial changes to that design.

To conclude, both sets of amendments made by the Government to Clause 13 will help clarify the scope of the offence and give industry the certainty it needs to allow follow-on innovation to continue without fear of crossing the line. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this group of amendments and, indeed, for his oral and written briefings while the Bill was going through the Commons. It was most helpful to have a blow-by-blow account of the amendments as they were put forward by the Government.

I do not want to appear churlish, and I will not be pressing the matter to a vote, but the amendments cause some considerable concern. The inclusion of the phrase,

“features that differ only in immaterial details from that design”,

as inserted by Amendments 5, 7 and others, give me particular cause for concern. I and organisations such as ACID, which represents smaller designers, are concerned that this change drastically narrows the offence to such an extent that it will apply only to the production of counterfeits. Given wider consultation, a much better form of words would have been achieved—something on the lines of “to make a product exactly to that design or to a design which does not produce on the informed user a different overall impression”. In the circumstances, that would have been far preferable.

The provision will put in place a deterrent to protect registered designs against absolutely slavish copying, but the new wording, as it stands, will allow someone to make sufficient small changes which are not “material” changes to avoid the offence. The intent to copy is still there whether they are immaterial or material changes, and I have grave doubts about whether the newly amended provision will be effective in protecting designers, particularly small designers.

At this point, I want to quote from the noble Viscount’s letter of 5 March, which was very heavily directed towards explaining why these amendments had been adopted in the way that he has described. However, it goes into rather greater detail. In his last paragraph dealing with Clause 13, he says:

“Some have inferred that because the term ‘substantial’ is used in copyright legislation, and therefore in the context of criminal sanctions for copyright offences, that this provides a suitable precedent for using it in registered design sanction”.

Truer words were never spake. That is exactly the case that many of us have been making. However, I do not believe that the remainder of that paragraph holds water in the context of copyright law and the ability to enforce it in relation to substantial copying in these circumstances. The term works for the criminal offence in copyright and I see no reason why it should not also work for registered design criminal liability.

I also regret that unregistered designs have not been given greater protection under the Bill. BIS figures, which were very recently welcomed by the Minister, demonstrate that UK investment in intangible assets now totals some £137.5 billion. Of that, some 46% is protected by copyright, 21% by unregistered design rights and 21% by trademarks. That demonstrates why throughout the passage of the Bill I have supported the case for extending criminal sanctions for registered design infringement to unregistered designs. Those are vital matters of national investment. If anything, the addition of the word “intentionally” by the Government in the Commons, as reflected in Amendments 4, 6 and others, has strengthened the case for that protection under the criminal law.

I believe that the amendments relating to intentionality introduce unnecessary additional mens rea to the offence. It is a belt-and-braces approach to what I believe was already there. However, I do not see how, given its inclusion, the Government can still refuse to extend criminal penalties to unregistered designs. If someone has “intentionally”—that is, deliberately—set out to copy someone else’s work for their own commercial gain, it should not matter whether that work is protected by a registered design right or an unregistered design right. It has still been deliberately stolen. I repeat that these rights are extremely important for our national investment. I still live in hope that sense will prevail at some stage in the future and that our designers will be properly protected by the criminal law, as are trademark and copyright owners.

The one bit of good news for designers is the European Court of Justice Advocate-General’s decision today on the Karen Millen v Dunnes case. As we know, the majority of the UK’s designers rely on unregistered rights, so this has provided clarity and will strengthen the unregistered design right in that it is the totality of the design one holds which the law protects, not by eliminating individual parts of a design. There is some good news coming out of the ECJ but not out of the House today.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, in Committee, we opposed the criminalisation of the unauthorised copying of a registered design and the dealing with unauthorised copies. We also opposed any possibility that that might be extended to unregistered designs. To that extent, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who has just spoken at length and with passion about these issues, as he has throughout the passage of the Bill. I understand where he is coming from but we simply do not agree on this point.

On Report, although we lost in Committee in terms of these discussions, we decided that the best thing to do was to come back with a series of amendments which would try to moderate where the Government were trying to get to. When I introduced the first of these, I quoted the noted British designer, Sir James Dyson, who had written to many noble Lords on that occasion. He said:

“In the law relating to copyright, acts of unintentional infringement are excluded from criminal sanctions. In the proposed clause of the Intellectual Property Bill relating to registered design … the same is not true. If this Bill is passed unamended, innocent designers will be threatened with criminal proceedings. It is wholly wrong that a designer should go to prison for unintentional infringement. The current wording of the Bill does not exclude that possibility”.

He continued:

“I have spent decades fighting to protect my ideas; taking on competitors who have flagrantly copied my patents and designs. I abhor intellectual property infringement. It is something I feel passionately about. But the Intellectual Property Bill’s inclusion of proposals to criminalise infringement of registered designs is a serious mistake”.

Our argument on this issue is, in essence, that the legislation would open a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences, potentially discouraging the very kind of legitimate, competitive risk-taking that policymakers have been very keen to encourage as a driver of growth. In particular, I said that this could be a deterrent to inward investment in UK design, which may not only result in an innovation drought but threaten the future employability of UK designers. I thought then, and I still believe, that the Government had failed to make their case.

However, notwithstanding the reservations, we also argued that if criminal sanctions were to be introduced we wanted to raise the bar to criminal proceedings by making it clear that they would be commenced only if it was clear beyond reasonable doubt that the action taken had been persistent, calculated and motivated by evidence of an intention to exploit the original registered design.

In that debate, the Minister said he would give serious consideration to the concerns that we expressed, and he brought forward an amendment at Third Reading which would introduce a defence of reasonable belief that the design in question was not infringed. While we were happy to sign up to that amendment, which raised the bar as we wished, we said that it did not go far enough.

We are therefore very pleased that with these new Commons amendments the Government have returned to what is in effect the original IPO consultation document, which for example promised that the criminal offence would contain defences,

“against unintentional infringement of registered design rights”.

We are therefore pleased to agree with the new amendments to Clause 13, which specify intentionality—that the act of copying must be a considered act—and define how close to the original the copied design would need to be by reference to terms currently used in the relevant legislation. We continue to oppose the introduction of criminal sanctions for registered design infringement as a matter of principle. However, we will support the changes to the Bill.

Intellectual Property Bill [HL]

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Clement-Jones

Tuesday 23rd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, these government amendments implement the DPRR 3rd report recommendations and we welcome them on that basis. On the Clause 8 orders giving effect to the Hague agreement, the DPRR Committee found that the Bill created a Henry VIII power, and commented that it,

“would therefore expect to see some justification for the negative procedure that is to apply”.

However, the committee did not consider that the case for the negative procedure had been made for orders under new Section 15ZA and recommended that the affirmative procedure should apply instead. We are glad to see the Government accepting that recommendation.

Clause 11(1) inserts new Section 28A into the Registered Designs Act 1949 to provide for the registrar—that is, the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks—to give an opinion about matters specified in the regulations with respect to designs of a kind described in subsection (1)(a) and (b). The new section is purely enabling in that the whole provision about the new opinions service is to be set out in negative regulations. Subsections (2), (4), (5) and (7) set out provisions that the regulations must contain—for instance, about protecting the registrar from liability in respect of an opinion and about appeals. BIS explains, in paragraph 13 of the memorandum, that the intention is that the new opinions service will be similar to the existing patents opinions service. That service is provided for in Section 74A of the Patents Act 1977, but it is important to note that almost all the provision appears in the Act, with only one power to make regulations to provide for an exception.

The committee was not convinced by the Government’s argument for a need for flexibility and was critical that they did not explain why more provision cannot go into the Bill—for instance, about the scope of the opinions service. The committee remained unpersuaded that the negative procedure was appropriate for the introduction of this new service entirely by regulations, and recommended that the affirmative procedure should apply on the first exercise of the powers under new Section 28A, which is why we welcome the Government’s decision in this regard. We also welcome the fact that the Government now make it clear that Clause 21 incorporates countries signed up to any Act of the Berne convention by bringing the language of the clause into line with that used in the CDPA 1988. As the Minister assured us, this ensures that countries that have not signed up to the most recent Act of the Berne Convention do not receive any less copyright protection in the UK than those that have, and therefore we welcome the government amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Young, in thanking the Minister for responding so effectively to the concerns raised on Report. I hope that these swallows which are already evident on Report will mean a summer for the rest of the Report stage.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I am grateful for the short contributions to the debate on these government amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. I take this opportunity to thank again the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its consideration of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, briefly, I express some bafflement, especially in the light of discussion in Committee, at what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has said. On the one hand, half his speech was devoted to saying that the criminalisation of registered design rights under the Bill was wrong and therefore should not proceed. On the other, the second half seemed to say that, on the basis that it would proceed, it should be amended to add words such as “deliberately”, as in Amendment 4. Looking at Clause 13, however, it is quite clear that mens rea, as the term is used in criminal law, is contained within the clause as it stands.

I can understand the position of Sir James Dyson. He believes in principle that it is not right to criminalise registered design infringement. I happen to disagree with him. A number of particularly small designers represented by bodies such as Anti Copying in Design—ACID—feel strongly that this is a very important protection. It may not be favoured by the IP Federation, which represents the larger companies and their designers, but this is something that is very much to be desired by the smaller designers. The argument used that there is a chilling effect on innovation is completely rebuttable. I am sure that my noble friend will go through that in his own way.

Taking the second limb of the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, it is clear that Clause 13 does exactly what he wants his amendment to do. There is no doubt that the act has to be deliberate on reading new Section 35ZA(1)(b)(i). I cannot see that there is any ambiguity there.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, in Grand Committee we had some detailed debates about the introduction of criminal sanctions for the deliberate copying of a registered design. This is a finely balanced issue, and concerns were raised by a number of noble Lords. On the one hand, some felt that criminal sanctions should not be introduced as the offence may inadvertently capture innocent infringement. On the other hand, some noble Lords agreed that the offence was necessary, and indeed some felt that its scope should be extended further.

We shall no doubt return to the latter point in the course of today’s debate. However, as we consider this particular group of amendments, I would like to speak first to government Amendment 7 in order to allay some of the concerns that noble Lords have expressed regarding the application of the offence. This amendment to Clause 13 sets out more precisely the scope of the term “use” within the context of business activities. The amendment will further focus the offence with the aim of ensuring that innocent infringement will not be captured.

Before I comment further on this amendment, I remind noble Lords of the purpose of this clause. As your Lordships know, Clause 13 introduces a criminal sanction for the copying of a registered design. This will create a more coherent approach to the protection and enforcement of designs, trade marks and copyright in the UK, and should help to reduce the scale of blatant copying of registered designs by acting as a deterrent. Under the clause, it will be an offence to deliberately copy a registered design without the consent of its owner. It will also be an offence to knowingly market, import, export, stock or use the design in the course of business activities.

Concerns were raised in Grand Committee as to whether the term “use” may inadvertently capture accidental and incidental use under the offence. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, pointed out in relation to the offence, it,

“includes as a criminal act the use of a product in the course of a business and the stocking of the product for use. Does the Minister accept that the word ‘uses’ is an unacceptably vague notion for criminal prosecution?”.—[Official Report, 13/7/13; col. GC 399.]

Because the offence has been drafted to require an element of active knowledge in order to be found guilty, it should be the case that accidental use will not be caught. However, the Government accept there may be cases where incidental use could conceivably come within the scope of the offence. For example, a business may lease a vending machine, which is a copy of a registered design, for use by its employees. This is completely ancillary to its main business but some have suggested that because the business is “using” the machine, a responsible person within that business who knew the machine was copied but still tendered its lease would be liable for the offence. The Government believe that, in practice, such cases should not attract the criminal offence. This is because the use of the registered design in this case would be ancillary to the main purpose of the business.

I reassure noble Lords that the Government have listened carefully to their concerns, and believe that this amendment is the right way to clarify the detail of the offence. By qualifying the word “use”, it will ensure that the mere incidental use of a copy of a registered design in the course of business will not be subject to criminal proceedings.

Amendment 4 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Young of Norwood Green, would add a qualification to proposed new Section 35ZA(1)(a) in Clause 13. The noble Lords have set out their position on this amendment. This would mean a person would attract the criminal offence contained in Clause 13 only if an act of copying was undertaken deliberately. The Government are of the opinion that “copying” refers to a deliberate “taking” of the design in question. In crafting the offence of registered design copying, the Government worked hard to ensure that it caught only cases of intentional and deliberate copying. For example, the existing test for whether, in civil law, design is infringed is to ask whether the product creates a “different overall impression” on an “informed user”. This was rejected for the proposed criminal offence because it left too considerable a margin for subjective judgment within a criminal case. The offence was purposefully drawn to be narrower than civil infringement, and while it of course remains a subset of such infringement, it will not be used in cases where there has been no blatant copying of a design. This ensures that designers can continue to be legitimately inspired by, and innovate around, existing designs without fear of their actions being caught by criminal sanctions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The noble Earl makes an interesting point but I see the two as being very separate.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised the issue of the low number of registrations. The importance of registration should not be underestimated. Official registers in the UK and OHIM contain approximately 728,000 registrations, which may be of help to the noble Lord.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones asked why expert witnesses cannot be used to determine technical matters under unregistered design matters. If the noble Lord’s proposed extension to include unregistered design rights was the right way to proceed, what he says about expert witnesses could indeed be helpful. However, as I have said, there are many reasons why the Government believe it is not right to criminalise unregistered design copying, which is the overarching issue.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, raised the issue of the Copyright Hub to apply metadata to designs, which is an interesting point. The digital Copyright Hub is an industry-led initiative, of which the noble Lord will be aware. I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that I cannot therefore make commitments about what the hub will do in this respect. However, I am happy to speak to the industry team about the noble Lord’s suggestion. I therefore ask that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, first of all I thank the noble Earl, Lord Errol, for his intervention. We do not often agree on matters in this kind of debate, but I very much appreciate his support on this occasion, and in particular his reference to 3D printing. That will give rise to a number of particular issues. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I understand that he does not follow me down the same road of principle, but the horizon to which he is pointing in terms of the ability of the Copyright Hub to apply metadata on its database to unregistered designs, could be an extremely interesting salient. It may be that when the Copyright Hub is up and running and it includes a whole data bank of unregistered designs, I come back on a future IP Bill and say, “Right, we know exactly what the provenance of these designs is, we have the metadata applied to them and it is entirely appropriate we should now apply criminal offences to infringement of unregistered design”. I can see that on the horizon, coming down the road.

The Minister was entirely consistent. He may have praised the virtues of inconsistency, but his reply was entirely consistent with his reply in Committee. However, I thought it was more considered and more elegantly constructed than in Committee. Some of his points were good ones. The least convincing were the non-technical ones such as “tinker at our peril”, “the delicate equilibrium” and so on; but some of his more granular points about magnifying the uncertainty where you have different elements within an overall design, and those he made about functional design, had a plausible ring about them. On his point about making industries more risk-averse, in many ways people in the fashion industry would love people to be rather more risk-averse. One of the real issues is copyright and design infringement in that industry. A little risk-aversion would go quite a long way. I still do not see the plausibility of his argument about the chilling effect and so on. However, I understand that the Minister has taken great care to respond, and I thank him very much.

If we can use the principles contained in Amendment 20 to develop the Copyright Hub, we might see a better future for unregistered design, which, as we have heard in this debate, is relied on by 350,000 designers. Registered design is a very small part of that. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The first amendment in this group from my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones would require that the annual report from the Secretary of State to Parliament include specific mention of,

“progress … made in protecting metadata”.

As I said in Committee, this report will have value to the extent that it addresses issues pertinent to the year in which it is published. While some issues such as innovation and growth are bound to endure, other issues may rise and fall in their topicality.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones talked about the work being carried out currently by the industry-led Copyright Licensing Steering Group to develop a voluntary code of practice on the handling of metadata. The Government support the voluntary approach being taken by industry to look at this problem, and we welcome the consultation that was published on 27 June. This consultation exercise, which is indeed good news, ends on 28th August, and I would encourage anyone working in this area to contribute their thoughts. I am sure that noble Lords join me in hoping that this work by industry will mean that metadata stripping is not a significant problem in years to come, and as such I hope they will also agree that although it is topical today, it would not be right to require the Secretary of State to report on progress with the issue every year. Of course, that does not mean that the Secretary of State cannot include such information in the annual report at his discretion while it is both topical and of interest. It is fair to say that, for the initial report at least, that will be the case. Accordingly, I am happy to commit today that the first report will contain an assessment of progress made on this issue.

Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is intended to require the Government to report on how the activities of the IPO impact on the interests of wider society and the economy. The amendment returns us to the debate which we had during Grand Committee on the detail of what should be included in the Secretary of State’s annual report on innovation and growth. Indeed, the noble Lord tabled a similar amendment at that time. In Committee, I explained:

“I entirely agree with what I believe is the principle behind the noble Lord’s amendment, that the wider interests of society are important in the context of IP rights. I can assure the noble Lord that the report will indicate where other policy objectives have been taken into account, alongside economic considerations—for example, where, say, freedom of speech, public health, or international development considerations have taken priority over economic ones”.—[Official Report, 18/6/13; col. GC 51.]

However, as the noble Lord has returned to the issue today, I return to the Hargreaves review to which the report responds. The review stated that the IPO should focus,

“on its central task of ensuring that the UK’s IP system promotes innovation and growth through efficient, contestable markets”.

The intention of the report is to sharpen the focus of the IPO on this core objective. Broadening the scope of the report would reduce its effectiveness in clearly setting out what the IPO is doing to promote innovation and growth.

However, I reassure the noble Lord that the Government take very seriously the need to balance the protection of intellectual property with the promotion of the wider interests of society and the economy, both in the UK and throughout the world. I was delighted to see that international negotiators, including representatives from the IPO, came to an agreement last month on a new treaty to improve access to books for millions of people who are blind, visually impaired or print disabled.

Also last month, the World Trade Organisation Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Council decided to extend the transition period for least developed countries to comply with the TRIPS agreement until 30 June 2021. This has been government policy since 2011 and is about balancing the potential value of IP policy to least developed countries with the real-life priorities in those countries. The report will include such examples where the interests of wider society have been balanced with economic objectives.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, said that the Government should not rest on the achievements of international agreements. The Government are determined to improve the global IP system so that it benefits the UK and the global economy. I reassure him that we are certainly not resting on our laurels. Whether it is reducing patent backlogs or agreeing transitional periods for least developed countries in TRIPS agreements, we take a global view and seek continuous improvement. In the light of this, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their remarks during the course of the debate, particularly about the importance of the protection of metadata. I thank my noble friend in particular for his assurances that the first annual report will include a report on progress on metadata protection. The marvellous thing is that it will be a good news report in that respect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

To clarify for the noble Lord, it is indeed the strategy paper, which is due to be published by the end of July.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. We have elicited a very useful heralding of the communications White Paper, which the Minister has carefully labelled a strategy paper, so perhaps we are being invited not to expect too much detail. That will be very welcome, since it has been anticipated for quite some time.

The Minister has been very helpful in responding. Clearly, I believe that the discussion about Section 73 is part of an ongoing discussion, which will no doubt take place when the White Paper is consulted on and any Bill comes forward. The Minister talked about the objective to have a zero balance of payments. While that is very helpful in clarification, it is not particularly welcome to the PSBs. The DCMS can expect some argument about that, since the PSBs believe that that means they are at a disadvantage when it comes to the use of their programmes and people inserting advertisements in them for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the public service broadcasters.

I welcome the Minister’s point about the exemption being used by internet-based companies and so on. Again, that tilts the other way in terms of helpfulness. The debate will carry on, I am sure, but this has been a useful canter round the course in anticipation of the White Paper. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Intellectual Property Bill [HL]

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Clement-Jones

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I was not planning to speak on the amendment but the noble Lord, Lord Young, made such a good fist of the arguments that I wanted to say that this matter needs serious examination. In fact, when one looks closely, one sees that this is a relatively mild amendment because it does not really constitute exemplary damages. It simply rolls up royalties into a lump sum that otherwise could have been awarded by a court. Exemplary damages are rather tougher. Indeed, many rights holders complain that the provisions of the amendment would be inadequate when all they are going to get is just the equivalent of a royalty when, in fact, an infringement has taken place over a long period. One could go a lot further, but as a first step and as a way of stimulating discussion this is an interesting amendment.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, Amendment 28AC would allow for the awarding of damages in copyright infringement cases that compensate a plaintiff for the infringement, as well as the additional damages allowed in some circumstances for copyright infringement. This is already catered for by Regulation 3(2) of the Intellectual Property Regulations 2006—SI 2006/1028—and damages may be awarded at the court’s discretion.

Copyright gives the creator of a protected work the right to control certain acts, such as how and when the work is copied or when it is issued to the public. Most cases of copyright infringement fall under the remit of civil law and are dealt with by the civil courts. Infringement can be a criminal matter, particularly where it is carried out deliberately and/or it occurs on a commercial scale. The UK legal system does not generally have principles of punitive damages in the civil courts. In some circumstances this is possible for blatant copyright infringement, but these provisions are rarely used. Civil remedies in UK law are aimed at settling disputes and provide restitution and compensation, while punishment is the purpose of the criminal courts.

Intellectual property law is complicated and in many circumstances it is possible for an individual or business to infringe accidently. As a result, although it is possible to obtain additional or exemplary damages for copyright infringement in some circumstances, this is not something that the Government intend to introduce more widely. In particular, the introduction of further exemplary damages for design rights and patents would almost certainly have a negative impact on innovation, as industry would become more nervous about infringement when developing new products. Further damages would also create a perverse incentive for some individuals and organisations to take legal action that might otherwise be inappropriate.

An important principle of UK law is ensuring that the level of penalty is proportionate to the level of wrongdoing. The Government believe that furthering exemplary damages could allow for disproportionate sanctions to be imposed on those who unintentionally infringe IP and would not support rights holders, or protect or enforce their rights. Above all, we have seen no evidence that exemplary damages work where they are available in other countries.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, questioned whether the UK Government are doing enough on enforcement. I am delighted that this gives me an opportunity to provide some highlights of what I regard as a serious and important matter. The UK’s legal system convicts pirates and counterfeiters, and 80% of criminal cases under IP legislation in 2009 led to a guilty verdict. In 2009, the UK convicted nearly eight times as many copyright offenders as in 2002. The assets seized from IP criminals were £21 million in 2010-11, which was more than twice the previous year’s figure. Figures vary from year to year, understandably, but there is an increasing trend in the value of assets recovered since 2004-05.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, spoke generally about whether the current system is working. To address his first question, we simply have not seen the evidence that the UK’s penalties are ineffective deterrents. UK piracy is relatively low, and Ofcom research suggests that it is not rising. That is not to say that we are complacent. However, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I was attempting to give a fuller answer in that I, too, understood that it was a slightly more complex question and that is why I would like to give a holistic answer covering the noble Lord’s general point about the timing and the rollout of the Digital Economy Act.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones asked why we should not just provide a token amount of remuneration in respect of PLR. By EU law, remuneration must be more than merely illusory. Although the UK has a degree of discretion as to the amount, the European Commission’s case law has said that it must be real and reflect the loss of remuneration, so the availability of funding is relevant to any extension. My noble friend also asked what the implications were if these changes were not made. To clarify that point, library authorities can continue to lend e-books without the extension of PLR.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked whether the issue is one of cost and, if so, whether a token amount can be paid. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones made a similar point. The financial implications must be given consideration but I assure noble Lords that the Culture Minister is giving this proper consideration even as the challenging economic circumstances continue. With this in mind, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that quite complex reply. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for his support, and the noble Lord, Lord Young. I liked his question about what has happened to the Digital Economy Act. It is one of those mysteries, like “Who killed Cock Robin?”.

The Minister seemed to be saying that it is far easier to implement the Digital Economy Act for onsite e-lending than it is for remote e-lending. If I have elicited that as a response, we can at least start sorting out the wheat from the chaff. It sounds as if 26 June is a very significant date for whether or not we are going to be able to implement that part of the Digital Economy Act. I shall put on my party clothes if, on the 26 June, we know that there is going to be something in the budget for PLR under Section 43 of the Digital Economy Act. I shall put on even more party clothes if, after four years, we start issuing letters next year under the initial obligations code. The fact that it has taken four years to implement an Act will perhaps be in the Guinness book of records, although the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who has a great memory for these things, may remember other Acts that have not been implemented. However, it is good news on that front. It sounds as if there is some willingness to implement the Act as far as that is concerned.

I am rather baffled that the Government should commission a report by somebody extremely distinguished, with a very distinguished advisory panel, which came to some very clear conclusions about remote e-lending, and then shuffle the whole thing off into a piece of research. I am sure that that is very frustrating for all concerned. The Minister talked about the bodies that were involved, including the publishers, but the authors—the ALCS and others—really need to be involved in this process. In many respects, all this is happening behind a somewhat closed door as far as the writers are concerned, but they should be involved. Clearly I am not going to get very far with that until the results of the survey are put together.

On the legal issue, not all libraries have reached an agreement with aggregators. There will be continuing infringement until we have either proper, blanket licensing—via the aggregators, publishers or whatever—or we have something in the Digital Economy Act, or another instrument, to bring remote e-lending within PLR. The situation will continue to be very unsatisfactory. I heard exactly what the Minister said about the status of remote e-lending under the copyright directive. I am not an expert on that directive but I doubt whether it is beyond the wit of man to find a way through that and to find some satisfactory way of including remote e-lending in PLR if the budget is there.

However, the number of hard copy or print books which are subject to PLR is diminishing over time, so the pool of money required to compensate authors—the Minister said that £6,600 is the limit under PLR—may not necessarily grow, because there will be a compensating diminution in the number of printed books taken out as against the quantity of digital lending. I would not be at all surprised if this required no additional funding and it was simply a matter of political will to recognise that the technology is moving in a particular direction and to make sure that authors are compensated as much for the loan of digital books as for the loan of print books. However, we will not get much further today. I thank the Minister for his considered reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the speech of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. In so doing, I was multitasking and was able to calculate that my noble friend has pledged to dress himself up in no fewer than three layers of party clothes, which, I imagine, must be quite an impressive sight. Given that this is the last amendment that I will be speaking to in Committee, I want briefly to thank all Peers who have contributed and engaged in Committee on the Bill. I realise that there will be more to speak about on Report and I look forward to further discussions.

The effect of the amendment tabled by my noble friend would be to increase the maximum penalty for online copyright infringement to 10 years’ imprisonment. While I recognise that there appears to be a discrepancy between the penalties obtainable from the two offences of online copyright infringement, with a maximum of two years’ imprisonment, and physical copyright infringement, with a maximum of 10 years under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, I cannot support harmonisation of the two offences, given my understanding of the area.

Prosecutors are already using our current fraud legislation to obtain convictions for online infringement, with substantial penalties, up to a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment. The existing legislation allows for effective prosecutions to be made without reliance on any specialist intellectual property knowledge. Last year, for example, the owner of the website Surfthechannel—which linked to pirated copies of films and TV—was sentenced to four years in prison on two counts of conspiracy to defraud, more than the two years available under the CDPA.

The important economic aspect of this was addressed by the Digital Economy Act when it came into force in 2010. This raised financial penalties on digital offences to £50,000, in line with physical copyright theft. The Government have no evidence to support the suggestion that an increased sanction for online copyright infringement would either increase the number of prosecutions brought forward, increase the length of sentences passed down to those found guilty of infringement or deter more people from infringing. We have not consulted on this and we have no plans to do so.

With existing legislation already providing the necessary penalties and prosecutors having a range of options already at their disposal, at the present time I see no reason to increase sanctions under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, despite there being a slight discrepancy. In particular, changes should not be made without carrying out the appropriate consultation to gather evidence of the impact.

I hope that this has clarified the Government’s position to my noble friend, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, although the Minister has thanked everyone for their part in Committee, he has, sadly, ended on a somewhat stony note because he is saying that it would not be appropriate to introduce something without consultation but has absolutely no intention of entering into a consultation. That slightly puts one in a cul-de-sac in all this.

The Minister’s statement directly contradicts the experience on which I have been briefed by FACT and the BPI in terms of their ability to use fraud legislation and common-law conspiracy. Clearly, they either have not put their case sufficiently to the IPO or the IPO’s evidence is at variance for some reason. Perhaps it is talking to a different set of prosecutors. However, on a couple of occasions, as well as talking about party clothes, I have said that I am very much in favour of evidence-based legislation. I am very keen that we should have the evidence and that we do not legislate without it.

If we need further discussion and evidence, I very much hope that the Minister will be open to that despite the advice that he has received that the fraud legislation is relatively straightforward to use. That is certainly not what I have been told and I would not have tabled an amendment if I had believed that. The discrepancy is not minor but one of eight years, which is significant, especially if you were locked up for that period. You would, quite honestly, notice the difference.

However, the hour is late and we have had a good trot at a number of issues raised in Committee today and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Intellectual Property Bill [HL]

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Clement-Jones

Thursday 13th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I found the Minister’s reply absolutely fascinating, although the intellectual logic of many parts of it escaped me. He gave a very helpful response to Amendment 23. It just shows that you can trawl through the Registered Designs Act and not find what you are looking for. However, I am impressed that the department found the relevant passages in there. I appreciate that an overlap exists except with regard to partnerships. It is very interesting that there is no reference to partnerships in the existing legislation. Partnerships are interesting bodies. Some of them have unlimited liability whereas others are limited liability partnerships. Therefore, some interesting drafting needs to be done in that regard because LLPs are quite akin to corporate bodies.

Therefore, how does the legislation work? If I divined from what the Minister said that there is intent to come forward with an amendment on Report, I would be extremely happy with that response.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

To clarify, we will give this very careful consideration but I cannot guarantee that we will move an amendment on Report.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, guarantees in Committee are a luxury that Ministers cannot afford. I appreciate the words that he said.

It is a very different kettle of fish with Amendment 24. It is almost difficult to know where to start because the skittles of the argument fall in almost every single case by reference to copyright. On the problematic starting point, the registered design right is of course quite straightforward to prosecute because of the registration but copyright is not so easy. There are relatively few prosecutions for breach of copyright. There would be relatively few unregistered design right prosecutions if my amendment was accepted.

The important thing is the factual basis and establishing the facts. Of course, those prosecuting have the burden of proof on their arguments. That is where it starts from and it is analogous to copyright. There is no register of copyright. There may be one in the States but there is not one here. On the difficulty of knowing when something came into existence, not every 2D document has the date on it saying exactly when it was created and so on. There are matters of fact to be established. Again, it is very similar in copyright to unregistered design rights.

On the point about the inhibiting effect, that is absolutely splendid but I cannot see that that is any greater than would be the case with copyright in 2D. In some respects, you could argue that because 2D is more thematic than 3D, 2D has a much greater inhibiting effect because you can extrapolate from 2D into 3D to a much greater extent. When you spin off and think about software or things of that sort, much of which is covered by copyright, establishing the date, genesis and all those aspects of software creation is fraught with difficult issues but nevertheless people are entitled to the protection of criminal law. That means that those who cynically exploit copyright or design—copyright certainly and trade marks sometimes—are prosecuted.

The fashion industry is not much different from that. I feel quite strongly about this. The Minister mentioned that the fashion industry uses unregistered design but one must think about the economic issues associated with copying of designs in the fashion industry and the cynical way that rip-off retailers take advantage of the original designs by fashion houses and so on. That is an absolutely clear-cut area where the protection and deterrent effect of the criminal law would be extremely useful. I did not make the claim that the voluntary register with ACID would be the killer argument but this is all about evidence. Will it be possible to mount prosecutions using evidence of copied designs or infringement of unregistered designs? The evidence of a register, albeit a voluntary one, would still be extremely useful.

Finally, I am sure that the Minister can recognise that I am somewhat frustrated by the rather circular argument being employed here. The Minister said that this should not apply to unregistered 3D because 2D is not the same, being closer to theft—that is an entirely circular argument. I do not quite see that theft of a 3D design and theft of a 2D design are morally different. In many ways they are not different factually. Why should either of them be closer to theft? I find that a rather interesting argument to mount.

I hope that the Minister will reconsider this issue. It is a matter of huge importance to 350,000 designers, who would cheer the Minister in the streets and bear him aloft through Westminster if he acceded to this, which I am sure would be a great attraction to him. I very much hope that between now and Report he will reconsider but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, Amendment 25 would place a requirement on businesses to provide the complete trade designation of the product, alongside the product’s associated patent numbers, on their websites. It is helpful that my noble friend has raised this issue, as it will allow me to set out some more information about how the Government are expecting the marking of products with the web address to work.

The Bill aims to reduce burdens on patent holders by modernising the ways in which they can provide public notice of their patent rights. Allowing patent owners to mark their patented product with a web address will lead to cost savings for business while making it easier for the public to access up-to-date patent information. Under current UK legislation if, in the event that a patent is infringed, a patent holder wishes to be in with the best chance of being awarded damages or other financial remedies, it must mark its product with the word “patent” or “patented”, together with the number of the patent. It is, therefore, in a patent holder’s interest to ensure that it is straightforward for the public to ascertain which patent or patents apply to a particular product. Doing so will ensure that the public is put on notice about the patent rights, making others think twice before infringing that patent.

Clause 14 requires that, if an internet link is used, it must direct the reader to a web page which clearly associates the product with the number of the patent concerned, as is the case under United States patent law. This means that providing an internet link to the home page of a company website will not suffice unless on that home page there is a clear association between the product and the relevant patent number. It also means that the product must be clearly identified and associated with the relevant patent.

Just to be frivolous, I suspect that noble Lords’ mobile phones are switched off; I hope that they are. However, if you were to take them apart you may find—if the manufacturer operates in the United States—a website address with the patent details is provided. I particularly noted that it appears on my battery. Many hundreds of patents are likely to be associated with a single mobile phone, and listing them on a web page rather than on the mobile phone itself is therefore far easier for the manufacturer.

Amendment 25 would add an additional requirement that the web page must provide the “complete trade designation” of the product. I understand this to mean an identification of the exact product concerned, including, for example, any relevant model numbers and variants that exist. This is entirely the intention of the clause, which I believe already caters for this. The clause requires the provision of a web page address that,

“clearly associates the product with the number of the patent”.

The patent holder must therefore clearly identify the product and which patents apply to it. Currently, the Bill allows businesses to do this in a manner that best suits their circumstances to avoid placing an undue burden on business. Again, I remind noble Lords that it is in the patent holder’s interest to ensure that clear information is provided that makes it easy for the public to ascertain which patent or patents apply to a particular product. Doing so will ensure that they can benefit from the maximum protection available during any legal proceedings. In light of this, I ask that the noble Lord withdraws the amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that useful clarification. I am sure that it will be carefully noted by all those concerned. Given that it is the patent agents and patent lawyers who are heavily involved in this field, he will appreciate that their concerns are worth taking seriously. However, I take my noble friend’s clarification seriously, too, and I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

It may be helpful if I clarify for the noble Lord that I was speaking in relation to the IPO’s practice and policy, as stated in the response to the consultees’ comments, in other words, as part of the consultation. However, I will reflect further on the need to tackle the point that he has made, as he has asked me to do.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones asked why patentees cannot recover their costs. If the patentee appeals to the court following a revocation by the IPO and is successful, he may be able to recover costs, but only if the court thinks that that is right.

I hope that I have managed to answer all the questions. If I have not, I will certainly follow up with a letter. I thank my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for putting so much effort and thought into his range of questions on this important subject. I hope that in the light of my comments, the noble Lord will not press the amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his very full and careful response. However, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has put his finger on the point. I thought that what the Minister said was entirely reasonable. I heard what he said about TRIPS and two steps. However, when I read the actual wording of the Bill, I do not see that. I see a kind of blancmange where the IPO and the comptroller can take this over and revoke a patent after an opinion without a very clear step between the opinion and the revocation procedure. I am not an expert patent lawyer, and I shall consult a number of organisations, including the Law Society and the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, but it seems to me that they are entirely right to be concerned about the Bill’s wording.

I entirely accept that the Minister, absolutely in good faith, has read out how he and the IPO believe that this is meant to operate. However, we operate on the basis of the rule of law. The Minister, in a way, has made a Pepper v Hart statement whereby, if we were to have a judicial review of the IPO when revocation had taken place and everything had gone pear-shaped for a patentee, the patentee could rely on the Minister’s statement. I would much prefer to amend the Bill, and I cannot for the life of me see why if it is the intention to have revocation proceedings only in clear-cut cases where a patent is invalid for various particular reasons, it cannot be expressed in the Bill.

The bit of the Minister’s response that I found somewhat disingenuous was somewhat like political jujitsu, when he said that this is all for the benefit of SMEs. I thought that that was a cunning reversal of the arguments because, if we are not careful, SMEs will be faced with the power of a determined major company that wants to make sure that it gets opinions in place. It could then bring revocation proceedings that could be extremely threatening to some small patentees. That is not entirely helpful to the SME.

We need to chew over the Minister’s words, but this is a very serious issue for the professionals involved. They really understand the steps that need to be taken. They understand, as I do not, all the intricacies of TRIPS, they recognise novelty and they have to advise on such issues on a daily basis. They are extremely concerned that this is a woolly area that gives the comptroller too much power. However, we will no doubt come back to this on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Intellectual Property Bill [HL]

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Clement-Jones

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was only trying to be helpful with his first amendments but, from the word go, he has a certain way of frightening the horses. The reaction to his amendment by the design community, perhaps apart from the seven professors who lurk in the background to these and similar amendments tabled by the noble Lord—I am glad to say that we firmly rejected their wise advice on the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill—is that this is a last-minute change to emasculate unregistered design right, which is relied upon by almost every designer, as opposed to registered design. The noble Lord knows the scale of the use of unregistered design rights; more than 100,000 designs annually are protected by them, whereas only some 4,000 are protected by registered design. The whole purpose of unregistered design is to be analogous to copyright. That is what UK unregistered design right is about. It is very long established. The term for unregistered design rights is of course much shorter than for copyright, which was always the intention. However, the noble Lord’s amendment is extremely radical. I am sure that he does not really believe that this is the right way forward. I heard what he said about the Government's approach being merely piecemeal, but this is utterly fundamental at this stage.

I hope that the amendment is purely provocative and designed to have a debate but the noble Lord should know that many individual designers up and down the country would be absolutely horrified if the amendment passed and if unregistered design right did not have the scope that it now has. I will not go into the way in which the test is put forward in terms of whether it is world wide or original and what sort of protections are given. It is sufficient to say that in almost every respect small independent designers would be disadvantaged by the amendment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie)]

My Lords, at the outset of Committee, it may be helpful to remind everyone why the Bill is important. The measures in the Bill support business in driving economic growth and innovation by encouraging enterprise and expanding the range of economic sectors in the UK. Absurd maze or not, the designs and patents measures in the Bill will deliver many of the remaining commitments from the government response to the Hargreaves review of intellectual property and growth, which the Prime Minister commissioned in 2010.

The Bill will achieve three things. First, it will make it easier for business to understand what is protected under design and patent law, providing greater certainty for investors and reducing costs for business. Secondly, it will strengthen IP protection, including through the introduction of criminal penalties for copying UK registered designs. Thirdly, it will make the international and European IP system work better, helping UK business to be successful abroad. These measures will help our vitally important IP-intensive businesses and I look forward to the chance to debate the detail over the course of this Committee. I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I look forward to continuing to engage with him and all other noble Lords on the substantive and other issues raised during our consideration of the Bill.

Amendment 1 would change the legal definition of the UK unregistered design right to mirror that of the EU Community design, as set out in the Community design regulation. The result would be harmonisation with the European design right. Although I accept that the measure would simplify the design legal regime in the UK, the change would not be welcomed by the UK design industry. I am most grateful for the support given by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones on that.

There was almost complete support for the retention of the UK unregistered design right, in its current form, in response to the Government’s consultation. In particular, this was due to its application to some functional designs, for which the UK design right is unique. The result of this amendment, changing all elements of the current definition of the UK design unregistered right apart from its duration, would be unpopular with many parts of the design industry, because many of its designs would lose their protection.

Amendment 7 would harmonise the conditions of UK unregistered design infringement with EU law, as set out in the European directive and regulation. These are also the same conditions that apply to the UK registered design. This would be a fundamental and significant change to the application of unregistered design law in the UK. Since its introduction in 1988, a considerable body of case law has built up relating to the infringement of unregistered designs, one of the leading cases being PepsiCo v Grupo. Businesses and the legal profession have also spent a considerable amount of time in building a clear understanding of this case law.

More fundamentally, the Government are concerned about the effect that the change would have in altering the way in which infringement of the UK unregistered design is determined before the courts. The current test has been interpreted narrowly in a number of leading cases. This is in contrast to the test applied in EU law, which is potentially wider in scope. It would be troubling indeed if the change meant that existing designs were suddenly subject to infringement actions from which they were previously free. Furthermore, while the wider scope of the EU unregistered right may be justified given that it has a lifespan of only three years, the Government consider that it would be inappropriate for a right that lasts up to 15 years, as is the case with the UK unregistered design right, to enjoy wider protection. There would be serious concerns about the effect of this on innovation.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked what the Government are doing generally to align EU and UK rights. The Government are seeking, through this Bill, to align design rights wherever possible—for example, through the changes proposed to amend the rules on commissioning and defences to infringement as a general clause. The noble Lord also raised some general points on the Government’s proposals in the Bill and their decision not to go for wholesale reform. We listened carefully to stakeholders, who told us that there was value in both the formal registered right and the less formal unregistered right, which enable certain businesses that work in fast-moving fields, such as the fashion industry, to enjoy the right protection for them. On the basis of the arguments presented, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I need to declare an interest as a member of the Law Society and of the City of London Law Society, because the noble Lord, Lord Young, is probing a very interesting point here. The Law Society itself, as well as the City of London Law Society, makes a rather similar point. Noble Lords may be glad to hear it in a slightly shorter form. I shall read it out.

“The society remains concerned that the proposed amendment puts UK businesses at a competitive disadvantage since it will require the UK to provide protection to entities based in overseas jurisdictions even when those jurisdictions do not offer reciprocal protection to UK entities”.

The society suggests that this is remedied in the Bill. There are similar points there. Obviously, the noble Lord, Lord Young, went into much more detail, but that is the underlying concern in all of this.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, Amendments 2 and 5 address various points in relation to the qualification criteria in the Bill. I will first turn to Amendment 2, which would change the definition of qualifying country in relation to the meaning of “original” in Section 213(4) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

The amendment would change the definition to the United Kingdom and European Economic Area. In practice, that will mean adding Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway to what is currently proposed and removing a number of countries—I hope that noble Lords will bear with me and not succumb to slumber as I read the whole list. Those that would be removed are: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Channel Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Montserrat, New Zealand, the Pitcairn Islands, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, St Helena and Dependencies, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the Turks and the Caicos Islands.

The amendment would mean that the geographical areas used in the definition of “commonplace”, which is under debate here, and “qualifying country”, which is in Section 217(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, would be different. This would create an anomaly in the Act and a level of complexity, which the Bill, on principle, is trying to remove.

I would like to pick up on some points that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, made because he asked for and deserves a more substantive answer on the reasoning behind the decisions that we made. Aligning the geographical coverage and qualification is a logical harmonisation. Legal rights should be subject to the same eligibility tests wherever they arise. Otherwise, examples of unfairness would occur. It will make it easier for a person to know whether they qualify for an unregistered design right and it will help to resolve disputes more quickly. It will be easier for businesses and users to understand how they can qualify for an unregistered design right.

Furthermore, I want to explain why the Government were consulting on changing the definition of “commonplace”, as in Clause 1, to cover the whole of the EEA, even though the Bill is only amending coverage in the EU. Following the consultation and on further reflection, the Government came to the conclusion that an additional layer of complexity to the law would be created in the eligibility criteria for design right if the geographical areas were different for the definition of “qualifying country” and for “commonplace” to which the noble Lord alluded.

Similarly, Amendment 5 would introduce a new definition. It proposes a change to the requirements for businesses that qualify for unregistered design right, specifying that the business must have,

“a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment”,

in any qualifying country.

The current definition of a business that qualifies for the UK unregistered design right includes the requirement that it must carry on a,

“‘substantial business activity’” in a qualifying country”.

The term “substantial business activity” is already used elsewhere in the Act—for example, for qualification criteria for copyright performances in Section 206. The term is not defined in the Act, but does not appear to have been the subject of significant case law, which suggests that the term has not caused problems in practice.

Although the wording suggested in Amendment 5 has its basis in EU law, the Government believe that to introduce this term into UK law could create confusion and uncertainty about the qualification criteria for unregistered design rights. The Bill is trying, where possible, to reduce complexity in the law. The Government believe that these amendments would lead to additional complexity, not reduce it.

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, asked whether there was a definition of “commonplace”. There is no statutory definition in terms of its meaning. However, the word “commonplace” has to be tested objectively in the design field in question. The case of Fulton v Totes puts a gloss on the meaning of the territorial extent of “commonplace”, suggesting that the UK market is relevant. Therefore, the Bill seeks to clarify the territorial scope of the definition of commonplace and align it with qualification requirements. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Clement-Jones

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I begin by thanking noble Lords for the constructive and positive debates we have had on this clause. Responding to an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones on Report, the Government are introducing two further amendments to the clause. These amendments mean that some unpublished films and photographs will remain in copyright until 2039 at the earliest, as they do under the current law.

I acknowledged on Report that films can be commercially exploited without having been published. This is because of the legal definition of the word “published”. The same may be true of some unpublished photographs. Equally, there will be some film material and photographs in commercial archives that have yet to be commercially exploited in any sense. These archives may have built business cases on the basis that that material would remain in copyright until 2039 at the earliest and could be exploited until that point. Therefore, to provide some certainty to those businesses, the Government are exempting film and photographs from the clause.

However, a smaller proportion of unpublished films and unpublished photographs are affected by the 2039 transitional provisions than some think. Many films put on commercial release, including newsreels, will have been registered under film legislation, and the 2039 provisions do not apply to those films because they are regarded as published. With regard to photographs, only unpublished photographs taken between 1957 and 1969, whose author died during that period, are affected by the 2039 provisions. Photographs taken before 1957 were protected for 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which they were taken.

The second amendment means that regulations may provide for different provisions for work of different types and of different ages. This would mean that recent works, for example, could be treated differently from centuries-old works.

I hope that in the light of what I have said noble Lords will support these amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. If anything, what he has just said demonstrates the complexity of copyright legislation and the provisions of what is now Clause 78. One of the interesting things about this Bill is that when debating Part 6 we have continuously had to push our horizons forward. I think that when we started it was Clause 57 onwards, then it was Clause 66 onwards and it is now Clause 76 onwards, but we are very flexible and adaptable here. The amendment demonstrates not only the complexity of copyright law but the flexibility and willingness to listen that the Minister has demonstrated throughout our debate on Part 6. I welcome his response to the concerns, particularly of those in the news agencies and of photographers, about the possible impact of Clause 78, and I am delighted by the outcome.

If we were in Committee, we would probably want to probe the exact meaning of Amendment 9 to,

“make different provision for different purposes”.

However, as we are at Third Reading, I think we will let the Minister get away without too much debate on those words. They are quite wide, and the other place or whoever might wish to have a discussion about them.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Clement-Jones

Monday 11th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, this group of amendments is designed to incorporate in legislation a series of safeguards regarding extended collective licensing. The Government have publicly committed to many of these safeguards in some form or other. I thank my noble friend for his continued positive engagement with ensuring ECL is a fair system. The Government share those aims, and I seek to reassure my noble friend that we have met them.

As there are a large number of amendments in this group, I will respond to them by reference to a set of themes. Amendments 84AFA, 84AFB, 84AGA, 84AGB, 84AGC and 84AGD are essentially consequential in nature, and so I will not deal with them directly. Amendments 84AEB, 84AEC, 84AED, 84AEE and 84AEF seek to provide clear safeguards against an unwanted extension of the scope of collective licensing, and to define the characteristics of a body which can be authorised to operate ECL schemes.

The need for safeguards is absolutely beyond dispute. A working group which includes creators of photographic, audiovisual, literary and musical works is helping us to develop these safeguards into draft regulations. I gave commitments during Grand Committee on some of the issues the working group would be asked to consider, such as those raised by Amendment 84AED. The Government will consult on these draft regulations before asking Parliament to approve them. The Government feel that regulations can more easily be adapted to keep safeguards effective in the light of market changes. Such adaptability ensures that the scheme continues to protect creators’ interests. Regulations can also more easily be adapted to emerging best practice; this better prevents abuses. The Government’s approach will still allow for a comparable level of safeguards to those found in primary legislation in other jurisdictions.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones raised the issue of the Nordic protections which are in primary legislation, a topic also alluded to by my noble friend Lady Buscombe. The UK proposals include similar safeguards, such as the right to opt out and a test of representation, and a different legislative route that has been used to provide future-proofing. However, not all Nordic ECL provision is for specific uses. For example, the Danish Act includes provision for a “general” ECL. Some vital safeguards are on the face of the Bill: the right to opt out and the requirement that ECL can be authorised only for specific types of works and rights. Applications to operate ECL would be authorised only on the basis of significant, demonstrable support for collective management in relation to the specific licence. This would need to include evidence that the applicant—a significantly representative licensing body—has the consent of its members to apply for the authorisation.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones raised the issue of ECL. If I have him correctly, he described ECL as potentially dangerous and questioned the description of it as voluntary. Noble Lords have queried our description of our proposals as voluntary, but they are voluntary because the Government will have no power to impose ECL on a sector. This is not compulsory collective licensing; it will be for a relevant licensing body which will require the explicit consent of its members to choose whether to apply. For non-member rights holders, I accept that ECL, where it applies, shifts collective management from opt-in to opt-out. This is why the Government are committed to a series of safeguards to ensure ECL is authorised only when there is a demonstrable case for it, and to make sure that rights holders have the opportunity to exercise their opt-out.

In relation to the advertisement of ECL schemes prior to authorisation, the Government have proposed that an application should be publicised to allow comments from interested parties before a decision is taken. The Government do not propose that new regulations should be laid in relation to each proposed authorisation. With regard to Amendment 84AEF, I confirm that authorisations will apply specifically and solely to the licensing scheme which was the basis of the application.

In relation to Amendments 84AEE and 84AEG, the Secretary of State will decide whether to grant or reject an application and to set the conditions of any authorisation. We therefore consider it appropriate to provide in the regulations that the Secretary of State should also have the power to revoke an authorisation, should that prove necessary. The Government believe that this may be a more efficient process than a referral to the Copyright Tribunal. Following discussions with the working group, I can confirm that the Government intend to make ECL authorisations subject to renewal.

I turn now to the question of the opt-out, and I hope that my subsequent comments on the subject of exclusive licensees will be helpful to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. Amendment 84AF focuses on the right to opt out of ECL schemes. In Grand Committee, I made a commitment that the working group on extended collective licensing would be asked to consider whether the right to opt out should be extended to exclusive licensees and their representatives. The Government take the opt-out protection seriously. If it becomes clear that an extension of the provisions to cover exclusive licensees and representatives is necessary, the Government will act on that basis. However, I do not want to pre-empt the work of the working group, given my Grand Committee commitment.

I know that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones also has concerns regarding due diligence in relation to opt-out. I can confirm that the Government’s intention is that the burden of proof should favour the party seeking to opt out. That seems to us the right and fair thing to do.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones raised his concern that the opt-out would be too burdensome for rights holders. However, the responses to the consultation make it clear that rights holders expect to be able to opt out entire collections of work or individual works quickly and with minimal or no cost. It will be the responsibility of the collecting society to operate opt-out schemes which meet the needs of effective rights holders. They will need to demonstrate how they intend to do this when they apply to operate an ECL scheme.

On Amendment 84AEH, the Government believe that licensing bodies rather than users, who may be individuals or small businesses, should accept and process opt-outs. Licensing bodies will be required to publicise any ECL scheme before it comes into effect, giving rights holders every opportunity to opt out in advance.

Subsection (b) of the amendment presents some practical difficulties. “Reasons to believe”, for example, could prove to be a very subjective judgment. It would seem more practical for licensing bodies to address issues of exploitation that the “author would oppose” on a scheme-by-scheme basis through, for example, licence conditions.

On fair treatment and remuneration for non-members, I reiterate my support for the principle. However, I do not feel that it would be appropriate to give non-members of licensing bodies recourse to the Copyright Tribunal that members do not have. I also feel that it is unlikely to be cost-effective.

Codes of practice will require fair treatment for non-members, and ECL will not be authorised unless a suitable code is shown to be in place. If a dispute fell within the scope of a code, a non-member would be able to use the licensing body’s complaints procedure, with appeals going to an independent ombudsman. The Secretary of State would have the power to revoke an ECL authorisation if a code was not complied with. This is in addition to the proposed wider backstop powers and code review system, which includes the ability to impose other sanctions.

Amendment 84AGE would mandate that the regulations provide for a creator’s moral rights to have been assumed to have been asserted. I am happy to confirm that the orphan works regulations will indeed provide for this.

In relation to ECL, the principle is that the licence conditions applicable to the use of member’s works would also apply to the works of non-members. Amendment 84AGE would, however, also remove references to other safeguards. These include the various rights and obligations once a work ceases to be orphan, and the right to withdraw from an ECL scheme once it is up and running. The fact that these matters are specifically referenced in the Bill is an indication of their importance.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and others have made some valuable points, but I can reassure the House that the Government understand the importance of getting the detail right. Fixing the detail in regulations will allow for expert input from the working group, further consultation and parliamentary scrutiny via the affirmative procedure, and will help the Government to keep safeguards up to date and effective. While I appreciate the intention of these amendments, I am concerned that they would hinder us in getting the detail right now and in the future. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, the Minister has been so forthcoming that I almost do not know where to start in thanking him for the assurances that he has given about the nature and content of the regulations in terms of the safeguards that will be similar to those in most of the Nordic legislation—that is, the way in which licensing bodies will need to demonstrate significant support, the way in which the Secretary of State will set out the requirements, and the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to codes of conduct. These schemes will be subject to renewal, which is extremely important. The way in which the Minister expressed these assurances was extremely important, first, in terms of meeting the expectations of rights holders, which is crucial in meeting some of the concerns. Secondly, even more important is what the Minister said about the onus of proof in terms of the ability of rights holders to withdraw from collective licensing schemes. Above all, that will provide more assurance than almost anything else.

I shudder to think how long some of the regulations following on from Part 6 of this Bill will be, since we are putting huge emphasis on secondary legislation following on from the clauses that we are agreeing. However, the Minister has given a very useful route map of what those regulations relating to extended collective licensing are, and to that extent it is extremely welcome. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The noble Earl raises an interesting point. This is very much a technical issue. As noble Lords will be able to imagine, a number of lawyers were involved before I was able to stand at the Dispatch Box today. On that point, I ask the noble Earl to allow me to get back to him with a specific reply.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, for his comments. He rarely supports one of my amendments, and I have learnt more about his ancestors today than on many previous occasions, so I thank him for his support.

The issue is not whether or not to amend this particular Act. As the Minister says, the Unfair Contract Terms Act does not apply to copyright or business-to-business transactions. Therefore, the essence of this is that, where many of these small creators are small businesses, we need to find a mechanism that will create a more level playing field with some of the larger contractors with whom they want to do business, and to find some way in which those transactions can be reviewed in the way that I suggested.

The Minister did not go quite as far as I would have liked and commit to a review. I think he said that he would meet to discuss how a review might take place. I will take that for what it is. I very much hope that I will be able to persuade the Minister, especially with the paper I sent him, which I confess was drawn up by the Creators’ Rights Alliance, which represents smaller creators and feels very strongly about these issues. I am sure that its members will be only too delighted also to meet the Minister. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, Amendment 84AHA returns to the subject of diligent search, something that was discussed in one of the earlier groupings. I understand and sympathise with the intention behind this amendment. However, the Government are not convinced that a failure to obtain an orphan works licence legally should be treated as an aggravating factor over and above any other form of copyright infringement. There are already provisions in the 1998 Act for special damages, but the general principle of law at issue is that civil redress is about compensation rather than punishment. The Government feel that the courts should be in the best place to determine damages in the light of the circumstances of each case. I hope that in this light my noble friend will not press his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. I will need to consider some of the points that he has made. I am not sure whether I agree that it should be a matter of pure compensation and not damages, but I am sure that his words will be worth looking over again in the light of day. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, the noble Lord’s proposed amendment would make automatic the right to be identified as the author of a work. Currently Section 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides that moral rights, including the right to be identified or attributed, must be asserted to take effect. The Government appreciate that there is a legitimate debate around the issue of moral rights, particularly the right to attribution. Some stakeholders would like to see the moral rights of creators strengthened further. The Government acknowledge that there are creators who would like to see the right of attribution become automatic and some who would also like it to be unwaivable. We are also aware, however, that other creators take the view that moral rights, such as the right of attribution, can have an economic value. These creators argue that they should be free to decide whether to exploit that value.

As can be seen, this is a complex area on which creators hold strong and often differing views. The economic question of the cost of using works is an important one. Changing the law on moral rights would affect many groups in different ways. It is not an insignificant question and would require a full consultation. I hope that these words help to answer some of the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Jenkin and that, in the light of what I have just said, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for his very valuable support. I appreciate the Minister saying that there is a legitimate debate. There are, of course, a number of aspects of moral rights that are debatable, not only the automatic right stated in this amendment but also the issue of waiver, the question of the economic value of moral rights and so on. This amendment was a way of putting a marker down that this is an area that is somewhat archaic. If we are going to move on, especially when the new exceptions come into play, we must look at further aspects of reform of copyright law, such as the way in which contracts are made with creators, aspects of moral rights and metadata. This is an area that the IPO could very usefully focus on and, in the next round of legislation, look and see whether we can get rid of something that I believe is now not required and is rather out of date and unnecessary. In the mean time, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Clement-Jones

Monday 11th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie)]

My Lords, I start by thanking noble Lords for their helpful contributions to this debate. I very much recognise their detailed knowledge of these issues.

I should like to begin with government Amendment 84A. During Grand Committee, in response to very helpful interventions by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I made a commitment to look again at the wording of what was Clause 66 and is now Clause 67. The purpose of the government amendment is to limit the clause so that when the Section 2(2) power is used to amend copyright exceptions, the limitation on criminal penalties does not apply. The new clause no longer operates a separate power. It is now a way of removing the undesirable consequences which flow when Section 2(2) is used. With this amendment I believe we have responded to the concerns that were expressed in Grand Committee by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.

I should like to deal with Amendments 84ZBA 84ZC, 84ZD, 84ZE, 84ZEA and 84ZEB together, but shall deal first with Amendments 84ZEA and 84ZE. The Government understand the real concerns about the repeal of Section 52 of the Copyright Act. We want affected groups to have adequate time to adapt but we also take seriously the fact that rights owners are pressing us for early implementation. That is why the Government have committed, as I said in Grand Committee, to consult all interested parties on the timing of the change. To decide those timings now would prejudge the consultation, and any transitional period will allow appropriate time to implement changes to copyright exceptions.

I will just answer a question that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on the economic effects on consumers and those who use 2D images. I can reassure him that the Government will consult on traditional provisions and publish another impact assessment.

On Amendment 84ZC, the Government have met with publishers and the Publishers Association, representatives of replica furniture manufacturers and academics. We have heard from others, such as the British Screen Advisory Council and the Victoria and Albert Museum. We will continue this productive engagement and helpful exchange of information through the consultation.

Copyright exceptions will go some way towards moderating the impacts of the change. The forthcoming changes to copyright exceptions, announced in December, are particularly important for this. For example, fair dealing exceptions relating to teaching and the use of quotation are likely to be relevant to the use of two-dimensional images of artistic works in the teaching of design or related subjects. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones raised the issue of the amended quotation section. He wanted, I understand, a more detailed statement from me concerning retrospectivity and the impact on the publishing sector. I hope that what I have said has gone some way towards answering his particular query.

It may be helpful to focus more in an answer on film makers, photographers, picture libraries, designers and publishers. The Government understand that film makers, picture libraries and photographers who use images of certain artistic works, and designers who use motifs from existing designs, could be affected if there is copyright in the underlying work. For example, a wallpaper that has been inspired by a design from the 1950s by Lucienne Day has been cited to the Government as a follow-on design which could be affected by the changes. Further consideration will be given when the Government consult on how and when to implement the repeal. Moreover, in December 2012, the Government announced changes that will be made to copyright exceptions. It is possible that these will address many of the concerns that have been raised about the use of images of artistic works.

Turning to Amendment 84ZD, I note concerns about the ability to use artistic works as features in new designs. This sort of follow-on design plays a useful role in the thriving UK design culture. However, it is not clear that it would be lawful to provide a copyright exception permitting follow-on designs. There are concerns about what happens to copies of an artistic work made after the expiry of the 25-year design protection but while Section 52 remains in force. I can confirm that any copy made, distributed or imported into the UK or communicated to the public while Section 52 is in effect will be unaffected by the change in the law. However, if, for example, a book containing photographs of artistic works is reprinted after Section 52 is repealed, permission will need to be sought from the relevant rights owners unless a copyright exception applies.

On Amendment 84ZEB, I have heard concerns about imposing an obligation on the owner of a revived work to grant a licence, even if they would prefer not to. The points raised will be given careful consideration in the consultation.

I will deal now with Amendment 84ZBA. Some are concerned about the revival of copyright in works of artistic craftsmanship created before 1957. A work protected by copyright in any other EU member state on 1 July 1995 would also be protected in the United Kingdom. In the circumstances, I hope that my noble friends will agree that an amendment is not needed, as provision already exists under the current law.

I will answer a couple of points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. He emphasised the need for balance, and was concerned about the overly long term of copyright. The term after the abolition of Section 52 will be the same as for most other copyright holders. It will thus put furniture designers of classic works in a position to be incentivised, as is the case for any other creator. He also raised some concerns about the benefits of design classics not reaching the greater public. Some people see the availability of cheap replicas as good for consumers who cannot afford the originals. However, designers argue that replicas damage the integrity of the design industry and make British companies less willing to support long-term investment in design than their European competitors. Supporting British designers and offering greater choice to consumers are not mutually exclusive and the Government hope that the repeal of Section 52 should lead to UK designers developing new designs in markets which become less dominated by copies of artistic work. That would benefit consumers by offering them greater choice and variety. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

The Minister said he hoped that what he had to say would be reassuring about retrospectivity. However, I did not pick up exactly what he had to say about retrospectivity; he talked a lot about fair dealing and the educational exemptions. Specifically on retrospectivity, can the Minister give a little more clarification? I understand that if copies of those three-dimensional works are made after the new extended term of copyright has come into effect, clearance will need to be obtained for those existing works.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I thank my noble friend for that question. The best thing would be for me to get back to him in due course, as I have done on many occasions, with a focused letter on the specific question of retrospectivity.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Clement-Jones

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I thank the noble Lord for that point. I shall look again at what I said and what we produced. If we can improve on it, we most certainly will. I shall get back to the noble Lord on that point.

The Government are keenly aware of and sensitive to the concerns of creators in relation to metadata. They believe that an industry-led approach is most likely to identify the key issues and the most effective solutions. They warmly welcome the establishment of a metadata working group which brings together key players from across the industry, including the Association of Photographers, Stop43, the BBC, the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies, Getty Images and News Corporation. We will consider carefully any recommendations aimed at government and, if they are proportionate and effective, will certainly support them. I also commit to keeping Parliament informed on progress.

The Intellectual Property Office will also be working with the Technology Strategy Board to consider other options to tackle the issues around the misuse of digital images as well as search and stripping of metadata. I hope that in the light of what I have said in my brief comments my noble friend can withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the very useful assurances coming at the end of his speech that he will consider all the metadata working group recommendations and keep Parliament informed, and that the Technology Strategy Group will be involved in this as well.

Generally, we are breaking into fresh territory with the concept of an annual report. We seem gradually to be moving language forward more positively about the creative industries and the value of intellectual property. The language of the exceptions document before Christmas moved it on a notch; this response document moves it on a notch, in particular to meet what I thought were extremely useful comments on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, not only on what an annual report should contain but on impact assessments.

This report is quite positive about the improved evidence base that the IPO is going to adopt. A lot of people, particularly some of those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, would say amen to that. Some of the impact assessments have not been up to scratch and this has created quite a lot of concern and, indeed, anger from some sectors when they see that the benefits are not clearly there but the costs to them are. It is an extremely positive move.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that there are a number of further issues we really must get to grips with as we move along on Report. Of course, any Minister is as good as his last set of assurances. I am sure we will put that to the test as we go along. I am grateful to the Minister for his responses. I am very grateful to noble Lords, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for his comments. I entirely agree with him about the Minister in the assumption of his role. It has been a very positive step. We have some way to go still, particularly in terms of the photographers mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and also the news agency industry mentioned by my noble friend Lady Buscombe.

I hope that by the time we come to the end of Part 6 on Report, sweetness and light will reign and we will all feel that assurances of the right kind have been given. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Clement-Jones

Thursday 31st January 2013 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie)]

My Lords, in its 10th report of this parliamentary Session, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered that the exercise of a number of the powers in these provisions should be subject to the affirmative procedure, at least the first time that they are exercised. The amendments in this group take heed of this recommendation. I am pleased to say that, in fact, they go further by requiring that not just the first use of the powers but all uses be subject to the affirmative procedure. I trust that this additional, significant safeguard in the Bill gives due comfort and assurance to those who have expressed concerns about the exercise of these powers. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I shall say just a few words on the Minister’s very welcome amendments in response to the 10th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It is very interesting. The committee demonstrated the value of a collective memory, as it took us all back to the Digital Economy Act and the comments that it made at the time; it has been entirely consistent. It is good to see that the Government have responded. However, I wonder, especially in light of the fact that the Minister has confirmed that the affirmative process will be used for Clause 68, whether he will also confirm that the affirmative process will be used when the Hargreaves exceptions are introduced under the European Communities Act. The Minister has clearly stated that the Government will not be using Clause 66 when those exceptions are introduced; it will be purely for penalties. We very much welcome the assurance that the Minister gave on Monday. However, will he take the opportunity to confirm that the scrutiny process will be by the affirmative procedure of both Houses when those draft statutory instruments come under the ECA procedure?

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Clement-Jones

Monday 28th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones]

Briefly, my Lords, if I may, I understand everything that the Minister has said, but I was a bit flabbergasted by the final statement that the Government have considered this very carefully. The Minister mentioned a few people whom the consultation had taken place with, but the fact is that those people who are suggesting amendments are the very people with whom the consultation has taken place—the Publishers Association and seven professors of design who, after all, ought to know whether young designers are going to benefit from this kind of provision. They have a clear view when they are looking at young designers in the future. There are seven of them, from the University of Cambridge, King’s College London, the University of Glasgow, Oxford, University College London, Bournemouth University and the University of Edinburgh. If they do not know what is going on in the field, who does? They have grave concerns. I felt that the Minister’s response was both disappointing and rather dusty. Perhaps he could give some sort of undertaking to look at this a bit more carefully rather than simply saying, “There is no amendment possible to this clause; all that is available is consultation over how it is brought into effect”. Surely that is unacceptable in the light of all the concerns that have been raised about Clause 65.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I have listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones on these matters and have taken note. I am not sure that I can convince him that consultation is the right way forward, but I hope that he will accept that. I doubt that he will, but I have taken a firm note of what he has said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, Amendment 28DA seeks to ensure that copyright is revived in works of artistic craftsmanship created before 1957. This would apply, for example, to works such as the Wassily chair, designed by Marcel Breuer in 1925 to 1926. Chairs seem to be a favourite theme today. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, mentioned a chair; I was not entirely clear what type of chair it was.

The law in this area is complicated, but the term directive is clear. If the chair was protected by copyright in any other member state before 1995, copyright would also have to apply in the United Kingdom. Amendment 28FA also concerns those works in which copyright is revived. It seeks to remove those provisions which impose an obligation on the owner of a revived work to grant a licence even if he would prefer not to do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has raised an interesting point with this amendment that deserves further consideration. We shall have the opportunity to consider these very specific issues more carefully before the clause is commenced and there will be the opportunity to deal with the issue in the relevant regulations.

Amendments 28E, 28EA and 28F seek to set out the transitional provisions which govern how the change in the law will apply to articles made or imported into the UK or EEA when the law is changed. The Government are aware that there are potential impacts on businesses that manufacture or sell replicas and are committed to consulting on how and when to implement the changes.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones asked whether there will be an impact assessment to show the potential effects of the transitional provisions on producers and other third parties. The Government have already produced an impact assessment and will ensure that it is kept up to date as the legislative process moves on.

There are pros and cons to setting a relatively longer or shorter transition period. We understand how that concerns my noble friend Lord Jenkin and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. It will be important that any decision on transitional provisions takes account of the consent of all parties involved. That includes, for example, the length of existing supply contracts and leases for warehouses where products are stored. I confirm to the Committee that we intend that existing stock in the UK will not be affected by the change in the law; the change will apply only to items manufactured or imported after that date. If an express transitional provision proves necessary, the regulations shall provide for it.

This change in law needs to be introduced in a measured way, balancing the needs of the parties involved. The Government have carefully considered the issues and I hope that, in the light of the above, the noble Baroness and my noble friend will not press their amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I shall intervene only briefly. It is good news to hear that there is an impact assessment on business and other third parties which will be regularly updated, but, personally, I am none the wiser about the Government’s intentions about time periods for the transition. It is rather baffling. If there is an impact assessment which helps to inform government policy in this respect, it has not been used to take the next step, which is to give a concrete view of the proper period, how the transition will take effect and on whom it will impact.

If the regulations are in the offing, it would be extremely helpful for the Minister at least to give us a glimpse of some of the thinking, which might allay some of the concerns raised in this short debate.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I can only reiterate to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones that we are committed to continuing to consult. The best way to respond is to say that we will continue to keep him informed on progress. Progress is not intended to be slow; we intend to proceed with this as fast as we possibly can and to present a timetable wherever we can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I will deal with Amendments 28G, 28H and 28J first. These amendments are all interconnected.

As set out in the response to their consultation on copyright, the Government plan to make changes to copyright exceptions. They have said that they will make these changes via secondary legislation, and it is the Government’s intention to do so using the powers that exist under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, a point that I alluded to earlier this afternoon.

I assure colleagues that the Government will not use Clause 66 to make these planned changes. Bundling any statutory instruments that are needed to implement the proposed changes to copyright exceptions is therefore an issue that goes beyondthis Bill.

However, the Government recognise the concerns laid out in these amendments, particularly in eloquent speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin. Accordingly, in my capacity as Intellectual Property Minister with responsibility for implementing the Government’s policy decisions on copyright exceptions, I will commit to look at how the bundling of statutory instruments could be structured when they are brought to Parliament.

The Government appreciate and support noble Lords’ concerns about allowing adequate time for parliamentary debate and scrutiny. Detailed examination of legislation is the business of the House and I want to make sure that we can create that opportunity. In tandem, in relation to good practice with regard to statutory instruments, the Government are mindful of the views of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, on which Members of both Houses sit.

The Government will also have to consider the potential need to ensure that where exceptions are inter-related they can be scrutinised together. For example, I understand that the copyright exception on private study links with the exception for research and that which permits libraries to copy for the researcher. In implementing these changes, I hope that noble Lords will agree that the Government will also need to be mindful of the administrative burden on creators, businesses and users of copyright exceptions, particularly private individuals, small and medium-sized enterprises, schools and academics.

Finally, when I bring forward the regulations on copyright exceptions, I will provide an explanation in an Explanatory Memorandum setting out the reasons for any bundling of statutory instruments.

Amendment 28JA seeks to ensure that the full effects of any use of this clause are made available for scrutiny. Impact assessments play an important role in the scrutiny of law making. Every statutory instrument laid before this House must be accompanied by an impact assessment. I therefore assure the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, that an impact assessment will be published for each and every use of this clause.

The Government are aware of and sensitive to the strength of feeling around some of the issues raised by these amendments. I hope that noble Lords can be assured that the Government have considered these amendments very carefully and that in light of the above they will be content not to press their amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I think we are on a bit of a roll. We had better stay here for the rest of the evening and finish off Part 6. We seem to have gone from the beginning of Clause 66 and the Minister's assurances about looking at an amendment that will reflect the previous penalties amendment, to assurances that the Minister will look at this in his capacity as Intellectual Property Minister. He will look at how best these can be dealt with and they will not automatically be put into one bundle.

I understand exactly the point the Minister made about some being linked. Indeed, I made that point when I introduced the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

That is a very fair formulation. Certainly, I was also reassured that the Minister confirmed that there would be an impact assessment for each and every one of the uses of the ECA in these circumstances. I look forward to the proper use of House of Lords scrutiny in these circumstances, to which the Minister alluded, because our scrutiny would be extremely valuable. The interpretation that I put on the Minister’s very useful assurances is very much that formulated by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, so perhaps if the Minister disagrees with that he could indicate that at the same time.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

That is not exactly how I see it. I confirm that we do not want to prejudge any consideration. This is an ongoing discussion. There will not be a presumption on bundling; we want to talk about this further. So I do not particularly adhere to what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, was saying.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, the Minister just said that there will be no presumption on bundling, which is a very useful assurance. If I can take that from the table, that might be the most useful way forward. It would be very helpful if, before Report, the Minister could consider this matter further. Then, if such amendments are tabled again on Report, he can consider precisely how he thinks the statutory instruments can be put together, giving us further information about the nature—I shall not use the word bundling—of how those instruments are put forward for these exceptions.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Perhaps I could just clarify the situation by saying that there is no intention to deliberately bundle.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I thank the Minister. So if I see deliberate bundling, we will know that this is completely wrong and should never have happened. In those circumstances, I withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, before introducing amendments to this clause, I should like first to set out how the provisions in this clause will work. This is a complex area, and I understand some greater clarity may be helpful. At present, certain unpublished works that were created before 1 August 1989 remain in copyright until 2039. This is because of transitional provisions applying when the 1988 copyright Act was introduced. The transitional provisions mean that works such as centuries’ old unpublished letters or manuscripts remain in copyright until 2039. This is far beyond the standard terms of copyright required by the EU term directive 2006. Many of these works are orphan because it is not possible to contact the rights holder, possibly now a long-lost historical figure, to ask permission to reproduce them.

To illustrate the scale of the problem, the National Archives estimate that around 12 million or 42% of the 30 million archival items held in English and Welsh public archives predate 1891. The vast majority of these are thought to be unpublished and would therefore remain in copyright until 2039 under the current law. Clause 67 will allow the Secretary of State to reduce the length of copyright term for these works. But, and importantly, the length of term cannot be reduced beyond the minimum requirements of the term directive. I should like to stress that it is only when the date 2039 is later than the date that the term directive would produce that any reduction in term would occur, such as when 2039 gives more than life plus 70 years for an unpublished literary work by a known author.

For example, the only literary works that could have their terms reduced will be those where the known author died before 1969 or, in the case of unknown authors, where the work was created before 1969. This is because unpublished literary works by known authors will receive copyright protection for the duration of their life plus 70 years from the year they died. Unpublished literary works by unknown authors will receive protection for 70 years from the year the work was created.

In the case of photographs, the only ones which could potentially be subject to a reduction in term are unpublished photographs taken between 1 June 1957 and 1 January 1969. Where the photographer is known and died before 1 January 1969, the new term would become 70 years from the year the photographer died. If the photographer is unknown, the term would be 70 years from the year the photograph was created.

The term directive specifies different terms for different types of works in different circumstances so it is not possible to list them all now. I have a more detailed note available here today, which I will also place in the House Library, of what this means for different works. Many of the works that currently enjoy a longer term of copyright than that required by the term directive are orphan works. Reducing the term of copyright to the usual levels will bring many of these works out of copyright. This will reduce the overall number of works classed as orphan and is part of the solution to the orphan works problem.

The Government are bringing forward two amendments to Clause 67. This follows further consideration on the scope of the clause and in response to the observations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report published on 14 December 2012. We accept that the scope of this clause would benefit from clarification. The amendments will therefore remove the references to “published but anonymous or pseudonymous” works and clarify that the power is limited by the EU Term Directive 2006. We have concluded that most anonymous and pseudonymous published works are unlikely to be subject to the 2039 transitional provisions. As such, these types of work need not be included in the scope of the power. This amendment means that Clause 67 now applies only to unpublished works, subject to the transitional provisions that currently enjoy copyright protection for longer than the standard periods of protection specified in the term directive.

The second amendment makes clear that no work will receive a shorter term of copyright than set out in the term directive. This has always been implicit in this power; this amendment simply provides clarity by putting the matter beyond any doubt. I hope that in the light of what I have said noble Lords will support these amendments. I commend the clause to the Committee. I beg to move Amendment 28JB.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, the Minister introduced his amendment very fairly but I must admit that Clause 67 still baffles me. I think that I understand the term directive. The Minister has produced a splendid schematic of all the different rights that might be affected in these circumstances, especially where copyright will be brought back from 2039. However, I am still baffled to some degree as to why we need to go the whole hog as regards Clause 67. Technically, I suppose that I am speaking to the clause stand part debate. Originally, the clause was much more objectionable. It is now much more clearly tied to the term directive. However, what is the real motivation of the clause? I think that all of us are very sympathetic to the idea of medieval manuscripts and other old material being taken out of copyright so that they can be digitised. However, the museums, the British Library and others have made the point—whether publicly or otherwise—that in practice there are no copyright claims or difficulties and that by and large they have gone ahead and digitised and have not had any problems in doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, Amendment 28LA would limit the scope of the UK orphan works scheme to that of the EU directive on orphan works. The proposed UK scheme in Clause 68 is intended to complement the EU directive. The exception provided for in the directive is more narrowly focused on enabling the cultural use of orphan works, specifically the digitisation of, and cross-border online access to, orphan works in libraries and archives. The directive does not prohibit the UK developing a domestic scheme for licensing orphan works within the UK.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, raised the issue of whether the EU directive can be widely used. I agree that the range of the EU directive is extremely limited. The same sentiments were expressed by my noble friend Lady Brinton. It would not be adequate for the purposes of copyright licensing as proposed by Richard Hooper’s work. Use of orphan works under the directive is limited to publicly accessible libraries, archives and public-sector broadcasters. The directive also allows for the generation of revenue to cover only the costs of digitising orphan works that are made available to the public. This does not allow any kind of distribution, such as publication in a book or TV programme. The directive also does not cover photographs, which make up a significant proportion of the orphan works held by archives, libraries and museums.

The Government’s proposals are about opening up the commercial and economic potential of orphan works. It was clear from the responses to the Government’s copyright consultation that there are many desirable uses that could be made of orphan works which would have a commercial element—for example, reproductions in exhibition catalogues, books or television documentaries.

Because the UK scheme would allow broader commercial as well as non-commercial use, we are proposing a key extra safeguard which is not in the directive. This is the requirement for the diligent search to be verified by an independent authorising body. Allowing commercial use of orphan works will not undercut the market for non-orphan works. In many cases, there is unlikely to be a comparable non-orphan work that could be used instead—for example, unique records of historical events. In any event, the Government’s proposals will provide for remuneration to be set at a rate appropriate for the type of work and its proposed use.

Amendment 28LB would remove four paragraphs from Clause 68 in respect of the proposed orphan works scheme. These paragraphs set out various issues that the regulations either must or may cover and contain the key safeguards for rights holders that will underpin the scheme. This includes the fundamental safeguard that a diligent search for rights holders must have been undertaken before a work can qualify as orphan. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, asked whether foreign rights holders would lose out. I can confirm that a diligent search will be needed to check for foreign rights holders, too.

Another key safeguard that the amendment would remove is the requirement that the orphan works authorising body must be independent and therefore cannot license itself to use an orphan work. The regulations could still contain such safeguards even if they were removed from the Bill. However, the Government’s view is that these safeguards are such an integral part of the proposals for an orphan works scheme that they should be set out in the primary legislation.

I pick up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, raised about the future of photography libraries. The orphan works scheme will help photo libraries because it will enable them to use orphan works legally. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also raised the issue of photographers, and I can assure him that photographers’ interests will be taken into account.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, recognised that there is a difficult distinction to be made between commercial and non-commercial uses, and I thank her for that helpful intervention.

In the light of the above, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, and other noble Lords for their not always helpful responses. I was very struck, however, and think it very telling that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, raised the concerns of photographers. That is really at the heart of much of the objection to the proposals for the orphan works legislation, but it does go wider. As I mentioned earlier, it extends to the news agencies and photo libraries, which have very strong concerns, particularly because at the moment—and despite what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said—we do not have the copyright hub fully in place. That would make a huge difference to the ability to carry out diligent search and identify circumstances where metadata has been stripped from contemporary photographs, which have effectively been turned into orphans. This is one of the problems. Photographers are worried about the possibility of a cynical exercise whereby a photograph is turned into an orphan by stripping the metadata, and, lo and behold, the diligence search is inadequate and it is treated as an orphan. There are uses for commercial purposes, not just by cuddly museums, universities and cultural institutions making an honest penny out of books in their shops, but by fully commercial publishers. So there is considerable concern, and it is not a question of polarising the debate but recognising the concerns underlying these orphan works proposals, which are held by substantial numbers of creators and rights holders. The European directive is, as I said clearly, not perfect in every respect, but to allay the fears of many it is better to build on that than have legislation that explicitly goes far beyond what has been said.

Clearly, I will not win the argument today—certainly not in the light of the Minister’s response. I am worried about foreign rights holders; I do not believe that diligent search will be that straightforward where foreign rights are concerned. I think that the IPO will find that a lot of concern is expressed as the regulations and the clause come into effect. It has already been expressed in letters to the Secretary of State and to the former Intellectual Property Minister. I suspect that the volume of correspondence from those foreign rights holders will increase over time.

I will read carefully what everyone has had to say. It may even be that I come back with a suitable response on various issues that have been raised here today. I believe that digitisation is a great deal more straightforward than it has been alleged today. For instance, my noble friend spent most of the time arguing for orphan works. At no point in this debate have I argued against the concept of orphan works; I think that they could be usefully employed, constrained within the right limits. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, the amendments cover both the scope and detail of the proposals for a UK orphan works scheme. Amendment 28L would limit who could be authorised to grant licences to use an orphan work and de facto would mean that only a collecting society already operating in the sector could be authorised to grant licences. The amendment assumes that all orphan works will be licensed by collecting societies. However, many orphan works are simply not of a type that is licensed collectively—unpublished works, diaries, old photographs and oral history recordings, for example. There will therefore need to be a separate independent authorising body for orphan works which are not covered by any collecting society.

Amendment 28M seeks to make clear that the orphan works scheme applies to a work where there are multiple rights owners and one or more of these are not known or cannot be traced. The Bill already makes provision for this. The requirement for a diligent search for the copyright owner will be described in greater detail in the regulations. This will include all relevant rights-holders where there is more than one.

Amendment 28N would mean that a separate diligent search had to be undertaken for every orphan work that someone wants to use. The clause already provides that a work must have been subject to a diligent search for the rights holders before it can qualify as an orphan work. However, requiring a separate diligent search for each individual orphan work could result in potential licensees having to conduct repetitious searches. For example, five poems by the same poet whose name is known, published by the same publisher, would require five separate diligent searches.

Amendment 28P is concerned with creators who have assigned some or all of their copyright in a work that goes on to be a suspected orphan work. The diligent search for rights holders will cover all potential rights holders in a work, including the creator. This amendment would also provide an author with a new right to remuneration for the use of an orphan work, even when the author had assigned the relevant copyright in the work to someone else. Only those who are rights holders will be entitled to remuneration for the use of an orphan work. This is exactly the same as for non-orphan works.

Amendments 28Q and 52 seek to clarify what the term “authorised” means in this subsection. In particular, they seek to ensure that those authorised to license orphan works cannot grant themselves a licence. This is an important point and one on which the clause is already clear—in new Section 116A(5)(c) introduced in Clause 68. Any body authorised to issue orphan works licences cannot license themselves to use an orphan work.

Amendment 28R would mean that a licence to use an orphan work must be time-limited and not run beyond the copyright term in a work. I can confirm that regulations will provide for limits for orphan works licences. These will be appropriate to the type of use being licensed and could be a time limit or a limit according to intended use—for example, a print run. In reality, sometimes it will not be possible to tell whether the copyright in an orphan work has expired.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones spoke to Amendment 28S, which I shall address at this point. The amendment seeks to clarify that orphan work licences can be granted even when it is not known whether an exclusive licence has been granted. An orphan works licence may be granted where a diligent search does not find all the relevant rights holders, including an exclusive licensee. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, raised this particular issue. Where the diligent search reveals the existence of an exclusive licence, the work will not qualify as an orphan work. Where an orphan works licence is granted following a diligent search but subsequently an exclusive licence holder appears, the exclusive licence holder will be treated in the same way as any other absent rights holder that appears. The detail of this will be set out in the regulations. That is why the clause specifically applies to cases where it is uncertain where the copyright subsists.

I turn to Amendment 30. This concerns the very important issue of remuneration being set aside for rights holders when an orphan works licence is granted. I can set on the record that the regulations will provide for the treatment of remuneration. I also draw my noble friend’s attention to the wording in the clause:

“The regulations must provide for the treatment of any royalties or other sums paid in respect of a licence”.

I believe that the term “royalties” is not used in all sectors but it is understood in the Bill to mean the same as “remuneration”. The phrase “other sums” would also cover any other types of fees to be set aside for rights holders. Therefore, the Government’s view is that the clause already provides for remuneration to be dealt with by the regulations.

I should like to pick up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. He asked whether there will be proportionality in undertaking a diligent search. I hope that I have that right. Much work is already being undertaken in diligent search work for different types of work. This is being considered by the working group, which includes representatives of museums, libraries and archives.

I hope that in the light of the explanations and assurances that I have given, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. His speech will certainly need some studying but he gave a number of assurances which were very helpful, particularly those concerning the content of the regulation, the explicit statements about what the regulations will contain and, for the purposes of Pepper v Hart, how the relevant provisions should be interpreted as far as remuneration is concerned. Therefore, I think that there are some useful points in there.

I must disagree with the Minister and with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, about the way that one interprets each individual orphan work in terms of the clause. If it were going to be laborious, there is a point to be made there. But this is designed simply to make sure that there is no job lot of orphan works clearance; then the licensee can simply say, “We did our best, but it was a bit of a potpourri or collection of works that we had to clear, so we took a few here and there”—rather like a raffle. There is a point to be made there, and it needs clarifying still, so I may come back to it. The wording may not be sufficiently clear, but it is one of the real issues that many rights holders have, that everything will be thrown into a pot and some search will be made but it will not be sufficiently diligent because it will not have been done in respect of each individual work.

I thank the Minister for that response. I thought that it was a useful mini-debate about the way in which the orphan works provisions can be improved. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Tourism: Chinese Visitors

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Clement-Jones

Monday 12th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. I can reassure him that much is being done as we debate on this issue. I am not in a position to give any more details than that. However, we are aware that tourism in the UK is the fifth biggest industry and the third highest export earner, generating £115 billion in direct and indirect business for the economy and supporting 200,000 jobs. There is therefore much to bear in mind when we look at streamlining and sorting out the issues.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, is it not a fact that tourism from China is a fraction of what it could be? One way of dealing with this is to waive visas for trusted Chinese tour groups, which are already closely controlled through the bilateral approved destination status agreement between China and Great Britain.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I cannot comment on my noble friend’s suggestion but it is possible that that is being looked at as well, as part of a review that is going on. Again, I am not in a position to give any more information on that.

Broadband: Street Cabinets

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Clement-Jones

Monday 22nd October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Plans are afoot to camouflage them.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, getting the planning regime right for street cabinets is clearly important, but does my noble friend agree that it is also vital that if we are to get investment and competition in broadband, particularly in rural areas, there are open standards and open access to these cabinets for service providers, as recommended by the Lords Communications Committee?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I very much agree with my noble friend. It gives me the opportunity to explain the benefits of superfast broadband. There are many statistics that are extremely positive. For example, a 10% increase in broadband household coverage boosts the economy from between 0.1% and 1.4% of GDP. It also allows firms to develop and adopt more productive and efficient ways of working. It is also a great boost to home-workers who, while being based at home, will spend and circulate money more locally.