Draft Intellectual Property (Copyright and Related Rights) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2019 General Committees

[Richard Harrington]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will hear me out, because I do not think it is as huge as he does. We sometimes disagree on things, but I think it is fair to say that his heart is in the same place as mine. However, if he will hear me out—

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Harrington]

I could correct that bit about the hon. Member for Huddersfield’s heart if it would pre-empt the hon. Gentleman’s question.

[Ian C. Lucas]

I would like some clarification about the country of origin principle. Is the Minister saying that if this instrument were to pass, the country of origin principle would apply to the UK as it does now?

[Richard Harrington]

If the hon. Gentleman will give me a few minutes, I will finish. If he is not satisfied with what I have to say, I will be happy to take his questions.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield about this being a controversial SI in the House of Lords, as I thought, it is yet to be debated in the House of Lords. That does not, of course, mean that he will not be right in future, but it has certainly not been debated up until now, so I clarify that for the record.

The SI will preserve, where possible and appropriate, existing arrangements in UK copyright legislation by making minor correcting amendments. The only exception to the principle of continuity arises from our implementation of some of the EU cross-border copyright mechanisms. It is unavoidable that the reciprocal elements of those mechanisms between the EU and the UK will become inoperable in a no-deal scenario, because they depend on reciprocal provisions that only apply between member states. We have therefore considered how best to address our implementation of those mechanisms.

In some cases, it is appropriate to continue to extend the cross-border provisions to the EU on a unilateral basis, because providing continuity in that way would be beneficial to UK consumers or businesses. That is the case for the copyright country of origin principle in satellite broadcasting. In that case, the regulations will support UK consumers and give them continued access to foreign television programmes by not introducing new barriers to broadcasts in the UK. For other mechanisms, doing so would be detrimental to those in the UK. For example, continuing to provide database rights for EU creators without reciprocal action by the EU would put UK businesses at a competitive disadvantage. This instrument restricts those mechanisms to operate on a purely domestic basis or brings them to an end, as appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian C. Lucas]

It is a pleasure to be here, Sir Edward. I want to make a couple of brief points to add my concern about the general tenor of these proceedings.

First, the only reason we are discussing the statutory instrument is that the European Statutory Instruments Committee, on which I sit, recommended that it should go through the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the negative. The Government’s original intention was that we would not even discuss this very important piece of secondary legislation, which is indicative of their understanding—or lack of understanding—of a proposal that clearly has substantial impacts and effects.

My second point is about the impact of the statutory instrument. Paragraph 2.5 of the explanatory memorandum says:

“This instrument will ensure retained EU law contains appropriate references to the ‘European Union’, ‘Member State’… Additionally, the instrument aims to give continued effect to cross-border mechanisms and their underlying policies wherever possible.”

Therefore, the intention of the statutory instrument is to continue with arrangements that are agreed by the EU, or by the EU states, after we leave the EU.

The explanatory memorandum goes on to say:

“Where this is not possible…the mechanism is given unilateral effect within the United Kingdom.”

The statutory instrument therefore gives EU member states the power to determine the arrangements that are going to apply within the UK. Government Members who think that the process of taking back control means giving other nations control over the legislation and laws that apply to this country, without us having an input, have the ideal statutory instrument to support. We are, it seems, passing to other countries authority over not only past legislation, but future legislation. On the basis of this statutory instrument, we seem to be binding ourselves to having our laws set by other jurisdictions and members of the EU after we have left. That seems quite an extraordinary proposition, which goes way beyond the ambit of a Delegated Legislation Committee such as this one.

In summary, what we have here is a catastrophic mess. I have great respect and affection for the Minister, but frankly, this whole thing is a massive embarrassment. There has not been proper consultation. We have a piece of secondary legislation that appears to give other countries the authority to legislate within the UK without us having an input. The Government need to go away, rethink, have a proper consultation, and come back with an appropriate statutory instrument for this Committee to consider.