Primary School Places (Bromley)
Jim Dowd Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
As ever, I am indebted to the Speaker for allowing me this opportunity to raise an issue the like of which, in all my years as a Member and in the 20 years before that when I was a member of Lewisham borough council, I have never come across before. I have never encountered such a ham-fisted and poorly executed policy as the one I am about to describe.
The title seems quite broad, but I am going to be quite specific. I have given the Minister’s office an indication that I will be talking about the Harris primary academy/free school in Beckenham, which is located in the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who I see in his place, but the school serves a large area in the north-west of Bromley, which both he and I represent.
I am not going to debate the merits or otherwise of free schools or academies; I am simply going to ask why such a colossal mistake was made in this case. There has been a huge increase in demand for places at both primary and secondary school level. That is certainly true in our part of south-east London and I think it is more broadly true across London generally and probably across the whole country. The pressure is considerable; finding places for all our children is no mean feat.
My principal complaint is how we can have a system in which parents who have been offered places at a school for their children and have bought the uniforms ready for their children to start, can then be told, six weeks before the school is due to open, not only that they do not have the place, but that the school will not be opening? As the Daily Mail had it on 24 July, taking its normally calm and balanced approach:
“Almost 60 families have been left without school places for their children after a council scrapped a new primary school just six weeks before it was due to open.
Furious families blasted ‘shambolic’ Bromley Council after offering them places at the brand new Harris Primary Academy in Beckenham, south-east London, in April—only for councillors to block the school from opening last week.
The school, which was hoped to meet the strong demand for primary places in the area, was due to be built on the site of an existing senior school in an exclusive residential street where the average house price is nearly £2 million”—
obviously the Daily Mail’s priorities came out in that last sentence. That report was not quite right, because it was not 60 families, but something fewer than 40. None the less, for those affected by the decision—the parents and their children—it was a huge and devastating blow.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who I will call my friend—he is a very good friend of mine—regardless of House protocol. I totally agree with the thrust of what he is saying; the only thing I would point out is that most of the children have been found school places. However, I agree with him: it was a mistake of mega-proportions.
Jim Dowd
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was going to come to that. The issue has been resolved in the short term, but its impact persists and it has exposed a severe flaw in the system by which the Department for Education, the Education Funding Agency, local education authorities and local providers procure additional places.
Let me detail the chronology of this case. I am indebted to Doug Patterson, the chief executive of Bromley council, who I asked for a full briefing on the background to this issue. In order that I do not traduce or misrepresent anybody, I will read out significant parts of it. From May 2012 onwards,
“Bromley…changed its approach to school place planning, realising the benefit of securing of school places in line with the Government’s free school and academies agenda.
Based on local school place planning data, a shortfall of primary school places was identified across the local authority planning areas 1-4,”
in particular in Shortlands and Beckenham, which are in the constituency of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), and in Penge and Anerley, which are in my constituency. The briefing continues:
“Bromley therefore sought discussions with Harris”—
that is, the Harris Federation—
“given Harris’s strong track record in Bromley and other London Boroughs. We were confident that they would be able to deliver within a relatively tight deadline in order to satisfy the shortage of primary school places.
Towards the end of 2012, two primary free schools were proposed: Harris Beckenham Primary (to be located on the already established Harris Beckenham secondary school site) and Harris Shortlands”—
again, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—
“(to be located on a new site provided by the Council). Harris undertook local consultation with groups of parents who identified specific areas where it was difficult to secure access either to their nearest school or the one of their choice. This was a necessary component of the DfE approval process.”
In May last year, the DFE
“announced their support for the two Harris Free Schools to open in September 2014…The new Harris Beckenham Primary Free School was planned to open on the existing Harris Beckenham Secondary site and Harris were responsible for securing all planning and other consents in a timely manner. The Education Funding Agency (EFA) were overseeing this development along with Harris; with the EFA responsible for the delivery of the capital scheme and the submission of the planning application. The Local Authority had minimal involvement.”
In June last year, the local authority
“were invited to give some comments on the proposed admission arrangements for the Free Schools prior to an open evening on 18 June 2013 where Harris were promoting the new Harris Beckenham Primary Free School. Harris had previously indicated a willingness to participate in the Co-ordinated Admissions Process, and this was included in the consultation document. It was felt that this would be easier for parents to understand, avoiding the need to make a separate application for the Harris free schools, and to demonstrate they were part of the Bromley primary offer…The Council had indicated willingness to work with Harris in this regard.
The EFA and Harris were driving this new Free School initiative and in this process it would appear that their emphasis at this stage was to engage local residents as potential parents rather than consider the wider planning and other issues which may have been of concern to the wider community. Indeed, no mention was made of the specific site in the consultation document and there was minimal engagement with the Council on this issue and Harris /EFA did not raise any concerns in this regard with the Council at this stage.”
I also got the submission from Harris that I asked for. It contests that, but I will come on to that in a moment.
“In a time when there is rapid growth in demand for primary places, it is often necessary to act quickly in order to provide additional places to meet the Council’s statutory duty…The EFA were under instruction from central Government not to engage with Local Authorities and therefore any opportunity for local knowledge to correct flaws in the local consultation process was lost.”
In April this year
“DfE ask Bromley to confirm that both Harris Beckenham and Shortlands would be included in offers made to parents for September 2014.”
In April the planning application was submitted, and on 17 July planning permission for the temporary arrangements was refused. Parents were offered Unicorn primary school which agreed to take a bulge class at short notice. I would say to the Minister that Unicorn primary school was able to do that because it is neither an academy nor a free school, but it is what is known as a community school under the direct control of the local education authority. If it had been a free school or academy, it could easily have declined such an invitation, in a way that a community school cannot.
In August this year, the London borough of Bromley was
“in series of discussions/meetings with the EFA to identify a way forward to ensure that there are sufficient primary school places for children in Bromley.”
A couple of days after the refusal of the planning application, the parents were informed that they would not be able to send their children to the school—clearly, as it was not going to exist.
Harris, tells largely the same story, but it has a slightly different emphasis. It states:
“Having been asked by Bromley Council to open the new school, we worked very closely with their education team, planning officers and councillors to establish it. We also worked closely with parents and met regularly with a group of local mothers and fathers who joined our steering group for the new school;
As with all new school buildings, the planning application was prepared and submitted by the Education Funding Agency (EFA). We are conscious that some within the political community in Bromley have questioned the timing of the application, which took place over the summer: however, particularly in London, this timing is normal and other schools opening in September 2014 including within our own Federation received planning permission at the same time of year;
Work on the scheme under the EFA’s Priority Schools Building Programme began in spring 2013 with a multidisciplinary team of architects, planners and building specialists. As you know, planning officers at Bromley had recommended the scheme for approval so the rejection…was not expected and came as a huge blow to parents, the Harris Federation, and, I am sure, many within Bromley Council who had worked with us to help make the new school a reality…
The application was for a school for 60 children plus up to 6 staff. This comprised of a temporary building of about 150 msq, including 2 classrooms for 30 children each…These plans were published to the public through a public consultation process run by the EFA, Bromley and Harris Federation. Through this process a group of neighbours and near-neighbours to the site expressed their concerns about the potential for increased traffic, strains on the site and whether there was a need for places in that locality. These concerns were taken seriously.
Detailed traffic impact assessments were undertaken and…after numerous meetings and correspondence working with the LA’s planning department to respond to their initial concerns, the planners informed the EFA that they fully supported the application and that there were no grounds for refusal. Because of this, at no point did we expect the councillors on the planning committee to overrule the considered advice of their officials, certainly not by six to two and particularly not for a new school that had been instigated by the Council.
We do not believe the”
refusal
“grounds to be substantive and have been advised by EFA’s planning advisors that we have a strong case for appeal.”
I have got a copy of the report that went to the planning sub-committee on 17 July last. The summary says:
“Taking account of the demonstrated need for primary pupil places in the borough for September 2014, the compliance with policy in relation to the designated Urban Open Space, the provision that has been made to accommodate existing and proposed staff parking, the assessment of the impact of additional cars related to the temporary use during the pupil drop off and pick up times, the limited impact of the use on the amenities of local residents and the character and appearance of the Manor Way Conservation Area, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable subject to recommended conditions.”
There are 17 separate conditions; I shall not read them all out. They relate to landscaping, to trees and, in particular, to car parking, parking bays and car park management. There was also a recommendation for a temporary, rather than permanent, permission.
The members of the planning sub-committee refused to grant that planning permission, which they were fully entitled to do, provided that they believed in all conscience that that decision was correct and lawful. I would not have agreed with the decision, had I been there, because I do not think it is valid. The sub-committee was perfectly entitled to take that decision, however, and it did. The Department for Education, the EFA and Harris probably had no counter-argument, because everyone was doing what they were perfectly entitled to do. So how come we have wound up with such a debacle, which has caused such distress and inconvenience to the parents and children involved? Plans are going ahead for the school to open next year. Let us hope that it puts enough time and effort into dealing with the technicalities of the process.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 23 July to find out whether the scheme could be called in and to ask the Secretary of State to direct that it be approved. Unfortunately, despite speaking to helpful officials in both Departments, my efforts have been to no avail. I received a letter from Lord Nash, the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, to tell me that that was the case. He expressed his disappointment at the difficult position that my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Beckenham had been placed in as a result of this farrago.
This is an example of a flagship Government policy being implemented by a quintessential Tory council in collaboration with one of the Government’s most favoured and, in fairness, most successful providers of academy schools and ending in a complete farce. This has happened because the Department’s procurement process is fundamentally flawed. Will the Minister give me an assurance that he will undertake to change the process so that nothing like this can ever happen again, either in our part of the world or anywhere else? Will he also, on behalf of the Department and the EFA, which is responsible to the Department, apologise to the parents, to their children and even to Bromley council for the distress and inconvenience that they have been caused by this ham-fisted and defective process?
Engineering Skills (Perkins Review)
Jim Dowd Excerpts(11 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matthew Hancock
That is an important point, which is part of a wider culture change. As a Minister in the Department for Education I am also responsible for the education end of the subject, along with the other Ministers in that Department. On the question of having an impact on the need for engineers, applications to study engineering at university have increased by 20% over the past three years, and in the past year the number of people in engineering apprenticeships has increased by 10%. Things are moving in the right direction, but I do not deny that there is much more to do, hence the Perkins report.
We accept the Perkins report, and we will take forward all the Government actions within it. It is important to set it in a wider context, however. That starts at an early age with stronger computing in the national curriculum from the age of eight and more of an emphasis on maths, inspirational careers advice from 12 years old onwards, new engineering qualifications for those aged 14 to 16, the introduction of tech levels and the tech bacc for 16 to 19-year-olds, the increase in take-up of A-level physics that we have talked about—we need to do more work on that to improve the gender balance—and the increase in engineering degrees and apprenticeships, not only at level 2 and the technician end but all the way up through higher apprenticeships. Members will have heard the announcement in the autumn statement of an additional 20,000 higher apprenticeships focused on engineering and technology. Within the lifespan of education from primary school onwards there is a focus at every level on improving rigour, improving responsiveness to the needs of employers and increasing the proportion of students who go into science, technology, engineering and maths. It is in that context that the Perkins report sits.
I agree wholeheartedly on the need for better communication, and the engineering profession has come together in the realisation of the importance of communication during the past couple of years. I have had many discussions with the leaders of various engineering industries on the implementation of Perkins. There is enthusiasm for it and there are mechanisms for it, but we need to make sure that those continue. The Big Bang Fair, which came to Parliament, is funded by Government. That funding has helped it to inspire thousands, but there is undoubtedly much more that we can do.
Given the shortage of time, I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire setting out in detail the Government response to all 22 of the recommendations, and I will make public a copy of the letter. I want to ensure that we drive the recommendations forward. I have no doubt that we will continue to debate the subject so that we can maintain the cross-party, cross-Government national campaign to ensure that the shortage of engineers is dealt with and the supply chain is wide open.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I applaud the Minister’s effort and his enthusiasm. When does he imagine that a Minister with responsibility for this area, from whichever party, will be from an engineering background?
Matthew Hancock
As a former economist, I apologise for not fitting the criteria myself. But no doubt, with more engineers coming through, there will one day be the opportunity for that to happen.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Jim Dowd Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Hancock
In Committee, a number of questions were asked about the scope of what was then clause 56—now clause 57—on copyright. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who was a Minister in the Department at the time,agreed to reflect on the clause and we have also had further discussions with interested parties.
The Government have considered this point carefully and think that amendments to clause 57 are the best way to address the concerns expressed by Committee members and industry stakeholders. I reassure hon. Members that the policy intent behind the clause remains unchanged. The clause was never intended to give the Government the ability to change copyright exceptions in ways that we cannot already change them and I hope that the amendments now make that abundantly clear.
Changes to copyright exceptions are subject to a tightly prescribed list set out in the EU information society directive. The European Communities Act 1972 provide the mechanism by which EU law is applied at a national level—in this case on copyright exceptions. The clause will permit the Secretary of State to make any changes that remove or narrow an exception without affecting the maximum criminal penalties that Parliament has set. Without the amendment, the criminal penalties might have had to be reduced and I do not think that is the aim of the Bill.
The stakeholders who had raised concerns about the clause, including the British Copyright Council, UK Music, the Publishers Association, the Creators’ Rights Alliance and the Premier League, have written to the Secretary of State confirming their support for the Government’s amendments.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned the enormous concern across the creative sector about the clause and, more particularly, its purpose when it was first introduced. His reference to the fact that all it does is endorse existing law will have confused many people, as they will have wondered why, if that was so, the clause was needed at all. If it is needed, and if the amendments we are discussing go some way to addressing the problem, can he give us an assurance that any exception arising from Hargreaves, the Intellectual Property Office or any other source will be treated as primary legislation? If he cannot do that, will he undertake that every piece of secondary legislation will be introduced individually and will include a comprehensive impact assessment before it is brought to this House?
Matthew Hancock
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any proposed exceptions will be the subject of secondary legislation and will therefore be debated. Each separate element of a statutory instrument can be debated—that is the function of the secondary legislation procedure.
Amendment 75 would require the Secretary of State to take into account any feasibility study undertaken of which organisation is best placed to issue licences authorising the use of orphan works.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I do not know whether I should break out into song and wish a belated happy birthday to the hon. Members for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), or declare my favourite band. Whenever the hon. Member for Cardiff West and I appear in the Chamber together, I always try to plug MP4, because we comprise half the band. We will conclude our world tour of UK party conferences this Saturday, which is worth noting as a landmark occasion.
I agree with and endorse what the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee said about the value of copyright to our creative industries. It is the very essence of what underpins our success and probably makes the UK the leader in so many sectors throughout the world, from music, drama and film to Premier League football. It is the one thing that makes sure that we can continue to deliver that immense conveyor belt of talent that excels right around the world.
We muck about with copyright at our peril and must tread carefully with regard to copyright exceptions. We have to know exactly what we are doing, which is why impact assessments are vital and why the Minister’s confused response alarms me and is of concern. We have to know what the exact impact will be on all the sectors and everybody involved in the creative industries, and listen carefully to what they have to say.
I welcome the amendment, but only half-heartedly. For once, the Government have listened to representatives from the creative industries, who have not received a particularly good welcome from them over the past few years. They feel undervalued and sense that their concerns, which they make eloquently to the Government, are ignored and that, if they are listened to, it is in a half-hearted way.
The issue of copyright exceptions is important. We have had the Hargreaves report, the Government’s response to it and the Intellectual Property Office’s examination of how the report’s recommendations could be implemented. I am sure that the Minister will be thrilled to know that he is about to receive the report by the all-party group on intellectual property, of which I and the hon. Members for Maldon and for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) are members. It will suggest various ways in which IP policy could be better formulated across Government and across Departments, and suggest the need for a real champion of IP copyright, because that is what is missing.
We need a proper investigation and an impact assessment. The assumptions that underpin a number of the Hargreaves recommendations are nonsense. The examples that caught our eye related to copyright exceptions, such as the assertion that an exception for format shifting would be worth £2 billion to the UK economy. The funniest assumption was the claim that an exception for parody of intellectual property could increase the UK economy by £600,000. Those assumptions were challenged, but they were asserted by the IPO without any real foundation. That is why this House has properly to consider copyright exceptions. If we do not, we will be left with that sort of nonsense. We have to make sure that that does not happen again.
I join others in calling on the Minister to listen to the concerns that the creative industries still have about the potential bundling together of proposals in secondary legislation. The Rolls-Royce model is primary legislation, whereby Members of Parliament can come to the House to have a proper debate and kickabout on proposals for copyright exceptions. If that is not to happen, the Minister must provide a better assurance that there will be separate pieces of secondary, delegated legislation, with full impact assessments, so that we can understand the impact that any further copyright exceptions will have on all the relevant sectors.
Jim Dowd
To reinforce that point, the wooliness of the Minister’s response, if it is left like that this evening, will have created an awful lot of work for his colleagues at the other end of the building. There are people down there who know better than most Members of this House precisely what the Government’s lack of decision—or else their attempt to hide what they are doing—really means.
Matthew Hancock
I welcome the Opposition Front Benchers’ support for the two Government amendments in this group. I want to reiterate the value of intellectual property, which is underpinned by our copyright regime, to the UK economy not only in the past but, I imagine, increasingly in the future. A strong IP regime is vital to the creative industries, in which we thrive and are hugely successfully. Ensuring that that regime is right and strong is a crucial part of having a strong economic future. The Digital Economy Act 2010, which strengthened many areas of law, and the extension of the length of copyright in music indicate the Government’s commitment to a strong and supportive intellectual property regime.
I will go through the points that Members have made. It is simply not correct to suggest that these proposals have not been widely consulted on. Indeed, they are based on recommendations in the Hargreaves review, which itself drew on extensive evidence. The response to that review was followed by a formal consultation, which received almost 500 written responses. There has been extensive work with interested parties following that. I reiterate the Government’s willingness to engage with stakeholders including Members, many of whom have a long-standing interest in the subject. Members throughout the House share not just birthdays but interests, and their engagement must and will continue.
The Government will announce their policy intent with regard to the exceptions recommended in Hargreaves this autumn. Exceptions can be introduced, extended and updated using the existing provisions of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The proposed way forward represents no change to how exceptions can be introduced and updated under the existing provisions. The problem is that the criminal penalties available in statute brought in under that Act carry a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment. In the case of many of the offences that we are discussing, penalties are longer than two years and can be up to 10 years. It is in the interest of those who want to ensure that their copyrights are protected to make sure that criminal penalties are that high. We do not want to have to bring them down to two years, in order to use the 1972 Act. Clause 57 is not needed to implement Hargreaves, but it allows us to do so in a way consistent with the existing, stronger criminal penalties, which I know the industry and many stakeholders support. Having received that reassurance, the British Copyright Council, UK Music, the Publishers Association and the Premier League are happy to support the Government amendments.
Matthew Hancock
Because we want to ensure, as and when technical amendments are considered, that we do not have to water down criminal penalties because of the way that the measures are introduced.
We are not in a position to announce a precise timetable for work on orphan works, but we expect it to be concluded during 2013 and certainly before any regulations are made. I commit the Government to discussing the details with Opposition Front-Bench Members, and others, during that process.
The Government amendments have been tabled with strong support for the IP regime on which much of our industry is based, and although the Government recognise the probing nature of the Opposition amendments, and commit to continued analysis of and engagement on those issues, we do not think that they should be included in the Bill.
Amendment 23 agreed to.
Clause 57
Power to change exceptions: copyright and rights in performances
Amendment made: 24, page 47, line 33, at end insert—
“( ) But regulations under this section may make only such provision as may be made under subsection (2) of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 or such provision as could be made under that subsection if paragraph 1(1)(d) of Schedule 2 to that Act did not apply.’.—(Matthew Hancock.)
Clause 68
Extent
Amendments made: 31, page 59, line 34, leave out ‘17(1)(c)’ and insert ‘17(2A)’.
Amendment 32, page 60, line 14, after ‘50,’ insert ‘[Osborne estate],’.
Amendment 33, page 60, line 14, after ‘54’ insert ‘and [Estate agency work]’.
Amendment 34, page 60, line 15, at end insert—
‘() section [Civil liability for breach of health and safety duties] extends only to England and Wales and Scotland except that it also extends to Northern Ireland so far as Parts 1 and 4 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 extend there,’.
Amendment 35, page 60, line 16, leave out ‘section’ and insert ‘sections’.
Amendment 36, page 60, line 16, after ‘52’ insert
‘, [Equality Act 2010: third party harassment of employees and applicants] and [Equality Act 2010: obtaining information for proceedings]’.
Amendment 37, page 60, line 16, leave out ‘extends’ and insert
‘and paragraphs 1, 52 to 54, 56 and 61 of Schedule [Adjudicators: minor and consequential amendments] extend’.
Amendment 38, page 60, line 17, leave out ‘section’ and insert ‘sections’.
Amendment 39, page 60, line 17, before ‘51’ insert
‘[Listed buildings in England: agreements and orders granting listed building consent],’.
Amendment 40, page 60, line 17, before ‘51’ insert
‘[Listed buildings in England: certificates of lawfulness],’.
Amendment 41, page 60, line 17, after ‘51’ insert ‘ and [Adjudicators]’.
Amendment 42, page 60, line 17, leave out first ‘Schedule’ and insert ‘Schedules’.
Amendment 43, page 60, line 17, before ‘16’ insert
‘and [Local listed building consent orders: procedure]’.
Amendment 44, page 60, line 17, after ‘17’ insert
‘, Schedule [Adjudicators: bankruptcy applications by debtors and bankruptcy orders] and paragraphs 2 to 51, 55, 57 to 60 and 62 of Schedule [Adjudicators: minor and consequential amendments]’.
Amendment 45, page 60, line 22, at end insert
‘except that section [Power to provide for equal pay audits] extends only to England and Wales and Scotland’.—(Matthew Hancock.)
Clause 69
Commencement
Amendments made: 46, page 60, line 26, at end insert—
‘() section [Osborne estate];’.
Amendment 47, page 60, line 26, at end insert—
‘() section [Power to provide for equal pay audits];’.—(Matthew Hancock.)
Financial Education
Jim Dowd Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I agree with him 100%. My speech and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) will cover those exact points.
To conclude this part of my speech, consumers too often take advantage of what they see as instant pain-free solutions without understanding the implications of what they are taking on.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Before the hon. Gentleman moves away from payday loans, does he not agree that anybody who finds themselves even contemplating taking one out—I accept his point that there are different ways of calculating the best way out of a situation—needs to address their whole financial position? It tends to be indicative of a problem, although I would not necessarily say that it was systemic. Once someone starts robbing from next week, they will be short then and it will go on and on. They need at that very moment to get the most careful and wise advice on their personal finances.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Let me be clear. Everyone has individual circumstances, priorities and challenges, and what one member of the public thinks is the right thing to do might be different to what the next person thinks. For me, the driving force is the idea that we have a duty to equip people to make informed decisions so that they can understand the implications of what they are doing and therefore do the very best according to their own priorities and circumstances. As we find in our debates, however, all too often people are not in a position to do that. MPs often end up referring to our casework because time and again we see people who have made wrong decisions not necessarily through any fault of their own, but because they did not have the skills to make the right decisions. Indeed, Citizens Advice has highlighted that 60% of its work is finance-related.
We have a competitive market and the Government have been encouraging people to take advantage of competition within the energy market. We say to people, “Go and shop around and look at energy tariffs,” but the market is incredibly complex and people need to be clued up if they are to be savvy consumers. I recently attempted to look at energy tariffs, but they are not all like for like, so consumers need a good level of skills to unravel that complicated market and seek out the best deal.
Another reason why I am passionate about this subject is that my generation could be pretty rubbish at handling money. We could go to university, drum up huge amounts of debt, including expensive debt on credit cards, and then secure our first graduate jobs—in my time that was relatively easy to do—get on to the housing ladder with a 100% or 100%-plus mortgage and watch house prices increase. When we had learned the error of our ways, we could reconsolidate our mortgage, pay off all our expensive debts and carry on, but that option will not be available to the next generation. As things stand, it is very difficult to get into the housing market and there is no guarantee that house prices will rise so that one could take advantage of that should one get on to the housing ladder. It is harder for young people to get credit and harder for people to correct any mistakes they may have made.
Intellectual Property (Hargreaves Report)
Jim Dowd Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Pete Wishart
I have seen the early-day motion to which I think the right hon. Gentleman is referring; it was kicking around just now. I have certainly received correspondence on the issue. That seems to be one of the great misconceptions about the DEA. People are always referring to disconnection, but nowhere in the DEA is there any mention of disconnection. If any technical measure were to be enforced, as he knows, numerous measures would have to be agreed by Government and Ofcom before anything like that could be considered. What would happen is that people would receive a polite letter asking them to stop taking music for nothing and directing them towards legal sites. I am glad that he mentioned the subject.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Before the hon. Gentleman moves away from the point about illegal downloading, has he seen today’s BBC report showing that the problem not only persists but continues to grow year on year? Does he agree that regardless of all the sophisticated arguments that can be advanced, it is nothing short of theft?
Pete Wishart
I did see the BBC piece. It was done for “Newsbeat”, and it showed the effect of illegal downloading on the film industry. It is not just film studios but people who work in the film industry—carpenters, caterers and all the other ancillary staff—who are taking a direct hit to their ability to earn a living working in the creative industry. The piece was a great example of the impact on the creative industries of the scourge of illegal downloading, and it shows why the Government must get their finger out and start dealing with the problem, using the measures agreed in the DEA.
When will the Government’s response be published? We were promised a response before the recess, which is now only 10 short days away. I presume that we will not get a response to the Hargreaves report before the recess, so when will it be published? What is it likely to include? Will the Government ensure that a thorough cost-benefit analysis is undertaken by whomever they appoint to study the issue? Will they ensure that existing activity is properly assessed? How will the Government ensure that IP laws remain protected in the light of changes to consumer law and the proposed organisational change to consumer protection?
If we want a successful and vibrant creative sector, IP has to be respected and valued, and not seen as something that people have the right to access for free just because technology enables them to do so. We cannot continue to give away our great recorded works for nothing, threaten our film industry, compromise our publishing houses, and leave our artists and creators without reward and protection, just so that some people can illegally take their work for nothing. Our creative industry is one of the most dynamic parts of the economy and the provider of hundreds of thousands of jobs. We have not done too badly so far with our IP and copyright laws, and nothing must be done to compromise our success and creativity. The Government have it in their power to ensure that the UK can become the world hub for creative industries. It is now time to stop the reviews and get on with the work.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who made an excellent speech. I agree with nearly everything that he has said. He rightly began by talking about the importance of the creative industries. Many of us believe that, given the right support and the right environment, they could become as important in this country as financial services are at present. It is critical that we give them the right support and the right environment. That is the climate in which the Prime Minister made remarks that led, in due course, to the Hargreaves report. I share some of the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the language used by the Prime Minister at the time and about the thought that we may end up going down the American fair-use route, which he has described. I want to clearly state on the record that I am very pleased that the Hargreaves report did not conclude that we should take the American fair-use approach.
I also join the hon. Gentleman in agreeing with one critical thing that appears at the beginning of the Hargreaves report, namely the importance of making decisions on the basis of clear evidence. Although I am the first to admit that the evidence is mixed on some of the issues, such as the impact of piracy on the creative industries, I nevertheless believe that the report goes too far when it dismisses some of the information, data and research—it calls them “lobbynomics”—from the industry. The one thing that I think we can learn from that is that getting this information right is really important. I am therefore delighted that discussions are now taking place between the UK Intellectual Property Office and the creative industry sector about the basis of research methodology and the presentation of data. That will help us all in making judgments about how we progress.
Notwithstanding the Hargreaves report’s perhaps overly critical view of the degree of concern about issues such as piracy, I am pleased that it recognises that there is a problem and that we have to address it. I am delighted that the three things it says that we need to do are enforcement, education and the development of new business models, and I accept that those are the three key things that we need to do. On enforcement, it is important that hon. Members acknowledge that, unless we are prepared to recognise the importance of the intellectual property rights of creators, we can never be said to be supportive of the creative industries. It is therefore vital that we find ways of ensuring that we provide much-needed protection in those areas.
During his excellent contribution, the hon. Gentleman said that the Government need to get on with the measures in the Digital Economy Act 2010. I do not fundamentally disagree with him, but it is important that we are aware that a number of problems must be addressed, particularly in relation to the use of illegal websites. During the passage of the 2010 Act through Parliament, I made clear—the hon. Gentleman was present in the House at the time—my concern that sections 17 and 18, which deal with those issues, are unworkable. Although we have not yet seen the report, I understand that Ofcom has looked at the matter and reached a similar conclusion. Therefore, if we are to move ahead, we will have to find other ways to address illegal activity on the internet. I know that productive discussions are taking place between the industry and internet service providers to find a way forward. I welcome those discussions and hope that they will be fruitful. We will also have a look at a number of other measures coming out of Europe, which might also inform our decision.
The hon. Gentleman has rightly referred to peer-to-peer file sharing. It is crucial that every hon. Member is clear that the 2010 Act gives ample opportunity for further discussion, research and debate before any of the actions about which some people are concerned—the so-called technical measures—take place. The legislation already enables us to do that, so I hope that we will be able to implement and progress with those measures as quickly as possible.
I said earlier that Hargreaves said that we also need to address education, which is critical. Far too many people in this country simply do not understand the damage that they are doing to the creative industries by obtaining the intellectual property of other people without making any contribution towards it. If we cannot have a situation in which people are creating material and being rewarded for it, the creative industry simply cannot grow, which is the key thing that the Hargreaves report is concerned about. It is critical that we recognise that and educate people so that they understand that they could be damaging the very creators of whom they are supportive and whose works they enjoy.
The third issue is the development of new business models. I agree entirely with the Hargreaves report that that is important, but it ought to be placed on the record that the picture is nowhere near as gloomy as the report perhaps suggests. For instance, while I acknowledge that it made a very slow start, the music industry has got its act together, and the UK now has 72 different business models for people to easily and cheaply access the music that they are keen to hear. It is already further ahead of the game than the rest of the country in that respect. Other parts of the industry—the film industry, computer games and others—have to try to improve what they are doing. I broadly support what the Hargreaves report says about enforcement, education and the development of new business models. I also broadly support the hon. Gentleman in saying that we need to get on and address those issues as quickly as possible.
One of the kernel ideas in the Hargreaves report is, as the hon. Gentleman has said, the digital exchange. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument that it is an exciting idea and that it offers the opportunity to improve the growth of the creative industries. He was right to say, however, that many problems still need to be addressed. First, I am concerned about the use of the word “exchange,” which is why I intervened on him. I do not believe that we are anywhere near developing all the things that we need even to think about having a single port of call where business is transacted. We ought to be looking much more at helping each sector of the creative industry—video games, film, books, magazine publishing, the music industry and so on—to ensure that they are developing their systems, but in such a way that they can work together to develop interoperability.
The music industry is advanced in its thinking on this. Not only is it well advanced in the UK, but it is working with colleagues throughout the rest of Europe. Collectively, they are pulling together the sort of database that Hargreaves talks about. I hope that the industry will be willing to share its data sets with other sectors of the industry, so that we can find some commonality. Commonality is absolutely vital, even simply on the number labelling of an item. Let us imagine a bit of film for which there is some music and a script, and where stills and bits of other people’s films have been used. All those things need different access, but they all need to be coded in the same way, so that we know where they all come from. We need to work at interoperability.
If we acknowledge that different parts of the sector are developing their own databases and their own licensing systems—in some cases, they have had such systems for a long time—it seems somewhat perverse to suggest that we might get rid of all that. As a first step at least, I would prefer the exchange—or whatever it might be called—to be a front page or a signpost to ways of finding this material and establishing how people can get a licence for the use of it for commercial purposes.
We must then address the issue of the digital champion. I apologise to the author if I have got this wrong, but the report seems to be saying, on the one hand, that finding a digital champion should be industry led and, on the other hand, that the Government should appoint someone to do it. That does not mesh together very well. Initially, someone should do a scoping exercise of what is needed. We should consider using somebody who is, for example, a project manager and who gets the support of all sectors of the industry. We could do that very quickly, which would deal with the issue raised by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire about getting on with things. I urge the Minister to consider whether that could be a way forward.
Mr Foster
That is why there are so many problems. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise his concern about the matter. We need to find a way of making progress. I am suggesting that if we can downgrade the issue of what we are looking for and be clear about the job spec, it might be easier for the industry to come together and find a way of doing it.
Finally, on the digital copyright exchange, I agree with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire about its being voluntary. It seems totally wrong to suggest that if I am the creator of something—a piece of music, a film, a book or whatever it might be—I should be automatically forced to place my work on that particular platform. That is not the sort of liberal society in which I want to live. It would also be totally wrong to have a situation whereby if I do not put my piece of work on to the exchange, I will somehow be exempted from access to the law that applies to everybody else. After all, if somebody nicks my work, they should be punished for it and the full force of the law should apply, whether or not I have chosen to put my work on a particular exchange.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the important matter of orphan works. Sadly, clause 43 of the Digital Economy Act 2010, which covered those issues, was ditched at the last minute during the wash-up at the end of the previous Parliament. I am concerned about what the Hargreaves report suggests is a possible way forward. In effect, the report says that we should allow an orphan work, of which the creator is unknown, to be licensed and used by somebody in a commercial or possibly a non-commercial venture for a nominal fee. The problem with that is twofold. First, someone has to do some level of due diligence to get that licence and demonstrate that they have tried to find the author. However, I am sure that they will not go any further than they need to if all they have to do is pay a nominal fee. A nominal fee does not provide any additional money to do more diligent searches to try to identify the author or creator of the work.
The second problem is that if by chance a particular piece of work of which the creator is unknown suddenly becomes a worldwide best seller and generates vast sums of money for the person or organisation that obtained the licence, surely we must have a system in place whereby the creator, if identified, has the opportunity to benefit from that worldwide success. The report does not cover real issues that we must address adequately.
I know that other hon. Members want to contribute, so I will briefly make one final point about exceptions. Again, there are real issues surrounding the sort of exceptions proposed in the Hargreaves review. I shall talk about the exception in relation to parody as an example. We all enjoy a parody of something. However, the truth is that if someone takes something, parodies it and achieves an enormous commercial success, that parody is based on somebody’s creation. I am absolutely convinced that the person whose creation has led to the commercially successful parody must be able to benefit from it. The creator must also be able to say that they are unhappy with their work being used in that particular way. We must consider the issue of exceptions more closely and in more detail. That applies to the use of material and so on. There will no doubt be an opportunity for consultation once the Government come forward with their response to the Hargreaves report.
The Hargreaves report mentions many other issues, which I am sure other hon. Members will cover. I may have seemed critical of the report, so I will end by saying that it was important to have such a report to kick-start the debate. What matters is how that debate develops and the action that the Government take. I hope such action will support the creators, who are so critical to our creative industries.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I believe that this is the first time I have served under your sagacious direction, Mr Chope, and I am delighted to do so. I was also delighted to support the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) in his application for the debate, and I am pleased that Mr Speaker saw fit to grant it. The hon. Gentleman has been a true champion of creators, authors and performers for many years. He brings not just enthusiasm to the issue, but a detailed personal knowledge.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman strongly. We have seen a number of such reports over time, and this is the latest in a long line of them. The most recent was the Gowers report in November 2006. He said that he hoped that the Government would adopt the entirety of the report in some form or that they would at least respond to it. I will be surprised if they do, because my experience is that that is not what happens. My experience has shown that things move ahead incrementally by a percentage each time and that, the next time a report is written, we are still dealing with many of the older issues while trying to address the newer ones.
I welcome this report, however, because the issue is critical for the country and for the industry. It was published just before the end of May. At almost the same time, the EU directive on orphan works was introduced, to which the Government will clearly have to respond. I imagine that the one will inform the other in the fullness of time. Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I am interested to know when the Government intend to produce their proposals, but I accept that it is better to get the matter right than to deal with it quickly. The issue is so important that we should be prepared to take such an approach.
Like the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), I shall outline a few items without going through the whole report. I broadly welcome the report’s thrust because it addresses a number of significant issues. In November 2006, the foreword to the Gowers report stated:
“For many citizens, Intellectual Property…is an obscure and distant domain—its laws shrouded in jargon and technical mystery, its applications relevant only to a specialist audience. And yet IP is everywhere. Even a simple coffee jar relies on a range of IP rights—from patents to copyright, designs to trade marks.”
Hargreaves has addressed that issue, and he recognises its significance not only for UK plc, but for many of our citizens who are involved in the creative industries.
I welcome the thrust of the report and its concentration on not only copyright, but patents, designs and other, broader issues with a relevance to IP rights. As the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire said, adopting all the elements of the report could be worth about £750 million to our GDP. I strongly doubt that they will all be adopted, but even the adoption of a significant number of them will have a significant benefit if they have the effect envisaged.
Both the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire and the right hon. Member for Bath mentioned the digital copyright exchange, which deserves to be applauded for one reason above all others: it is at least an attempt to look at a new way of doing things and to look forward. Far too many reports and too much Government legislation fight the last war, not the next one, but the report is an attempt, albeit a faltering one, to move matters forward. However, some groups in the creative industries have told me that the digital copyright exchange was not necessary and that current market mechanisms adequately deal with some of the problems that the report describes. Their fear is that the net effect would simply be to add a not inconsiderable amount to current transaction costs without an appropriate benefit.
The exchange proposal is a response to complaints made during the report’s compilation that the complexity of navigating rights clearance processes is a barrier to innovation and growth, notably for new-tech and start-up organisations. There is a problem in that respect, but the digital exchange proposals are perhaps somewhat heavy-handed and bureaucratic, and I would need some convincing that they could be effective.
The report says that the long-term aim is to create
“the best…licensing system in the world”,
and who on earth would disagree with that? I doubt whether anybody here today would say that we should have only the second-best or third-best system. The objective must be to have the best regulatory regime, which balances the rights and responsibilities of those who are involved. I doubt whether the digital copyright exchange is the mechanism to do that, but it at least addresses the future, without necessarily being future-proof.
On digital libraries, there is a proposal to use the system that is broadly in existence and to adopt the extended collective licensing model that exists, with varying success, in other parts of Europe. In effect, that would extend the licence granted by a licensing body for certain works to include copyright owners of the same class of works who are not members of that body, provided that the body represented the majority of copyright owners for that sector, and subject to the right of non-members to withdraw from the scheme. An assurance on that last point would be most welcome. That is a reasonable way to make progress.
Clearly, any modification of current copyright principles that creates new rules for a particular designation of work needs to be examined most carefully. One of the key elements of a workable system, particularly for orphan works, is a robust system of diligent search, rather as the right hon. Member for Bath said, to avoid any prejudice to authors or rights owners. We must better understand what that due diligence is, how it is to be implemented and what it looks like to ensure that orphan works can be dealt with fairly and without the risk of losing the opportunity that they provide.
I broadly welcome a number of the other recommendations on copyright exceptions. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire and the right hon. Member for Bath were critical of the US fair-use law, and the great fear that we all had as Hargreaves was unfolding was that that is what we would wind up with. The report correctly identified two broad problems with the operation of the current copyright exceptions regime: first, the failure to remove barriers to innovation and, secondly, a discrepancy between the law and most people’s reasonable expectations and behaviour in the light of the rapidly expanding development of new digital services. I am glad, however, that the report rejected the fair-use approach adopted in the US, because there are, as it notes, legal and political impediments to imposing such a regime in the UK. Instead, it outlines a series of new exceptions to achieve specific goals, and that is the right way to approach personal use, parody, data mining and what are termed “Gowers exceptions”.
I welcome the recommendation to promote greater uniformity in the operation of collective management organisations. The report proposes that such organisations adopt codes of practice, which should be approved by the IPO, and I very much welcome that. The other issues that were addressed include enforcement, the awareness of rights, piracy, an IPO review and the next steps in the progress of the report.
I therefore welcome much of the report, although I have reservations about parts of it. It builds on the steps that were partly adopted in the wake of Gowers. The foreword to Gowers stated:
“In the modern world, knowledge capital, more than physical capital, drives the UK economy. Against the backdrop of the increasing importance of ideas, IP rights, which protect their value, are more vital than ever.”
As we move from a manufacturing-based economy to what some people call a knowledge-based economy, the protection of IP rights becomes more important than ever if we are to ensure that rights holders receive adequate reward for their activities and that we have an environment conducive to originality and innovation.
Mr Hayes
That is another interesting point. Again, that will form part of what we say when we respond to the report. The review did not deal with the subject in the detail that the hon. Gentleman refers to. The review recommendations do not come to a definitive conclusion on that subject, as he will know from having read them, but the proposal seems to be a useful addition to those recommendations and is certainly something that we will cover in our response. I am more than happy to give him that assurance.