Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Viscount Younger of Leckie Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

84: After Schedule 19, insert the following new Schedule—
“Abolition of Agricultural Wages Board and related English bodies: consequential provision1 In section 28 of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (duty of housing authority upon receiving application that agricultural worker be re-housed etc), in subsection (3), for “The authority” substitute “If the dwelling-house is in Wales, the authority”.
2 The repeals and revocations in the following table have effect.

Reference	Extent of repeal or revocation
Agricultural Wages Act 1948 (c. 47)	Section 1.
	In section 2— (a) in subsection (1)— (a) the words “England and”, and (b) paragraph (a), and (b) subsection (4).
	Sections 3 to 4.
	Sections 6 to 16.
	In section 17— (a) in subsection (1), the definition of “the national minimum wage”, and (b) subsection (1A).
	Sections 17A to 19.
	Schedules 1, 2 and 4.
The Agricultural Wages Committee Regulations 1949 (S.I. 1949/1885)	Regulation 3(2)(a) and the word “and” after it.
	Regulation 16.
Public Records Act 1958 (c. 51)	In the table at the end of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, the words “Agricultural Wages Board.”
Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c. 13)	In Schedule 2, the words “Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales.”
Agriculture Act 1967 (c. 22)	Section 67.
Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 (c. 34)	Section 46.
Agricultural Wages Committees (Wages Structure) Regulations 1971 (S.I. 1971/844)	The whole instrument.
Agricultural Wages Committees (Areas) Order 1974 (S.I. 1974/515)	In article 3(1), the words— (a) “Subject to the provisions of this order”, and (b) “an agricultural wages committee for each county in England and”.
	Article 3(2).
	Article 4.
	The Schedule.
Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1975 (c. 18)	In Schedule 2, paragraph 32.
House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 24)	In Part 3 of Schedule 1, the words “Member appointed by a Minister of the Crown of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales.”
Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 25)	In Part 3 of Schedule 1, the words “of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales or”.
Social Security Pensions Act 1975 (c. 60)	In Schedule 4, paragraph 10.
Employment Protection Act 1975 (c. 71)	Section 97(1) and (2).
	Schedule 9.
	In Schedule 17, paragraph 12.
Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 55)	In section 4(1)(c), the words from “(including” to the end.
Agricultural Wages Committees (New Combinations of Counties) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/179)	The whole order.
Agricultural Wages Committee (Cleveland, Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1173)	The whole order.
Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1992 (c. 6)	In Schedule 2, paragraph 4.
Agricultural Wages Committees (Areas) (England) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/3186)	The whole order.
Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18)	In section 35— (a) in subsection (2), paragraph (a) and the word “or” at the end of that paragraph, and (b) in subsection (3), paragraph (b) and the “and” before that paragraph.
National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39)	In section 16(6)— (a) in the definition of “the agricultural wages legislation”, paragraph (a), and (b) in the definition of “relevant authority”, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
	In section 16A(5)— (a) in the definition of “enforcement officer”, paragraph (b), and (b) in the definition of “the relevant legislation”, paragraph (b).
	Section 46(4)(a).
	In section 47— (a) subsection (1)(a), (b) subsection (2)(a) and (d), (c) subsection (4)(a), (d) in subsection (4)(b), the words “(similar provision for Scotland)”, and (e) subsection (6)(a).
	In section 55(1), in the definition of “regulations”, the words “by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food acting jointly or”.
	Part 1 of Schedule 2.
National Minimum Wage Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1999/584)	Regulation 38(5)(a).
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36)	In Part 6 of Schedule 1, the words “An Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales”.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44)	In Schedule 25, paragraph 28.
Employment Relations Act 2004 (c. 24)	Section 47.
	In Schedule 1, paragraph 1.
Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/5)	In Schedule 1, in the entry relating to the Agricultural Wages Board and agricultural wages committees, the words “Board and”.
Employment Act 2008 (c. 24)	Section 8(6).
	Section 9(6).
Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (S.S.I. 2012/88)	In Schedule 1, in the entry relating to the Agricultural Wages Board and agricultural wages committees, the words “Board and”.”

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

I beg to move.

Amendment 84ZA (to Amendment 84) not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

Photographers certainly feel left out in the cold at the moment, and I know a lot of work is taking place on that. Again, I appeal for us to think hard. It is not just metadata; there is a wider concern there, which comes from photographers’ sense that their work is ephemeral and not of value. Yet we all know that is not true. The image still speaks more powerfully than a thousand words, as they say. Their work is influential in so many different aspects of our commercial and cultural life that we would be wrong to ignore what they say to us, and they are certainly saying it. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, first, I appreciate the warm comments that have been made by my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Jenkin, and Lady Buscombe, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. I agree that it is highly desirable from the Government’s perspective to understand and resolve issues outside the Chamber. I very much hope that will continue; I am sure it will. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for the collegiate approach that he takes to these issues. It is much appreciated on this side.

I want to focus, as other noble Lords have done, on the report—or perhaps I should say the response to the informal consultation, a copy of which I have here —which I have read with interest. It is refreshing to read that views were in general very positive on having a report. I noted that the Motion Picture Association thought that the report should be developed in full and open dialogue with the copyright sector. That is all in the right spirit. Certainly, the Government believe that the proposed annual report will increase the transparency of IPO activities and they welcome the support from the respondents. Again, that should be a very good thing to highlight given some of the comments that have been made today.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked about issues that might be covered within the report. I confirm that I will want to look very carefully at all his points to see what we can say about them in the report, so I thank him for his input on that.

The noble Lord spoke also about the judicial review. I am afraid that all I can say at the moment from the Government perspective is that we have received a pre-action letter concerning copyright measures in the Bill to which we have responded. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to comment further at this time.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, stated that he did not want to prejudge the debate on copyright exceptions. As I hope he will be aware, I am keen that Parliament should have the necessary time for debate on the statutory instruments—I think that I made that clear in Grand Committee.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

The Minister very kindly answered a Written Question on whether an individual impact assessment would accompany each of the regulations introducing new exceptions. While I normally follow the noble Viscount with ease and find his presentations pellucid, I did not find the answer to his question without ambiguity. While I recognise that the impacts of some of the regulations may overlap, I think that it is extremely important that, when Parliament is considering this very important secondary legislation, we should have in each and every case the best impact assessment that the Government are able to provide. Will he assure us that that will be the case?

[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.