Intellectual Property Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2014.

Dai Havard (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

Before I call the Minister, may I remind colleagues that it is likely, given the structure of the day in the main Chamber, that we will have votes around about 4 o’clock this afternoon in a grouped order? Life in this place can change from hour to hour, but that is the current information I have. If there are three votes back to back, we would lose 35 minutes of the Committee’s time. The expectation must be that the Committee would want to try to conclude the bulk of its discussions by 4 o’clock at the latest. The next two items we are considering are probably the heaviest in terms of expectation of debate. Could Members therefore bear in mind that if they want to get to items later down the order, they should temper their enthusiasm now with the pessimism of the intellect to give them the opportunity later?

Clause 13 - Offence of unauthorised copying etc. of design in course of business

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 13, page 11, line 22, after ‘person’ insert ‘intentionally’.

Dai Havard (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 7.

Amendment 25, in clause 13, page 11, line 27, leave out ‘and’ and insert—

‘(ia) knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, making the product is an infringement of the registered design, and’.

Government amendments 8 and 9.

Amendment 26, in clause 13, page 11, line 35, leave out ‘uses’ and insert ‘sells’.

Amendment 27, in clause 13, page 11, line 39, after ‘so’, insert ‘deliberately’.

Government amendments 10 and 11.

Amendment 28, in clause 13, page 11, line 42, at end insert—

‘(ia) the person does so knowing that, or being reckless as to whether offering putting on the market, importing, exporting or selling of the product is an infringement of the registered design.’.

Amendment 29, in clause 13, page 12, leave out line 6 and insert—

‘(a) reasonably believed that the registered design was not infringed.’.

Amendment 30, in clause 13, page 12, leave out line 7.

Government amendments 12, 13 and 14.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

Thank you, Mr Havard, for opening our proceedings by quoting from Gramsci’s “Prison Notebooks”. I am sure that is how the parliamentary Labour party still conducts its affairs.

This debate is about probably the most significant feature of the Bill: the only new criminal sanction that we are introducing to intellectual property law. I appreciate your advice, Mr Havard, so I will try to bring together all the different amendments to this significant provision. Clause 13 makes it a criminal offence to intentionally 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.

After Second Reading and after discussion and debates in the other place and meetings that my colleague Lord Younger and I had with stakeholders, I recognise that the introduction of a new criminal sanction raises strong feelings, both for and against. The Government believe that this policy is the right one. Designs should be protected by a criminal offence in the same way as other forms of intellectual property, but it is important to get the balance absolutely right. Since the Bill was discussed in the other place, industry representatives have raised concerns with me and Viscount Younger that the scope of clause 13 could be interpreted more widely than was intended. Members of the judiciary have recently supported their viewpoint.

While the Government believe that the offence, when considered in its entirety, will capture only intentional copying, it is important to recognise the concerns of those who will be affected by the practical application of the sanctions. We in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, a pro-business Department, believe that it is important to give business the certainty it needs about the scope and meaning of the new offence. The Government want to ensure that we do not deter anyone who legitimately innovates around an existing design. That is the purpose not just of our amendments; I think it is also the purpose behind the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hartlepool.

Neil Parish (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I very much appreciate what the Minister is saying. There need to be some criminal sanctions for people breaking copyright and taking other people’s ideas. I do not want to be too specific about which country, but countries in the far east have a propensity to steal intellectual property. Are we mindful of that? It is not just people in this country stealing intellectual property, but people stealing from a long way away. People are very concerned about that.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

The legislation covers offences committed in this country. If the offence is in this country, the exact, ultimate ownership or location of the headquarters of the company is not the issue. The criminal sanction will apply where copying takes place within the UK or where the copied products are offered, put on the market, imported, exported or used within the UK. The offence has to happen in the UK, but the perpetrator could have his or her original purpose anywhere in the world.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

The Minister will appreciate, as I did when I was Minister with responsibility for IP, that there are organised networks. I saw examples of such networks in China that work with counterfeiters in this country. In relation to design, the legislation would tackle the problem to which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton refers; indeed, if it did not, we would need to revisit it, because the problem is significant and the police need assistance.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

Yes, and the purpose of the legislation and this clause in particular is to create a new criminal offence of copying a design. That is a clear strengthening of a weak legal framework. As I said on Second Reading, we believe in supporting our design industry—both small and large businesses.

With these amendments we are tackling specific concerns raised in intensive discussions with IP experts and industry representatives, such as BAE Systems, Nokia, Dyson and others—the creators of design IP in this country. The Government amendments ensure that the law is as clear as possible and that it fully achieves the Government’s aim of tackling only the blatant copying of design. Our amendments address two points. Government amendments 6, 8, 10, 13 and 14 make it clear that the copying must have been intentional. The insertion of the word “intentionally” is not intended to make the sanction more difficult to prove—the clause was always aimed at situations where there was an intention—but to allay the concerns of stakeholders that unconscious copying could be caught by the offence, which is not the purpose of the clause. We were happy to table the amendment to make the legislation clearly reflect the Government’s stated policy of ensuring that only considered acts of copying are captured. That is what the addition of “intentionally” does.

Amendment 27, in the name of the hon. Member for Hartlepool, would insert “deliberately” into the clause. I am not sure whether that is his intention—whether he is doing it “deliberately”. [Interruption.]

Dai Havard (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

Order. We are getting messages from the other side—I think we are back in the fourth dimension. We will try to discover what that noise is and stop it.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

I have had a range of experiences in Committees in this House, but I have not had knocking from the fireplace before, although there is a first time for everything.

I think the hon. Member for Hartlepool probably intends to achieve the same purpose with amendment 27 as we intend to achieve with our Government amendments. I shall explain to him why we consider “intentionally” to do the job better than his proposed word, “deliberately”. We chose “intentionally” because it is more familiar to the courts in terms of framing the mental element of a criminal offence and so less likely to provoke legal debate than “deliberately”. I understand that intention is already recognised by the courts within the framework of IP legislation.

There is a second problem with amendment 27, which is that it appears to be directed to the part of the offence that sets out liability when a person knows or has reason to believe that the design in question has been copied. The legal test of knowing or having reason to believe is established and well understood. Qualifying it in clause 13 with the word “deliberately” does not seem to take matters further forward. We believe that the concerns of industry about unconscious copying are dealt with effectively by the Government’s amendments, so the hon. Gentleman’s proposal in amendment 27 is unnecessary.

Duncan Hames (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

I thank the Minister for that explanation. If we were to make this change, would it still be possible to bring a civil action in cases where the Crown Prosecution Service was not persuaded that intention could be proven?

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

Yes; my understanding is that a civil action would be possible. When we are talking about criminal sanctions, the view is that intent is an important element in the legislation. As I have said, we have always intended that intention should be part of the offence, and we are now making that explicit. The civil remedy would still available.

Let me turn to Government amendments 7, 9, 11 and 12, which relate to assessments of whether a product has been copied. The amendments will remove the word “substantially”, so that the clause instead refers to designs

“with features that differ only in immaterial details”.

We are proposing this change because industry has expressed concerns that the term “substantially” is not clearly defined in registered design law or criminal IP law, and there could therefore be uncertainty as to its meaning. The revised wording is more familiar to industry and reflects existing language used in the Registered Designs Act 1949, in the context of whether a design is new. Our amendments provide users with a familiar term and the courts with a more precise test than “substantially”. I do not detect anything in the Opposition’s proposed amendments that suggests that they have any difficulty with that clarification. Indeed, I hope that both the clarifications in our amendments—representing, as they do, the clear view of industry—will command the Opposition’s support.

Let me also comment briefly on amendments 25 and 28, which would introduce the idea of “being reckless” as to design infringement. The amendments would have two effects. First, they would introduce design infringement as a basis for the criminal sanction. However, infringement is different from copying. The new offence has been drafted so that the criminal sanction will be narrower and more focused than the civil test for infringement. The legal test for civil infringement refers to the concept of “overall impression” of a design on an “informed user”—a much less precise concept than the boundaries that we set out in the Bill for the proposed criminal sanction. For those reasons, including as a part of the offence a test based on civil design infringement is potentially confusing and would lead to greater uncertainty, which we fear could lead to a freezing effect on follow-on design.

Amendments 25 and 28 would also introduce the concept of “constructive knowledge or intention”. That would effectively require the court to conclude that a defendant had paid no regard to the probability or possibility of harmful consequences in conducting a course of action.

Mike Weatherley (Conservative, Hove)

On inserting the word “intentional”, would it therefore not be possible to include unregistered designs? I understand the argument that registered designs are easily available and can be tested against, but if the word “intentional” is added to the Bill, could a consequence be that the provisions can be extended to include unregistered designs?

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

We will come to this matter when we debate the new clauses. The trouble is that proving intent is so much harder when it comes to unregistered designs, because people do not have access to clear information about what the IP is, so we are wary of trying to introduce the concepts to unregistered designs as well as to registered ones. However, we will debate that issue when we come to amendment 31, when my hon. Friend may wish to intervene again.

Amendments 25 and 28 would introduce the concept of constructive knowledge or intention, which would effectively require a court to conclude that a defendant had paid no regard to the probability or possibility of harmful consequences in conducting a course of action. Culpable criminal behaviour of that sort is already adequately covered by the clause. Knowing or having reason to believe that the design is registered—that is, owned by another person—is already a feature of the offence. Amendments 25 and 28 would therefore add an extra, unnecessary layer of complexity to the clause, which we fear would make the offence unworkable in the courts and highly uncertain for design businesses.

The Government amendments will clarify the purpose of the clause, reflecting the concerns that industry has put to us. We understand that the Opposition are also trying to tackle those concerns, but we believe that our proposals, which draw on well recognised terminology in IP law, provide the best way of doing that. I therefore hope the Committee will support our amendments and that the hon. Member for Hartlepool will not press his.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I wish you and the Committee a very good morning, Mr Havard. I thank the Minister for the non-grumpy way in which he set out his amendments and responded to my amendments. He was right to say that this part of the Bill is “significant”, although I would use the word “contentious”. I rise to speak to my amendments, but I also want to respond to the Minister’s points.

Two key issues about clause 13 were raised on Second Reading, which the amendments reflect. The first is whether criminal sanctions, with the possibility of up to 10 years’ imprisonment, should be applied to designs, and what legislative blocks and thresholds are in place to ensure that inadvertent, unintentional or accidental copying is not punished with hefty prison sentences. Secondly, if one accepts the concept of criminal sanctions to be applied to registered rights, surely it is logical that all design rights, whether registered or unregistered, should be included. We will debate that issue when we come to the next group.

On Second Reading, I said that Britain is fantastic at creativity and innovation, and I quoted the CBI’s recent report on the created industries, which states:

“Our culture and creativity is at the forefront of the UK’s global appeal.”

That does not happen by chance or accident, and it does not happen immediately. Our traditionally strong IP framework has evolved and been built up over time to ensure that the UK is a global leader in creativity and innovation. We should not do anything to jeopardise that, which is why our consideration of clause 13 is vital for industry in this country. I also made the point on Second Reading that IP is a property right, and that creators, inventers and designers should have protection in law against the exploitation of their ideas. If composers and writers are protected in law, why not designers? That seems a powerful argument, so I understand the Government’s thinking.

However, I understand that trademarks and copyright are not determined by prior art in the way that the scope and validity of a registered design are. “Prior art” has been defined as

“the total body of knowledge, which teaches or otherwise relates directly to an invention.”

Prior art references include documentary sources, such as patents and publications from anywhere in the world, and non-documentary sources, such as things known or used publicly. Given the intense difficulty of establishing prior art, it is possible that someone inadvertently designed something in good faith, and for relevant prior art to come to light later. That is particularly important when we are introducing a criminal sanction, especially one with a penalty of up to 10 years. There is a risk for registered designs that prior art may come to light after the person has been convicted and imprisoned. How will the Minister respond to that?

An interesting court case related to that issue is Apple v. Samsung, which I will refer to at length. Paragraph 57 of the judge’s ruling, which I was reading last night—

Stephen Doughty (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Swot.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I was swotting up, and I hope my hon. Friend takes that back to the Chief Whip. Paragraph 57 demonstrates the difficulties and subtleties of this field of law:

“The point of design protection must be to reward and encourage good product design by protecting the skill, creativity and labour of product designers. This effort is different from the work of artists. The difference between a work of art and a work of design is that design is concerned with both form and function. However design law is not seeking to reward advances in function. That is the sphere of patents. Function imposes constraints on a designer’s freedom which do not apply to an artist. Things which look the same because they do the same thing are not examples of infringement of design right.”

The last sentence is significant. If such cases are moved into the criminal courts, with the possibility of 10 years’ imprisonment, juries might convict on the basis of things doing the same thing and consequently looking the same, but that, as we have heard, is not an infringement of design right. The Government need to be absolutely sure of their footing, based on strong evidence. I have tabled our amendments to test the Minister on that point.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on so assiduously studying Apple v. Samsung, which was a civil case about infringement. We are applying the higher test of intentionality in this criminal sanction. The provisions in clause 13 raise rather different issues from Apple v. Samsung.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I understand what the Minister is saying. He has had discussions with industry bodies, legal experts and companies, some of which he has mentioned. The one thing we want to avoid is disbarring innovation and creativity, and ultimately prosperity, in this country. He will be aware of the many concerns that remain. The IP Federation has stated that the proposals

“create a sledgehammer for the purposes of cracking a specific problematic nut. The trouble is that, in cracking the problem nut, many other valuable nuts will also get cracked or severely damaged as a consequence.”

There is a risk that criminal sanctions will deter innovation and invention in this country. The IP Federation continues:

“If there is a risk that knowledge of a registered design, combined with actual infringement, could give rise to a criminal penalty, IP advisors will advise their clients not to take that risk. Products which would otherwise have been brought to market as a result of healthy competition will be withheld. This will reduce choice for consumers.”

I have had a meeting with the International Chamber of Commerce—as has the Minister—which has said:

“Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed criminal offence would contain defences against unintentional infringements, there remains considerable nervousness within industry that criminal sanctions may still be employed in cases where there has been no deliberate copying of a registered design…Senior executives have advised us that even a very small risk of criminal action could significantly delay decisions on product launches—particularly where a company chooses to escalate concerns to board level. In a best case scenario, this would likely entail additional costs for businesses (such as for external legal advice); however, it is possible to envisage circumstances in which executives may choose not to launch (perfectly legitimate) products in the UK market-with possible knock-on effects for employment and consumer choice.”

Will the Minister directly address the point that innovation in this country might suffer as a result of clause 13? Neither the original impact assessment nor the revised impact assessment makes that case clear; they merely state that no evidence was produced. Should there not be more rigour for something as important as possibly sending inventors to prison for 10 years?

Amendment 25 would ensure that the Bill contained a clear and acknowledged difference between copying and infringement, to which the Minister has referred. As the Bill is currently drafted, a person will be committing an offence and be subject to criminal sanctions if they copy

“a registered design so as to make a product exactly or substantially to that design”.

The Minister has tabled amendment 7 and other amendments—to which I shall respond in due course—to address that situation to some extent. However, the purpose of amendment 25 is clear. It would make a distinction in the Bill between copying and infringement. I realise what the Minister said about Apple v.Samsung, but this was touched on then. This is an important point for the Committee to consider. What is the nature of innovation? I referred to this on Second Reading. Is it giant leaps forward or leaping from tree to tree, gradually and incrementally? Is innovation evolution or revolution?

In the commercial sphere, it seems entirely reasonable and legitimate for firms to want to build on existing products, retaining the features that consumers like and discarding those that they do not. That is an accepted part of design law—it is called the design corpus—and it happens in every commercial field. Cars may have new features; other companies may develop and expand on them, taking them a step further. To what extent is that copying or innovating to give the consumer greater choice and a better standard of products? I am interested in the Minister’s views. I know he takes innovation seriously, and we do not want to do anything that deters it in this country.

The Apple v. Samsung case is fascinating. Samsung applied to the High Court for a declaration that its Galaxy tablets were not too similar to Apple’s products. Apple countersued, but Samsung won the case here in the UK, although there were different rulings in other jurisdictions. An appeal found in favour of the previous ruling, meaning that Apple was required to publish a disclaimer on its own website and in the media stating that Samsung did not copy the iPad. The judge ruled:

“This case illustrates the importance of properly taking into account the informed user’s knowledge and experience of the design corpus”.

I will come to the phrase, “informed user”. He continued:

“The degree to which a feature is common in the design corpus is a relevant consideration. At one extreme will be a unique feature not in the prior art at all, at the other extreme will be a banal feature found in every example of the type. In between there will be features which are fairly common but not ubiquitous or quite rare but not unheard of.”

The judge went further:

“When I first saw the Samsung products in this case I was struck by how similar they look to the Apple design when they are resting on a table. They look similar because they both have the same front screen. It stands out. However to the informed user (which at that stage I was not) these screens do not stand out to anything like the same extent. The front view of the Apple design takes its place amongst its kindred prior art.”

In bringing forward criminal sanctions, how does the Minister intend to ensure that such considerations about informed users, the design corpus and prior art will be taken into account?

Ministers have stated that the same type of arrangements are being put in place as exist in Germany. Indeed, the updated impact assessment states that

“the UK’s and Germany’s designs laws are governed by the same European legal framework, as well as each country retaining its own national system of registration”.

That is true; however, although it is true that unauthorised use of a German registered design can be punishable by criminal sanctions, the infringement must be wilful or reckless to attract those sanctions. That is why amendment 25 would add those words to the Bill and ensure that a further safeguard was in place.

Amendment 28 would make a similar change after proposed new section 35ZA(3)(c)(ii) of the 1949 Act to clarify that when a person commits the offence, they do so knowing that, or being reckless as to whether offering, putting on the market, importing, exporting or selling of the product is an infringement of the registered design, rather than the vague and imprecise definition of “copying”. In a similar vein, amendment 29 is designed to show that it is a defence for a person charged with an offence to reasonably believe that the registered design was not infringed.

Amendment 27 would tighten up the definition and provide a greater legal lock, and make it very clear. I understand what the Minister was saying about acceptance of the words “intentional within IP law”, but we think the amendment would tighten that further. I should be grateful if he would respond to that; I will say more about it in a moment.

Amendment 26 is a probing amendment to clarify two aspects of clause 13 and the impact on business. The amendment would leave out the word “uses” and insert the word “sells” in its place. I have tabled the amendment for two reasons. First, the clause as it stands does not take into account the complex and collaborative nature of processes within commerce and industry. If a firm uses something in its production process, does the Minister think that that firm is copying? If so, would it be subject to the criminal sanctions in this clause? Clarification of that would be helpful. I propose that the Bill would be clearer if it used the word “sells” rather than “uses”.

My second consideration when tabling amendment 26 may seem perverse and contrary: to probe the Government’s thinking on third parties being liable for criminal sanctions under the clause as part of their normal business operations. The Apple v. Samsung case prompted me to think about that, but that consideration will apply to an infinite variety of products, a large number of retailers, other distribution and business-to-business companies. Will the Minister clarify whether firms that sell products—in the case of Apple or Samsung products, shops such as Carphone Warehouse—are subject to the clause? As the clause is currently drafted, I think they would be, as proposed new section 35ZA(3) states:

“A person commits an offence if…in the course of a business, the person offers…or”—

this is the key point—

“puts on the market”.

To my mind, that means that the directors of Carphone Warehouse and other similar retailers will be liable for criminal sanctions. Surely that will prevent competition and consumer choice. Apple could have sued Samsung and then put pressure on retailers by saying, “Look, a court case is going on in which criminal sanctions and imprisonment of up to 10 years apply, so stop stocking Samsung products.” Surely that would be a real hindrance to competition. Can the Minister confirm that that would not be the case? If that risk were there, would not retailers be reluctant to stock products, which, in turn, would restrict consumer choice and, ultimately, product development and innovation? I hope he will reassure me on that. I appreciate that amendment 26 would not insert the precise wording to which I have referred, but I hope I have explained our intention in tabling it.

The Minister spoke to Government amendments 6, 8 and 10, which would insert the word “intentionally” at various points in the Bill. I appreciate that he is trying to provide greater clarity and safeguarding to prevent the possibility of accidental or inadvertent copying infringements. However, as I have said, I think that our amendment 25 would work better and provide greater clarity. I know he probably will not accept it, but given what he said, will be consider taking a look at it? Knowing the Minister and given his remarks—and his non-grumpiness—I suspect that he will not look at it, but will he go away and look at the wording of section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 to see whether that could apply in this area? The wording is used several times in section 92, which states:

“A person commits an offence who with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor”.

That seems to be a good and consistent means by which the bar for criminal sanctions could be set sufficiently high.

Government amendment 7 would leave out the phrase

“exactly or substantially to that design”

and insert instead

“exactly to that design, or…with features that differ only in immaterial details from that design”.

Government amendment 9 and, to an extent, Government amendment 11 are similar to that. I am concerned about those. Does not the wording of those amendments merely deal with counterfeits, rather than infringement or deliberate copying? Should not that precise wording be looked at again? The Alliance for Intellectual Property has suggested a form of words that is consistent with article 10 of the Community design regulation. We are willing to look at that again and, if necessary, return to it on Report. I hope that the Minister will pledge to do the same, to ensure that his intention is right.

This is an important part of the Bill. We have a shared aim to ensure that innovation and creativity is established and reinforced, and our amendments would help do that. I hope the Minister agrees.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

I want to probe the Minister further on the significant introduction of intentionality, which adds a state of mind to the issues we are considering. He is right to explain that it is a well established legal concept, but the potential problem is that, in adding that state of mine, we can get into a legal hinterland with a lot of litigation attached.

There are concerns, frankly, that we should simply allow the Bill to apply to deliberate infringement of unregistered designs, which would bring it into parity with existing trade mark and copyright law. In a sense, introducing an extra state of mind, which is what mens rea does, is unnecessary. Does the Minister foresee a lot of litigation on this issue? The Committee will be taking an important step if it moves in the direction of intentionality in such a way. Are we, as it were, copper-plating the legislation?

This measure is different to copyright law as set out in section 107 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, under which simply the intent to act is sufficient—the actus reus—as is established in criminal proceedings. I want to probe the Minister further on the introduction of intentionality and to put on record the concerns of those in Anti-Copying in Design that the Bill will make it far harder to land on those who seek to copy in such a way.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

The two lines of criticism that we face are interesting. We have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman, who was himself a BIS Minister with responsibility for IP, about his concern that adding intention is too tight a requirement. He is worried that we are making the hurdle too high. The purpose of the argument of the hon. Member for Hartlepool, the Opposition spokesman, however, seemed to be to raise the hurdle even higher. The fact that the two Opposition contributions have taken different lines of attack on our provisions suggests that, in the delicate balance we have had to strike on exactly how high the hurdle should be, we have got it about right. We have found a middle way between the two wings of the Labour party represented in the Committee Room.

Jim Dowd (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge)

Will the Minister give way?

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

I look forward to hearing from the third wing.

Jim Dowd (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge)

I am attempting to test the Minister’s thesis. Does he believe that if no one agrees with him, he must be right?

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

That is not, of course, an experience I have ever had, certainly in this Committee. It depends where the lines of attack are coming from, and the two we have heard are very different.

I have to say to the hon. Member for Hartlepool, the Opposition spokesman, that we thought that there was cross-party agreement on it being right to have a criminal sanction for design that matches criminal sanctions in other parts of IP. My expert legal advice is that by the time he had introduced—were he able to—all the different amendments that he is proposing today, they would be hard to enforce in the courts. He would have put in so many extra tests and requirements, that in practice those hundreds of thousands of designers to whom we are trying to offer protection with this legislation would not have the protection to which we believe they are entitled.

We should not forget the ultimate reason for the Bill and the clause. There are small and medium-sized enterprises up and down the country in the design business that are being ripped off. Their designs do not have the protections that they require. It is right to introduce a criminal sanction, but we do not wish to do so in a way that deters legitimate business.

Let me turn to the points made by the right hon. Member for Tottenham. We believe that the use of the word “intentional” is a recognised way of handling the challenge of being absolutely clear that the action has to be intentional. That was always the intention of the clause. He referred to trademark law. Although trademark law and copyright law have provided a forerunner for introducing a new criminal sanction in design law, the rights involved are slightly different, and it is to be expected that different wording will be used. The word “intention” is recognised in other parts of the criminal law.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Hartlepool, challenged me in several respects. First, let me make it clear that my understanding from meetings with the IP Federation and with leading British businesses is that the federation broadly accepts that we have got the balance right. I would be interested to know the date of some of the comments that the hon. Gentleman read out, because it was precisely in order to engage with the concerns of the IP Federation that we tabled the amendments we are discussing.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

The point is simply that this is an economic crime. The fact of copying ought to be sufficient, without having to get into someone’s mind and go into what they intended when they were going about it. It is quite different from criminal law, where one ought to get into whether, for example, someone intended to murder somebody or killed them accidentally. The truth is that this is an economic crime, and it is quite established that in economic crimes, the actus reus is sufficient. That is why the point has been put in that way.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

I do not completely follow the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. Theft is an economic crime, and we are talking about a type of theft. In many areas of criminal activity, having intention is a part of the criminal law. That is simply what we are trying to provide for in the Bill. Although I do not want to repeat myself, I think we have got the balance about right.

I will try to cover briskly, if I can, the comments made by the hon. Member for Hartlepool. He talked a little about the amendments he has tabled, which would introduce the concept of constructive knowledge or intention. We believe that culpable criminal behaviour of the sort he referred to is already adequately covered by the clause. He is worried that businesses would be pulling their products from the stores and that shops would be removing stock for fear of falling foul of criminal sanctions. That is why—this is also relevant to the intervention of the right hon. Member for Tottenham—clause 13 makes it clear that the criminal offence will apply only to businesses that knowingly use a copied design in the course of business activities to profit from that copying. If the business did not know that the design was copied, the offence would not apply. That is how we tackle the Opposition spokesman’s concern that there will somehow be a chilling effect on innovation—by saying that there has to be an intention. In turn, that is what the right hon. Member for Tottenham, from his alternative angle, disagrees with.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

The example I have provided was iPads from Apple, Galaxy tablets from Samsung and Carphone Warehouse. As the judge said in that case, the iPads and tablets look similar when they are sitting on the table, so would Carphone Warehouse and other retailers not say, “They look far too similar. I am going to be very risk averse in my business operations,” and thereby restrict choice? Surely there will be a reduction in innovation and consumer choice as a result of what the Minister is saying.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

Our view is that, if a company uses a product that is an intentional copy of a registered design, knows it is doing so and makes a profit into the bargain, it is right that it should be caught by the new offence. That is what we are dealing with.

I will now take the opportunity to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s arguments on his amendment 26, and try to offer the Committee a practical example. His amendment would require that someone “sells” the product, rather than simply uses it. Let me give a practical example of why the amendment, like so many of his amendments, is too restrictive. Imagine someone is running a successful and profitable coffee shop using a coffee machine that they know is a copy of a genuine producer’s machine. They bought a cheapo copy of a serious coffee machine at a market and are using it as part of their business. They are selling not the coffee machine but coffee, and are knowingly using as part of the process of making that coffee a piece of equipment that is an illegitimate copy.

We think the act of using a product like that should be caught within the framework. But under the amendment, if people knowingly purchased copies of products or goods to use as part of a production process, unless they were directly selling the products themselves, they would not be caught. Again, it is a matter of striking a balance, but we think that in those circumstances people who are knowingly using designs that have not been properly paid for should be culpable.

Mark Pawsey (Conservative, Rugby)

As somebody who used to sell coffee machines, what is the burden on the supplier of coffee machines to make certain that he is selling a coffee machine that does not bring his customer into conflicts?

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

One of the great things about the House of Commons is that on any subject on which one speaks there is always in the Chamber or in Committee a real expert.

Dai Havard (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

There is always somebody.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

Indeed. There has to be genuine intention at every stage. They have to know what they are doing. We are bringing in the amendments about intention precisely so that this crucial issue is covered. We have to be clear that it is intentional. We believe we have got the balance right.

Innovation matters. I should like to touch briefly on the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Hartlepool. He raised the issue of follow-on innovation. We understand that that is indeed part of the innovation process and we need to protect follow-on innovation. That is why we have clarified in clause 13, where the criminal sanction bites in particular, that the copy must be exact or differ only in immaterial details. That is a well understood test. Again, that is the reason why we are bringing in that clarification. It protects follow-on innovation that has extra features that mean it no longer differs only in immaterial detail.

I hope I have explained that we have struck a balance here. We do not want to make the test so rigorous and bring in so many extra requirements as to make the protection for designers unenforceable. Nor do we want to catch people who unintentionally find themselves using a product or a service where they could not reasonably be expected to have known what they were doing. We believe we have got the balance right. We have listened to the IP Federation and to British business. I hope that the Committee will support the amendments.

Dai Havard (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

Before I put the Question, could I explain that I have to go through a series of procedural activities where I have to put each of these things individually? Mr Wright has indicated that he wants some of these things to be on the record, so I cannot group them together.

Gordon Birtwistle (Liberal Democrat, Burnley)

On a point of order, Mr Havard. We do not appear to have dealt with amendment 26, unless I missed that.

Dai Havard (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

Mr Wright indicated earlier that that was a probing amendment and he did not want to press it. Thank you for that—we need to make sure that we have got the record correct and that I have not omitted something.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 13, page 12, line 13, at end insert—

‘(7A) In this section “design right” includes an unregistered community design and a reference to the owner of the design right is also to be read as a reference to the owner of a community design right in a design.’.

The amendment would deal with extending criminal sanctions to unregistered designs. I do not understand the Government’s logic on this issue, so the amendment is to probe the Minister on the inconsistency in handling between registered and unregistered designs in the clause. As I have mentioned, about 4,000 designs are registered in the UK each year, with a similar number registered through the European regime. However, between 18,000 and 25,000 unregistered designs are lodged with Anti-Copying In Design’s database.

Given the huge contribution of design to the economy, it seems reasonable to assume, as the evidence suggests, that the vast majority of designs in the UK are unregistered. That has a valuable place for designers in the IP framework. The Minister in the other place confirmed as much when he said in Committee that

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

He also said:

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

My simple question, which is the reason for the amendment, is this: if that is the case for unregistered rights, why not for registered rights? How is that a consistent position?

The Minister may recall that on Second Reading I mentioned the risk that unscrupulous companies might identify unregistered designs, register them for themselves and then say to the original designer, “You’ve infringed our registered design. We will make sure that a criminal case is brought against you for deliberately copying our registered design and you may go to prison for 10 years. You can avoid that by paying us a large fee, or by assigning us the rights of that design for us to exploit commercially.” How does the clause protect small and micro-firms or help to promote innovation? The amendment would at least provide some consistency and might prevent that scenario from happening.

If the Government are intent on providing criminal sanctions for registered designs—we discussed during the previous debate how that is quite a controversial “if”—with the intention being to protect designers to the fullest extent of the law in a manner consistent with trade marks, surely they should extend those measures to unregistered designs. The purpose of the amendment is to ascertain why the Government do not propose such a consistent approach between registered and unregistered designs, given that one purpose of the Bill is to simplify the IP regime. I am interested in hearing what the Minister has to say on that.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

To support what my hon. Friend said, we are living in an age that is driven by social media and the internet, which provides more and more opportunity for young people, particularly given the nature of the economy, to sit at home and apply what they have learnt through design courses and other things and innovate, but they may not choose to register at that stage. They require protection and it is surprising that, in a Bill that seeks to address the world as we see it today, unregistered designs do not seem to be recognised by the Department. It is important that the Minister speaks to that element of innovation in IP design.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

I am impressed that the Opposition have a united front on one issue before the Committee. The former Minister and the Opposition spokesman have both raised the issue.

We disagree with the Opposition. Clause 13 pertains to a criminal offence, and it would be hard to extend it from registered to unregistered design rights because it is difficult to establish ownership of a design protected under unregistered design rights without the accessibility and certainty of a public register. There are also technical problems with the drafting of the amendment, and it is not totally clear how it would work. It could cover both EU unregistered designs and UK unregistered designs, or only EU unregistered designs. Nevertheless, I understand that the hon. Gentleman’s purpose is to extend criminal sanctions to unregistered designs.

The Government strongly oppose the amendment because the unregistered right comes into being automatically once a design has been recorded in a design document or an article has been made. It does not require any registration or other process of defining that right. Due to the nature of the unregistered design right and the informal way in which it arises, it is not desirable to create a criminal sanction for a number of practical reasons.

Perhaps it will help the Committee if I give another practical example. This is from the sofa industry. I am sure I will discover that there is an hon. Member here who made his career in the sofa business and can correct me, but I will live dangerously and offer the example of sofa design.

Dai Havard (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

If it helps you, Mr Willetts, I make chairs.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

Then, Mr Havard, you may find this even more interesting than the rest of our proceedings.

The design of a sofa could include unregistered design rights covering, for example, the legs, the base, the body or the arms. If a case about an unregistered design in a sofa were brought to a criminal court, it would need to establish whether the right actually exists—for example, which parts of the design are original—who, if anybody, owned the right in any of the protected elements, and whether there were different time scales left to run. That would be hard to do in the absence of a register. That is before I turn to the problem of whether the amendment would apply to designs protected across the whole of the EU and whether it would be necessary to track owners in different countries, which would be very complicated indeed. Essentially, we would be trying to introduce a criminal sanction in an area in which it is simply not reasonable to expect people to know whether they are infringing a right.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

I follow the Minister’s point, but will he assure the Committee that, if somebody labours away to make a chair with a blade and a saw and puts it on an internet site for people to admire and casually buy it, some big multinational will not be allowed to steal and register the design, then pick on the small man? That is the point that the Minister ought to address, but perhaps he is too close to his friends in big business.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

The purpose of the clause is the opposite. When Mr Havard makes a leg for a chair or puts a pattern of cane work on the seat, he cannot be expected to know whether there is an unregistered design that covers part of what he is doing. The Government, unlike the Opposition, are trying to ensure that Mr Havard does not find himself facing criminal sanctions.

We are talking about a criminal sanction, and we want to ensure that we have a reasonable test. The point about unregistered design rights is that they are not on a register, if that is not too circular. If they are not on a register, the force of a criminal sanction would be very severe. There are, of course, civil remedies for unregistered rights. The question is whether a person should be able to use the power of criminal law in a place in which it is not reasonable to expect people to know whether they are infringing a right. That is the central disagreement between the Government and the Opposition. I believe that on this matter, as on the matter we have just discussed, we have got the balance right.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I mentioned earlier that there are about 4,000 registered designs every year and about 18,000 to 25,000 unregistered designs that ACID alone knows about. One of the reasons why there are so few registered designs is that there is a cost. It costs around £60 for a simple design to be registered. Does the Minister think that behaviour will alter as a result of clause 13? Is one of the purposes behind clause 13, in not having unregistered designs as part of the criminal sanctions, to push people away from unregistered on to registered and provide a revenue stream for the IPO?

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

That really is not the purpose. That is a very unfair allegation. What we are trying to do is very simple and reflects the advice we have had in Hargreaves and since: we are trying to provide better protection for designers. We think it is reasonable to apply criminal sanctions for the first time to protect designers but we are saying that it has to be a registered design. We think that that is reasonable. While no database is totally comprehensive, we understand that the UK and the EU’s publicly accessible, formal registers contain approximately 728,000 design registrations which are in force in the UK. So there is a lot of registered design out there.

There are the private databases too, such as ACID, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It is an example of an industry successfully helping itself. It is a way of bringing out more clearly the identity of unregistered designs. However, it is not a comprehensive list. It is only open to members. It has an annual cost and it is not representative of the numbers of unregistered design rights that are created in the UK. We believe that we have got the balance right. As I began by saying, we are talking here about a criminal sanction. This clause is about criminal sanctions going beyond civil sanctions. Applying criminal sanctions to an unregistered design which people cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of is to get the balance wrong.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

The Government have an entirely inconsistent position on this. I do not think the Minister has properly explained this and nor did the Minister in the other place. If we accept the need for criminal sanctions and we want to protect designers in this country, in order to have consistency, it should be for registered and unregistered designs. I am concerned that the small designer with very few resources will be picked on by the large companies here. I do not think that the Minister has offered an adequate explanation. We will come back to this at a later stage. I should like to reflect on what the Minister has said. I am unconvinced by his argument. I still maintain it is inconsistent and illogical but I do not want to delay progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 20 - Freedom of information: exemption for research

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 20, page 18, line 15, leave out ‘obtained in the’ and insert

‘created or obtained in the planning of’.

Clause 20 amends the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to provide an exemption for information contained in the course of or derived from a programme of research. That is a welcome step, which helps to safeguard the reputation of research institutions in the UK. It helps to ensure that bits of research are not published through freedom of information legislation without going through a proper and rigorous process of evaluation and peer review, which could lead to a piece of work leading to the wrong conclusions and undermining the reputation of the researcher and his or her institution. There is little virtue in that. Clause 20 is therefore a good clause that helps the comparative advantage of UK universities and research institutions across the world.

However, amendment 33 is designed to clarify the precise point at which the exemption can apply. The amendment proposes to add words to proposed new section 22A of the 2000 Act so that it reads:

“Information created or obtained in the planning of, course of, or derived from, a programme of research is exempt information if”.

I am grateful to the Wellcome Trust and to others for flagging up this matter. The amendment would ensure that the exemption from freedom of information legislation would include the planning stages from initial ideas; designing a specific programme; obtaining funding; preparation of experimental phase; execution of experiments; analysis of results; and preparation for publication. The additional words in amendment 33 would clarify that the pre-experiment stages of research would also be covered by the Bill. I believe that is the intention of the Government, and I hope that our proposal is seen as being helpful and constructive. I therefore hope the Minister will look favourably on amendment 33.

I have received this morning—as might other members of the Committee—a letter signed by the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Campaign for Science and Engineering, the Institute of Physics, and the Society of Biology. It states:

“The UK has a highly productive research and development sector and activity in universities and publicly-funded institutions is a key driver of this success. The UK is rightly considered a powerhouse of innovative ideas and insights that generate research opportunities and lead to new knowledge, understanding and products.”

With regard to amendment 33, the letter continues:

“Should this degree of clarification not be possible, we request that it be confirmed by the Committee that the wording of Clause 20 is already intended, and would be implemented, to cover information created during the planning phase of a research programme.”

I hope the Minister will be able to clarify and confirm that.

I do not know whether you plan to have a clause stand part debate, Mr Havard, but I would like to add one further thing, so that we can progress quickly. I am aware that some stakeholders have stated that the clause is equivalent to section 27 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and so provides a degree of consistency. However, while I was swotting up last night on Apple v. Samsung—I want to mention that to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth—I checked the wording of the 2002 Act. Section 27(2)(b) states that

“disclosure of the information before the date of publication would, or would be likely to, prejudice substantially”.

It therefore has the additional word “substantially”, in a way that proposed new section 22A of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not. Can the Minister explain why that word is omitted in clause 20? Will he also pledge to provide consistency in freedom of information legislation by tabling an amendment on Report to include the word “substantially”? I am interested to hear why there is a differing approach.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

I should explain that what we are doing in clause 20 is responding to a request from the Select Committee on Justice, and a request I received from the research and scientific community, that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 be amended to provide additional protection for pre-publication research by giving the same specific protection as exists in Scotland—the so-called Scottish exemption. This clause is therefore about repeating the provision that already exists for Scotland.

On the final question raised by the hon. Member for Hartlepool, there are a couple of minor drafting issues. One concerns the need to show prejudice, rather than substantial prejudice. The Scottish Act requires public authorities to show that release of the requested information would, or would be likely to, cause prejudice and thus release of the information would not be in the public interest. This terminology is inconsistent with the drafting of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which we have in the rest of the UK, which we are amending with clause 20.

We are trying to stick within the framework of the FOI legislation that we have but, with that one minor drafting point, deliver what is called the Scottish exemption. The substance of this clause therefore creates parity with Scottish organisations already protected by section 27(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. We believe that that is a welcome measure—it is what was urged by the research community and was debated widely in the other place.

Duncan Hames (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

One of the “others” referred to by the hon. Member for Hartlepool was my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on Second Reading. I am glad that this is the view that he has come to. Is there any evidence supporting that analysis that might give some confidence to the rest of the Committee?

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

Let me turn to that, because we have two problems with the proposal from the Opposition, which we have considered carefully. I have received the letter from the learned societies—I see a distinguished representative of the Royal Society of Chemistry in the Public Gallery—and I would say that there are two objections. Our first concern is that there is no evidence from Scotland of any cases or problems in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 with the Scottish exemption as it currently stands. I am not aware—and neither is the research community—of a single case where a scientist or researcher has found that his or her lab notes, which were being prepared, were successfully secured under a FOI request because of the supposed defect in the legislation that the amendment tries to tackle. As yet, this is not a problem that has occurred in the real world. The Scottish exemption is deliberately constructed so as to try to provide the protection that researchers seek.

I undertake to the hon. Member for Hartlepool, the House, the Committee and the learned societies that if at any point we find that there is a genuine problem in the real world and that academics’ lab notes are being obtained under FOI—despite the range of protections that exist in FOI legislation at the moment—that would be something that we would review and consider. At this stage, we are responding to a request from a Select Committee of this House to introduce the so-called Scottish exemption. That is our first objection: that there is no evidence whatever that this is actually a problem.

The second objection is that we think that there is a good argument for a UK-wide regime and that if we try to make subtle differences between FOI legislation affecting researchers in Scotland and those in the rest of the UK, it might cast doubt on Scottish legislation, which we think meets the purpose. We think that having one framework of FOI legislation works well, which is why, for us, moving towards the Scottish exemption makes sense. Having a subtle difference in drafting between our regime and the Scottish regime, because of a supposed weakness in the Scottish regime, would open up a can of worms in the implementation of FOI legislation. We therefore do not believe that this is necessary.

This issue has arisen at quite a late stage, and I recall the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on Second Reading. The best I can do is to say that we really will keep an eye on it, to see whether it ever becomes a problem in the research community. So far, all the evidence we have had from Scotland is that the Scottish exemption is working well. On that basis, we believe that applying that into English law, as requested by the Justice Committee, is the right way forward.

Dai Havard (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

It is not normal practice to refer to those in the Public Gallery. However, I will say that this Bill has not had substantial pre-legislative scrutiny—but then again, it has had lots of pre-legislative scrutiny, because the discussion has been around for years, it seems to me. The introduction of people’s opinions from outside in the published evidence and quotations from learned societies help us in our debates. They also help the public to do the proper thing in understanding the purpose and intention of what we do in the legislative process. From that point of view, I am quite pleased to refer to those things.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

The Minister’s response was somewhat curious. I expected a more positive approach, based on what the learned societies have been saying. He seems to be suggesting one or two things, the first of which is: “If it becomes a problem, let’s legislate.” However, we are here now; we can pre-empt anything and put it in the Bill for the avoidance of any doubt. I would have thought that the Minister would be more amenable to that, to help to protect the integrity and reputation of UK universities and other institutions that carry out fantastic, world-class research. The Minister has not convinced me about the Scottish legislation. I will seek to withdraw the amendment, but we will need to look at this issue again, perhaps on Report, to see what can be done. The problem could be solved quite easily, to provide certainty and consistency.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, perhaps I can help in one further respect. There are already protections in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which we believe would cover the research community. I am about to refer to terms that are not legally defined, but section 43 of the 2000 Act protects trade secrets. It protects the commercial interests of any person. We believe that those protections would be available to researchers, in the unlikely event that they faced such a challenge. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman some extra comfort.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I want to reflect on both the clarification that amendment 33 would have provided and the example of the Scottish FOI exemption. We will come back to this issue on Report, but in order to make progress this morning, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

New Clause 1 - Director General of Intellectual Property Rights

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause stems from the fact that the UK needs a champion for intellectual property. IP matters, and it is growing in importance in the modern world. Things such as digitisation, open sourcing, the growth of intangible assets and investment in brands show that the world economy is changing and that the nature of economic value is altering. Assets, and the potential to derive revenue streams from those assets, are not just physical bricks and mortar or plant and machinery. That is why Twitter, with hardly any physical assets or content costs, is forecasting earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of 30%, and why investors, rightly or wrongly, are prepared to value the company today—this morning, because I checked—at $62 a share. Twitter is now worth $33 billion.

Let us not get into the arguments about valuing tech or social media companies, but what I have described points to IP being a leading contributor to nations’ comparative advantage and future economic growth. The notion of how IP fits into and co-ordinates with other parts of Government policy and how that interacts with the wider private sector is important, yet IP is very often seen as a minor matter in Government. It does not help that responsibility is seen to be split between BIS and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is welcome that the present Minister, Viscount Younger of Leckie, now at least has “intellectual property” in his title, although it is disappointing that the Prime Minister does not actually know who his IP Minister is.

It was said in the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s report on creative industries that Google has more access to No. 10 than the IP Minister. To put Lord Younger’s exact words on the record, he said:

“Google is one of several search engines, and I am very aware of their power, put it that way. I am also very aware, I think, that they have access, for whatever reason, to higher levels than me in No. 10, I understand.”

In contrast, the United States now has an IP tsar—or, more accurately, the office of the US intellectual property enforcement co-ordinator, which is a great title—with a direct reporting link to the President. The office states on its website that it is

“dedicated to the protection of the American intellectual property that powers our economy. American entrepreneurs, business owners, and the general public are best served by an economy that fosters and protects our global competitive advantage, which must discourage intellectual property theft while protecting the constitutional rights of our citizens. Our office strives to make sure that the Federal government takes the most appropriate action to realize those goals.”

The website continues:

“President Obama and Vice President Biden are acutely aware that intellectual property—the ideas behind inventions; the artistry that goes into books, music, and film; the valuable trade secrets that preserve a company’s market edge—is an integral part of the US economy. Infringement of intellectual property can damage our economy and undermine American jobs. Infringement shrinks markets and opportunity, hurts export prospects, threatens health and safety, and funds criminal syndicates around the world.”

The job of the IP tsar

“is to coordinate the work of the Federal government in order to stop illegal and damaging intellectual property theft.”

Therefore, my question to the Minister is: if the US—which is the most open, free market nation on earth and the champion of dynamic entrepreneurship and technological innovation—has such a role for protecting and championing IP, can we not have a similar role?

A year or so ago, the all-party parliamentary intellectual property group produced a report on the role of Government in promoting and protecting intellectual property. Several members of that group are also members of the Committee, and I hope they will be able to catch your eye, Mr Havard, so that they can discuss the report—it is a good report, with lots to commend in it. I was particularly taken by its recommendation for a strong IP champion. The report states:

“We are concerned that the IPO is not a champion of intellectual property and from their evidence, they do not see this as their role. This needs to be rethought. The US has clearly benefited from having an IP tsar, and whilst we wouldn’t necessarily want to go down that route, we do think the Minister needs to become a champion of IP. We would like to see a small unit within the IPO fulfilling that role or if they are unwilling to, a small team in BIS undertaking that function.”

We can discuss—as I hope we will—the merits of having a director general as an IP tsar, as the new clause proposes, or the Minister being its champion. The key point I want to stress with our new clause, however, is the need for an individual to promote, co-ordinate, educate and protect on all matters relating to IP.

Mike Weatherley (Conservative, Hove)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

On Second Reading, the hon. Gentleman, who has extremely good knowledge of IP, was pitching for the IP tsar role. I am happy to give way, for him to provide the Committee with his CV.

Mike Weatherley (Conservative, Hove)

I should clarify that I did not actually pitch for the role; I, among other notable people in the Chamber at that time who had equal qualifications—or perhaps even better—mentioned that perhaps we should consider that. The hon. Gentleman mentions the options, but he has not said who the director general would report to, whether the role would be necessary by law or whether someone could be appointed in any event. I am slightly concerned by that, so will he say why this measure needs to be enshrined in law and who the director general would report to? If it should be the IPO, will he say why?

I was part of the all-party parliamentary group that, as the hon. Gentleman said, was quite critical of the way the IPO was running. I would be worried if the director general was just another role within that. It needs to be outside, although I do not think we have enough time in discussing the Bill to debate the nuances of how that should come into force. I do, however, agree entirely with the principle of what the hon. Gentleman says. Will he answer those points?

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

The hon. Gentleman is being far too modest. His knowledge and experience make him an ideal candidate to be the IP tsar—I would have thought that the Prime Minister would want him for that role anyway, as his IP enforcer on the Back Benches. The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Reporting lines are a matter that the Committee needs to consider. Should the line from the director general go to the permanent secretary, directly to the Secretary of State or, as in the US, directly to the Head of Government? That would be an interesting debate.

The point I want to make is this. Where is the champion and co-ordinator of IP across Government? At the moment, that is simply not happening and not being given the consideration that it deserves. The purpose of the new clause—and, I think, the recommendation from the all-party parliamentary group—is to say that IP matters more than ever in the developing global economy and we are good at it, but we need to ensure that we maintain that competitive edge. One way we can do that is by having someone who champions it. At the moment, the Minister is not doing that. At the moment, this issue is seen as a secondary consideration.

Sam Gyimah (Conservative, East Surrey)

Shame!

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I am not suggesting that the Minister is saying that, but the Minister in the Lords admitted that Google gets to see No. 10 far more than he does. This matters and it needs to be considered. I therefore hope that the new clause will facilitate a discussion of the need to co-ordinate and champion IP across Government and the wider economy.

Dai Havard (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

Mr Turner will chair this afternoon. My only declaration of interest is that I do not have substantial property and I am not normally regarded as an intellectual—so I have obviously been the right man to chair your Bill so far.

Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour, Bradford South)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. Where does intellectual property lie, whose responsibly is it, who should be the lead person? My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool, in moving new clause 1, said that we should have a director general. I am agnostic about that. It is a good idea. It develops the idea that somebody needs to be responsible. We have referred before in Committee to the report from the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport about creative industries and how important they have become. The Minister might be able to reassure us that, although the new clause may not be the right route, there will be a way forward.

With no disrespect to Viscount Younger of Leckie, I do not think that it is appropriate that the person with responsibility for intellectual property is in the other place. Given the importance of IP in the creative economy, there should be someone in the Commons, whether a Minister, a director general or whoever. The hon. Member for Hove and I have already discussed it, and I am happy to support his candidacy. I hope the Minister can point us in the right direction of where the thinking is. He might have to reflect and speak to other members of the Government, but the way things are moving, the sector will grow and develop. On the back of the Select Committee report, there is an important opportunity and it is time to get things right by having a dedicated person to look at IP.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

May I welcome you, Mr Turner, once again to the Chair? As the hon. Member for Hartlepool said before lunch, the new clause would create a new statutory role of “director general of intellectual property rights”, with a duty to promote intellectual property rights. We have several cross-currents there. One is about membership of the House of Lords. Before the election, the then Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who was responsible for IP among many other things, was—

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

A former Member for Hartlepool.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

Exactly, and I am sure he only went to the House of Lords to create a vacancy for young talent to come through. And what a successful move that was. This Committee is not the place to object to some Ministers being in the House of Lords. It is how successive Governments have functioned. We have an excellent team in BIS. Viscount Younger is the Minister responsible for IP. That is what he does and he steered the Bill successfully through the other place. John Alty, whom I know and deal with, is the chief executive officer and—in the old language of the civil service—comptroller general at the Intellectual Property Office. Then, and this gives me particular pleasure, we have my hon. Friend the Member for Hove, acting as the Prime Minister’s adviser on intellectual property. I can only describe them as three wise men.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

All men.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

There is another issue about gender diversity.

We have a clearly defined team and we should judge them by the quality of their output. Since 2010, by commissioning the Hargreaves report and implementing many of its findings, we have made progress—more progress, if I may say so, than the previous Government, who commissioned the Gowers report, which had a significant overlap with Hargreaves, but did not make much progress in implementing its findings.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

The Minister is setting out the current approach, but does he think that that approach to championing IP and co-ordination across Government is satisfactory and will not be subject to change or reform at all?

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

We are always open to review and reform, but perhaps I can point out to the Committee what has been happening. I have with me successive Government reports on copyright and IP, many of which reached similar conclusions. They were all about modernising copyright, and the issue is not whether one can produce yet another report on copyright, but whether one can do something about it. Not with one great big omnibus Bill but with successive legislation, both primary and secondary, the team have made more progress in grappling with tricky issues than they have done in the past. I do not feel at all defensive. We have a good team that is performing well—that can be judged by the fact that our intellectual property regime is widely accepted to be one of the best in the world—and we are getting on with implementing Hargreaves. Of course, we keep the machinery of government under review and if specific issues arise, we are always up for looking at how our system is functioning.

We have an excellent triumvirate steering policy in this area. I presume that the proposal for a new director general of intellectual property rights is another paybill for the civil service, which would create another office and another set of supporting officers. We in BIS are busy reducing our overhead. We have reduced our civil service and administrative costs by more than 20%, and we continue to bring them down. The last thing that we need is legislation urging us to create new civil service posts. We have a regime that works well and we are successfully holding down costs.

The hon. Member for Bradford South mentioned the links to the creative industries and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Of course, there is an overlap; although BIS is the main Department responsible for IP, certain issues fall to the DCMS. There we have the creative industries council, which is co-chaired by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—another excellent team—who ensure that the overlap between DCMS responsibility for creative industries and our responsibilities for IP is properly dealt with. I should mention that the council is also co-chaired by Nicola Mendelsohn.

Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour, Bradford South)

The Minister is right to point out that the creative industries council exists, and I welcome that, but there is a feeling that its membership is too large and that it does not get down to the detail of issues. IP is sometimes lost in the framework of the discussions around the council. For me, the issue is that IP is becoming more important. I accept what the Minister has said about the variety of ministerial teams involved, but we need to look at whether we are accessing the best advice and support, and whether more can be done. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Hove has particular expertise in education, training and improving awareness of IP. As we have heard, some companies involved in the sector do not understand the issues that exist.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to conclude?

Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour, Bradford South)

The Minister needs to be aware that there are issues that must be addressed.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

I am aware. There is an IP sub-group of the creative industries council, so IP is properly dealt with under the auspices of that council, which straddles the two Departments. I think we should be judged not by theories about how organisations should be structured—we have got a perfectly reasonable structure, but it is always open to improvement—but by our output. My view is that our output in getting to grips with IP exceeds that of previous Governments.

Mike Weatherley (Conservative, Hove)

I have two points on that. When the Minister says that he will keep the matter under review, will he assure me that he will look at the American IP tsar model and take representations on its potential effectiveness? Will he also take into account that, when I wrote to each Department to ask when they get involved in IP, the response from each one was, “When we have to.” It must be geared up another level. I accept that it should not be part of such a Bill and that there are lots of questions to be answered on specifics, and so forth, but will he assure me that he will keep an open mind on future representations to bring all the Departments together?

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

Of course, I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that we will continue to consider that important matter. However, I challenge him on one point. IP is a policy responsibility of a dedicated Minister in BIS; it is not something that we randomly do when we have to. We recognised that one challenge facing us was sorting out the IP regime. There have been four or five major reports on that. For the first time, we have a report on which we can act, and we are busy acting. That is one of BIS’s priority activities. However, of course, if people have suggestions—especially my hon. Friend, with his particular responsibilities as the Prime Minister’s adviser on intellectual property—we will always consider those carefully.

For people who are concerned that we need to be doing more on IP, I hope that, during this year, we will bring forward various items, especially of secondary legislation, in the House, implementing yet more of Hargreaves. I tried to set out, in a letter to the Opposition spokesman, which we are putting in the Library, an account of how we will handle a range of regulatory issues. I hope that, at the end of 2014, people will not be saying, “This Department has failed to grip IP”, but will say, “This Department has done a lot to implement Hargreaves”. I look forward to seeing the happy faces of Committee members during subsequent scrutiny of the detailed regulations that we will introduce as part of our energetic commitment to reforming IP.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Turner.

The Minister was talking about modernising copyright. We will come to that during consideration of new clause 2.

It has been an interesting debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South said that he was relatively agnostic about whether a director general or a Minister should be involved. However, IP matters and it needs a champion in Government. How that is perceived, both within Government, to ensure a co-ordinated, not a silo-driven, approach, and across private industry, is vital. The downgrading of the housing Minister’s role, from Minister of State to Under-Secretary, sends out a powerful message that housing does not matter to this Government. I should hate to see such a perception reinforced in respect of intellectual property.

The hon. Member for Hove made a telling intervention, mentioning his writing to Departments, saying that IP is looked at “when we have to.” It needs to be better than that, given that it is going to be a big driver of economic activity in the next few years. New clause 1 was tabled so that we could debate this matter, to ensure that there is a co-ordinating champion’s role for IP.

I understand what the Minister is saying. I hope that he looks on this as a proactive, constructive step to ensure that IP gets the serious consideration that it deserves. However, given what he said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

New Clause 2 - Future of intellectual property

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I still bear the scars on my back that I received during Committee stage of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. I have fresh wounds this week, as a result of this Bill and I know that the Minister has, too. He will know that that Bill originally included clauses providing for secondary legislation to add or remove copyright exceptions. There was considerable concern in Committee, and from stakeholders, about the manner in which the Government dealt with that. The process whereby the Government introduced the proposals for copyright exceptions was universally condemned as mishandled and ill judged.

During the Committee stage of that Bill, I quoted the submission from UK Music, which stated:

“The inclusion of copyright clauses in this Bill came as a surprise to many copyright stakeholders. We widely anticipated copyright legislation, but we did not anticipate that the copyright legislation would be attached to this particular Bill. This ‘surprise’ generated a degree of confusion and alarm amongst our community. This was needless. Better communication between the Government and its key stakeholders would have prevented this.”

The phrase “confusion and alarm” is strong and does not give the impression of a Government with any clear vision of how they wish to move on IP generally and copyright specifically in this country. They did not originally produce any impact assessment for the copyright exceptions part of that Bill. The Minister, when he was discussing new clause 1, said that there was a grand vision and that the Government were moving in a stately manner towards its implementation, but that is simply not happening. It actually suggests that the Government were making it up as they went along, without any due consideration of possible repercussions, the impact on stakeholders or the effect on the competitiveness of our UK creative industries.

The Government have had to backtrack and rethink, but significant problems remain. There are concerns about the lack of clear definitions in many parts of the exceptions. Stakeholders have found so many holes in the proposals that it seems inevitable that they will not be complied with. Perhaps that is why we are still waiting for them to be tabled and debated, as there is again a need to go back to the drawing board.

I am very much aware that some stakeholders believe that there is a strong business imperative to bring about certain copyright exceptions to help with their sectors. We will come to them when we consider the secondary legislation. Conversely, doubts remain in some quarters. I have referred on numerous occasions in Committee to the excellent Select Committee report on the creative industries, which concluded:

“We are not persuaded that the introduction of new copyright exceptions will bring the benefits claimed and believe that generally the existing law works well. We recommend that the introduction or amendment of copyright exceptions should be contemplated only following detailed impact assessments and after proper parliamentary scrutiny on an individual basis.”

I must stress that last point, because it is crucial. There remains a risk that the Government will bundle all the copyright exceptions into one statutory instrument, giving Parliament the opportunity only to say yes or no to the entire package. That is unacceptable given the nuances and differences in some of the proposed exceptions. What the Minister said on Second Reading was fascinating. To my mind, the language that he used appeared deliberately imprecise:

“What the Government intend to do on copyright exemptions is to lay down the regulations in February, and they will then be subject to a debate under the affirmative resolution procedure. We understand the need for individual consideration;”—

this is the key point—

“the regulations will not be completely bundled up.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 83.]

The phrase

“will not be completely bundled up”

leaves open the prospect of some element of bundling in the regulations. We need clarity on the issue. Will the Minister confirm in responding that none of the proposed exceptions will be lumped together, and that all will be subject on an individual basis—that is the key point—to affirmative resolution? What sort of preliminary stage will the Minister offer Parliament to ensure that both Houses are fully aware of the nuances and repercussions of the copyright exceptions?

This goes to the heart of new clause 2. All those things point to ensuring that the Government must set out a long-term vision for intellectual property, rather than undertaking piecemeal and ad hoc attempts to tinker without consulting this House or key stakeholders. It is insufficient to claim that the long-term vision for IP has been set—that Hargreaves has reported, and that the Government are merely implementing his recommendations. Both the BIS and CMS Committees have questioned the evidence used in Hargreaves, and the delay and dither that have characterised the Government’s handling of the copyright exceptions does not give the impression of an Administration confident in their long-term vision and implementing in a stately, steady and certain way their plan for IP.

The Minister said today that the Government have produced reports. It is not necessarily a question now of producing other reports; it is about what they do with them. All the evidence in this part of the IP regime indicates that they have blown it in many respects. They have tinkered and been proved lacking. Before further mistakes are made, the Government should set out a formal and long-term plan. That is the purpose behind new clause 2, and I am interested in what the Minister has to say in response. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

I very much disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said, and I have the evidence. I have here a pile of reports about copyright and IP. I have “Creative Britain—New Talents for the New Economy”, signed up to by a range of Secretaries of State in the previous Government, including the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), then Secretary of State at the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, or DIUS—we used to call it the Department for ironing underwear and shirts. I also have the final report of “Digital Britain”, which was published in 2009 with a foreword by the right hon. Lord Mandelson. The right hon. Member for Exeter also got his smiling face in the foreword. We had other reports, including that by Gowers. We have had a series of reports.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I hope that the Minister has in his pile the much more recent Select Committee report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool referred, which was supported unanimously—the Committee has a Government majority—was highly critical of many elements of the Hargreaves recommendations and advocated exactly what my hon. Friend has just suggested.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

Let me complete what I was saying, because there is a roll of honour. Alongside the right hon. Gentleman I see the right hon. Member for Tottenham. His shining face is in another report, “The Way Ahead—a Strategy for Copyright in the Digital Age”. We have had many reports. We commissioned Hargreaves and we took the decision to implement it. The Government’s clear commitment—there will be a sigh of relief from many members of the Committee, and from others—is to no further broad reviews of the IP rights regime during the lifetime of this Parliament. Instead, we will get on and implement. We are not short of reviews. We do not need a new clause calling for another review. The problem with IP and copyright is not insufficient reviews, but insufficient implementation. We are implementing. That is what the Bill is about, and that is what the other measures we are bringing before the House are about.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

The Minister makes a considerable point, but why, if he is taking action, are we discussing a Bill with 24 clauses, and not the substantive change that most people are waiting for, following the reviews on his desk?

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

We are moving—

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

Slowly.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

No, we are moving to tackle specific issues one by one, and the big prize in the Bill, which I refer to but do not want to delay the Committee on, is better protection for people in the design industry. We are introducing other legislation in other areas. We have introduced some measures, and there are more to come. In my view, that is absolutely correct. There comes a point in any Government at which to stop reviewing and start deciding and doing.

We recognise the particular sensitivities around copyright exceptions. That is not the subject of the Bill, but let me give evidence of our continuing engagement with the issue since the original Hargreaves report. It is estimated that copyright exemptions have been discussed at more than 250 meetings involving Ministers, officials and outside experts since the formal consultation began in early 2012. We are not short of consultation and reviews, so we intend to introduce specific measures in 2014.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool asked questions and said that I had been deliberately imprecise. He asked how many different instruments we can expect, and whether they will be bundled. We are not in a position to say exactly how many different instruments there will be. We are consulting parliamentary counsel on that, but it is important for the accountability of Government and sensible that they be considered separately as far as possible. I was unable in the Chamber or here in Committee to give a 100% assurance that everything would be done separately. Sometimes with parliamentary scrutiny there are good reasons for combining one or more statutory instruments because of the nature of the interaction between the various parts of the law. It may sometimes be for the benefit of everyone to introduce together more than one regulation or statutory instrument for the purposes of more coherent scrutiny, and I hope the Committee understands that. However, our overall intention is that as far as possible there will be opportunities for separate consideration.

We will bring the statutory instruments forward over the next few months and give several opportunities for proper parliamentary scrutiny as we implement, not review, policies that have been clearly formulated.

Jim Dowd (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge)

There is concern about considering the statutory instruments collectively, rather than individually. I am sure that a great deal of work has been done in the Department, and everyone knows the reasons why bundling may be appropriate, but can the Minister give any indication of how many statutory instruments there might be?

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

It is hard to say, when we are still consulting parliamentary counsel. As soon as possible, I will communicate to the Committee, or place in the Library, the proper guidance on how we plan to structure things. I fully understand that as there is a legitimate issue of parliamentary scrutiny, all parts of the House—everyone has an interest—are entitled to see the overall shape of the exercise: the different statutory instruments, how they interact, and how occasionally it might make sense for them to be considered together. I will undertake to share that information with the Committee as soon as possible.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

May I push the Minister further? Several of the issues are controversial—private copying springs to mind, as does parody. Will the Minister commit as much as possible to ensuring that those two examples will be taken separately, so that we can have a proper debate?

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

I believe in proper parliamentary scrutiny. I undertake absolutely, wherever possible, to ensure that there are coherent bodies of regulation before the House. I cannot make a complete commitment that nothing will be bundled, but coherent bodies of regulation will give scope for proper scrutiny of those specific issues. I am also happy to set out as soon as possible, once we have the authority and advice of parliamentary counsel, exactly what we propose for the structure. I undertake absolutely to provide proper opportunities for scrutiny.

Given that we do not yet have the final advice of parliamentary counsel, and that it might be better for all concerned if some of the statutory instruments were considered together, the hon. Gentleman will understand that we cannot 100% guarantee that each one will be considered separately.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

To clarify, the Minister said on Second Reading that regulations would be introduced in February. Is that still the intention, because that does not seem tremendously far away? If so, they must be at quite a late stage in the process, and that would give us a greater idea of the thinking behind the regulations, their structure and their bundling.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

That remains our intention; I cannot put it more strongly than that, can I? I will of course share with the House further information when we have parliamentary counsel’s advice on the overall structure. In the light of those genuine, sincere assurances about proper parliamentary scrutiny, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

The point was well put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham that the Government have been tinkering, and that there is not a long-term view. The way in which they have had to deal with this issue shows that the Government ought to go back and think again. The Minister has not provided a great deal of reassurance. Industry and Parliament are calling out for the best possible parliamentary scrutiny. This is something that we will look at extremely closely, because it is incredibly sensitive to a whole range of creative industries. In order to make progress, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

New Clause 4 - Copyright in broadcast

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the immediate retransmission of the main free-to-air public service broadcasters, or PSBs, by cable in the area where the original PSB channel was broadcast. The purpose of the section was to allow cable operators to retransmit PSB services without agreement, consent or, at times, payment, and without the risk of infringing copyright.

Under the Communications Act 2003, PSBs must offer their PSB channels to cable operators. It is my understanding, however, that the PSBs have to pay for the right for their channels to be carried on satellite platforms. As I have hinted, the purpose of section 73, a quarter of a century ago, was to encourage the roll-out of cable in the 1980s and ’90s as a competing platform to terrestrial television. Everyone is aware that the world of 2014 is different from that of 1988. Consumers access programmes on a vast variety of different platforms, in the way that is convenient for them.

Committee members might be familiar with the recent lengthy court case between TVCatchup Ltd on the one hand, and ITV, Channel 4 and Channel Five on the other, about TVCatchup streaming programmes by public service broadcasters. The High Court judgment on 7 October 2013 stated that TVCatchup had infringed the PSBs’ film and broadcast copyrights by streaming to members of the public. That was mentioned a number of times on Second Reading. Committee members will have seen the comprehensive briefing on this issue from ITV, which is actively looking for section to be 73 repealed.

ITV claims that the current re-transmission and access regime is distortive and unsustainable, and is hindering investment in original UK broadcast content, and says that evidence suggests that changes to the platform access regime will result in event greater investment in content. It says that maintaining the current regulatory arrangements is making it harder to invest in high levels of UK-originated content, reduces income for creators and stifles overall growth in the UK creative industries. Those powerful arguments must be considered carefully. Although section 73 seems to be from a different time, we need to be clear about it and, before we move actively to repeal it, think about the consequences.

In the summer, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport published “Connectivity, Content and Consumers: Britain’s digital platform for growth”. The Minister said confidently that there was a joined-up Government approach on this matter, but it did not seem that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills was involved much in it. I am worried about that, about IP and copyright matters being spread across two Departments, and about the silo approach to government. In that report, the Government stated their wish

“to see zero net charges, where the fees for access to the main platforms and for PSB channels cancel each other out…We are looking closely at how we can help achieve this without allowing other kinds of online services to exploit PSB content, with no benefit flowing to the PSB. ”

They have pledged to

“launch a consultation on this in the autumn, before bringing forward legislative proposals if required.”

Jim Dowd (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge)

I do not know whether other Committee members have received a similar communication, but in fairness, having mentioned this on Second Reading, I should say that I have been contacted by Virgin to say that its current position is that it does not charge for the products to be broadcast, and does not pay for the channels from the PSBs.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

That is a fair point. I understand that some four million cable customers do not have to pay additional charges. I hope that that continues under any subsequent regime. The new clause is meant to be helpful; it is meant to ensure that section 73 is still applicable in today’s digital broadcasting world.

What further plans for legislation might be needed? The new clause ties in well with the consultation that has been aired by the Government and the review that is planned, although the clause might, I hope, bring forward that process. I appreciate that some PSBs are adamant that section 73 should be repealed. However, as I just said to my hon. Friend, outright abolition might hinder the consumer rights of four million people who gain access to PSB content through cable. Virgin has a different approach from ITV. This needs to be looked at carefully; there should be active consideration of all possible consequences and repercussions, and a subsequent discussion on how a clause could be drafted that would meet the Government’s intention for a level playing field for all platforms, and net zero fees either way. I hope that the Minister regards the new clause as constructive and helpful—that is what it is intended to be—and will adopt it as part of the Bill.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

I can offer the hon. Gentleman some comfort: we understand the need to review the effect of section 73. In the Department for Culture, Media and Sport policy paper, “Connectivity, Content and Consumers”, published in August 2013, we set out our policy objective of wanting zero net charges—that is, we wanted fees for access to the main platforms and for public service channels to cancel each other out. That is actually quite close to the current market position. We recognise the issues with section 73 that the hon. Gentleman identified, and we understand the need for further consideration of it.

I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause, which would set a specific deadline by requiring the Government to report on whether section 73 of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 is still necessary and effective within six month of the commencement of the Intellectual Property Act. The difficulty is that, although he used the past tense, the court case that he referred to is going to appeal; the litigation therefore continues. We have to wait for a result in the ongoing litigation about the meaning of section 73. It is not possible to impose timetables for review or resolution until the litigation is resolved, so we cannot accept the timetable that he proposes. However, I can assure him that following the resolution of the court case—whenever that is—the Government will consult on section 73 and the broader framework of checks and balances. In the light of that assurance, I hope that he feels able to withdraw the new clause.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments; that was very helpful. He has only 461 days to go before he has to make room for us in government; I would like to nail down his point on timing and legislative changes, given that there is one Session left of this Parliament. I know that the ongoing court case makes it difficult, but will the Minister give an indication of the time frame, given that investment in UK broadcasting content may be hindered as a result of the ongoing use of section 73? Will he pledge to introduce legislative changes in the next Session?

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

I have said to the hon. Gentleman that the zero net charges policy is not far off the current market position, and I have accepted that there needs to be some kind of review. However, the litigation is proceeding, and the Government have no control over its timing. It would be wrong to set a timetable that we have no capacity to deliver. I repeat my assurance that we intend to conduct a review after the litigation is resolved.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

The Minister is being reasonable and fair. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 5 - Criminal liability

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This should be a quick contribution, because the point is obvious and straightforward. The new clause would increase the criminal penalties for digital copyright offences, so that they were consistent with the criminal penalties for physical copyright theft. [Interruption.] We are not talking about the Stone Roses, although I am more than happy to do so. I am also happy to say that today is the 25th anniversary of the release of New Order’s “Technique”. That was a fine time—New Order aficionados will understand what that means.

Copyright theft should be medium- or platform-blind. Why should online theft be considered differently from physical theft? The new clause seeks to harmonise criminal penalties, making them easier and consistent. Together with the Government’s proposals, it would make trademark, physical copyright, registered design and online copyright theft all subject to 10 years’ imprisonment. If the purpose of the Bill, as the Minister has said on a number of occasions, is to simplify, clarify and provide consistency across the various parts of the IP regime framework, including sanctions, I fail to see why the new clause cannot be accepted.

Mike Weatherley (Conservative, Hove)

I want briefly to echo some of the points made by the hon. Member for Hartlepool, and to clarify some others. We have said many times in Committee, on Second Reading and in many other places—virtually every forum that I go to says the same thing—that this is all about education and understanding. When I said that the two offences should be aligned and that the penalty should be 10 years, I received representations from constituents and others around the country asking why we wanted to lock up people for 10 years for committing what was effectively a victimless crime.

That goes to the heart of the matter. People perceive that the two crimes are different. I would be the first to say that I do not really want anyone to go to jail; I would just like them to stop carrying out the theft. There is probably a strong argument for saying that 10 years for the offline crime is draconian. I do not know the full reasons behind the choice of 10 years, but I know that the two crimes are equally valid and equal attention should be given to stopping them. As the hon. Gentleman said succinctly, people perceive the online crime to be less of an offence, but it is an equal offence. I have some sympathy for the new clause, although more work must be done on whether 10 years is the right length of sentence. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that. I feel that there should be some parity of penalty.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

I understand the points that my hon. Friend makes, and I will tackle them along with those made by the Opposition spokesman. The new clause would increase the maximum penalty for online copyright infringement to 10 years. The current maximum penalty available for online copyright infringement is only two years, which is very different from the 10-year maximum penalty for physical copyright infringement. I fully understand the arguments made by my hon. Friend and the Opposition spokesman against that gap in penalty. The equalisation of penalties has been looked at before, and it was one of the proposals in the Gowers review. After consultation, however, the previous Government decided not to change the custodial sentencing regime.

In many cases, prosecutors can use a range of other offences that carry sentences of up to 10 years—for example, offences under the Fraud Act 2006, or conspiracy to defraud. We have looked at the evidence, and although 10 years sounds like a tough, draconian maximum penalty, the average custodial sentence given for physical copyright offences was 12.7 months in 2011, which is much less than the theoretical maximum. Five years is the maximum actual punishment that any individual has received.

My hon. Friend asked where the proposed 10 years comes from. It has an interesting history, having been proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in a private Member’s Bill more than a decade ago when he was clearly in a Judge Jeffreys mood and wanted some tough penalties. I look forward to telling my right hon. Friend that he set such a tough benchmark that there is now pressure from both sides of the Committee to repeat that for the online offence.

Jim Dowd (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge)

I accept that, but the point is that regardless of the average sentence, the clear implication is that copyright theft is not proper theft, and that if someone does it in one way, they are liable for less of a penalty than if they do it in another. Theft is theft. It is not victimless; it has consequences. The new clause emphasises the issue of equality for those before the law.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hove. There is an issue, so I will explain what the Government propose, in the light of the points just made and our debate on Second Reading. There is a genuine issue, and we do not deny that the gap between the two years and 10 years looks to many outsiders as something that is hard to justify.

We propose undertaking a study of the criminal sanctions available for copyright infringement. We will commission the study shortly, with the aim of its starting early in the new financial year and of publishing its findings before the end of 2014. The study will review the penalties for both physical and online infringement. There is the possibility of reaching an aligned, equal penalty for both online and physical infringement of somewhere between two and 10 years. That would be an option. The study will review the penalties. It will be informed by sentencing data and practitioner views. It will consider the impact of the Government’s recent enforcement initiatives, such as the police IP crime unit, and my hon. Friend Lord Younger, the Minister for Intellectual Property, will lead the exercise.

Although timelines inevitably shift, we expect research and field work to be concluded by around September 2014, with a final report expected in December. Members of all parties recognise there is concern about the gap, and we understand the need to consider it.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I might have missed this, but will the Minister clarify who will carry out the review? He said that the IP Minister in the other place would help to facilitate it, but who specifically will carry out the review?

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

My hon. Friend the Minister for Intellectual Property will be the Minister responsible for leading the review. It will be carried out by the Intellectual Property Office, and it will, as I said, involve commissioning a study that will be conducted by an external organisation. We will commission the study shortly. It should begin in the new financial year and should publish its findings before the end of 2014. It will be by an external organisation. We will shortly put out to tender opportunities for external organisations to carry out that study, reporting to my hon. Friend the Minister for Intellectual Property. I hope that Members on both sides of the Committee will take that as clear evidence that we are indeed serious about looking at this apparent anomaly, and we will identify possible ways forward in tackling it. I hope that, in the light of that assurance that we will address it, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. In our considerations of earlier new clauses, he was incredibly eloquent in saying that the Government were done with reviews, but I am pleased to hear him announcing a review, but I do not want to be churlish, and at this late stage in the Bill’s deliberations I will take what I can get.

Given where we are in the parliamentary cycle, the start of the review at the beginning of the financial year and a reporting deadline at the end of 2014 will make it difficult for the Government to enact any legislative changes. It will fall to the next Labour Government, from May 2015, to do that. However, I am glad about what the Minister has said. It will help provide clarity and ensure that there is consistency between the various forms of copyright theft. Such theft should be medium- and platform-blind, and at the moment it is not. I welcome what the Government are doing and thank the Minister for moving on this matter. I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

New Clause 6 - Lookalikes

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 6 would combat the problems of lookalikes or parasitic packaging, which are products, websites or physical goods and services designed deliberately to look like well-known branded products. The practice is used by rival products to mislead customers into believing that they are buying another, probably better-known, brand. All hon. Members will have seen such things while shopping at the local supermarket—the specific branding, design, colour or wording on, say, a shampoo bottle. I can see that some hon. Members may have more experience of shampoo than others, but let us leave it at that. You are looking at me quite fiercely, Mr Turner.

Certain animals, colours and wording might be used on, say, cereal boxes to make a product look like a branded products. Customers might not be buying the product that they believe they are buying. The reputation of a brand will be undermined as a result, leading to loss of business and an erosion of reputation and brand value. Members may remember the £1 million advertising campaign by Kellogg’s a couple of years ago that stated that the company does not make cereals for anyone else. Kellogg’s values its reputation and brand value, which are an important part of what the company does.

The Minister will be aware that during the passage of the Trade Marks Act 1994—this has been an issue for some time—the Minister at the time undertook to consider the problem. The 2006 Gowers review of intellectual property found that brands in the UK are not well protected. Gowers stated that

“the Review believes that passing off does not go far enough to protect many brands and designs from misappropriation for the following reasons: if copycats appear on the market before the defendant has built up goodwill in a certain appearance, the brand owner cannot rely on the law of passing off. This may prevent new entrants from adequately protecting the appearance of their products; and it is difficult to demonstrate consumer confusion in court and substantial evidence may be required to bring a successful passing off action.”

Lookalikes mislead consumers, making them believe that they have purchased a particular product when they have not, which undermines the brand value for businesses.

The purpose of the new clause is to combat lookalikes. It would not allow a person to use any features of packaging, marking, labelling or decoration in such a way as to allow the public to believe that that person’s goods or services were another person’s goods or services. Subsection (2) makes it clear that it is immaterial whether there is any similarity between the goods or services. Indeed, that is the point. Whether someone is buying shampoo or cereal, the intention is the same. Subsection (3) is necessary to ensure that the provision does not apply to features of packaging that are considered commonplace. The example I mentioned on Second Reading was ready salted crisps, which are generally sold in red packets—that is universally accepted. Similarly, mint toothpastes are often packaged in green, or in some cases red, white and blue. The latter point is more debatable, but the packaging of toothpaste seems to be a common point.

In responding to the new clause, I would like the Minister to respond to points raised both on Second Reading and in Committee on Tuesday on the growing issue of fraudulent websites that look authentic—they look like the real deal. I have mentioned Ugg boots; the HMRC tax returns website and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency website were mentioned in Committee. That is a big issue that is causing real problems. What additional protection will the Government introduce to help improve the situation for consumers? I imagine that such protection may be considered in the Consumer Rights Public Bill Committee, but it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s thoughts while we are considering the Intellectual Property Bill. This a relatively straightforward and long-standing problem that can be resolved, so I hope the Minister will agree to the new clause.

Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour, Bradford South)

I will try to be brief. My hon. Friend is right about search engines, and we have already mentioned the DVLA. Since Tuesday, a large number of Members have recognised the problem, so it would be welcome if the Government took the opportunity to put it right.

On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge talked about Henderson’s sauce, which caused consternation in Yorkshire and Sheffield. He has received a number of e-mails, and there have been stories in local newspapers and on television in Yorkshire. The new clause will give him an opportunity to put the record straight about what he meant when he talked about Henderson’s relish in relation to Lea & Perrins Worcestershire sauce.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I call Mr Dowd.

Jim Dowd (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge)

What a perceptive chap you are, Mr Turner: you did not even spot me stand up before you called me. I will tread as delicately and carefully as I can. On Second Reading I raised the broader issue of what are known—as the title of the new clause says—as lookalikes. It is also known as copycat packaging and, perhaps more pejoratively—this term may be one of the reasons why so many people in Yorkshire have now even heard of me—as parasitic. It was never my intention to upset or offend anybody in Sheffield or Yorkshire more broadly—or anywhere else, for that matter. I was merely attempting to recount an experience that I had just a couple of days before Second Reading. I will not repeat it; I will simply ask people to look at Hansard. Had Second Reading taken place when it was originally scheduled, it would never have happened.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

Blame it on someone else!

Jim Dowd (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge)

Minister! I am shocked!

I recounted in good faith what I encountered at the time. I did not suggest who had copied whose—anyone who reads Hansard will see what the comparison was. All I know is that one company started considerably before the other and they both wound up with considerably similar—I will not say identical—packaging. My apology for upsetting people is on the record; I would just add, before I move on to the broader question, that I am due to visit the Henderson’s company in Sheffield, in my best suit of sackcloth and ashes. I am prepared to be taken through the streets of Sheffield in a tumbrel. That is the price of public life. What astonished me even more was the fact that people actually take notice of what people say in the Chamber of the House of Commons. After 22 years in this place, I find that staggering.

On the broader question, the danger is that the public is being misled. This is not just the question of the IP infringement; there are serious consequences. There is an assumption that somehow the packaging indicates an equivalence of content. It is not just that some people are trying the use the reputation that others have established; they are also trying to indicate that the product has the same construction and the same contents. That has been a particular problem over the years in the motor industry. Substandard and counterfeit parts are sometimes packaged very similarly to genuine spares and genuine replacement parts. That has a huge impact on safety.

The greatest offenders over the years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool pointed out, have been the big supermarkets. I will not mention anybody unless I can help it, but they have mostly gone away from that. There was a time when supermarket own brands were regarded as a cheap replacement for other goods. That time has passed. The big four supermarkets have a sufficient reputation that people will trust their name on a product. It does not need to look like anybody else’s to sustain custom. Of the new entrants to the market—I will mention this company because it is perfectly true—the biggest offender is Aldi. It is clearly running a systematic campaign to provide products that mislead people into purchasing them.

That might be something that people do at the outset of a business, when they are attempting to establish it, but it means that they are relying on the efforts of others, for which they are not paying, to obtain a business advantage. Recently there have been articles in the Consumer Association’s Which? magazine and the Daily Mail—I have both to hand, on my magic box of tricks, although as it happens I cannot access them at the moment for various reasons, so anybody who says that we can rely on new technology should think again. Both articles pointed out the acute similarity to other brands of some of the products that such supermarkets sell. For example, there was Samson’s vinegar—we all know the brand to which that was similar—and a brand of spreadable, unsalted butter called Norpak, in a silver and white package. They have corner yoghurts in similar colours to those of a well known manufacturer. It is not accidental or coincidental; it is blatant and deliberate.

Those articles were interesting, in that they showed that in blind tastings there were many occasions on which people found the Aldi product to be superior to the name brand. The truth is that supermarkets do not actually need to behave in this way. If their products are better quality and provide better value for money—if, from the public’s point of view, they are predictable and reliable—they should let them stand on their own merits. They should not try to mimic others or trade on other people’s reputations; they should be prepared to establish their own credentials. We should do everything we can to ensure that supermarkets do so. The new clause would go some way towards sending a signal to that end.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

That fascinating contribution from the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge will go down in the parliamentary annals as one of the great apologies. One thinks of Nixon telling Frost he had let down the American people. Perhaps more relevant—as the hon. Gentleman will be going to Sheffield—might be Boris Johnson’s trip to Liverpool, which could provide some sort of guidance for him as he prepares his pilgrimage north to apologise. The Henderson’s Relish episode brought the Second Reading debate to life. The hon. Gentleman gave a handsome explanation of what led him to refer to Henderson’s Relish, and I hope he has got himself out of his scrape.

Behind this episode is a genuine issue. Let me briefly share with the Committee the legal framework that already applies in such cases, because there are several relevant legal powers. The first, of course, is the trademark, which gives a powerful monopoly right. A trademark is a significant identifying feature for any brand, and if packaging is distinctive, it can be registered as a trademark in perpetuity—indeed, the first ever trademark registered in the UK is still in use 130 years later. Secondly, there are registered design rights that can protect the appearance of a product, including aspects such as it being novel and of an individual character. There is also the common-law remedy, in tort law, of passing off, which protects a trader’s goods from being represented as those of another.

There is already a legal framework that provides some protection for people in the circumstances that Members have described. Indeed, I am informed that the legislation has been successfully deployed in some cases. Passing off has been used in cases involving Penguin biscuits and Jif Lemon—just two examples that show that it is possible to obtain redress using those means. As well as that legal framework, there is a lively debate about how the economics works out, and what the benefits and issues are. Although we need to be tough on passing off, we must be careful not to stop legitimate competition and challenge to companies.

Let me share with the Committee the further action we are taking in light of the recent concerns about this issue. We are reviewing the consumer protection regulations to examine whether there is a need to give businesses a private right of action, which they could use as an additional means of protecting themselves against lookalikes. The review will consider the nature and scale of any problems associated with the current enforcement arrangements. It will consider the costs and benefits of giving businesses the power that I have described, including any associated effects on competition and innovation, how the power would work and the impact on enforcement of the consumer protection regulations in the UK. We understand the concerns of brand owners, and the review is intended to tackle them.

Again, the new clause has put a legitimate issue on the agenda, but we believe it is deficient, as it does not list the remedies available to the person whose reputation has been attributed to another’s goods due to similar packaging. For that reason alone, we think the new clause is defective, but we are also doing further work through consumer protection regulations.

Let me touch on the issue of copycat websites, which several hon. Members have raised, both on Second Reading and more recently. Again, let me describe briefly what the legal regime is and what more could be done. Businesses on the web are covered by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The regulations are enforced by local authority trading standards officers, who have the power to investigate and take appropriate action if they find that a business is misleading people. The Advertising Standards Authority also has powers and has asked businesses to change the content of their websites where it is misleading. There is the Advertising Standards Authority and there are the unfair trading regulations of 2008.

However, we recognise that there is a particular problem with copycat websites copying government websites. We have a direct interest because it is our websites that are being copied. For that reason, the Cabinet Office has commissioned a cross-Government group to evaluate the problem and seek the best way to deal with it. It is, for example, already engaging with internet search engine providers to mitigate the risks posed, so we are engaging with internet search providers. In addition—I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee know this, but let me reiterate it for public information—one of our welcome reforms means that consumers can now get information on all Government services in one place, via GOV.UK. That is the place for people to go if they are filling in a tax return, applying for a driving licence or trying to get a passport form.

This issue was raised on Second Reading. With the deadline for tax returns coming up, let me state again that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs does not sanction or in any way approve the copycat sites linked to HMRC and will take firm action against any websites that suggest that they are in any way governmental or HMRC-approved.

There is a framework of legislation. We are looking at how we can toughen it. We recognise that we have a particular responsibility for protecting the integrity of government websites. That is what the Cabinet Office is doing. It is already in touch with the internet search engine providers. In the light of that information, I hope that the hon. Member for Hartlepool feels able to withdraw the new clause.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

This has caused me huge problems. My senior caseworker in my constituency office, Tim Mallender, is from Sheffield, and the moment I sat down on Second Reading, he was on the phone, talking about Henderson’s Relish. Henderson’s Relish is a Sheffield institution and has a variety of different labels. Mr Mallender is a Blade—a big supporter of Sheffield United—and it is possible to get red-and-white labels. I understand that another football team is available in Sheffield, which means that it is also possible to get blue-and-white labels. Following Jessica Ennis’s gold medal in the Olympics, it was possible to get Henderson’s Relish with a gold label. This is a big issue in Sheffield, and I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge on it if he ever returns from Sheffield.

Jim Dowd (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, particularly for his last remark, as I have had e-mails telling me that I won’t, although I will put that to one side. I think I may have omitted to say in my remarks what a fine sauce Henderson’s is.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I think my hon. Friend has to be very careful: it is a relish, not a sauce. That is very, very important.

Jim Dowd (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge)

I have a bottle at home, and the label, regardless of its colouring, says “Relish”, but it also says “The Spicy Yorkshire Sauce”.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I am grateful for that clarification. I am sure that my caseworker will acquaint me with that as well.

The Minister has made some progress, which is important. He mentioned a number of important things, including examples of successful changes. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge said that supermarkets have generally moved away from this area.

The Minister mentioned Penguin biscuits—Committee members can see that I am a big fan of biscuits, especially chocolate biscuits. The case that he mentioned related to Asda’s own brand Puffin biscuits. There could be a debate about whether “Penguin” and “Puffin” are too similar, but to be fair to Asda, its packaging is now considerably different from the Penguin equivalent. There is some scope there, but I suspect that the exception proves the rule. I wonder whether the Minister can move further on that.

All stakeholders suggest that the existing IP protection does not work. The Minister mentioned registered IP rights. Designers who produce parasitic copies often design around registered trademark and designs to avoid infringement, while creating a similar overall impression. In terms of copyright, these people are clever and tend to fall short of the substantial reproduction tests required for copyright infringement.

The Minister mentioned, as I did, the concept of passing off, but the evidence required by the courts to show confusion is difficult to obtain. The UK is not fulfilling its obligations in respect of article 10 of the Paris convention, which requires states to ensure that they provide effective protections against unfair competition. Counsels’ opinion that has been provided suggests that the UK is not compliant, which is a view supported in 2006, as I said earlier, by the findings of the Gowers review. However, the Government have not explained their contrary view.

The Minister also mentioned enforcing existing rights, but trading standards have reducing resources and increased responsibilities, and find it difficult to enforce this measure. The Minister’s suggestion is neither adequate nor effective. Is he considering moving further on that? What he said about the private right of action is welcome, and we support that. However, consumers are being misled and the brand value of many well established businesses, including Henderson’s, is being undermined. We need to consider that closely. This has been an issue for the best part of 20 years. I hope that the Minister can move quickly.

Given what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

On a point of order, Mr Turner. Before we conclude, I should like to place on the record my thanks to you and Mr Havard for the excellent way in which you have chaired our proceedings. This has been brisk but effective scrutiny of the Bill, and the 24 clauses and one schedule that comprise it have benefited from our debates, both in the main Chamber and in Committee. I am pleased that we are able to improve the Bill further, with the amendments that were accepted.

I am grateful to Committee members from all parties for their active participation. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool for his careful scrutiny. I thank the usual channels for ensuring that the Bill has gone through so efficiently. I also thank the experts from the Intellectual Property Office and the other bodies representing the industries concerned with this important legislation, who have ensured that the Bill is a welcome and important contribution to improving intellectual property law in this country.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

Further to that point of order, Mr Turner. I thank the Minister for his kind comments. I join him in thanking you for your diligent chairmanship, Mr Turner, and I should be grateful if you passed on his kind remarks, and mine, to Mr Havard, who equally chaired the Committee well.

I thank the Minister for being less grumpy as we went along. It was a pleasure to try to battle with him, and I enjoyed it. I join the Minister in thanking the usual channels—the Government Whip and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth—for the smooth, effective running of business. I am grateful to them for that, and for being as accommodating as possible regarding our debating at length the pressure points in the Bill, such as clause 13 and others. I am also grateful to all Committee members, who have scrutinised the Bill diligently, comprehensively and often silently. That is welcome.

During our deliberations, the Minister said that my amendments were defective. He should have seen them before they passed across the desk of the Clerk. I thank Georgina Holmes-Skelton, the Clerk of the Committee, for providing fantastic help and support and for making my amendments look passable.

I hope that the Bill has shown you, Mr Turner, hon. Members and the wider House and country that IP does matter. It is part of our competitive edge. It ensures that we can pay our way in the world in the 21st century. IP is not a secondary consideration or something to be given and frittered away without due consideration. It is a key part of what makes this country economically viable in the 21st century. It matters. I hope that we have given that subject due regard during discussions of the Bill. I wish the Minister all the very best in making sure that we can retain the best IP regime in the world.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Thank you, Mr Wright. I will pass your comments on to Dai Havard.