My Lords, I understand that the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Young, are keen to discuss the Government’s plans on copyright exceptions arising from the Hargreaves review and their copyright consultation. The Government have already made their vision for the future of intellectual property very clear. They have endorsed the recommendations of Professor Hargreaves after his thorough report. We want to see a framework that maximises growth across the economy, not just for industries that are users of the intellectual property framework but for everyone.
I will set out for your Lordships a number of documents that establish the Government’s strategy for intellectual property. These include the report by Professor Hargreaves himself, published in May 2011; the Government’s response accepting the professor’s recommendations, published in August 2011; an international intellectual property strategy published in the same year, as well as an IP crime strategy covering a five-year cycle; and, most recently, the Modernising Copyright document, to which the amendment refers, which flowed directly from the Government’s response to the Hargreaves review and their subsequent copyright consultation that ran from December 2011 to March 2012. Taken together, the documents very clearly lay out the Government’s vision for intellectual property as an essential element of growth, and back up that vision with real plans for the next five years. Those plans are reflected in the IPO’s corporate plan, which I, as the Minister for Intellectual Property, have signed off.
I also remind noble Lords that the previous Government conducted many of their own reviews, such as the Gowers review, Digital Britain, Creative Britain and the 2009 copyright review. Following this number of reviews, now is the time for action and implementation, and I am pleased to say that this Government are now moving to implementation.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his engagement and interest in the Government’s plans to implement their proposed changes to copyright exceptions. This work, as the noble Lord is aware, is being taken forward not in the Bill but through secondary legislation, which we will all have ample time to debate. However, I understand why the noble Lord has raised the issue and recognise that while many are in favour of the proposed changes, some stakeholders still have concerns. Therefore, I will now try to respond.
First, the noble Lord asked for more information about the timetable for the technical review of copyright exceptions that the Government are conducting. As the noble Lord indicated, the IPO is seeking comments on the first set of draft exceptions by 17 July and has offered open meetings in the week of 8 July. This first set of technical drafts covers proposed new exceptions on private copying, parody, quotations, and changes to the existing exception for public administration. The next set of technical drafts will cover education, preservation and archiving, research and private study, and text and data mining. It is my intention that these will be published before the end of the week.
This will leave one remaining exception: that for disabilities. However, noble Lords may be aware that the UK is currently involved in discussions in Marrakech to agree a treaty on improving access for the visually impaired to published works. Therefore, it may be necessary to await the outcome of that important work before issuing proposals to update the disability exemption. I am sure that all noble Lords support this important work, which has the aim of facilitating access to books for visually impaired people across the world.
On the time available for public comment, the Government are keen to ensure that sufficient time is provided for all the technical drafts to be considered
properly. Therefore, the same time to comment—six weeks—will be allowed for each technical draft. If any noble Lords here today wish to respond to the technical review exercise, the Government will be very happy to hear from them. In addition, I will be happy to meet any noble Lords who have a keen interest in this area.
I now turn to how, subject to satisfactory completion of the technical review exercise, the Government plan to bring the draft legislation before this House and the other place. These are statutory instruments, but the Government have committed to lay them before each House for affirmative resolution. This will provide an opportunity for Parliament to comment and to express its views. The noble Lord expressed concern about the time to debate the issues. I do not share the noble Lord’s fear that there will not be enough time for discussion on these issues. This House and the other place do not seem to shy away from debates on copyright. Copyright exceptions have already been the subject of debate on the Floor of both Houses in the context of the ERR Act and have been scrutinised by not one but two Select Committee inquires. However, I recognise the great interest in this area and, as I indicated, during the passage of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, the Government remain open to the idea of additional debates on the draft regulations if there is a desire from members of this House and of the other place. I am happy to repeat that offer here today.
5.45 pm
I am, however, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for offering me his comments at this stage. As the noble Lord himself noted, some of these points are detailed and technical, such as the definition of permanent copy. The Government will certainly be looking at this, and all other comments on the draft. Indeed, the aim of the technical review process is to devise the best language possible, so I am grateful for all noble Lords’ initial insights and suggestions on this matter. I suggest that, rather than discussing each point in detail, I write to the noble Lord separately to try to answer the more detailed points he raises.
Having said that, there are some points I would like to cover briefly here. The draft exception will not allow anyone to override copy protection measures that are applied to works. The Government understand the importance of these measures in the fight against copyright piracy, and will continue to protect them. With regard to the particular example mentioned by the noble Lord, that of storing BBC iPlayer downloads beyond the 30-day limit, this activity would not fall within the scope of the exception. This is because this type of copy is not acquired on a permanent basis. If it did fall within the scope of the exception, which it does not, then it would still be illegal to break the copy protection measures applied to it.
On the issues raised on pricing and compensation for private copying, the Government intend to publish an updated impact assessment on this and the other exceptions, and I hope that this will set out all the evidence which has been gathered on this issue. The noble Lord raised a number of points about compensation. However, I am sure that the noble Lord is not suggesting that consumers should pay twice for content that they have legitimately purchased.
For example, if I buy my content online I will have paid for the right to make copies. Should I pay again for that right when I purchase something on which to store that content? If consumers wish to purchase a USB stick and to store their own photographs on it, should they pay a tax to do so? Should a business have to pay a tax on the photocopier paper it uses, or discs, or on any other medium that it uses to store the company’s content? I am sure that noble Lords would agree that the answer to all these questions has to be no.
It does not seem sensible to maintain the current position, where many consumers are infringing copyright on a daily basis. UK consumers and rights holders should enjoy the same rights as those in other countries including Australia and Canada. Indeed, the Gowers review commissioned by the previous Government reached exactly the same conclusions. Those conclusions, including a private copying exception, were accepted by Gordon Brown in the pre-Budget report in November 2007. Given the support of the previous Government for these provisions, I would like to work with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and all Members of this House so that we can bring our copyright framework up to date. In light of these assurances and my offer to write and to meet, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.