‘Paragraph 1(1)(d) of Schedule 2 to the European Communities Act 1972 (limitation on criminal penalties) does not apply for the purposes of provision under section 2(2) of that Act implementing Directive 2011/77/EU amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights.’.—(Norman Lamb.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

With this it will be convenient to consider amendment (a) to new clause 12, in line 3, leave out from ‘implementing’ to end and insert

‘acts which may be done in relation to copyright works notwithstanding the subsistence of copyright.’.

I turn to new clause 12, which relates to the introduction of EU directive 2011/77/EU. The directive extends the copyright term of protection for sound recordings and performers’ rights from 50 to 70 years. As the Committee will understand, directives such as this are usually implemented using secondary legislation, under the European Communities Act 1972. However, the 1972 Act places a limit on the severity of penalties that can be associated with legislation introduced under it, and in the case of copyright the penalties already in place in the UK are greater than those provided for by that Act. Most significantly, the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment, rather than the two years permitted under the 1972 Act. We want to introduce the new directive and to retain the level of penalties we have in place in the UK, and new clause 12 allows us to do that.

It would be right to ask why we have not simply amended clause 56, given that the underlying policy intention of that clause is the same, namely to make a change to copyright law while maintaining the associated penalties regime. We considered that option and, on the basis of advice received from our lawyers, we believe it would be undesirable because combining the two clauses would have the unintended consequence of broadening the current narrow powers in clause 56 and enabling the Government to alter copyright term in a wide range of areas beyond the remit of the new directive, which is specifically about sound recordings and performers’ rights. I am sure that the shadow Minister will be reassured to hear that we have sought to avoid that. The secondary legislation required to implement the detail of the directive will, of course, still be subject to further consultation with stakeholders and other interested parties.

I seek your guidance, Mr Bayley, because it seems appropriate for me not to comment on the amendment until the shadow Minister has had an opportunity to introduce it, after which I can respond. Is that correct?

Yes, I think that would be sensible.

I shall not detain the Committee long, because I think we had a substantial debate on the matter on Thursday afternoon. We raised our reasonable concerns that clause 56 provided Henry VIII powers and that the European Communities Act 1972, which I quoted at length, did not address the concerns regarding the need to maintain the penalties.

I hear what the Minister has to say, and I am keen to make progress. New clause 12 goes some way towards addressing the concerns but, as he mentioned, it addresses only sound recordings. Many other aspects of the 1988 legislation will suffer from the same problem. My question, which is one of the reasons why we tabled the amendment, is how that will be dealt with. I mentioned on Thursday afternoon the bundling up of different measures, and I think the concern still remains. New clause 12 addresses a specific problem, but others will bloom and flourish, not necessarily as a result of the measure but certainly in conjunction with it. How will the Minister address the other different points that come about? I am interested to see how he will respond.

I was expecting at least a half-hour speech, and the shadow Minister has disappointed me.

Mr Wright rose—

Let me just make it clear that new clause 12 is limited to implementing the directive, not anything else, which I think was the point that the hon. Gentleman was making. In a sense, it addresses his concern about not creating powers that could be subject to abuse if they were too wide.

The amendment appears to change the focus of the clause entirely, and as a result would not provide the legal means to implement the EU directive. I am sure that is not the Opposition’s intention, but that is the effect of what they have done and they have to live with the consequences of their actions.

So will you.

I am acutely aware of that.

The amendment specifies areas of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 that could be changed under the new power, but those parts are not affected by the EU directive, which is primarily designed to extend the copyright term of protection for sound recordings and performers’ rights from 50 to 70 years. We are committed to introducing the new directive and want to retain the level of penalties we have in place in the UK. New Clause 12 allows us to do that in a focused and specific way, without providing overly broad powers to the Secretary of State.

The amendment would not enable us to do that. Indeed, it would provide new order-making powers in entirely new areas—something I know the creative industry sectors are anxious not to see happen. If that is indeed what hon. Members want, perhaps we should debate that point. The shadow Minister will be answerable to the creative industry sector that is so concerned about extending the powers. I suspect that that is not what was intended and there may be something of a drafting error. On that basis, I hope hon. Members will accept that the amendment should not be moved.

I understand what the Minister says. This is a broad issue of some concern, not only in the Committee and the House. It will gain momentum as we progress the Bill through Report and into the other place. What the Minister has said is reasonable, so let me go away and reflect on it, but I give notice that over the summer we will reflect further and will probably come back to the issue. On the basis of what he has said, I will not move the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 12 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.