Clause 21 - Reporting duty

Part of Intellectual Property Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 2:00 pm on 28 January 2014.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Iain Wright Iain Wright Shadow Minister (Business, Innovation and Skills) 2:00, 28 January 2014

My hon. Friend makes an important point. People often say that this is a victimless crime, in the same way as stealing from a supermarket might be a victimless crime, but we all pay for it as a society. Supermarkets mitigate the risk of shoplifting by increasing prices. This is no different as an economic model. That point is at the heart of this amendment. To what extent is widespread infringement and online theft facilitated by search engines? Should the IPO know and what is the cost to the industry and to our competitive advantage as a result?

I was talking about the video games industry. Like music, the industry is adopting new business models like free-to-play and in-game purchases. Equally, we  need to know what is being done to restrict access to sites that help someone find illegal or pirated copies, which brings me to the role of technology companies, particularly search engines, that allow consumers to find content. To what extent are those companies facilitating illegal access to copyrighted material by putting illegal sites at the top of their search lists? The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire mentioned an astonishing statistic on Second Reading, to the effect—I hope I have this right; he will correct me if I am wrong—that for the top 20 singles and albums for November 2013, 77% of first page search results for singles and 64% for albums directed the consumer to an illegal site. I have to say to the Minister that that surely cannot be allowed to continue.

It seems perfectly reasonable to suggest that, as part of the IPO's ongoing work and annual reporting procedures, as set out in clause 21

“an assessment of the degree of online copyright infringement and the extent to which identified search engines and other internet services facilitate this” should be included. As the basis for amendment 35, I have included the actual wording of the recommendation from the Select Committee. I thought the report was excellent and I hope the Minister is amenable to such a request.

On a similar theme, new clause 3 proposes that within three months of the Act coming into force, the Secretary of State will set out to both Houses firm proposals on how the Government plan to take action to ensure that technology companies hinder access to infringing material. Again, my amendment was prompted by the sterling work carried out by the Select Committee. I was struck by the eloquence and frankly direct nature of the language proposed by the Select Committee in its report. It said this:

“We strongly condemn the failure of Google, notable among technology companies, to provide an adequate response to creative industry requests to prevent its search engine directing consumers to copyright-infringing websites … on the flimsy grounds that some operate under the cover of hosting some legal content. The continuing promotion by search engines of illegal content on the internet is unacceptable. So far, their”— by which they mean Google and other search engines—

“attempts to remedy this have been derisorily ineffective”.

The report concluded the section by stating:

“We do not believe it to be beyond the wit of the engineers employed by Google and others to demote and, ideally, remove copyright infringing material from search engine results”.

Amendment 35 would ensure that the IPO actively looks at this matter on an ongoing basis as part of its annual reporting procedure, and new clause 3 would prompt the Government to bring to Parliament within three months firm plans to deal with this issue.

Finally in this group, amendment 36 would ensure that the Secretary of State would act on any findings and recommendations made in the IPO report. Under the amendment, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament setting out how he intends to take forward—or otherwise—the recommendations made. This would allow Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the plans, it would provide greater parliamentary accountability, and it would help push the issue of intellectual property further up the agenda, where it rightly belongs.

It may well be that the commitment is already implicit in clause 21, given the specific requirements of the clause, but I would not mind if the Minister made that clear, ensuring that the Secretary of State will act upon any recommendations and that this will be included in the report. I am interested in what the Minister and others will say on this matter. This is a big issue which is affecting the competitive position of innovative UK firms and it must be addressed swiftly. I hope the Minister is amenable to our suggestions.