some default text...
Previous Section Index Home Page

The late Adam Faith recorded, in the same year, “What do you Want?”. I think the line was, “What do you want if you don’t want money?” Well, what we want—the people who are supporting this Bill and those who signed the early-day motion, which now has 52 signatures—is equality, fairness and justice for those recording artists and producers. It is not just people such as Adam Faith, Tommy Steele and Lonnie Donegan who are affected. Lonnie Donegan’s band—Denny Wright, John Nicholls and Mickey Ashman—do not get anything like the amount of money that they should. Indeed,
9 May 2007 : Column 189
they get only a paltry sum compared with the main recording artists. Their company, Pye Records—which found and cultivated them, advanced their careers and recorded the music—also lose out. We want equality, and the Bill is based on common sense.

On a CD, or an LP as it used to be, the composer, the lyricist and even, believe it not, the photographer and the artwork designer enjoy copyright not just for 70 years, but for 70 years after their deaths. We are not asking for that sort of equality. We would settle for the same situation as that in the USA, where copyright is paid for 95 years. There are many sensible reasons for that, one being that it supports the musicians.

As I said, 90 per cent. of musicians are not millionaires—they earn about £15,000 a year from their royalties. In the UK alone, 7,000 musicians will lose their rights to any payment for the recordings in the next 10 years. Some of them are very well known. In 1961-62 the Beatles came on the scene, but in four or five years’ time many of their hits will stop being eligible for royalty payments. People may well say that that is fine because the Beatles are millionaires and can afford it, but that is not true of many of the people who recorded the strings in the studios, for example, or other recording artists. Indeed, whoever played the drums instead of Ringo Starr on the Beatles early records—it is often said that he did not, in fact, play on them—receives only a pittance, and those records will soon cease to be eligible for royalties.

The creative economy of this country is in serious danger. People are now twice as incentivised to record and release a record in America because the right to copyright for the company and the artists applies for 95 years. That makes it twice as intelligent, so to speak, to go to the USA to release a record than anywhere in the EU. That is why 40,000 musicians and 3,500 record companies signed a Phonographic Performance Ltd petition to improve the copyright terms in the UK to the same level as those in the USA. We have already lost some of our creative industry to America because of the mass culture, but our unique musical culture still rests in the independent record labels and is still to be harvested. We should not allow it to be taken from us.

A PricewaterhouseCoopers study concluded, strangely enough, that irrespective of whether a recording is in or out of copyright, it has no impact on the price of the recording. It makes no difference whether people are making a cheap record or a more expensive first release, as the price of the recording is no different. There are massive disparities, of course, in the price that will be paid for the second releases and the compilations, which are not the unique set, as things are taken from here and there and the best parts are often missed out.

We are trying to get the Government on side, which is why we want Parliament to show its support for the Bill. If Parliament supports it, the Government will, hopefully, have a stronger arm when they go to the EU. The matter will be decided in the EU and our group will go to Brussels to argue the case with Commissioner Charles McCreevy on 27 June. There is much to say, but much has already been said, particularly about the mistake in the Gowers report on intellectual property. It treated this unique creative
9 May 2007 : Column 190
effort the same way as if someone had invented a chemical that would have a shelf life and then something new would be invented to take its place.

As a jazz lover, I know that it is possible to hear two unique versions of the same song. There is the version of Gerry and the Pacemakers’ “You’ll Never Walk Alone” that has been stolen by the fans on the terraces, but if we listen to Nina Simone singing it as a blues song, we realise that the same music with a different time frame and different singer is a unique experience. I think that Gowers missed that point, because a song cannot be replaced by someone recording it later. My particular favourite recordings of the Bruch and Mendelssohn minor key symphonies are by someone called Grumiaux, a Belgian who recorded in the 1950s. I have three or four versions, but none of them compares with that. That is the uniqueness that we are talking about, which should be paid for, for at least the lifetime and beyond of the recording artist.

Debates took place in the House on 17 May 2006, when the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) participated, and on 10 March 2007, when the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) took part. I direct anyone who wants to know why they should support my Bill to those two debates, which developed the theme more fully.

The Bill is not an attack on those who say that music should be cheap and accessible to everyone to download on the internet. It is not about that, as we want that too, but we also want the money to go back into the pockets of the recording artists, producers and companies. We want the companies to be incentivised to record and release music in the EU and to spend more money looking for talent in the UK and the EU. If the Bill goes through and we persuade the EU to move forward on it, we would want certain conditions to be attached.

What we are saying is that the copyright gap should be filled. We want the Bill passed and Parliament to tell the Minister to go to Europe to argue for fairness and equality on behalf of the creative industry of this country. It is crucial to argue for fairness in respect of these unique UK recordings of 50 years ago and also for those in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Michael Connarty, Mr. Bob Blizzard, Peter Luff, John Robertson, Nigel Griffiths, Derek Conway, Mr. Tom Clarke, Bob Russell, Alan Keen, Rosemary McKenna, John Hemming and Pete Wishart.

Copyright Term for Performers and Producers

Michael Connarty accordingly presented a Bill to extend the period of time over which royalties are payable to performers and producers of recorded material; and for connected purposes: And the same was read First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 29 June, and to be printed [Bill 101].

Parliament (joint departments) bill [lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(1) (Second reading committees), That the Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.— [Huw Irranca-Davies.]

Question agreed to.

9 May 2007 : Column 191

Orders of the Day

UK Borders Bill

As amended in the Public Bill Committee , considered.

New Clause 9

Search for evidence of nationality: other premises

‘(1) This section applies where an individual—

(a) has been arrested on suspicion of the commission of an offence, and

(b) has not been released without being charged with an offence.

(2) If, on an application made by an immigration officer or a constable, a justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that—

(a) the individual may not be a British citizen,

(b) nationality documents relating to the individual may be found on premises specified in the application,

(c) the documents would not be exempt from seizure under section 44(2), and

(d) any of the conditions in subsection (3) below applies,

the justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorising an immigration officer or constable to enter and search the premises.

(3) The conditions are that—

(a) it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant entry to the premises;

(b) it is practicable to communicate with a person entitled to grant entry to the premises but it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant access to the nationality documents;

(c) entry to the premises will not be granted unless a warrant is produced;

(d) the purpose of a search may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless an immigration officer or constable arriving at the premises can secure immediate entry.

(4) Sections 28J and 28K of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (warrants: application and execution) apply, with any necessary modifications, to warrants under this section.

(5) In the application of this section to Scotland a reference to a justice of the peace shall be treated as a reference to the sheriff or a justice of the peace.’.— [Joan Ryan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

2.19 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Joan Ryan): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 10— Police civilians.

Government amendments Nos. 23 to 26.

Joan Ryan: I should like to preface my remarks on new clauses 9 and 10 and Government amendments Nos. 23 to 26 by noting that we had a productive and thorough debate on these matters in Committee. This group of amendments is one of the results of that. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) for his scrutiny in Committee of the search for evidence of nationality clause. New clause 9 is designed
9 May 2007 : Column 192
to address a concern raised in one of the amendments that he tabled in Committee, as I am sure he has recognised.

I should like to emphasise the importance of the power to search for nationality documents, which will assist in ascertaining or confirming the nationality of persons in order to consider cases liable for deportation. This is part of our plan for improving the effectiveness of handling foreign nationals in the criminal justice system. Concerns were raised in Committee that nationality documents might be held on premises other than those set out in clause 43—for example, those belonging to friends or family, or to persons involved in illegal immigration or illegal working.

The effect of the amendments, in addition to the existing clauses, will be that immigration and police officers will have the power to search premises occupied or controlled by the person, premises where the person was arrested, or premises where the person was immediately before being arrested; and to search for and seize relevant documents, so that the person’s nationality may be established at an earlier stage of their entering the criminal justice system than at present. Immigration and police officers will also be able to obtain a warrant to search other premises, if they believe that documents relating to the person might be found there.

Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): What steps are being taken to ensure that this new power will not be misused, particularly in cases involving people who are here for a legitimate reason? I am worried about the effect that its over-use could have on community relations.

Joan Ryan: That is an important point, and we have taken some considerable time and effort to think through the safeguards, which I will come to in a moment. I want to reassure all communities that this legislation will be used fairly and for the benefit of all, and not in a disproportionate manner. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember that our debate on this question in Committee, which was identified by the hon. Member for Ashford, centred on the proportionate nature of the power. That is why we are now introducing the need to obtain a warrant to search more widely than was allowed in the original clause. Such a warrant will be required to search other premises where it is believed that documents relating to the person might be found. That should ensure that people do not place relevant documents in someone else’s safe keeping in order to avoid their being seized. We did not want inadvertently to create an incentive to avoid detection in that way by leaving the clause as it was.

Safeguards have been put in place to prevent misuse, and I shall give the hon. Gentleman some details. For example, when applying for a warrant, an immigration officer or constable must specify to the magistrate the grounds on which the application is being made, the provision under which the warrant is to be issued, the premises that they wish to search, and the articles for which they are searching. The warrant must specify the name of the person applying for it, the date of issue,
9 May 2007 : Column 193
the premises to be searched, the provision under which it is to be issued, and the articles being sought.

Warrants issued under this provision will authorise entry on one occasion only, and will be valid for one month. Entry and search must be undertaken at a reasonable hour, unless it appears to the officer executing them that the purpose of the search might be frustrated by so doing. The immigration officer or constable must identify themselves to the occupier of the premises—or, in his absence, to another person who appears to be in charge of the premises—and produce identification, show the occupier the warrant and supply him with a copy of it. In the absence of anyone appearing to be in charge of the premises, the warrant should be left in a prominent place on the premises.

A search under such a warrant may be undertaken only to the extent required for the purpose for which the warrant was issued. A warrant must be endorsed, stating whether the object of the search was found and whether anything else was seized. Warrants, whether they have been executed or not, must be returned to the issuing court and retained for 12 months, during which time they will be available for inspection by the occupier of the premises.

I should like to give the House some reassurance on another issue that was raised in Committee, relating to the guidance and training that will be available. Instructions will be issued to immigration and police officers on when the power—with and without warrant—should be used. The guidance will take account of the nationality pilot that is being conducted in three charging areas. Hon. Members will be aware, as we have discussed this matter before, that immigration officers will be arrest trained. Matters relating to good communication with the police, to contamination and to other important issues that need to be taken into account are part of the training that immigration officers undergo. This measure, as applied to immigration officers and the police, will lead to greater and better communication.

Paul Rowen: I am grateful to the Minister for the safeguards that she has just outlined. What monitoring and reporting arrangements relating to the use of this power are to be put in place?

Joan Ryan: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, from our debates in Committee, of the role of the inspectorate. He will also know that many of the issues relating to the identification of nationality are covered by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—PACE—codes. If immigration or police officers want to conduct a search without a warrant, they have to ensure that they have the authority of a senior officer to do so. I should also like to draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the two or three pilots that we are undertaking into the use of these powers. The feedback from those pilots will be important when we consider further the issues that he has raised.

Stewart Hosie (Dundee, East) (SNP): New clause 9, when applied to Scotland, will require a sheriff or a justice of the peace to be involved in the issuing of a warrant, and that is right and proper. The Minister
9 May 2007 : Column 194
mentioned the PACE codes, which are mentioned in clause 44, which is the subject of an amendment in this group. Clause 44(5) refers to provisions for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is no reference, however, to the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, which details how seized information and evidence should be treated. Should such provisions be included in the Bill, just as similar provisions were recently incorporated into Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs officers’ powers in relation to seizures? Is it an oversight that they have not been included?

Joan Ryan: As the hon. Gentleman says, the PACE codes apply to England and Wales. He might know that we are seeking to change the code of practice in relation to code C, which covers the police being able to ask the nationality of a person who has been taken into custody when it is unclear whether they are a UK citizen. It was in that sense that I referred to the PACE codes. I have already talked about all the checks and balances that will apply to the proposed power. In regard to the hon. Gentleman’s question about Scottish legislation, however, I undertake to write to him with the details.

Having given the House those reassurances, I hope that hon. Members will be able to accept the new clauses and amendments.

Damian Green (Ashford) (Con): I should like to thank the Minister for the kind remarks that she made at the beginning of her speech. We welcome the thrust of the new clauses and amendments. We made an effort in Committee to ensure that the Bill would have a practical effect and make a significant difference to the practice of immigration control, and to the enforcement of the important laws in this area. That was the intention behind our various amendments to that part of the Bill.

I am glad that Ministers have reflected further and turned our amendments into the new clauses under consideration this afternoon. Not only is that good for the Bill and for the practice and enforcement of immigration control, but it represents a small victory for scrutiny by the House of Commons, which is much abused. It is a textbook example of how scrutiny can work, and of how the Committee stage can improve a Bill in small but important ways, if Ministers are flexible enough to take on board arguments made in good faith by Opposition parties.

2.30 pm

Next Section Index Home Page