| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10 Mar 2009 : Column 52WH—continued
12.43 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (Mr. David Lammy):
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) for raising the important subject of film copyright. I absolutely agree that this is an important debate to have in the
House, and the issue should be at the forefront of the minds of the many people across the country who enjoy film and cinema. In the past few weeks, such people will have taken great pleasure from Kate Winslet’s success in this country and at the Oscars in America, as well as from the success of Danny Boyle’s film “Slumdog Millionaire” and the rise of Dev Patel. Such developments say something about the talent that we have in this country.
I also applaud the hon. Gentleman for his continued advocacy of the Scottish film industry and his close involvement with the Edinburgh international film festival. Like the cinema industry in the rest of the UK, the Scottish film industry has prospered. In the past few years, it has produced huge triumphs, from “Gregory’s Girl” to “Trainspotting” to, most recently, “The Last King of Scotland”. There are also many lesser known but still significant successes.
As has been said, the film industry continues to contribute to much of the Scottish economy and the British economy as a whole. In 2006—the last year for which we have figures—the British film industry turned over £7 billion. I therefore fully share the hon. Gentleman’s appreciation of the importance of safeguarding the film industry’s contribution to this country’s well-being, both financially and in terms of the many thousands of jobs that it supports, particularly in these difficult times. That is why the problem of film piracy should concern us all.
The economic loss that piracy causes the film industry can be calculated in a number of different ways. The UK Film Council, which has produced a briefing note for the debate, adopts a maximalist approach. It has looked closely at the impact on cinema ticket sales and arrived at a cost of just over £500 million. It also says that 15 million people in this country have at least one pirated film.
I do not want to question those figures today, but one thing on which we can all agree is that this is a significant problem. That was brought home to me when I attended a raid in north-west London in November with police, representatives of FACT, trading standards officers and others. During that raid, more than 60,000 counterfeit DVDs with a value of £185,000 were seized, including pre-released titles that were not yet in the cinemas. All those titles were in a terraced street typical of others in London and, indeed, the country.
What I saw also brought home to me the complex nature of this crime. Among the DVDs in that household were some very obscene illegal DVDs. That links to the organised criminal activity of those who produce such things. Many of those titles would not have been granted certification in Britain. Of course, such things are at the extreme end of the spectrum. It is true to say, however, that people can be encouraged or seduced into camcording a film in a cinema and that their activities can then relate to, and extend to, the huge organised trafficking of films that are sold not just in this country but around the world, and that can happen overnight.
The UK Film Council report also highlights key areas in which it wants legislative reforms. I thought it would be helpful if I spoke to the main ones. I know that some in the film council are keen to introduce specific criminal legislation on camcording. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that in his speech. As the council’s report acknowledges, the Government are seeking a test
case to take forward under the Fraud Act 2006. I remind the House that section 6 of the Act provides that a person should not be in possession of articles
“for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud.”
Clearly, a camcorder in a cinema is probably not there to record the happy experience of attending the cinema with pals. It is right to consider closely the possibility that the device is there to be used in fraud or in connection with fraud.
John Barrett: Does the Minister accept that a problem in using section 6 is that the Act is relatively recent and has not been shown to be effective? Something much simpler is needed so that more effective prosecutions can be brought, because until that happens there will be no deterrent and the business will carry on.
Mr. Lammy: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but the Act was passed in 2006 and we are now at the beginning of 2009, and he will understand that the judicial process takes some time. There has been a relatively short period in which to come to the conclusion that he has reached. He talked about not being aware of any other cases in the system. I am advised that there was a case in the system, which was dropped, largely because of the age of the perpetrator. It is important to see where the test case gets us.
John Barrett: I accept that it has been three years since the Act was passed, but there have been no prosecutions in that time. I know that the youngsters who were not prosecuted were about 14, but if we have got to the stage at which 90 per cent. of first-release DVDs originate from camcorder recording, and there have been no prosecutions in three years, the evidence is fairly clear that something is not working.
Mr. Lammy: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I think that a relatively short period has passed. It is important to consider carefully how the Act bears down on the issue. I remind him that, were we simply to make taking a camcorder into a cinema a criminal offence, that would be a strict liability offence. That is serious under the criminal law, because it would not be necessary to establish criminal intent.
The area is an important one that we should examine closely. That is why we are working in partnership with the Federation Against Copyright Theft, the police, trading standards and of course the Intellectual Property Office. I know there is some frustration about the lack of visible progress by the Government on issuing a consultation to assess the need for legislation to cover occasional sales and markets. One is aware that throughout the country, in all sorts of Sunday markets, such DVDs are on sale. It is a complex area and we need to ensure, particularly in more difficult economic times, that we strike a balance between tackling the sale of counterfeited and pirated goods and making sure that we do not deter market organisers and others, including schools and charities that run fêtes, from engaging in legitimate activities in some of our most deprived areas.
There have been calls for us to strengthen our damages legislation. That is being looked at as part of a broader review of the law on damages. We need to make sure that any system of civil damages is not only robust but
workable. The Ministry of Justice has said that it hopes to publish a response to the consultation in the near future.
The hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of online and physical copyright infringement, which raises strong feelings in the industry. Here again, it is important to take concrete but proportionate action. The Government will shortly be publishing the response to the consultation held last year on matching penalties for online and physical copyright infringement and will be seeking to raise the maximum fine to £50,000 for all intellectual property offences. Clearly I do not want to prejudge the outcome of consultations on “Digital Britain” and associated legislation, but we will be making announcements in the coming days.
Good law is good, of course, but proportionate, enforced laws are better. In the case of online infringement, we are not introducing the jail terms that some in the industry have called for, but I think that the measures we propose will offer an effective deterrent to fraud that stops short of putting even more pressure on overcrowded prisons. The balance that we must strike is between better deterrence—a better way to get the internet service providers and the film industry to work together—and recognising that access is part of the zeitgeist, and that young people want immediate access to film, in the way they want. How should we work with industry to get monetised solutions but create an environment in which the vast majority of the relevant activity is within the law and we are not condemning young people to unnecessary enforcement or sentencing?
That is the balance we need, which we shall be striving for post-“Digital Britain” and the associated legislation that will come out of it. It is also the reason I am setting up an interministerial group on enforcement, so that I and colleagues in other Departments, such as the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, can continue with the discussion across Government. The issue affects other Departments.
I know that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the fact that something is a priority for me as Minister with responsibility for intellectual property does not mean that it is the No. 1 priority for Ministers who have other criminal activity to deal with. Let us have the discussion in the correct forum, and find the means to take the matter forward. I hope to make progress with what is an important issue, which greatly affects the British economy, as well as the way we all enjoy film.
As the hon. Gentleman said, my next engagement will be the “Respect for Film” event, to which I look forward. I am grateful that he has brought this important issue to the House this morning.
Coventry City Council
1 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South) (Lab): I thank Mr. Speaker for granting me this debate. I believe this is the first time, Mr. Amess, that I have spoken in a debate chaired by you, although we know each other quite well.
I start by considering the national situation. I wonder whether Opposition proposals are already being used locally in Coventry. There has been talk, should there be a change of Government, of a 1 per cent. cut in public service budgets. I hope that the Minister will answer that point, as such a policy would certainly have ramifications for Coventry.
Equally, if we are to believe what is being said—again, it will have ramifications for the public sector in Coventry—there has been talk about public sector pensions. I shall not debate that subject today, but employees have paid into pension schemes and at the end of the day they will get out of their pension schemes only what has been put into them.
The third thing that I would like the Minister to deal with relates to the interpretation of the Gershon review. I have had one or two meetings with the trade unions in Coventry, and it seems that the local authority may be suggesting that it cannot keep such savings. My understanding of the Gershon review is that local authorities and Departments can keep savings that they have made. I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter, so that we have it on record and know where we are going.
The other complaint made by the trade unions about the local authority in Coventry is its lack of consultation. We can always ask how long consultation should continue—it has always been a debatable matter—but when people in the trade unions in Coventry tell us about lack of consultation and lack of involvement in what is being planned by Coventry city council, we must take it seriously. Good employers should always try to take the trade unions with them. Again, I want to make the Minister aware of the problem. There are, of course, other concerns that he cannot answer, such as those about concessionary travel should there be a change of Government.
I shall dwell on the situation in Coventry. First, given the economic climate, I find it strange that the Government wish to make cuts in the voluntary sector. I am told by the trade unions and some in the voluntary sector that they will experience cuts of as much as 2 or 3 per cent. That could have a major impact, given the extension of services needed by the people of Coventry. I am told that such cuts would be across the board. There has been no proper consultation. However, the trade unions tell me that the council is blaming its officers; when the trade unions spoke to the council, it said that officers were telling the council to make the cuts.
I have been in local government and I know that there are always a number of options. One should not accept whatever officers say—it should be challenged. That is why we have local democracy. The problem alarms many people in Coventry.
Another matter that I hope the Minister will clarify is the question of housing associations. It was recently put to me that proposals were being made by one or two
housing associations in Coventry to introduce hefty rent increases; they said that it was the Government’s fault. I hope the Minister will investigate that, as blaming the Government for something that the associations themselves are doing is serious.
In Coventry, cuts of £6.7 million from the council’s budget would mean that up to 154 jobs could go. That would include cuts to the neighbourhood warden service. It is well known that every city centre needs a neighbourhood warden service, particularly because of incidents at the weekend. The cuts would mean five wardens in the city centre losing their jobs, and nine throughout the whole area. That could put neighbourhood safety at risk, and it would also put an additional burden on the police. It certainly does not reassure the public, particularly pensioners, given the level of petty crime. The Government have launched effective campaigns over the years, not only against major and serious crime, but against petty crime.
The monetary effect is the need to borrow in excess of £9 million. That leads to questions. There will be hefty cuts, yet the council will have to borrow £9 million. In addition, there will be a cut of between £5 million and £6 million in the council’s revenue-generating activities, so council income may be lost. That suggests that the council is not well managed, either economically or financially.
There has also been a larger-than-average increase in council tax. Again, that will hit poorer families in Coventry, particularly pensioners.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry, North-West) (Lab): I understand my hon. Friend’s logic, but how can it be that cuts are being made when, wherever it can, the council is making increases? It is receiving £4.1 million more than expected, yet borrowing is still on the increase and it is now making further cuts to reduce those borrowings. It seems that there is an imbalance in—or entire mismanagement of—the income and expenditure accounts.
Mr. Cunningham: There is a suggestion that the council has used considerable sums from its reserves for traffic schemes and renewing roads. I must be honest with my hon. Friend and say that I have not been able to work it out. I have heard about numerous sums coming out of reserves, but I shall try to bottom that out after the debate.
As well as increases in the half-price charge for services to pensioners, we are trying to help them with winter fuel allowances and that sort of thing, but the pensioners are faced with service increases and charges. It is worth pointing out that although Conservative Governments used to cut support, this Government have increased it, as my hon. Friend said, by £4.1 million above expectations. People did not think that the council would get such resources, yet front-line services are being cut.
That is having an effect on youth services. We are trying to get the youth off the streets, to become skilled and to be good citizens, yet we see planned cuts of £660,000 to youth services. That could cause the closure of 14 after-school clubs, and a loss of jobs. Again, I cannot bottom that out. Another problem is the fact that 23 summer play schemes will be cut. That will place a hefty burden on the public, yet at the same time we are
trying to keep people in employment, get kids off the streets, be fair to pensioners so that they can pay their bills and so on, and we are also trying to help young families.
As I said earlier, some of those schemes are crucial to young couples. For example, during the summer, someone will be available to look after the kids so that they are fully occupied while the father and mother go to work. The cuts will affect as many as 6,000 children in Coventry. That is quite an impact.
We cannot get away from the fact that should we have a Conservative Government—I do not think we will—a cut of 1 per cent. will have quite an impact when added to some of the problems that already exist in Coventry. No real explanation has been given by the Opposition. I return to the question whether Coventry has been used as a trial run for a future Tory Government. There has been no explanation of where cuts will be made.
I hope that the Minister will respond to some of the points that I have made. I am seriously worried about how the council is being run, and about its finances, and I know that he will pick up on other things that I have not mentioned.
1.9 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry, North-West) (Lab): I join my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) in saying what a pleasure it is, Mr. Amess, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time. I am sure that you will be good enough to extend our thanks to Mr. Speaker for granting the debate.
I thought that my hon. Friend’s exposition of the situation in Coventry was devastating, but it left many questions hanging. It was detailed and correct, and the subject was well researched and well spoken to, but I do not understand how we can have such a combination of factors in a council’s running of its affairs. It is cutting front-line services, the one thing we do not want to cut; instead, we try to cut costs through administration, natural wastage, retirement, retraining and so on. Nevertheless, front-line services are being cut by £6.7 million, yet through Government grants the council will receive £4.1 million more than it was expecting. Furthermore, it has imposed a larger-than-average council tax, which will bring in more money, while managing to increase borrowing by £9 million.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |