Draft Judicial Appointments (Amendment) Order 2014
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Blears, Hazel (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Denham, Mr John (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
Godsiff, Mr Roger (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
† Hames, Duncan (Chippenham) (LD)
† Harrington, Richard (Watford) (Con)
† Harris, Rebecca (Castle Point) (Con)
† Huppert, Dr Julian (Cambridge) (LD)
† Jarvis, Dan (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Jowell, Dame Tessa (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
† Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
† Metcalfe, Stephen (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP)
Smith, Mr Andrew (Oxford East) (Lab)
† Turner, Karl (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
† Vara, Mr Shailesh (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice)
† Wallace, Mr Ben (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
† Whittaker, Craig (Calder Valley) (Con)
† Wollaston, Dr Sarah (Totnes) (Con)
Anne-Marie Griffiths, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
First Delegated Legislation Committee
Monday 13 October 2014
[Sandra Osborne in the Chair]
Draft Judicial Appointments (Amendment) Order 2014
4.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Appointments (Amendment) Order 2014.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Osborne. The draft order amends the judicial appointments criteria to enable registered patent attorneys and registered trade mark attorneys to be persons able to review the decisions of the Intellectual Property Office as part of the appeals process.
Section 10(2) of the Intellectual Property Act 2014 inserted new section 27A in the Registered Designs Act 1949, under which the Lord Chancellor appoints an appointed person to hear appeals against decisions of the Intellectual Property Office in relation to design rights. The statutory instrument amends the Judicial Appointments Order 2008 to include an “appointed person” in the list of those offices for which registered patent attorneys and registered trade mark attorneys can satisfy the judicial appointment eligibility conditions.
The purpose of the draft order is to support the Intellectual Property Act 2014 and its aim is to introduce a quicker, more cost-effective route of appeal against designs decisions of the IPO. The existing route for appealing against decisions of the IPO in relation to designs is via a dedicated tribunal, which has been used only twice in the past 10 years. It offers no flexibility or route for further appeal.
The Government’s aim is to have a process in place that mirrors the appeals process already in place for appeals against trade mark decisions. The decisions of the IPO in relation to trade marks may be appealed to a person appointed by the Lord Chancellor—the “appointed person”—based on a recommendation of the Judicial Appointments Commission. That gives the appeal process some degree of independence from the IPO. To do that in relation to decisions on designs, the Government have amended section 27A of the 1949 Act to include similar provisions to those in the Trade Marks Act 1994.
Since the Hargreaves review of intellectual property and growth, the Government have been carrying out a programme of work to determine how to improve the designs legal framework. That has resulted in changes to designs legislation included within the 2014 Act, including those I referred to earlier in relation to determining appeals. The Government’s aim has been to improve access to justice for businesses using the UK designs registrations system by allowing them to choose a low-cost, reliable and efficient appeals route system.
The changes make the system easier to understand for users of different forms of intellectual property by simplifying the appeal framework and aligning it with the trade mark appeal route. The draft order simply seeks to support that aim by allowing a registered patent attorney or registered trade mark attorney who holds a relevant qualification to be eligible to be a person appointed under section 27A of the 1949 Act.
The principles of the 2014 Act have already been approved by the House. The draft order seeks merely to support the implementation of the Act by allowing the appointment of an “appointed person” to hear appeals against design decisions of the IPO. I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee.
4.33 pm
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab): It is a great pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne.
I thank the Minister for his statement and for setting out the details of the draft order. I will not repeat everything he said, because it is largely uncontentious. As the Minister outlined, the order provides a technical amendment to the Judicial Appointments Order 2008 and will allow the Lord Chancellor to appoint registered patent attorneys and registered trade mark attorneys as appointed persons, allowing them to hear appeals against decisions of the Intellectual Property Office.
The Opposition do not oppose the change and do not intend to oppose the draft order. I therefore do not intend to detain the Committee for too long, although we have a couple of minor questions. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed those questions, especially as the Government have not produced an impact assessment.
First, as the Minister is aware, the majority of the provisions of the Intellectual Property Act 2014 are set to commence in April 2015. The part of the 2014 Act amended by the order enables the appointment of appointed persons who meet the new eligibility criteria. Will the Minister explain why the order is due to take effect before the 2014 Act? Why not wait until the relevant legislation has come into effect?
Secondly, the order means that only those with five years of relevant technical expertise can satisfy the eligibility condition. The explanatory notes state that the Intellectual Property Office will consult on some of the specifics of how the new system will work. My shadow Justice team colleagues and I are interested in seeing that work and further details on how the system can be made to work. Will the Minister confirm whether the consultation will clarify the thinking behind the eligibility criteria? As it stands, the criteria will on the one hand require five years of technical experience, but on the other will not require a formal legal qualification.
Thirdly, will the order bring about any additional costs and, if so, how much? Fourthly and finally, we know that design law is a highly specialised and complex area. Will the Minister confirm that he has confidence that the Judicial Appointments Commission has the necessary in-house capacity and expertise to appoint in that area and to discern between candidates? I look forward to any assurances and clarification that the Minister can offer on those points. As I have said, we welcome the order.
4.36 pm
Mr Vara: I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for his agreement in principle to the order. I will endeavour to address his concerns. He asked whether we should wait until 2015 to introduce the order. The reason why we are introducing it now is so that the Judicial Appointments Commission can advertise and begin the process of appointment. He asked about the eligibility criteria. The requirement for five years’ experience in the relevant post is the same as for barristers and solicitors. We need to be consistent. I assure him that the costs will be minimal and will relate to the work of drafting and laying the order. We do not anticipate that there will be other costs as such.
I have regular meetings with the chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission, and I am confident that it has the capacity to deal with all that is necessary. It will be able to get on and do the job as soon as we have passed the order. I am grateful the hon. Gentleman agrees with it. We are in agreement that it is a reasonable amendment that aims to support the 2014 Act and UK businesses. I hope Members agree that it is a proportionate and sensible measure.