| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McNally: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. First, I welcome the consultation on on-line piracy. As my noble friend indicated in his speech, piracy of new films and records is a growing problem. I refer to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller; that is, international complicity by legitimate governments. To show how long that has been around, 20 years ago, with the late Sir Donald Kaberry, I went to a number of far eastern countries on an all-party delegation to ask them to clamp down on counterfeiting taking place in those countries and coming into our markets. I wonder how much priority the Government give now to putting pressure not on organised crime but on legitimate governments which show a degree of complicity with counterfeiting within their borders.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, even if that is legitimate in their country, which we regret, it is a crime when anything is exported from those countries to this country. The answer to that is partially in what I have been saying about the European directive. Clearly, the European Union, acting collectively, has a greater bargaining power with those other countries which are being neglectful or worse in dealing with copyright crime. We use every opportunity to lobby other countries, but there are still problems.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, reminded me about the issue of on-line piracy. Perhaps I may say that there are other issues in his Bill which have not been forgotten. As regards the issue he raised today of look-alike packaging, although we think that it may be a matter of revision to passing off law rather than the subject matter of this Bill, these are still issues which need to be addressed and which we want to address.
To sum up, the Bill harmonises and brings greater transparency to enforcement provisions across copyright and related areas and trade mark laws. Our view is that this is a sensible attempt to rationalise what might otherwise be a confusing mix. As I have already indicated, we supported the Bill in another place and shall continue to do so during its passage through the House. We have taken advice and believe the Bill to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The provisions in the Bill provide a balanced and acceptable solution to the problems of intellectual property crime.
Lord McNally: My Lords, before my noble friend responds, perhaps I may say that I consider that response to be a Botham-like sweep rather than a dead bat; much changed from last time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not understand that.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I shall not attempt to pursue the cricketing analogy. However, without detaining the House, I want to continue the animal
analogy. What has pleased me most about this debate is the dog which did not bark. When thinking about how the Bill would be received by noble Lords, one point concerned me. I thought that some noble Lords might attempt to suggest that, as all of the issues which have been raised by my noble friend Lord McNally in his previous Bill have not yet been dealt with by the Government, as the Minister indicated, therefore we should wait until they are dealt with in order to have a comprehensive reform Bill. I am delighted that no one has suggested that. Leaving those issues aside for another time, it is important that we pass this aspect of copyright and trade mark reform. Therefore, on that basis, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
- House adjourned at four minutes before one o'clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |