:00:00. > :00:12.am very happy to relay that concern to the IRp. -- IRP. We must move on.
:00:13. > :00:14.Urgent question. John McDonald. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
:00:15. > :00:27.if he will make a statement on allegations of money-laundering
:00:28. > :00:32.against British banks. Mr Speaker, we want our financial institutions
:00:33. > :00:38.to lead the way in the global fight against money-laundering. This is
:00:39. > :00:43.not only a question of financial crime, as well as terrorist
:00:44. > :00:49.organisations, this is about keeping our citizens safe. That is where the
:00:50. > :00:55.Government is doing what it takes to prevent and pursuing anyone who
:00:56. > :00:58.might seek to abuse our financial system. The Financial Conduct
:00:59. > :01:02.Authority and the National Crime Agency take any such allegations
:01:03. > :01:06.seriously and will investigate closely with the recent information
:01:07. > :01:10.from the Guardian newspaper regarding money-laundering from
:01:11. > :01:15.Russia or indeed any other media source, would allow the progression
:01:16. > :01:20.of an investigation. Beyond that, we need to ensure sophisticated
:01:21. > :01:22.criminal networks cannot exploit our financial services industry. This
:01:23. > :01:28.Government already does more than any other to tackle the global
:01:29. > :01:32.threat of money-laundering. Since 2010, we have seized 1.4 billion in
:01:33. > :01:38.illegal funds and put hundreds of millions more beyond the reach of
:01:39. > :01:42.criminals. We've set up the Panama papers task force, hosted the global
:01:43. > :01:49.anti-corruption Summit last year and now we are preparing the most
:01:50. > :01:52.significant changes to our anti-money laundering machine in
:01:53. > :01:55.over a decade. We are putting in the UK at the forefront of international
:01:56. > :01:59.efforts to crack down on money-laundering with new
:02:00. > :02:03.regulations in place by the end of June. We are bringing in a
:02:04. > :02:05.landlocked piece of legislation in the Criminal Finances Bill. This
:02:06. > :02:11.will allow banks to share more information than ever to uncover
:02:12. > :02:14.more money laundering and give enforcement agents powers to bring
:02:15. > :02:19.criminals to justice. Domestic changes alone aren't enough in the
:02:20. > :02:23.role of global criminal networks. That is why we are working closely
:02:24. > :02:29.with our international partners to stand up to this threat together.
:02:30. > :02:33.And work continues at a place with the Chi 20 and financial action task
:02:34. > :02:38.force whose mentorship includes all of the world's leading financial
:02:39. > :02:43.centres. We've led the way getting 90 countries to exchange data on
:02:44. > :02:48.offshore accounts and appalled a global standard of tax transparency.
:02:49. > :02:51.We are determined to make the UK the most Google place in the world of
:02:52. > :03:03.international crime networks to channel their finances. We won't
:03:04. > :03:06.relent in our efforts to do that. I don't believe the minister
:03:07. > :03:12.recognises the immense gravity of the situation we are facing and that
:03:13. > :03:15.statement is reflected on complacency on the part of the
:03:16. > :03:20.Government. Let us go through the allegations which are of the deepest
:03:21. > :03:25.concern. It is alleged by an operation referred to as the global
:03:26. > :03:29.launder mats, banks based in Britain have been used to launch a immense
:03:30. > :03:35.sense of money and taken criminal activity in Russia link to the spy
:03:36. > :03:41.agency. This appears to point to an overwhelming failure of basic
:03:42. > :03:46.management on the part of the banks themselves. In the case of one of
:03:47. > :03:49.those banks, HSBC, this is an institution that has previously
:03:50. > :03:54.faced money-laundering charges in the US and across the globe. The
:03:55. > :04:02.directive mention of the Government helped block the 2012 US
:04:03. > :04:04.investigation on the grounds of its risk to financial stability.
:04:05. > :04:08.Money-laundering through London and elsewhere threatens the financial
:04:09. > :04:13.stability of our sector and economy. In the case of another bank, RBS,
:04:14. > :04:20.the Government owns 75% stake in the bank itself and a third, Barclays,
:04:21. > :04:23.has been involved in its role for libel rigging. Can the Minister give
:04:24. > :04:30.us some more specific details about what steps are being taken to
:04:31. > :04:34.address this scandal and include the assurance that there will be the
:04:35. > :04:39.potential of opening up criminal proceedings to break up what is
:04:40. > :04:44.effectively a criminal network? Can the Government also undertake that
:04:45. > :04:48.it will not come as it has in the past with HSBC, attempt to intervene
:04:49. > :04:53.in criminal or other investigations taking place elsewhere in the world?
:04:54. > :04:57.The major risk to financial stability is not from investigations
:04:58. > :05:01.intended to clear out the criminal activity, it's about inactivity from
:05:02. > :05:06.the Government and others. The risk is about failing to act and ensuring
:05:07. > :05:12.our major banks are clean and fit for purpose. All the banks have
:05:13. > :05:16.claimed to have strict internal policies to deal with
:05:17. > :05:19.money-laundering. The Financial Conduct Authority places stress on
:05:20. > :05:23.the need for banks to self police and create appropriate internal
:05:24. > :05:27.proceedings to prevent money-laundering. It is obvious that
:05:28. > :05:33.the current arrangements are not working. There is widespread
:05:34. > :05:36.organised and sophisticated criminal activity. Can the Government tell
:05:37. > :05:40.the House what steps it will be taken to address this and will the
:05:41. > :05:46.Government commit to an opening of an enquiry to report on the measures
:05:47. > :05:48.to be taken that will strengthen the regulations including tighter
:05:49. > :05:54.controls and closer monitoring of banks? Where the Government owns
:05:55. > :06:02.major stakes in banks involved, particularly RBS, there is immediate
:06:03. > :06:07.need for the Government to reassure taxpayers that publicly owned banks
:06:08. > :06:12.are not indirectly involved in criminal activity. What steps will
:06:13. > :06:14.the Government be taking as a major shareholder, to investigate the
:06:15. > :06:21.allegations against RBS and reassure taxpayers? Yet again our banks have
:06:22. > :06:25.been found to be wanting. Urgent action is needed by the Government
:06:26. > :06:29.to protect the standing of our finance sector and indeed protect
:06:30. > :06:37.our economy. Complacency and inaction is not good enough.
:06:38. > :06:44.I can assure him that we are far from complacent. We have been
:06:45. > :06:53.updating the money-laundering regulations. I hope it will receive
:06:54. > :07:00.Royal assent in the near future. He asked about the SCA, which find
:07:01. > :07:10.Deutsche Bank recently. They take misconduct three seriously. He asks
:07:11. > :07:16.about whether we should be telling them what to do. If this information
:07:17. > :07:21.reveals new findings, the SCA will be able to investigate accordingly.
:07:22. > :07:29.It would not be appropriate for me to comment on potential legal
:07:30. > :07:35.proceedings. Does the level of commitment
:07:36. > :07:41.expressed in our hosting of the anti-corruption Summit not a year
:07:42. > :07:49.ago still exist to drive forward its agenda? Absolutely. This government
:07:50. > :07:56.is fully committed to making sure that taxpayers are fully protected
:07:57. > :08:04.and we do all we can to stamp out illegal money-laundering activity.
:08:05. > :08:09.This revelation is shocking, but I have to say it is not in the least
:08:10. > :08:15.bit surprising. For over a year now in this House, I've been campaigning
:08:16. > :08:17.in areas associated with this. Subsequent to the story being
:08:18. > :08:24.released yesterday evening, I've undertaken research which indicates
:08:25. > :08:31.that at the heart of this, it is the use of the banks' limited
:08:32. > :08:36.partnerships. It allows criminals to hide their ownership of companies.
:08:37. > :08:40.It is true that mechanism that this is happening. I have a number of
:08:41. > :08:48.questions for the Minister. First of all, on Friday, a review was closed
:08:49. > :08:54.into limited partnerships. Will the Government now allow myself and
:08:55. > :08:58.other interested members to resubmit to this, although it has formally
:08:59. > :09:02.closed, so we can raise this important matter and have it
:09:03. > :09:06.considered in the review? Secondly, surely when one looks at the outcome
:09:07. > :09:11.of the extent of this, it is just too much to believe that we are the
:09:12. > :09:16.worldly do in money-laundering regulations in general. Surely it is
:09:17. > :09:22.time to have another look at this. Thirdly, one of the key concerns
:09:23. > :09:25.about banks in recent years is the way in which they have not had a
:09:26. > :09:29.supportive regime for whistle-blowing. Surely we need to
:09:30. > :09:38.encourage, not inhibit whistle-blowing?
:09:39. > :09:49.Thank you. My understanding in this alleged case, that the bodies do not
:09:50. > :09:54.use limited partnerships. Last year, Bays introduced the people with
:09:55. > :10:03.significant control register, and we will be consulting shortly on UK
:10:04. > :10:08.property owning foreign companies. He mentioned limited partnership
:10:09. > :10:13.concentrations, I'm sure any honourable or right honourable
:10:14. > :10:16.member wanting to write to the Secretary of State can do so. It is
:10:17. > :10:21.also appropriate to say that we are world leaders when it comes to
:10:22. > :10:27.financial regulation. The FCA do a good job. They are held in high
:10:28. > :10:33.regard by the rest of the world, striking the right balance between
:10:34. > :10:37.consumer protection and fairness. I know that this is an issue that my
:10:38. > :10:43.honourable friend takes very seriously. Can he tell the House how
:10:44. > :10:49.unexpired wealth orders will prevent them was using the proceeds of crime
:10:50. > :10:52.going forward? He races an aborted part of the criminal finances Bill
:10:53. > :11:00.which is going through the Other Place as we speak will stop I look
:11:01. > :11:06.forward to a time when that receives while I centre becomes legislation,
:11:07. > :11:13.giving new powers to stop this activity. The economic Secretary has
:11:14. > :11:19.shown real complacency about what is a huge and building scandal which
:11:20. > :11:24.has been revealed by the Guardian today. Given that our banking sector
:11:25. > :11:27.is very large and that the consequences of it being
:11:28. > :11:36.destabilised by this kind of criminal behaviour are very, very
:11:37. > :11:40.serious for our economy, doesn't the Minister realise that his
:11:41. > :11:48.complacent, process driven answers today are simply not good enough?
:11:49. > :11:54.I don't recognise that at all. I would say the FCA are well placed to
:11:55. > :12:01.investigate this if appropriate. I would also say that not only do we
:12:02. > :12:07.have world leading financial regulation, be also have world
:12:08. > :12:10.leading financial services. There are people up and down the country
:12:11. > :12:16.who work in financial services and the vast jollity of those work hard,
:12:17. > :12:20.do a good job and represent companies as best they can. We have
:12:21. > :12:30.applied the measures that the Government is undertaking. I have
:12:31. > :12:33.mentioned everything. This government is doing more than any
:12:34. > :12:39.time in the last ten years to tackle this issue. Given the overlap
:12:40. > :12:46.between money-laundering networks and those of and terrorist
:12:47. > :12:51.financing, it is not an issue of national security, and we need
:12:52. > :12:57.greater information sharing between the private sector, regulatory
:12:58. > :13:01.bodies and law enforcement agencies? He is right. Greater information
:13:02. > :13:08.sharing, transparency is the way forward. People were significant
:13:09. > :13:15.control register is an aborted instead -- an important step. At the
:13:16. > :13:26.end of the day, people with nothing to hide have nothing to fear. Could
:13:27. > :13:30.the Minister tell us which British banks have been convicted of
:13:31. > :13:34.money-laundering in the last five years, and what specific individual
:13:35. > :13:41.thing as he learned from reading those judgments? I think the
:13:42. > :13:45.question was discourteous but not disorderly. There is a distinction.
:13:46. > :13:51.He has been practising that technique is all the 30 years I have
:13:52. > :14:00.known him, in all different forums. It was not one of the more extreme
:14:01. > :14:04.examples will stop the FCA have carried out a number of enforcement
:14:05. > :14:12.actions, large and small, over a different number of financial
:14:13. > :14:16.service providers. It is important that a balance is struck at all
:14:17. > :14:22.times. If these allegations are proven,
:14:23. > :14:28.particularly against a bank which the covenant owns a majority stake
:14:29. > :14:32.in, will he commit to using the full powers of the common finances Bill
:14:33. > :14:38.to clamp down on this type of money-laundering which will be a
:14:39. > :14:47.national disgrace? I beg by oral friend for his
:14:48. > :14:56.question. It is worth saying that our shareholding is at arms length.
:14:57. > :15:02.The board in thing the -- the important thing is that we do not
:15:03. > :15:05.repeat the mistakes of the past. I wonder if the Minister had discussed
:15:06. > :15:19.the matter with the former Chancellor, who the House of
:15:20. > :15:25.Representatives set stocked HSBC from being prosecuted. What
:15:26. > :15:29.specifically has FCA done since laundromat was discovered in 2013?
:15:30. > :15:34.I have not had that conversation with the right honourable member
:15:35. > :15:42.that she mentions, but it is fair to say that the FCA have carried out a
:15:43. > :15:46.number of investigations. It is right and proper that they do so. It
:15:47. > :15:53.would not be appropriate for me, they are an independent operational
:15:54. > :16:01.body, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it. It seems to
:16:02. > :16:04.me and many others that there is an unwritten deal here, which is that
:16:05. > :16:10.the Russians and others of dubious or illegal means come to this
:16:11. > :16:18.country, they send their kids to our schools, they buy our real estate or
:16:19. > :16:20.how sports clubs and get involved in our country on the basis that while
:16:21. > :16:27.they are here, they do no wrong. That is not an acceptable way on
:16:28. > :16:32.which to go forward. If it ever was, is no longer is. I put it to my
:16:33. > :16:40.honourable friend, is it not now time to have a rethink about this?
:16:41. > :16:49.He raises an interesting point. This government is doing more than ever
:16:50. > :16:57.before tackle this. When it comes to money-laundering, the Department
:16:58. > :17:06.have... Will consider any action that needs to be taken to address
:17:07. > :17:11.the concerns in due course. To a long list of misdemeanours
:17:12. > :17:14.committed by banks for which the directors have not been held
:17:15. > :17:21.responsible, we now have an allegation of money-laundering. One
:17:22. > :17:28.of the explanations given is that directors of banks seek compliance
:17:29. > :17:31.as an expense with no return. Can the Minister give us an assurance
:17:32. > :17:36.that these allegations will be properly investigated by criminal
:17:37. > :17:41.investigators, and that if it is found that directors have been
:17:42. > :17:47.encouraging slackness in compliance for their own profit of their banks,
:17:48. > :17:51.they will feel the full weight of the law and they will realise there
:17:52. > :17:57.is a cost of slack compliance in their own personal lives?
:17:58. > :18:03.I thank him for his question. He is right. Not only do we have a
:18:04. > :18:10.well-regarded financial regulation system, we also have a rule of law
:18:11. > :18:13.which is both fair and effective, and if there is any wrongdoing or
:18:14. > :18:20.impropriety, it is right and proper that those people face the full
:18:21. > :18:27.weight of the law. How many money-laundering 's have been sent
:18:28. > :18:34.to prison in the last five years? I thank Mike friend for that question.
:18:35. > :18:38.I'm not aware of the exact answer for that, but I will write to him
:18:39. > :18:41.with all the information I can. I'm convinced that a round the world and
:18:42. > :18:48.in this country, it is something that is taken seriously.
:18:49. > :18:54.Is the Government or any other public agency in Britain
:18:55. > :19:00.investigating, or you see any of the -- what is the aware of any other
:19:01. > :19:03.investigation whether the money was channelled to either believe
:19:04. > :19:09.campaign for the Trump presidential campaign? I can be clear that I am
:19:10. > :19:16.not aware of any connection at all. It is right and proper that the FCA
:19:17. > :19:22.have been undertaking a watch on this issue for some time. It is a
:19:23. > :19:26.confidential matter. If there is new information, I'm sure they would
:19:27. > :19:30.consider it. Compliance officers across the banking sector by a key
:19:31. > :19:34.role in stepping up the behaviour reported. Can the Minister assure
:19:35. > :19:43.the House that the regulators are making sure that they are properly
:19:44. > :19:46.trained and complied on the ground? That is the case. It is right and
:19:47. > :19:49.proper that this issue of money-laundering is addressed from
:19:50. > :19:55.top to bottom. Everyone has an possible part to play.
:19:56. > :19:59.-- a responsible part to play. Having claimed there was little
:20:00. > :20:08.evidence of economic wrongdoing going unpunished, the MHA is
:20:09. > :20:13.considering whether it should extend that to money-laundering. Are the
:20:14. > :20:18.allegations highlighting the fact that the law needs to be toughened
:20:19. > :20:27.up in this area? I am sure they will have listened carefully to the point
:20:28. > :20:33.she has made. Minister, the report indicates that many of the funds
:20:34. > :20:40.laundered went into shell companies. Can the Minister explain how the
:20:41. > :20:43.first register of equitable ownership help prosecuting
:20:44. > :20:51.authorities bring those who benefit from these funds to justice? The
:20:52. > :20:54.people with significant control register is open for everyone to
:20:55. > :21:00.see. There are thousands if not millions of people able to see it.
:21:01. > :21:03.Transparency is the best thing, making people aware of wrongdoing,
:21:04. > :21:17.making sure that nothing is hidden. It is clear the current measures are
:21:18. > :21:22.not sufficient in tackling this money-laundering. Can I ask the
:21:23. > :21:26.Minister, considering we have dirty money channelled through our banks,
:21:27. > :21:31.how much worse would be at the Chancellor gets his vision of this
:21:32. > :21:42.country becoming a corporate haven, another Panama post Brexit? That
:21:43. > :21:45.isn't the Chancellor's vision. I am consulting on the fourth
:21:46. > :21:49.money-laundering directive. We mentioned the Criminal Finances Bill
:21:50. > :22:02.in the other place and the FCA of vigilant in enforcing and taking
:22:03. > :22:03.misconduct very seriously. Having witnessed first-hand the
:22:04. > :22:11.anti-money-laundering procedures of UK banks where wanting to open a
:22:12. > :22:15.bank account or keeping open an existing bank accounts, I wonder how
:22:16. > :22:20.any organisation has managed to launder ill gotten gains through our
:22:21. > :22:23.banks. I can only company that complying with the regulations is
:22:24. > :22:29.seen them all as a tick box exercise. Does he agree that banks
:22:30. > :22:35.should adopt a more proportionate and common-sense approach when
:22:36. > :22:39.dealing with members of the public? He will be pleased that the fourth
:22:40. > :22:45.money-laundering directive includes something we are consulting on as we
:22:46. > :22:52.speak and includes the provision for a more proportional approach when it
:22:53. > :23:03.comes to this very issue. I hope in the near future that the banks will
:23:04. > :23:08.take a proportionate approach in the future. The home affairs committee
:23:09. > :23:13.estimate 100 Berliners laundered through London every year but only
:23:14. > :23:17.0.17% of that has been frozen. We might as well go from here, go to
:23:18. > :23:22.Heathrow and portable welcome sign for Russian winters and
:23:23. > :23:26.money-laundering is. Five criminal complaints have been submitted to
:23:27. > :23:30.law enforcement agencies about money-laundering. Not a single one
:23:31. > :23:34.has resulted in the opening of a criminal case whereas 12 other
:23:35. > :23:42.countries have opened investigations on the same evidence. The question
:23:43. > :23:46.is this. What is necessary to get UK law enforcement to do their jobs and
:23:47. > :23:54.prosecute money-laundering is here? Why has this not be working and what
:23:55. > :23:58.is he going to do about it? I would say to the honourable gentleman, if
:23:59. > :24:05.it's appropriate, I would hope the MCA did some considerable amount
:24:06. > :24:09.about it. They are independently operational bodies and it is right
:24:10. > :24:24.and proper that I cannot comment at the dispatch box about what may --
:24:25. > :24:26.about what not happen. HSBC has been a serial offender in
:24:27. > :24:32.money-laundering all around the world. They have had finds in the MS
:24:33. > :24:38.-- US and Switzerland. There was cause for an investigation into
:24:39. > :24:43.other banks in 2012. This was first reported in 2014 is so yesterday's
:24:44. > :24:53.news is a new news. It compounds the skill of the problem -- scale of the
:24:54. > :24:56.problem. If the UK will is a world leader in money-laundering and
:24:57. > :24:59.financial regulations, how bad is it in the rest of the world and what is
:25:00. > :25:07.the UK doing to stamp it out elsewhere? It raises an interesting
:25:08. > :25:11.point. It is important to work with the countries around the world to
:25:12. > :25:16.make sure this is something that we work in cooperation together with.
:25:17. > :25:21.We have been very clear that we will work with them and clear that we
:25:22. > :25:28.will work with other regulators around the world. That is important.
:25:29. > :25:35.This is not something we can domestically solve on our own.
:25:36. > :25:39.Investigators at the National Crime Agency are saying Russian officials
:25:40. > :25:42.have been hampering their investigations by refusing to
:25:43. > :25:46.cooperate. What discussions has he had with his Foreign Office
:25:47. > :25:52.counterparts to see whether they can broker better relationship with
:25:53. > :25:58.those Russian officials? I would imagine the FCA are in contact with
:25:59. > :26:03.the FCO and if it is appropriate, they will have conversations about
:26:04. > :26:07.it. What is important is if these allegations of correct, if they
:26:08. > :26:17.present any new information about the MCA and FCA act inappropriately.
:26:18. > :26:21.Can I ask the minister why the Chancellor is not here because
:26:22. > :26:25.frankly his answers have been appalling today. Some ?80 billion
:26:26. > :26:29.worth of money could have been laundered according to this story.
:26:30. > :26:35.Does he not think we should think again about the powers that the FCA
:26:36. > :26:44.and other regulators have to prevent this happening? Can he please answer
:26:45. > :26:49.some questions? I have been doing my very best to answer the questions.
:26:50. > :26:56.Sadly I can't be held responsible for the quality or content of the
:26:57. > :27:06.question. I am the Minister responsible for the financial
:27:07. > :27:09.services. We are responsible for legislating the criminal finance
:27:10. > :27:17.bill. It is an example of what we are doing. The FCA are in constant
:27:18. > :27:26.dialogue with the banks and Government to make sure they move
:27:27. > :27:30.with the times. If it is found during the investigation that
:27:31. > :27:32.terrorism has been facilitated through this, what personal
:27:33. > :27:44.responsibility will the Minister take that dreadful events? These
:27:45. > :27:50.schemes operated from 2010 to 2014. The honourable member mentioned the
:27:51. > :27:55.independent story in 2014. If there is new evidence, it is important the
:27:56. > :28:01.MCA and FCA look at that evidence and act accordingly. We've set up
:28:02. > :28:04.these bodies to act operationally and independently away from the
:28:05. > :28:14.Government and that is right and proper. On a point of order, on a
:28:15. > :28:17.point of rectification. On Thursday 16th of March, the Parliamentary
:28:18. > :28:22.Commissioner for standards published a report on a complaint about my
:28:23. > :28:28.declarations in the register which concluded that the rules were
:28:29. > :28:33.breached to how I registered information and its subsequent din
:28:34. > :28:37.an admission that failed to draw the House's attention to the interests
:28:38. > :28:46.were asking a question about the future of deep coal mining in the UK
:28:47. > :28:50.on 13th of March. I wish to apologise to the House fully and
:28:51. > :28:54.unreservedly for what was a genuinely inadvertent breach of the
:28:55. > :28:59.rules with which I have an all-time sort to comply. Sun-macro I am
:29:00. > :29:03.grateful to the honourable gentleman for what he said and it will have
:29:04. > :29:14.been heard unappreciated by the House. I seek your advice concerning
:29:15. > :29:20.the emergency PIP regulations that came into force last Thursday. 160
:29:21. > :29:25.members of the House have signed a prayer against the regulations. A
:29:26. > :29:31.date has been arranged for next week in the other place but to date, the
:29:32. > :29:35.Government has refused to arranged -- arrange a debate. There is a huge
:29:36. > :29:41.to McGrath to devastate with regulations in force by in statutory
:29:42. > :29:47.achievements. It is a sad reflection of the Government's attitude to this
:29:48. > :29:52.house. 180,000 people have signed a petition against the regulation. 81%
:29:53. > :29:59.-- eight 1000 disabled people have been through a PIP assessment which
:30:00. > :30:03.will deny people access to additional support. Please can he
:30:04. > :30:08.advised me on how I compress the Government to hold a debate on
:30:09. > :30:14.regulations before we rise for Easter recess? The honourable lady
:30:15. > :30:20.has raised a point with very considerable force. She has
:30:21. > :30:25.underlined the reason that its urgency. I have noted the numbers to
:30:26. > :30:31.which she referred of members who have prayed against the regulations.
:30:32. > :30:35.The point of order isn't a matter for the chair but it will have been
:30:36. > :30:39.heard on the Treasury bench and it is not an unreasonable hope and
:30:40. > :30:46.expectation on her part and that of those members who prayed against the
:30:47. > :30:50.regulations. There will be a debate arranged in a timely fashion.
:30:51. > :30:54.Insofar as she seeks advice, I would say to her that she and her
:30:55. > :31:01.colleagues could use the opportunity of business questions on Thursday to
:31:02. > :31:06.press their claims in respect of the schedule the next week's business.
:31:07. > :31:13.It is next week the honourable lady is concerned. Whether group
:31:14. > :31:16.activity, significant numbers raising the matter will be
:31:17. > :31:24.effective, I don't know. If anything will, it might. I will leave it
:31:25. > :31:31.there for now. If there are no further points of order, we come out
:31:32. > :31:36.of the ten Minute Rule Motion. I beg to move that leave be given to bring
:31:37. > :31:39.in a bill to require homeowners to notify local authorities of an
:31:40. > :31:44.intention to register accommodation for short or holiday lets. Good
:31:45. > :31:48.ideas can be undermined when a minority abuse or exploit them
:31:49. > :31:52.causing harm to others and undermining the well-being of the
:31:53. > :31:57.wider community. The sharing of community is fizzing with good ideas
:31:58. > :32:01.and opportunities. The potential use of resources from Labour to
:32:02. > :32:05.transport, to homes, can be made more by the speed and flexibility of
:32:06. > :32:08.digital communications. We should not be putting berries in its way.
:32:09. > :32:13.That is not the same as saying there should be no rules. Individuals need
:32:14. > :32:19.to be protected and those rules we agree on must be enforced. On the
:32:20. > :32:24.need for further action, we have an emerging consensus including London
:32:25. > :32:27.councils, the Mayor of London and London Assembly members. Today I'm
:32:28. > :32:31.putting forward a proposal which will make it possible to effectively
:32:32. > :32:35.enforce the rules preventing the abuse of short and holiday let
:32:36. > :32:40.accommodation. Whilst I welcome their freedom for home owners to let
:32:41. > :32:45.their properties for such purposes without bureaucratic interference,
:32:46. > :32:48.it is difficult and expensive for cash-strapped councils to police the
:32:49. > :32:54.rules. With no requirement to see petition for a short let, the only
:32:55. > :32:57.way to identify this and where those lettings are in breach of the rules,
:32:58. > :33:02.is by having staff claim the various websites in order to find them. Some
:33:03. > :33:10.of us flagged up during the passage of the deregulation bill which
:33:11. > :33:13.reduce the number, it can be tough when there is no notification. River
:33:14. > :33:17.Nar property is let the mother of three months in any one year is
:33:18. > :33:23.labour intensive, expensive and cumbersome. As officers in my local
:33:24. > :33:26.authority have been of great help in preparing this bill, have told me,
:33:27. > :33:30.it is difficult to determine the addresses as there is no prior
:33:31. > :33:32.notification system. My officers spend and cumbersome. As officers
:33:33. > :33:35.are my local authority have been of great help in preparing this bill,
:33:36. > :33:37.have told me, it is difficult to determine the addresses as there is
:33:38. > :33:40.no prior notification system. My officers spend Anna Norman at amount
:33:41. > :33:46.of time looking for websites where addresses are not advised. We are up
:33:47. > :33:50.against it but remain vigilant and continue to do all we can to do with
:33:51. > :34:00.the commercial lets. Some people who are using at B see why does it
:34:01. > :34:07.matter? Why shouldn't we do what we want with our properties? They are
:34:08. > :34:11.the sharing economy earning a bit of extra cash from a spare room or
:34:12. > :34:18.whether they are away themselves. They are aware of legal
:34:19. > :34:21.responsibilities and considerate of neighbours. Alongside the
:34:22. > :34:27.responsible owner are irresponsible ones. It legal sub letters and a
:34:28. > :34:31.significant commercial operations seeking to take advantage of higher
:34:32. > :34:37.yields. Across all London boroughs in the year following the
:34:38. > :34:43.deregulation act, there was a citywide 127% increase in short
:34:44. > :34:50.lettings advertised on Airbnb alone. Westminster saw an 80% increase but
:34:51. > :34:55.some borough saw bigger rises. Camden was 124% and Brent, 762%.
:34:56. > :35:08.There is no evidence to suggest the short let phenomenon is expanding.
:35:09. > :35:11.The latest data on inside Airbnb confirms 50,000 lettings across
:35:12. > :35:14.Edinburgh, Manchester alone. In terms of potential breaches of the
:35:15. > :35:22.law, my borough is investigating more than 1100 properties that are
:35:23. > :35:26.believed to have breached the limit. In the early part of last year, the
:35:27. > :35:33.number of properties listed as opposed to rooms listed on Airbnb
:35:34. > :35:37.increased by a quarter from 17,000 to 21,000 800. Research by the
:35:38. > :35:42.residential landlords Association shows 41% of at B listings in
:35:43. > :35:49.London in June last year were multi-listings. -- Airbnb. This
:35:50. > :35:52.increase to 17,590 properties is also a sign that websites are
:35:53. > :35:59.becoming increasingly commercialised. 54% of entire homes
:36:00. > :36:03.in Manchester and 43% in Edinburgh were identified as multi listing
:36:04. > :36:09.properties. Indicating the trend is going well beyond the image of the
:36:10. > :36:13.sharing economy. Two sets of issues arise and stop the first is the loss
:36:14. > :36:17.of residential accommodation. Short lets can bring out three times the
:36:18. > :36:21.income of more traditional flat rentals. ?1800 a week on average
:36:22. > :36:28.according to Westminster for a two bed flat as opposed to 620 for a
:36:29. > :36:32.short tenancy. Even before the deregulation bill, evidence
:36:33. > :36:33.suggestive frazzle being converted into semipermanent holiday lets but
:36:34. > :36:42.now the pressure is more. The potential to earn bowl is a key
:36:43. > :36:50.issue on some sites. The magic and on over weekend stays can beat what
:36:51. > :36:54.you achieve full a weekly tenancy. You can choose when to put your
:36:55. > :37:03.property are correct and when not to. Another company says that
:37:04. > :37:09.another company generate more income than regular lats. This leads to a
:37:10. > :37:21.longer term loss of residential lets. Westminster Council alone
:37:22. > :37:25.estimates there ... On constituent wrote to me to say, this style of
:37:26. > :37:29.letting has nothing to do with people making extra money and aside
:37:30. > :37:33.from their homes by renting out the order, the original premise. It has
:37:34. > :37:41.now become a licence for people to make big and nontax declared money
:37:42. > :37:46.at the expense of residents in comparison to its more considerable
:37:47. > :37:49.downsides. Constituents were coming to raise concerns about the impact
:37:50. > :37:55.of their communities becoming an unofficial part of the hotel and
:37:56. > :38:00.hospitality industry. It raises questions that range from the impact
:38:01. > :38:06.of transience to their security, to Anti-Social Behaviour Order rising
:38:07. > :38:09.from noise, and waste issues, overcrowding and a whole range of
:38:10. > :38:15.other sources of disturbance. Those disturbances place a cost and the
:38:16. > :38:21.local authority as well. There right enforcement costs, the costs of
:38:22. > :38:24.noise and other breaches of regulations which are to be met by
:38:25. > :38:28.cash-strapped local authorities. Because it would wrote to say, we
:38:29. > :38:34.are facing house in Bayswater, divided into six lats week manage
:38:35. > :38:46.ourselves. All but one are now non-owner occupied. A few weeks ago,
:38:47. > :38:53.it became obvious they were renting and AirBNB. Our front door key in
:38:54. > :39:05.the stranger's hand. I'm sure it breaches the terms of the building
:39:06. > :39:10.insurance as well. These requirements are being breached as a
:39:11. > :39:14.result of short lats. Meanwhile, tax revenues are going down, and
:39:15. > :39:19.certainly other cities are finding this. One article which looked at
:39:20. > :39:24.the American experience looked at the number of grievances cities have
:39:25. > :39:33.with short reds in terms of lost revenue. A study from all the rooms
:39:34. > :39:39..com, a vacation search engine found that 2016 revenue would amount to
:39:40. > :39:43.almost $440 million if they were taxed at the same rate as
:39:44. > :39:46.traditional hotels. That is the American experience, we do not have
:39:47. > :39:53.UK experience, but that is where we are going. Councils now have to
:39:54. > :39:56.prove that property is not only being short-lived but has been done
:39:57. > :40:00.so for more than 90 days idiot, a far harder and resource intensive
:40:01. > :40:07.case. What can be done to resolve this? We are looking for local
:40:08. > :40:12.authorities and the Government to be more prepared to intervene to exempt
:40:13. > :40:14.neighbourhoods from the current set of regulations. They have the power
:40:15. > :40:19.to do this, Westminster Council applied and was turned down and be
:40:20. > :40:26.considering a fresh application. The platforms can do more. AirBNB has
:40:27. > :40:35.themselves they will enforce the 90 day rule. They believe it is for the
:40:36. > :40:38.host to uphold the law, and not themselves as letting platforms.
:40:39. > :40:50.What is now necessary for this Bill aims to do is to deduce a light
:40:51. > :40:56.touch online notification system, which allows local authorities to
:40:57. > :41:02.nowhere short holiday lets are taking place. Let's make sure this
:41:03. > :41:06.does not intensify the housing crisis, land costs on others whilst
:41:07. > :41:10.sharing none of the rewards and evict misery and long-term residents
:41:11. > :41:15.who can find themselves waking up in a Hotel Annex after all the
:41:16. > :41:19.caretakers have gone home. The question is that the on-board
:41:20. > :41:24.member have leave to bring in the Bill. As many of that opinion, say
:41:25. > :41:34.I. To the contrary, no. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring
:41:35. > :41:36.in the Bill? Jim Fitzpatrick, Andy Slaughter, Kate Green, Peter Kyle,
:41:37. > :42:19.Kerry McCarthy at myself, sir. Shortened holiday let -- short and
:42:20. > :42:26.holiday let accommodation notification of authorities Bill.
:42:27. > :42:33.Intellectual property and its Bill for, not amended to be considered.
:42:34. > :42:42.Thank you. We begin with new clause one. To move which, I call Mr Bill
:42:43. > :42:49.Asmussen. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Intellectual property makes
:42:50. > :42:56.a significant contribution to the UK economy each year. In 2014, UK firms
:42:57. > :43:10.estimated ?3 billion in knowledge assets competitive 21 billion pounds
:43:11. > :43:18.in tangible assets. It has risen to 70 billion in 2014 and has been
:43:19. > :43:22.estimated at 4.2% of total GDP. What is more, the UK system of regulating
:43:23. > :43:32.intellectual property is considered to be one of the best rated, another
:43:33. > :43:36.three in the 2016 index. In terms of enforcing the main types of
:43:37. > :43:39.intellectual property rights. It is clear therefore that intellectual
:43:40. > :43:47.property is of great importance to the UK economy. The impact of
:43:48. > :43:54.leaving the European Union on IP is of vital importance to the economy.
:43:55. > :44:00.It is of great interest to businesses who value certainty and
:44:01. > :44:04.its aborted due investors in businesses in the United Kingdom.
:44:05. > :44:11.This Bill applies to patents, trademarks and designs. The minister
:44:12. > :44:16.stated during committee stage that the European patents office or
:44:17. > :44:20.established by international treaty and our participation in the
:44:21. > :44:26.European agent of this will be unaffected by our leaving the
:44:27. > :44:30.European Union. The suggestion is that patents will be untouched by
:44:31. > :44:36.Brexit. It is to be hoped that the minister's confidence is not
:44:37. > :44:40.misplaced. However, there are a number of IP rights deriving from EU
:44:41. > :44:45.regulations which will no longer apply to the UK and the impact of
:44:46. > :44:58.Brexit is at this stage far from clear. As the chartered is a jute of
:44:59. > :45:06.Pete and attorneys -- Institute of patent attorneys. It may be
:45:07. > :45:09.negotiated for rights holders to confirm these international rights
:45:10. > :45:15.or file separate rights. The Government has remained silent on
:45:16. > :45:20.whether or not it intends to implement the new directive in the
:45:21. > :45:24.UK domestic law. In addition, the minister signalled the Government's
:45:25. > :45:30.intention to ratify the called agreement by the end of April. The
:45:31. > :45:38.court deals with disputes relating to patents. If Bruce the threat of
:45:39. > :45:44.unjustified litigation, a point made by Mike honourable friend at
:45:45. > :45:49.committee. Can I ask the Minister, will be still be members of the
:45:50. > :45:57.court after we leave the European Union? It is part of reducing costs
:45:58. > :46:00.across jurisdictions, making it easier to do business. The last
:46:01. > :46:07.thing we need is additional costs and business. Clarity is needed of
:46:08. > :46:10.our membership of the court. He said Ossetians had not been taken, so
:46:11. > :46:13.will the update is and will he confirm his understanding of just
:46:14. > :46:19.how important it is that we minimise the costs across jurisdictions,
:46:20. > :46:24.including with intellectual property rights and what his view is about
:46:25. > :46:34.our potential mothership of the patent court -- our potential
:46:35. > :46:38.membership. There would need to be a new international agreement with the
:46:39. > :46:46.participating member states, and the UK, to avoid compatibility with EU
:46:47. > :46:56.law. -- to provide compatibility. There will be a need for further
:46:57. > :47:04.legislation to deal with cases in progress. It will be unclear whether
:47:05. > :47:10.UK attorneys will be able to represent parties after exit.
:47:11. > :47:17.There is a strong preference for the UK to participate in the system if a
:47:18. > :47:24.solid legal basis for this can be agreed. Given the leading position
:47:25. > :47:29.this country has in patent and patent law. It is a board and to do
:47:30. > :47:34.all we can to maintain our position and make sure confidence remains as
:47:35. > :47:40.high as possible in our position. It is important we avoid taking a step
:47:41. > :47:45.back and losing the benefits that a development of single UK develop and
:47:46. > :47:49.patent protection for brain. The economic and competitive advantage
:47:50. > :47:56.of such protection are clear enough, and it must be that the alternative
:47:57. > :48:02.of having a separate UK system and the likely need for rights holders
:48:03. > :48:17.to apply for UK and EU protection separately will mean additional
:48:18. > :48:24.burned -- burdens for UK companies. Mike honourable friend from
:48:25. > :48:30.Newcastle Central said it is vital that Mr takes all steps to make sure
:48:31. > :48:35.patent law and IP law more generally do not take a retrograde step
:48:36. > :48:39.following Brexit. IP is how innovation is rewarded. It is
:48:40. > :48:45.fundamental in the during our ability to maintain the high pay
:48:46. > :48:47.economy, and that the next generation is better off than the
:48:48. > :48:54.last. We have seen living standards fall since 2010 as the economy has
:48:55. > :49:02.risen. The people of this country cannot afford to miss opportunities,
:49:03. > :49:08.including this one. The alternative of acting as a tax dodgers Paradise
:49:09. > :49:12.will not offer better living standards, and intellectual property
:49:13. > :49:19.is one of many ways in which we must build on our success as a country at
:49:20. > :49:22.not allow decline. How intellectual property rights are protected and
:49:23. > :49:28.how they are seen to be protected during negotiations over Brexit are
:49:29. > :49:37.crucial to delivering and enhancing is this confidence. To investor
:49:38. > :49:39.confidence, and to the best outcome of those negotiations. The Prime
:49:40. > :49:44.Minister might not wish to give a running commentary but she and her
:49:45. > :49:48.ministers do need to reassure business and their staff and the
:49:49. > :49:55.whole country that everything is being done to secure our future.
:49:56. > :49:57.That is why I have tabled the amendment, calling for the governor
:49:58. > :50:04.to review the impact of Brexit and the IP provisions in this Bill. A
:50:05. > :50:08.report back after a year would help bring back sovereignty into this
:50:09. > :50:17.Parliament, something we have heard a great deal about Jerry referendum
:50:18. > :50:22.debate. It would help investors to understand what the post Brexit
:50:23. > :50:29.intellectual property world would be related to the provisions in this
:50:30. > :50:32.Bill. The protections harmonised in the Bill are important to protect
:50:33. > :50:36.our businesses, to ensure a fair market, to encourage entrepreneurs
:50:37. > :50:40.and inventors, to ensure virginity for smaller businesses, especially
:50:41. > :50:47.that those businesses and other but as want to know what the other
:50:48. > :50:57.agents -- what the arrangements will be like after Brexit. I saw this
:50:58. > :51:07.from a law firm who say that discussions are taking place
:51:08. > :51:12.regarding the post Brexit options. IP rights will be affected.
:51:13. > :51:15.Trademarks and designs are likely to be the IP rights most affected, but
:51:16. > :51:21.it will impact on other IP rights as well. And leaving the European
:51:22. > :51:25.Union, the United Kingdom will no longer automatically be covered by
:51:26. > :51:31.EU trademarks. An orderly transitional period is expected,
:51:32. > :51:37.with the potential to split existing EU trademarks in the UK National and
:51:38. > :51:41.EU trademarks post Brexit. Subject to negotiation and relevant
:51:42. > :51:45.supporting legislation. Trademark owners will need to reinstate lapsed
:51:46. > :51:51.UK marks which are being submitted into EU trademarks by seniority, but
:51:52. > :51:55.it is not yet clear how that will work.
:51:56. > :52:03.New EU trademark filings will not extend to the UK. Trademark owners
:52:04. > :52:08.will need to seek national protection in the UK for their
:52:09. > :52:14.trademarks. Application through the Madrid protocol will still be
:52:15. > :52:21.available for designating the UK. The court system will no longer have
:52:22. > :52:26.EU trademark courts post Brexit. The EU trademark holders will not be
:52:27. > :52:31.able to enforce them in the UK and obtain an EU junctions under the EU
:52:32. > :52:39.trademark regulation. The effect on pan EU injunctions already granted
:52:40. > :52:45.is unknown. Brexit will impact on the general jurisdiction of the UK
:52:46. > :52:52.courts. Infringement proceedings may need to be bought separately in the
:52:53. > :52:59.UK and EU. UK trademark laws may develop independently over time and
:53:00. > :53:04.diverged from EU trademark laws. The Court of Justice decisions will not
:53:05. > :53:08.be binding but are likely to be persuasive. They finish by saying
:53:09. > :53:15.there would be no obligation to implement the new trademarks
:53:16. > :53:20.directive in line with the already enforce now community trademark
:53:21. > :53:30.regulation. If breast -- if Brexit takes place before January 2000 and
:53:31. > :53:36.19. The level and degree of uncertainty set out by that legal
:53:37. > :53:41.opinion to show the need for proper analysis, for confidence to be built
:53:42. > :53:47.in during negotiation and not waiting for the end result of when
:53:48. > :53:53.we've left. It's because of the number of ways it was described.
:53:54. > :53:58.There is clearly a considerable amount of uncertainty. We are
:53:59. > :54:04.unlikely to be able to remain in the new European patents Court post
:54:05. > :54:08.Brexit. The Government has not said whether we will implement the
:54:09. > :54:12.trademarks directive. To help with the certainty that business needs,
:54:13. > :54:17.perhaps the Minister could use this opportunity to confirm which IP
:54:18. > :54:24.rights not on the statue books will be enshrined in UK law once we leave
:54:25. > :54:31.the EU? Does he understand from the detailed analysis I read out just
:54:32. > :54:36.how much of a concerned this is? Just how complex it is and how
:54:37. > :54:45.business wants and needs that uncertainty to the good of business
:54:46. > :54:48.and the wider economy. New clause one, review on the impact of
:54:49. > :54:54.accident the European Union on provisions within this act. The
:54:55. > :55:02.question is new clause one B read a second time. This new clause will
:55:03. > :55:05.require the Secretary of State issue a report on impact of the
:55:06. > :55:09.Government's transfer exiting the EU want the provisions within this bill
:55:10. > :55:15.within 12 months of it coming into force. This bill does not take
:55:16. > :55:18.forward any EU obligations. The IP unjustified threats provisions do
:55:19. > :55:25.not derive from EU law, they are home-grown provisions which were
:55:26. > :55:29.enacted in the 19th-century. The important protections provided by
:55:30. > :55:33.this bill will not be changed by Brexit. Businesses pushed the
:55:34. > :55:38.clarity and certainty about how they can contact others over IP disputes
:55:39. > :55:46.and this bill delivers that. Our leaving the EU does not alter this.
:55:47. > :55:50.Some IP rights are EU wide. The bill applies properly to those rights.
:55:51. > :55:54.This ensures the threats regime is consistent across all relevant
:55:55. > :55:59.rights that have effect in the UK. This bill does ensure our UK threats
:56:00. > :56:05.regime will work appropriately with the proposed patent and unified
:56:06. > :56:09.patent court when they come into effect. The honourable member asked
:56:10. > :56:15.about the UPC following our exit from the EU. The options that the
:56:16. > :56:19.UK's intellectual property regime including our relationship with the
:56:20. > :56:26.unified patent core will be the subject of negotiation and it would
:56:27. > :56:30.be wrong to set out unilateral positions in advance. Our efforts
:56:31. > :56:33.will be focused on seeking the best deal in negotiations with our
:56:34. > :56:39.European partners and we won that deal to reflect the mature,
:56:40. > :56:43.cooperative that close friends and allies enjoy. For as long as well
:56:44. > :56:49.members of the EU, the UK will continue to play a full and active
:56:50. > :56:54.role, making sure the IP regime continues to function properly for
:56:55. > :56:59.EU wide rights. The UK's involvement in the EU, IP framework after Brexit
:57:00. > :57:03.is not a matter for this deal but part of the exit negotiations which
:57:04. > :57:11.have not yet begun. It is likely those negations will still be in
:57:12. > :57:15.progress. Publishing the suggested report will be unnecessary and could
:57:16. > :57:22.undermine our ability to negotiate the best deal for Britain in this
:57:23. > :57:28.area. The honourable member asked about EU wide IP rights upon Brexit.
:57:29. > :57:33.We are already talking to businesses and other stakeholders about this
:57:34. > :57:38.important issue. There will be time to address it during negotiations
:57:39. > :57:44.and we will want to see the best outcome and one that supports our
:57:45. > :57:48.innovative businesses. He asked about EU trademarks and designs and
:57:49. > :57:53.we recognise its users will want clarity over the long-term coverage
:57:54. > :57:55.of those rights. We acknowledge the importance of involving users in
:57:56. > :58:02.consideration of these issues. We're with stakeholders to gather views on
:58:03. > :58:08.how to address their concerns. The honourable member asked about the EU
:58:09. > :58:14.trademark reform package and the directive. On balance, we think the
:58:15. > :58:17.trademark reform package is a good one with modernisations that will
:58:18. > :58:22.make the overall system easier and cheaper offer businesses to use. We
:58:23. > :58:28.are committed to getting the right deal for the UK and we will work
:58:29. > :58:31.with Parliament to ensure a smooth and successful exit. This new clause
:58:32. > :58:37.does not help us in any of this work. It is unnecessary and harmful
:58:38. > :58:46.to the UK's interests and I as the honourable member to withdraw his
:58:47. > :58:50.amendment. I'm glad the minister made the point about having
:58:51. > :58:56.discussions with businesses already. That is incredibly important but I
:58:57. > :59:02.do urge him to make clear publicly exactly what the nature of those
:59:03. > :59:07.discussions are sooner rather than later. Businesses are exceedingly
:59:08. > :59:15.worried about the consequences for intellectual property. The picking
:59:16. > :59:18.up the points I made about the relationship between the EU patents
:59:19. > :59:24.law and the UK, a great deal of reassurances needed. I think he
:59:25. > :59:29.understands that. I don't agree with him that we would make life more
:59:30. > :59:34.difficult by having this requirement on Government at all. This would be
:59:35. > :59:39.a sensible move. I would be surprised and concerned if we didn't
:59:40. > :59:49.seize the degree of reporting back during negotiations on these
:59:50. > :59:55.matters. He has made a number of comments about the Government's view
:59:56. > :00:03.in response to the points I've raised and I will withdraw the
:00:04. > :00:11.amendment. Is your pleasure that new clause one B withdrawn? New clause
:00:12. > :00:15.one by leave withdrawn. We now take amendment one with which it will be
:00:16. > :00:27.convenient to debate the remaining amendments to and three. Amendments
:00:28. > :00:32.one and three which are related with primary infringes, the names of
:00:33. > :00:38.those who claim to do, amendment one addresses the concerns of the impact
:00:39. > :00:41.on those who claim to make a product and the fraction to be taken against
:00:42. > :00:48.them and the definition is in amendment three. We are dealing with
:00:49. > :00:52.communication and threats and the essential parts of the bill. As the
:00:53. > :00:56.bill stands, the onus is on a rights bill stands, the onus is on a rights
:00:57. > :01:01.holder not to communicate with a party which claims to be a primary
:01:02. > :01:05.infringer of rights. The example which springs to mind is of an own
:01:06. > :01:09.label brand in the supermarket. I fracture he believes a product which
:01:10. > :01:15.contravenes their rights may not and this bill can UK with the
:01:16. > :01:20.supermarket. Alas, that is, they are confident there is no other way of
:01:21. > :01:25.finding out who the manufacturer really is. The problem here is that
:01:26. > :01:32.for smaller manufacturers wanting to challenge the bigger player, they
:01:33. > :01:36.may not have the expertise or the access to expertise needed to comply
:01:37. > :01:40.with the provisions of the Bill. They don't have the staff or the
:01:41. > :01:44.time or money to engage legal services or to search for the true
:01:45. > :01:50.identity of that manufacturer. A committee stage, the minister said
:01:51. > :01:56.that devotion were taken against a rights holder, they would be able to
:01:57. > :02:02.defend themselves in court. In legal terms, that is accurate the problem
:02:03. > :02:19.is that smaller organisations lacked the resources to be able to do so.
:02:20. > :02:25.The problem is a matter of imbalance and our court system favours those
:02:26. > :02:30.who have the deepest pockets, the greater resources and it doesn't
:02:31. > :02:33.mean smaller businesses. Will a small business risk winning or
:02:34. > :02:36.losing in court? But they have the money to defend themselves against
:02:37. > :02:45.an action or will they think it is worth defending themselves --
:02:46. > :02:49.defending their property in the first place? I could've found out
:02:50. > :02:53.who the primary infringer was and it could be tough choice as to whether
:02:54. > :02:58.they believe the court will back them or not when they say in court
:02:59. > :03:01.that they didn't realise they should not have been contacting the
:03:02. > :03:07.apparent infringer. My question to the Minister is, if not through what
:03:08. > :03:12.I am proposing and what my honourable friend proposed in
:03:13. > :03:17.committee, then how does he propose to ensure there is a level playing
:03:18. > :03:24.field between protecting the rights holder and preventing unjustified
:03:25. > :03:28.threats, especially where the rights holder is the smaller party? How
:03:29. > :03:36.does he propose to avoid small businesses being guaranteed the
:03:37. > :03:41.ability to operate on a level playing field? To be fair to the
:03:42. > :03:45.Minister, I should say I completely understand that is the purpose of
:03:46. > :03:50.the bill as a whole. Thanks very much go to the Law Commission
:03:51. > :03:55.network in delivering such an objective. The bill has in mind the
:03:56. > :03:59.need to balance encouragement of innovative is, entrepreneurs and
:04:00. > :04:05.investors against the need to ensure a fair market, prevent unfair and
:04:06. > :04:11.exploitative competition. On this point about those who came to be the
:04:12. > :04:17.manufacturer or the primary infringer, there appears to be a
:04:18. > :04:19.degree of ongoing potential threat imbalance in legislation and the
:04:20. > :04:25.Minister's answers in committee did not go far enough to guarantee its
:04:26. > :04:33.smaller businesses will be protected. Move to amendment two,
:04:34. > :04:39.this addresses some of the further concerns of small businesses who
:04:40. > :04:44.lack resources for legal advice and again who may fall foul of the
:04:45. > :04:48.narrow remit of the bill. In this case the amendment addresses the
:04:49. > :04:52.problems where a rights holder challenge is not just the primary
:04:53. > :04:56.infringement but secondary acts of infringement. A rights holder may
:04:57. > :05:04.wish to prevent future infringement. This is about... They might want to
:05:05. > :05:08.comment on related infringement of a similar nature. This is about
:05:09. > :05:11.minimising the fallout from infringements where they are
:05:12. > :05:16.inadvertent. Where a rights holder mention secondary infringements,
:05:17. > :05:23.this amendment would not penalise such communication with a reference
:05:24. > :05:26.about the future potential infringement or similar current
:05:27. > :05:31.infringements. The chartered Institute of Payton and attorneys
:05:32. > :05:37.raised the concern that future infringements were excluded as the
:05:38. > :05:44.bill is now drafted to stop it seems reasonable to ask the infringer to
:05:45. > :05:50.stop now and in the future and not to carry out similar infringements.
:05:51. > :05:54.The amendment also deals with the concern for smaller businesses who
:05:55. > :05:59.lack the resources or expertise to ensure all communications are
:06:00. > :06:03.strictly compliant with the bill 's provisions as currently set out. I
:06:04. > :06:07.agree with the Minister that rights holders should get their
:06:08. > :06:13.communications right and that is a large part of the thrust of what the
:06:14. > :06:19.bill is seeking to do. My concern with this amendment is that with
:06:20. > :06:24.smaller businesses, the lack of access to expertise, of legal
:06:25. > :06:30.expertise, could be a real problem on this point.
:06:31. > :06:37.I'm afraid I didn't follow some of his counterarguments, that it would
:06:38. > :06:42.make it harder for rights holders to approach the infringers with
:06:43. > :06:44.confidence. Our intent is to do that, to increase confidence,
:06:45. > :06:49.especially amongst smaller businesses, as they attempt to
:06:50. > :07:01.protect their property. Again, if not through this amendment, the same
:07:02. > :07:05.point for amendment on, then how? If the attorneys are wrong, in what way
:07:06. > :07:09.are they wrong? If the languages of age, a point you make in committee,
:07:10. > :07:15.why has this Department not suggested clearer language? With all
:07:16. > :07:20.of the expertise we have here today, in fact, and in the Department, it
:07:21. > :07:26.should be possible for the Minister to obtain the clarity of language
:07:27. > :07:34.that would address the concerns we have been raising. I wonder, did he
:07:35. > :07:37.ask for that kind of advice and the clarification and the language that
:07:38. > :07:40.would have addressed these problems and provided that additional
:07:41. > :07:47.assurance to smaller businesses and would have felt to alleviate some of
:07:48. > :07:54.the concerns raised? I wonder, if he didn't, then why didn't he? The
:07:55. > :08:00.question is that amendment on be made. Mr Joe Johnson. One of the key
:08:01. > :08:06.purposes of this Bill is to signify an important but complex part of IP
:08:07. > :08:10.law, making it more accessible and easy to use. One way it does this is
:08:11. > :08:15.to set out a clear statement of those acts which are rights holder
:08:16. > :08:20.can refer to in communication and will not trigger an unjustified
:08:21. > :08:24.threats action. This encourages rights holders to communicate with
:08:25. > :08:43.the trade source of an infringement. That would include those who import
:08:44. > :08:49.protected items. It will make it allowable to... There are two key
:08:50. > :08:52.points. First, and the reforms as they stand, a rights holder can
:08:53. > :08:58.already can indicate with potential infringers at all times, including
:08:59. > :09:04.those identified by amendments one and three. The Bill provides clear
:09:05. > :09:09.guidance on how this can be done. The provisions therefore make it
:09:10. > :09:12.easier for parties including SMEs to communicate and resolve issues
:09:13. > :09:16.without the need for litigation. Second, it is perfectly allowable to
:09:17. > :09:20.make a threat to anyone so long as that threat refers only to
:09:21. > :09:27.manufacturing and importing or other primary acts. Someone making such a
:09:28. > :09:32.threat would not be at risk of being sued even if the recipient was
:09:33. > :09:36.falsely claiming to do those acts. For those reasons, as well as the
:09:37. > :09:41.additional complexity introduced, I do not accept that the amendments
:09:42. > :09:45.are appropriate. Moving on to amendment two, it is important that
:09:46. > :09:48.issues of infringement can be raised early before the real commercial
:09:49. > :09:53.damage is done. For this reason, the Bill as drafted allows threats to be
:09:54. > :09:57.made in regards to future or intended acts of primary
:09:58. > :10:05.infringement. And men that to does not add anything here. -- amendment
:10:06. > :10:12.two. It refers to certain secondary acts working indicating with an
:10:13. > :10:14.alleged infringer. When someone is manufacturing and allegedly
:10:15. > :10:20.infringing product, the rights holder can discuss the retailing of
:10:21. > :10:23.that product. Users want at this, it saves time and money, but it would
:10:24. > :10:28.not be right to extend this further and allow threats to be made about
:10:29. > :10:38.the stocking the product that they did not themselves make. This can
:10:39. > :10:46.damage businesses who acquire products from legitimate
:10:47. > :10:51.manufacturers. Finally, it is highly uncertain for businesses what would
:10:52. > :10:57.be considered to be fundamentally similar acts of infringement, as set
:10:58. > :11:03.out in the amendment. Litigation on the meaning would ensue. If it is to
:11:04. > :11:09.capture similar products, this is not achieved. To conclude, these
:11:10. > :11:11.amendments would introduce additional unwelcome complexity.
:11:12. > :11:16.They would blur the line between who is protected from threats and who
:11:17. > :11:21.can be safely approached. Rather than benefiting fights holders, this
:11:22. > :11:24.could make getting legal advice more difficult and more costly. For these
:11:25. > :11:34.reasons, I would ask the honourable member to withdraw his amendments.
:11:35. > :11:41.Thank you. We appear to have rehearsed more or less word for word
:11:42. > :11:47.what happened in committee there. I am disappointed in the minister's
:11:48. > :11:49.responses, because he does not appear to have picked up this
:11:50. > :11:55.concern about the imbalance between large and small businesses, which
:11:56. > :12:01.really is a fundamental element of what we think is missing from the
:12:02. > :12:07.way the Bill is drafted. I would have liked greater clarity or I
:12:08. > :12:14.would like greater clarity from him, but perhaps that will come as the
:12:15. > :12:20.Bill is incremented. I would urge that the Government does consider
:12:21. > :12:30.the impact on small businesses of what is going through here. The
:12:31. > :12:40.point about own label, I think the point here is that once the rights
:12:41. > :12:47.holder has found out, this is what the amendment was saying, that an
:12:48. > :12:54.own label product is being made by the supermarket then such action
:12:55. > :12:59.would have to cease or which would be covered by the legislation. That
:13:00. > :13:03.was our intention. We have debated this at committee and again here. I
:13:04. > :13:10.hope the points about the need to protect smaller businesses are well
:13:11. > :13:15.made and I would be seeking to push these two about. I thank the
:13:16. > :13:22.Minister for his responses. Is a job measure that amendment on
:13:23. > :13:33.be withdrawn? Amendment on withdrawn. Consideration completed.
:13:34. > :13:41.Third reading? Minister to move third reading? I beg to move. It
:13:42. > :13:46.will now be read a third time. Intellectual property is essential
:13:47. > :13:51.to supporting economic growth and a key part of our strategy. I'm
:13:52. > :13:57.pleased that a small but important IP Bill will configure the passage
:13:58. > :14:01.today. Businesses are best able to make use of the IP regime. In doing
:14:02. > :14:07.so, it will deliver the Government was macro and fester commitment to
:14:08. > :14:15.make the UK the best place in Europe to innovate new patent ideas and
:14:16. > :14:20.expand a business. It brings clarity and consistency, making it easier
:14:21. > :14:25.and cheaper to solve issues quickly and without litigation. It clearly
:14:26. > :14:29.defines how information can be exchanged to resolve disputes over
:14:30. > :14:32.IP infringement. It means legal advisers will be able to settle
:14:33. > :14:38.disputes without becoming embroiled themselves. The reforms contained in
:14:39. > :14:41.this Bill are widely supported by stakeholders, not least because of
:14:42. > :14:46.careful research and consultation by the Law commission. I give thanks to
:14:47. > :14:50.the Law commission and the Scottish Law commission for their hard work
:14:51. > :14:53.and expertise in developing these reforms and for the support they
:14:54. > :14:58.have given the Bill during its passage. I would like to highlight
:14:59. > :15:01.the value of the special Parliamentary procedure used by this
:15:02. > :15:06.Bill. It has been strengthened by the detailed scrutiny in the Other
:15:07. > :15:10.Place afforded by the procedure. In this House, I'm grateful to
:15:11. > :15:13.honourable members, especially those who served on the committee for the
:15:14. > :15:19.interest and giving it to consideration. My thanks also go to
:15:20. > :15:27.the hard-working Bill team and other intellectual property office workers
:15:28. > :15:30.who have worked on it. They are part of the wider regime and provide
:15:31. > :15:35.much-needed protection. These reforms will ensure these provisions
:15:36. > :15:38.are fit for purpose and make a difference to our innovators,
:15:39. > :15:42.designers and businesses. I commend the Bill to the House. The question
:15:43. > :15:55.is that the Bill be now read the third time. Mr Bill
:15:56. > :16:03.Esterson. They are exactly overall what is
:16:04. > :16:08.needed to create that level playing field to create the support for
:16:09. > :16:15.innovation and creativity. Those who develop ideas need to have their
:16:16. > :16:21.ideas protected and supported, bringing together the different
:16:22. > :16:26.elements of intellectual property legislation in the wake this Bill
:16:27. > :16:34.has done. I think it is the right way to go. I've mentioned in the
:16:35. > :16:39.report stage some of the figures and benefits and the fact the UK has one
:16:40. > :16:45.of the finest IP systems in the world. We must do all in our power
:16:46. > :16:49.to ensure that continues. It is one of the reasons why this country is
:16:50. > :16:53.an attractive place for investment, it is one of the reasons we must be
:16:54. > :17:00.optimistic about our future, in spite of the many challenges that we
:17:01. > :17:08.currently face and the uncertainty, particularly around Brexit. There
:17:09. > :17:11.are concerns that we have raised throughout this process. It is a
:17:12. > :17:22.shame it was not more about alternative dispute resolution in
:17:23. > :17:28.the Bill. It is, I think, the opportunity to tighten up the
:17:29. > :17:33.support of smaller businesses, that would have been welcome, but it has
:17:34. > :17:39.not happened. We need to reward innovation, we need to win ought
:17:40. > :17:44.entrepreneurs. We need to balance that against a fair market, a
:17:45. > :17:52.successful economy. The Minister mentioned the industrial strategy
:17:53. > :17:58.green paper. It is very much critical to the success of an
:17:59. > :18:04.industrial strategy that our intellectual property system
:18:05. > :18:10.functions as well as possible. I hesitate to say I look forward to
:18:11. > :18:12.the way this will develop during the Brexit negotiations, but we will
:18:13. > :18:21.certainly need to work extremely hard to make sure that the success
:18:22. > :18:30.of our IP system is three tamed. -- is retained during the negotiations.
:18:31. > :18:39.The way that IP systems in the UK and across the European Union are so
:18:40. > :18:45.closely linked. Advisers are a step forward, as well as the clarity
:18:46. > :18:49.achieved by this Bill. We certainly supported the broad principles and
:18:50. > :18:55.the overall aims and objectives that have been achieved. I add my thanks
:18:56. > :19:01.to the Law commission and those who have worked on the Bill, those who
:19:02. > :19:12.served on the Bill committee. I hope this will achieve what is intended
:19:13. > :19:18.for it. The question is that the Bill be now read the third time. As
:19:19. > :19:29.many of that opinion, say ayes. On the contrary, no. The ayes have it.
:19:30. > :19:34.I must say, that is the most efficient Bill I have ever seen in
:19:35. > :19:43.this House! I think that somebody somewhere ought to be commended for
:19:44. > :19:53.it. We now come to the general debate on fuel poverty. I call the
:19:54. > :19:58.Minister to move the motion. I'm delighted to move the motion and
:19:59. > :20:03.open the first annual debate on fuel poverty. It is important because the
:20:04. > :20:13.issue is so important. The fact remains that so many of our fellow
:20:14. > :20:23.citizens and deciduous struggle to afford to keep their homes at
:20:24. > :20:28.reasonable temperatures. There is a lot of more to do to meet the
:20:29. > :20:33.demanding target we have quite rightly set ourselves as a country
:20:34. > :20:37.for 2030. It is quite right that the Government of the day should be held
:20:38. > :20:42.to regular account on what they are doing and encouraging others to do
:20:43. > :20:48.in the face of this conflict and stubborn challenge. It is also
:20:49. > :20:51.important because it is a chance for the Department to hear from MPs
:20:52. > :20:56.across the nation. In our day-to-day, we as MPs, cross the
:20:57. > :21:04.consequences of fuel poverty, not least in terms of the impact on our
:21:05. > :21:08.constituents. Before we get into the discussion, I want to set out the
:21:09. > :21:11.context. Over the past five years, government has taken action to
:21:12. > :21:17.overhaul the framework to tackle fuel poverty in England. At long
:21:18. > :21:22.last, we have a long-term strategic framework for action on fuel poverty
:21:23. > :21:27.rooted in the 2015 fuel poverty strategy and the long-term strategy
:21:28. > :21:30.target. This journey began in 2012 with the independent review if you
:21:31. > :21:35.poverty led by Professor Sir John Hills. It found that fuel poverty is
:21:36. > :21:40.a distinct issue, separate from income poverty. This debate links to
:21:41. > :21:44.other areas of policy such as the action the Government is taking to
:21:45. > :21:50.improve living standards such as the national Living Wage and increasing
:21:51. > :21:56.the tax thresholds for the lowest pay. We need to make sure that the
:21:57. > :22:03.energy market works for all. The meter tariff is a welcome first
:22:04. > :22:09.step. As the energy minister indicated last week, a consumer
:22:10. > :22:12.green paper will be out shortly. Today, I want to focus on the policy
:22:13. > :22:17.framework which is specific to the issue of fuel poverty. It has been a
:22:18. > :22:22.journey to this point. It started with the review, which reflected on
:22:23. > :22:26.the previous activity at measures to tackle fuel poverty and highlighted
:22:27. > :22:30.that while 10% indicator used at that time was well meaning, it was
:22:31. > :24:20.fundamentally flawed. ensure that the poor have when we
:24:21. > :24:27.saw the fuel poverty strategy. The strategy sets out the principles the
:24:28. > :24:33.government would apply. It is important for there to be public
:24:34. > :24:37.accountability, including the departmental body, the fuel advisory
:24:38. > :24:39.group previously. I welcome the insight and challenge that the
:24:40. > :25:19.chemist It is important to set out why we
:25:20. > :25:23.have arrived at this point and also in light of the significant change
:25:24. > :25:27.facing our country to reflect on the importance of giving the people of
:25:28. > :25:32.Scotland a democratic choice over our future. As a result of the
:25:33. > :25:37.Brexit vote, we know changes now inevitable. The question is what
:25:38. > :25:44.kind of right for Scotland should that be decided for us or by us. In
:25:45. > :25:48.the past two years, the Scottish Government has made a number of
:25:49. > :25:49.proposals designed to protect Scotland from the impact of