Intellectual Property (Exhaustion of Rights) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Corston

Monday 14th January 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

The noble Lord said that he will apologise; when will that happen?

[Lord Henley]

The noble Baroness and noble Lords opposite are having fun. I will continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I will deal with consultation when I wind up this debate after the noble Baroness and others have spoken.

[Baroness Corston]

Paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“No formal consultation has been carried”.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, there has been no formal consultation. Obviously, there have been informal discussions, as officials always have, but there has been no formal consultation by me and other Ministers. The Intellectual Property Office—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I cannot give a precise figure for those costs. My belief is that they are generally relatively minor, but I will write to the noble Lord with the details.

Beneficiaries include the NHS, which will continue to have the ability to maintain security and diversity of supply of medicines from the EEA, and to source medicines at the best price from within the EEA without being restricted by IP rights. As I mentioned, and as set out in the technical measures published in September last year, this fix is planned to be a temporary measure. The Government are considering options for what exhaustion regime is best for the UK in future while extensive research is under way. I stress that such an important decision should not be rushed. We will ensure that we have a robust evidence base and that full consultation with stakeholders is completed before any decision is made.

The instrument is extremely important to support the movement of goods and the supply of essential commodities such as medicines. It provides—

[Baroness Corston]

My Lords—

[Lord Henley]

I am going to conclude this section and then the noble Baroness may intervene. It provides clarity and legal certainty for businesses and consumers by preserving the status quo as much as possible following our exit from the EU. It is a necessary and technical fix for UK laws to prepare for our exit from the EU. I give way to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Corston]

I am grateful. The Minister has just referred to consultation. Paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Notes merely says:

“The Intellectual Property Office has undertaken information gathering with stakeholders”—


we do not know who they are—and that:

“No formal consultation has been carried”.


Why has it not been done before?

[Lord Henley]

Because there are other matters that will be more important, such as getting the consultation right on what happens should there be a deal. These are no-deal regulations and we want to get them right in the event of no deal. Obviously, we will consult as the noble Baroness wishes as we seek to get the deal right in due course. I hope I have dealt with those questions and I commend the regulation to the Committee.

Child Poverty Unit

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Corston

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, focusing these matters on the Social Mobility Commission secretariat is, I believe, the right way forward. As I also made clear in my original Answer, we will publish a social justice Green Paper shortly. I hope that that will set out what we hope to do, and we look forward to my noble friend’s comments, and those of others, on it. I say again, as I said in my original Answer, that I believe the focus on worklessness and a child’s educational attainment is the proper measure of these matters.

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords, the evidence shows that the last Labour Government lifted 1 million children out of poverty. That record is unarguable. The Resolution Foundation has estimated that in 2016 alone, 1 million more children, mostly from working households, have been forced into poverty. How on earth can any Government be proud of such a record, particularly one who say that they are in favour of those who are just about managing?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, on the measures that the previous Labour Government set forward, we found that in a recession the number of children allegedly in poverty went down, and when incomes were rising, it went up. They were not measuring the right thing. On current measures, using households below average income surveys, we have seen 100,000 fewer children in relative low-income households and 300,000 fewer people in relative poverty. Those figures are before housing costs. We are making progress, and I made it clear in my original Answer that the original measures were not the right way forward and that the child poverty unit was not the right approach.

“Honour-related” Violence

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Corston

Tuesday 14th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful—and the whole House will be grateful—for what the noble Baroness has told us. It is something that we should all fully understand: that marriage is a matter of a contract between two individuals and is not a matter for their parents. I repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord West, about the use of the word “honour”. That is possibly something that we want to get away from.

[Baroness Corston]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the challenges that we face is making clear to the heads of such families—usually an autocratic father—that when they come to this country because they want the benefits for themselves of an open and democratic society, such opportunity should also be accorded to their daughters as a matter of law and human rights? All too often, they bring a code of so-called “honour” from their own country that apparently applies to their daughters but to no one else.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, again, I and the whole House are grateful for what the noble Baroness has said about the challenges we face, particularly about the idea of the autocratic father. Dare I say it, but autocratic fathers can exist in all societies and all cultures. I am not sure I had an autocratic father, but it is something that should be taken very seriously, particularly in respect of autocratic fathers’ relation to their daughters. I speak as a father with one daughter.