Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kerry McCarthy and Damian Collins

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

What recent representations he has made to his Belarusian counterpart on the arrest and alleged torture of protesters by security forces in that country.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

What diplomatic steps his Department has taken to help ensure media freedom for domestic and international journalists in Belarus.

Supporting the Creative Economy

Debate between Kerry McCarthy and Damian Collins

Thursday 13th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Damian Collins]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s point, but that is why I said that it is important that computer science is given equal standing and equal weight, alongside other areas of the science curriculum, as part of the core science subjects that young people can study. However, we must also consider what people do a long time before they get to GCSE choices. That is why code clubs in primary schools are important.

I saw Google run one of its code club projects at the Folkestone primary academy school in my constituency, getting primary schoolchildren to learn basic programming techniques, which is something that those of us who are old enough to remember did on BBC Microcomputers and Spectrum computers back in the 1980s, although advances in software render that sort of programming redundant. Teaching coding is being brought back to young children of primary school age. Code clubs can be part of extra-curricular activities, as part of a longer school day, as well as being something that young people can do in evenings out of school.

[Sandra Osborne in the Chair]

In Hackney, with the support of Tech City and businesses in that area, a concerted effort is being made to take coding in particular into the schools that surround the Tech City area, so that young people do not grow up just seeing the new glass buildings and office blocks and understanding that people are working there but never acquiring the skills to take advantage of the jobs that are being created. It is very important that we focus on the educational element of developing talent to work not only on the artistic and creative side of the creative industries, but on the technical side, through coding and programme writing and making.

Another important development that the Government are supporting through the Department for Education is studio schools. In Folkestone, we are about to embark on a project to create a new studio school with a focus on the creative industries, where young people will not only learn subjects linked to the examinations that they will take and the qualifications that they will gain, but do so in conjunction with direct work experience as part of the ordinary school day. Studio schools linked to creative businesses in the towns and cities that they serve are an excellent way to provide that and are an important innovation, alongside having more of an emphasis on creativity and creative skills as part of the school curriculum.

The final point that I want to add to the debate about IP is this. I followed very closely the argument made by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) in the speech before mine. With regard to private copying, we can look at Nick Hornby’s book “High Fidelity” and the film made of it. In some ways, that book and that film celebrate private copying. That is an important part of the story in the book. It is something that everyone has done or certainly people who grew up with records and cassettes have done. Probably everyone in this room has breached copyright law by copying a record on to a cassette or by loading a CD into a computer and copying the contents on to the hard drive. Each time, they are infringing copyright. Some people may consider that once they have purchased an item of music—once they have paid the fee for it—it is theirs to enjoy personally. A change in the law that reflects something that is already commonplace—that people already do—is not necessarily something that we should be frightened of.

I agree with the hon. Lady, though, that when we get to a position where people can share music, in particular, or film or another form of content through the cloud and potentially with a wider audience, they are getting into a remit where they are no longer privately copying but, either intentionally or unintentionally, distributing content. That is a very different matter and something that we must be very careful of. The hon. Lady is right to raise that important point.

[Kerry McCarthy]

May I make it clear that what I suggested would not prevent people from copying things? It would just give the musicians and other artists some compensation by putting an additional levy on the devices that people would use to do that. Twenty-five other EU countries have decided that that is the right way to go. I hope that the Minister will explain just why the UK deserves different treatment.

[Damian Collins]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. Of course, France has done what she describes for some time. Personally, I think that it is a blunt tool and that the key is to ensure that we do not, particularly as technology develops, make it easier for more people to distribute things. We have talked about the role that search engines play in taking people to sites where they can easily download music for free, in breach of copyright rules. We should clamp down on that.

We have only to look at the predictive search result that comes up when someone types the letters MP into Google. I did that earlier in the debate and the result was for an MP3 converter site where people can download tracks from YouTube directly on to their MP3 player. It is therefore right that we look at the various tools that exist in the internet world and that make it easier for people to infringe copyright. I believe that that is where our energies should lie. We should be careful that a private copying exemption does not have the unintended consequence of allowing people to distribute music through cloud systems such as Dropbox, as the hon. Lady mentioned. We should look at that technical aspect very carefully.

The Select Committee is looking at the role of the BBC in its current inquiry. Technology is playing an important role in how we consume television in particular. The distinctions between television that may be viewed through a portable device, through a satellite or cable subscription or through what we used to call terrestrial television are going. We have a single creative stream, which is distributing through multiple devices. That throws up not only long-term challenges for the role that the BBC licence fee can play in the future, because it is no longer wedded to the purchase of a television set. It also throws up challenges about the way in which different television companies—different content creators—distribute their content and pay a fair licensing fee for the distribution of that content through the multiple channels through which it is being used.

There is a debate to be had between the cable and satellite broadcasters, such as Sky and Virgin, and the old terrestrial television channels, such as the BBC, Channel 4 and ITV, about how they agree on a fair price to pay for distributing someone else’s content through their channels. That is particularly necessary if distributing through avenues where advertising is excluded or can easily be excluded by the consumer. As people consume television in ways that are very different from those in the past, we will have to debate the future of television and how it is funded through different revenue streams, such as the licence fee, advertising or subscription. I do not intend to go into that issue at great length now, but it is one for the future.

Marine Conservation Zones

Debate between Kerry McCarthy and Damian Collins

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Westminster Hall

[Damian Collins]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and goes to the heart of the matter. Fishermen are not against marine conservation. Their livelihood depends on its being managed successfully, but they are worried about the specific proposals for Hythe bay and their impact, and do not believe that that level of intervention is justified. They have been concerned about the consultation process and whether the industry’s views have been listened to. I was shown an e-mail exchange by the Kent Wildlife Trust, which has supported marine conservation zones as constituted. It included a telling e-mail from a former fisheries liaison officer, who said of the consultation:

“The Hythe Bay”

marine conservation zone

“was originally proposed by a staff member of the Kent Wildlife Trust…during a Regional Stakeholder Group…meeting in London. The proposal received little support from other stakeholders and was totally opposed by all fishing industry representatives (this area being of vital importance to all the fishing fleets ranging geographically from Hastings to Ramsgate).”

He continued:

“At no stage during the stakeholder-involved Balanced Seas”

marine conservation zone

“process was there support for the whole proposed Hythe Bay”

marine conservation zone

“to be ‘recover’ as opposed to ‘maintain’”.

It is equally not the case that, during the consultation process, the fishermen opposed establishing any areas of protection. The local fishermen had proposed a zone between Dover and Folkestone that is not heavily fished, which they would be happy to set aside as a conservation zone. However, that recommendation was rejected as part of the consultation process and, instead, they were asked to accept restrictions in a zone that they were seeking particularly to defend and protect, and on which their livelihoods depend.

Other information from the Kent Wildlife Trust, which is part of its recommendation on Hythe bay, is telling about the conservation of the area and the success story there. It says:

“Hythe Bay is fortunate in having been the subject of a”

long-term

“series of surveys by the Environment Agency, with samples from the 20 point stations being processed by Heriot-Watt University Institute”

of Offshore Engineering. The surveys

“found an unusually rich assemblage of species to be present in the Bay”.

To my mind, that suggests a great success story of management of that water.

I believe we must have a very robust scientific case even to think about changing the status of that water because the livelihood of an entire fishing industry—the inshore fishing fleet in Hythe bay—depends on that consultation and what happens. What must not be allowed to happen is that people’s livelihood is jeopardised on someone’s hunch that some intervention is possible, based on surveys that were conducted not in Hythe bay, but elsewhere in United Kingdom waters, and not based on a robust study of the problem in those waters. People want a robust, clear scientific argument to be the basis of any decision, and unless that scientific argument can be made, the status of the conservation zone in Hythe bay should be set at “maintain” rather than “recover”.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with interest. He says that Hythe bay is already a well-preserved marine environment, but have the Government’s own statutory nature conservation bodies not advised that 58 of the 127 originally proposed zones were vulnerable to immediate damage and that Hythe bay was one if action was not taken?

[Damian Collins]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I do not believe that there is any evidence to support it. The evidence from the Government’s own survey suggests that the spoonworms, which they are seeking to protect, are recovering strongly. The Kent Wildlife Trust’s submissions made it clear that it was not party to the latest survey information.

We must not gamble on the matter. If a case could be made to show that the waters in the area are causing grave concern, and that there is a real conservation risk that would impact in the near term on the biodiversity of the waters in Hythe bay, in turn on the local fish and shellfish populations, and then on local fishermen’s livelihoods, the debate would be viewed in a different way. Families are worried that the waters on which they depend will become unavailable and drive them out of business altogether, or drive them to seek new waters elsewhere along the channel coast, moving to already congested fishing areas around Rye and down the coast. They are worried that such a decision will have to be taken without a clear and robust scientific case behind it. That case does not seem to exist.

Fishermen are conscious of the fact that they fish in a special area of water and that it is of great interest because of its rich biodiversity. They are happy for it to continue to be monitored and studied, but they believe that the level should be set at “maintain” and not “recover” because the case is simply not there for a recovery plan to be put in place, and if it was, it could have devastating consequences for businesses and the fishing heritage of the coast.

I have had meetings as part of my discussions with the fishing industry with Fisherman’s Beach in Hythe, Ken Thomas and councillor Tony Hills of Lydd, who represent the fishermen from Hythe, Lydd and Dungeness, and with Folkestone Trawlers to get the views of fishermen in Folkestone, who also fish in Hythe bay. A petition has been raised, which was signed quickly by more than 1,000 residents. I presented it to Downing street with Councillor David Monk, who is the leader of Shepway district council, the local authority.

As part of our submission to the Government—I have also made a formal submission as part of the consultation on marine conservation zones—we have requested that serious consideration be given to the argument for the zone being set at “maintain” rather than “recover”. We have also asked whether the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who has responsibility for fisheries, could meet the fishermen, see the waters that they fish and the type of equipment that they use, in order to understand the local case that they are making. They tried, as part of the initial consultation, to make the case—they felt that it was not listened to—about other waters that may be more suitable, why the special nature of Hythe bay needs to be protected and maintained, and that we should not lose the important inshore fishing fleet, which has been part of the culture, heritage and the economy of the south-east Kent coast for many centuries.