With apologies to Hansard.
Here's a transcript of Fiona Mactaggart's storming speech in the House yesterday, taken from the record.
'8.14 pm
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): In my maiden
speech, I spoke about the human right to read, because
it seemed to me that access to the printed word ought to
be treated as a human right. One of the interesting
aspects of the debate about the internet is the growing
recognition that in exactly the same way, because it
gives access to information, we should treat the right to
access to the internet as a human right, and that if we
recognise it as such, we will create a better, more equal,
more informed, more educated, better connected society.
I represent a town that generates a huge amount of
wealth in the creative industries, and I amvery concerned
to ensure that creative individuals are properly rewarded
for their talent and their contribution. The Secretary of
State referred to the growth of the creative industries in
the UK compared with that in other countries over the
past decade. I was proud to act as Parliamentary Private
Secretary to the first ever Secretary of State for Culture,
Media and Sport who, I believe, played a critical role in
recognising the strength of the creative industries.
We are about to make a mistake, not because of mala
fides or bad faith on the part of the Government or the
Opposition, but in the way that Parliament often makes
its biggest mistakes, which is when all parties agree. In
those circumstances, we take short cuts, make mistakes
for good reasons-in this case, to protect creative
professionals-and end up with bad laws. Many of us
can quote examples of bad laws that have been passed.
Sometimes they are bad in their execution-the Dangerous
Dogs Act 1991 is frequently cited-and sometimes they
are bad because, even though we keep trying to get the
legislation right, we do not succeed, even though it is
right in theory, such as making fathers pay properly for
their children. I do not know why I still have so many
such cases turning up at my advice surgery, but I know I
am not alone in that regard.
The parts of the Bill which are designed to protect
copyright on the internet, to prevent file sharing and so
on are hugely at risk of going down that road. I was
rather entertained by the comments of the hon. Member
for Bath (Mr. Foster) who, at one point, drafted an
amendment and within a few hours was campaigning
against said amendment. That illustrated the point very
well, because he was trying to deal with what he saw as a
wrong. It turned out that that was not very popular in
his party and the amendment did not do what he
wanted it to do, so he tried to amend it again. That is
what the Committee stage of a Bill is for.
I am deeply concerned that what we are about-
[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bath might agree,
but he will be part of the Front-Bench conspiracy that
makes us end up with an unamended Bill and without
the scrutiny that we need. This Parliament has shown
itself to be utterly feeble in so many ways, and in our
dying days we really should not continue to be utterly
feeble.
Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Fiona Mactaggart: I shall give way-although the
hon. Gentleman did not give way to me.
Mr. Foster: I gave way to Members on numerous
occasions, and I am therefore particularly grateful to
the hon. Lady for giving way. May I make it absolutely
clear that if clause 18 remains in the Bill, we will vote
against the Bill on Third Reading? I do not think
anything could be clearer than that.
Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman has an
advantage over me, as does BT, because they have seen a
new version of that clause, but I have been to the Vote
Office and I am not aware of what the clause says. I
speak as a parliamentarian, within hours of the Bill’s
Committee stage, and I am unable to see that new
version, so I do not know what is going to be proposed.
He might well know, but I do not. I went to the Vote
Office to ask for a copy, as is usual for a Back Bencher,
and I spent quite a long time standing there, but there is
a simple reason why the Vote Office cannot provide me
with one: we have not yet given the Bill a Second
Reading, and the Vote Office does not provide amendments
to a Bill until it has had its Second Reading.
Right now our debate is closer to that which we
would expect in Committee. People are focusing on
little bits of the Bill and talking about potential
amendments; they are not talking about the principles,
because interestingly the prettymuch shared view-with
some tensions-is thatwe need to address certain principles.
I found myself, scarily for the second time in two weeks,
strongly agreeing with the right hon. Member for
Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)-not a man with whom I
have frequently agreed.However, his point is that sharing
can sometimes enhance understanding and knowledge.
I discovered the work of Christopher Brookmyre
because Waterstone’s published some free chapters of
his books. I read them and then bought all his books,
and that is not unusual. I was completely unaware of
“Ashes to Ashes” and Gene Hunt, so when I saw the
advertisement that everyone was going on about I had
no idea why it was clever because I had never watched
that programme. However, one thing about shared
intellectual property is that it can create a market for
that property, and I am frightened that the Bill does not
address that issue with enough subtlety. We are not
creating the opportunities to make the most of the
internet and commercial exploitation. As I understand
copyright law, it bites notwhen somebody copies a chapter
of a book for their own interest, or borrows a book
from a friend, but when someone tries to make a profit
out of somebody else’s intellectual property. That has
traditionally been the area in which copyright law bites.
On the Bill’s approach to that issue, there will be
mums throughout the country running internet microbusinesses,
booking nannies or finding cleaners, for
example, and I am anxious that if their sons illegally file
share, those mums will end up having their businesses
closed down. The parliamentary scrutiny process is
designed to eliminate such risky consequences, but I
predict that unless we properly scrutinise this legislation
such businesses throughout the country will be closed
down. The hon. Member for Bath said, “Is it all right if
it is a special super-scrutiny system that has to be
amended?” and so on. I have not seen one of those
systems.We should do more through secondary legislation,
but he and I have sat on secondary legislation Committees
and they are not places where scrutiny occurs; they are
another example of pathetic oversight by Parliament.
I said earlier that this Parliament has let itself down.
If we allow this Bill to go through in this way, with a
Second Reading after the election has been called, we
will demonstrate that the public are right to think that
we are pretty pointless, and that we do not have the
courage of our convictions. Every single Member will
demonstrate it. Every single Member who argued for
parliamentary reform-I see some present, including
the hon. Member for Bath-will shame themselves if
they consent to this process.However important the Bill
is, it will be just as easy for a new Government to say,
“We will put in place these building blocks” if they are
so essential. It is just not acceptable for the Opposition
Front Benchers to say, “Whoops! If it doesn’t work,
we’ll come back with something a month later.” They
are actually saying, “We’re not prepared to do our job.”
However, I am prepared to do my job. I do not
believe that this is the right way to proceed, and unless
the Minister says in summing up something utterly
compelling about how those issues will be dealt with, I
will not be able to find it in me to support the Bill.
'8.14 pm
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): In my maiden
speech, I spoke about the human right to read, because
it seemed to me that access to the printed word ought to
be treated as a human right. One of the interesting
aspects of the debate about the internet is the growing
recognition that in exactly the same way, because it
gives access to information, we should treat the right to
access to the internet as a human right, and that if we
recognise it as such, we will create a better, more equal,
more informed, more educated, better connected society.
I represent a town that generates a huge amount of
wealth in the creative industries, and I amvery concerned
to ensure that creative individuals are properly rewarded
for their talent and their contribution. The Secretary of
State referred to the growth of the creative industries in
the UK compared with that in other countries over the
past decade. I was proud to act as Parliamentary Private
Secretary to the first ever Secretary of State for Culture,
Media and Sport who, I believe, played a critical role in
recognising the strength of the creative industries.
We are about to make a mistake, not because of mala
fides or bad faith on the part of the Government or the
Opposition, but in the way that Parliament often makes
its biggest mistakes, which is when all parties agree. In
those circumstances, we take short cuts, make mistakes
for good reasons-in this case, to protect creative
professionals-and end up with bad laws. Many of us
can quote examples of bad laws that have been passed.
Sometimes they are bad in their execution-the Dangerous
Dogs Act 1991 is frequently cited-and sometimes they
are bad because, even though we keep trying to get the
legislation right, we do not succeed, even though it is
right in theory, such as making fathers pay properly for
their children. I do not know why I still have so many
such cases turning up at my advice surgery, but I know I
am not alone in that regard.
The parts of the Bill which are designed to protect
copyright on the internet, to prevent file sharing and so
on are hugely at risk of going down that road. I was
rather entertained by the comments of the hon. Member
for Bath (Mr. Foster) who, at one point, drafted an
amendment and within a few hours was campaigning
against said amendment. That illustrated the point very
well, because he was trying to deal with what he saw as a
wrong. It turned out that that was not very popular in
his party and the amendment did not do what he
wanted it to do, so he tried to amend it again. That is
what the Committee stage of a Bill is for.
I am deeply concerned that what we are about-
[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bath might agree,
but he will be part of the Front-Bench conspiracy that
makes us end up with an unamended Bill and without
the scrutiny that we need. This Parliament has shown
itself to be utterly feeble in so many ways, and in our
dying days we really should not continue to be utterly
feeble.
Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Fiona Mactaggart: I shall give way-although the
hon. Gentleman did not give way to me.
Mr. Foster: I gave way to Members on numerous
occasions, and I am therefore particularly grateful to
the hon. Lady for giving way. May I make it absolutely
clear that if clause 18 remains in the Bill, we will vote
against the Bill on Third Reading? I do not think
anything could be clearer than that.
Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman has an
advantage over me, as does BT, because they have seen a
new version of that clause, but I have been to the Vote
Office and I am not aware of what the clause says. I
speak as a parliamentarian, within hours of the Bill’s
Committee stage, and I am unable to see that new
version, so I do not know what is going to be proposed.
He might well know, but I do not. I went to the Vote
Office to ask for a copy, as is usual for a Back Bencher,
and I spent quite a long time standing there, but there is
a simple reason why the Vote Office cannot provide me
with one: we have not yet given the Bill a Second
Reading, and the Vote Office does not provide amendments
to a Bill until it has had its Second Reading.
Right now our debate is closer to that which we
would expect in Committee. People are focusing on
little bits of the Bill and talking about potential
amendments; they are not talking about the principles,
because interestingly the prettymuch shared view-with
some tensions-is thatwe need to address certain principles.
I found myself, scarily for the second time in two weeks,
strongly agreeing with the right hon. Member for
Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)-not a man with whom I
have frequently agreed.However, his point is that sharing
can sometimes enhance understanding and knowledge.
I discovered the work of Christopher Brookmyre
because Waterstone’s published some free chapters of
his books. I read them and then bought all his books,
and that is not unusual. I was completely unaware of
“Ashes to Ashes” and Gene Hunt, so when I saw the
advertisement that everyone was going on about I had
no idea why it was clever because I had never watched
that programme. However, one thing about shared
intellectual property is that it can create a market for
that property, and I am frightened that the Bill does not
address that issue with enough subtlety. We are not
creating the opportunities to make the most of the
internet and commercial exploitation. As I understand
copyright law, it bites notwhen somebody copies a chapter
of a book for their own interest, or borrows a book
from a friend, but when someone tries to make a profit
out of somebody else’s intellectual property. That has
traditionally been the area in which copyright law bites.
On the Bill’s approach to that issue, there will be
mums throughout the country running internet microbusinesses,
booking nannies or finding cleaners, for
example, and I am anxious that if their sons illegally file
share, those mums will end up having their businesses
closed down. The parliamentary scrutiny process is
designed to eliminate such risky consequences, but I
predict that unless we properly scrutinise this legislation
such businesses throughout the country will be closed
down. The hon. Member for Bath said, “Is it all right if
it is a special super-scrutiny system that has to be
amended?” and so on. I have not seen one of those
systems.We should do more through secondary legislation,
but he and I have sat on secondary legislation Committees
and they are not places where scrutiny occurs; they are
another example of pathetic oversight by Parliament.
I said earlier that this Parliament has let itself down.
If we allow this Bill to go through in this way, with a
Second Reading after the election has been called, we
will demonstrate that the public are right to think that
we are pretty pointless, and that we do not have the
courage of our convictions. Every single Member will
demonstrate it. Every single Member who argued for
parliamentary reform-I see some present, including
the hon. Member for Bath-will shame themselves if
they consent to this process.However important the Bill
is, it will be just as easy for a new Government to say,
“We will put in place these building blocks” if they are
so essential. It is just not acceptable for the Opposition
Front Benchers to say, “Whoops! If it doesn’t work,
we’ll come back with something a month later.” They
are actually saying, “We’re not prepared to do our job.”
However, I am prepared to do my job. I do not
believe that this is the right way to proceed, and unless
the Minister says in summing up something utterly
compelling about how those issues will be dealt with, I
will not be able to find it in me to support the Bill.