Stop43.org.uk stopped Commercial Orphan Works Exploitation in the UK Digital Economy Bill Clause 43






List of all Liberal Democrat MPs

Below is a complete list of Liberal Democrat MPs & their email addresses. They need to have it urgently explained to them why the proposed Liberal Democrat idea of amending Clause 43 will not work, and that the clause must be deleted from the bill.

You will find sources of information, arguments to use, and tools here.

Nick Clegg
libdemleader@parliament.uk

Danny Alexander
danny@highlandlibdems.org.uk

Norman Baker
normanbaker@cix.co.uk

John Barrett
barrettj@parliament.uk

Alan Beith
cheesemang@parliament.uk

Colin Breed
colinbreed@blueyonder.co.uk

Annette Brooke
brookea@parliament.uk

Jeremy Browne
jeremy.browne@tauntonlibdems.org.uk

Malcom Bruce
brucem@parliament.uk

Paul Burstow
paul@paulburstow.org.uk

Lorely Burt
burtl@parliament.uk

Vince Cable
cablev@parliament.uk

Ming Campbell
fife_office@mingcampbell.org.uk

Alistair Carmichael
carmichaela@parliament.uk

Edward Davey
daveye@parliament.uk

Tim Farron
tim@timfarron.co.uk

Lynne Featherstone
lynne@lynnefeatherstone.org

Don Foster
fosterd@parliament.uk

Andrew George
andrew@andrewgeorge.org.uk

Sandra Gidley
gidleys@parliament.uk

Julia Goldsworthy
info@juliagoldsworthy.org

Mike Hancock
portsmouthldp@cix.co.uk

Evan Harris
harrise@parliament.uk

Nick Harvey
mail@nickharveymp.com

David Heath
davidheath@davidheath.co.uk

John Hemming
john.hemming@jhc.co.uk

Paul Holmes
chesterfield@cix.co.uk

Martin Horwood
martin@martinhorwood.net

David Howarth
info@davidhowarth.org.uk

Simon Hughes
simon@simonhughes.org.uk

Chris Huhne
chris@chrishuhne.org.uk

Mark Hunter
hunterm@parliament.uk

Paul Keetch
info@paulkeetch.org.uk

Charles Kennedy
charles@highlandlibdems.org.uk

Susan Kramer
info@susankramer.org.uk
Norman Lamb
info@normanlamb.org.uk

David Laws
enquiries@yeovil-libdems.org.uk

John Leech
leechj@parliament.uk

Michael Moore
michaelmooremp@parliament.uk

Greg Mulholland
info@gregmulholland.org

Mark Oaten
oatenm@parliament.uk

Lembit Opik
opikl@parliament.uk

John Pugh
pughj@parliament.uk

Alan Reid
reida@parliament.uk

Willie Rennie
info@dunfermlinelibdems.org.uk

Dan Rogerson
rogersond@parliament.uk

Paul Rowen
rowenp@parliament.uk

Bob Russell
brooksse@parliament.uk

Robert Smith
robert.smith.mp@parliament.uk

Andrew Stunell
enquiries@andrewstunell.org.uk

Jo Swinson
swinsonj@parliament.uk

Matthew Taylor
taylorm@parliament.uk

Sarah Teather
teathers@parliament.uk

John Thurso
thursoj@parliament.uk

Steve Webb
steve@stevewebb.org.uk

Roger Williams
williamsrmp@gmail.com

Stephen Williams
stephenwilliamsmp@parliament.uk

Mark Williams
williamsmf@parliament.uk

Phil Willis
phil.willismp@ntlworld.com

Jenny Willot
jenny@jennywillott.com

Richard Younger-Ross
yrossr@parliament.uk

Why Clause 46 must go, too

Clause 46 must be removed. It empowers the Secretary of State to undo all of the changes to the Digital Economy Bill that have been so carefully negotiated, and make new changes. It is a “Henry VIII Clause” enabling changes to be made in pre-existing primary legislation by way of secondary legislation enacted via Statutory Instruments. A Secretary of State with a whipped majority can do more or less whatever he likes under Clause 46.

Henry VIII Clause - Wikipedia says:

Some statutory instruments are made under provisions of Acts which allow the instrument to change the parent Act itself, or to change other primary legislation. These provisions, allowing primary legislation to be amended by secondary legislation, are known as Henry VIII clauses, because an early example of such a power was conferred on King Henry VIII by the Statute of Proclamations 1539.[16] The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee of the House of Lords issued a report concerning the use and drafting of such clauses, [17] an issue its chairman remarked "goes right to the heart of the key constitutional question of the limits of executive power". [18] Such clauses have often proved highly controversial — for instance, that in the Nationality, Immigration & Asylum Act 2002 which prompted the aforementioned report, and more recently the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006.

“Statutory Instruments”

Digital Economy Bill Section 46 does stipulate that decsions must be " laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament ". Wikipedia says "It should be noted that Parliament's control is limited to approving, or rejecting, the Instrument as laid before it: it cannot (except in very rare cases) amend or change it."

Government has stated that any Statutory Instruments to be enacted concerning Clause 43 must be subject to “Affirmative Resolution Procedure”. Wikipedia says:

Statutory Instruments which are subject to affirmative resolution are less common, making up about 10% of the total.[12] This is the more stringent form of parliamentary control as it requires positive approval, rather than the absence of a decision to annul. Accordingly, it is used where the delegated legislation may be more controversial.
The parent Act may require that the proposed Statutory Instrument is approved by both Houses of Parliament (or, in the case of an Instrument which relates to financial matters, by the
House of Commons only) either:
  • before it is made (ie in draft form),
  • after it is made, but before it can come into force, or
  • after it is made and has come into force, but it cannot remain in force for longer than a specified period (usually 28 days, excluding periods when Parliament is dissolved, prorogued or adjourned for more than four days) unless approved within that period.[10]
Once the Instrument is laid before Parliament, the Government will move a motion in each House that the Instrument is approved.
The last time a draft Statutory Instrument subject to affirmative procedure was not approved by the House of Commons was on 12 November 1969 when the House rejected four draft Orders relating to parliamentary constituencies.
[13]

Clause 46 in full:

46

Power to make consequential provision etc

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the amendments made by this Act.

(2) The regulations may—

(a) make different provision for different purposes,

(b) modify an Act passed before or in the same Session as this Act or subordinate legislation made before this Act is passed, and

(c) where they are made in connection with an amendment made by section 28 or by a provision listed in section 49(3), modify a provision of an Act passed, or subordinate legislation made, before the day on which that amendment comes into force.

(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section that amend or repeal a provision of an Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

Any other statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

In this section—

“modify” includes amend, repeal or revoke;

“subordinate legislation” has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978.

BIS Select Committee members list

The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee has the task of scrutinising the work of Messrs. Mandelson, Lammy, Timms, and the IPO. They are waiting to hear from you. Please don’t disappoint them.

• Mr Peter Luff, Chair Business, Innovation and Skills Committee

Tel: 01905 763952 / Fax: 01905 330075 luffpj@parliament.uk

Dr Roger Berry, Labour
Constituency tel: 0117 956 1837 / fax: 0117 970 1363 roger.berry.mp@parliament.uk

Mr Brian Binley, Conservative
Westminster Tel: 020 7219 8298 binleyb@parliament.uk
Constituency Tel: 01604 633414 / Fax: 01604 250252

Mr Michael Clapham, Labour
Constituency tel: 01226 731244 / fax 01226 779429 claphamm@parliament.uk
Westminster tel 020 7219 3000

Mr Lindsay Hoyle, Labour
Constituency tel: 01257 271555 / fax: 01257 277462
Westminster tel: 020 7219 3515 / fax: 020 7219 3831 hoylel@parliament.uk

Mr Mark Oaten, Liberal Democrat
Constituency Tel: 01962 622 212
Westminster Tel: 0207 219 2703 oatenm@parliament.uk

Mr Lembit Öpik, Liberal Democrat
Constituency tel: 01686 625 527 / fax: 01686 628 891
Westminster tel: 020 7219 1144 lembitopik@montlibdems.org.uk

Mr Ian Stewart, Labour
Constituency tel: 0161 707 4688 / Fax: 0161 789 8065 /
Westminster tel: 020 7219 3460 ianstewartmp@parliament.uk

Mr Anthony Wright, Labour
Constituency tel: 01493 332 291 / Fax: 01493 853 157
Westminster tel: 0207 219 3447 wrighta@parliament.uk

Also

Miss Julie Kirkbride, Conservative
Leaving at the end of this parliament

Ms Anne Moffat, Labour
Recently deselected from Labour party

Authoritiative Briefing Paper invalidates basis of Clauses 43 and 46

Gillian Spraggs of Action for Authors’ Rights has released a Briefing on the Copyright Clauses in the Digital Economy Bill. Exhaustively researched and finely argued, it is a definitive rebuttal of the entire sorry foundation to Clause 43. It also calls for the removal of Clause 46, a 'Henry VIII' clause that would confer on the executive very wide-ranging powers to modify primary legislation. It is challenging but required reading.

Key MPs to lobby - Labour MPs added

These MPs will all be key players in the negotiations over the Digital Economy Bill in the wash up. The Bill, and Clause 43, will either pass or fall down with their veto. It doesn't matter if they are not our local MPs; we also can write to them directly in their capacity as Shadow Ministers, Committee Chairs and Party Whips. Be aware that letters sent directly to Ministers will be ignored - they must be forwarded by constituency MPs.

Conservatives (potentially supportive)

• Kenneth Clarke, Shadow Secretary of State for Business
Tel: 0115 981 7224 / Fax: 0115 981 7273 clarkek@parliament.uk

• Jeremy Hunt, Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
Tel: 0207 219 6813 / Jeremy@localconservatives.org

• Peter Luff, Chair Business, Innovation and Skills Committee (this committee scrutinises the dept for Business, Innovation and Skills that sponsored DEB)
Tel: 01905 763952 / Fax: 01905 330075 luffpj@parliament.uk

• John Whittingdale, Chair Culture, Media and Sport Committee (already very critical of the bill)
Tel: 01621 855663 / Fax: 01621 855217 jwhittingdale.mp@tory.org.uk

• Patrick McLoughlin, Opposition Chief Whip in the House of Commons
Tel: 020 7219 3511 patrick.mcloughlin.mp@parliament.uk

• Andrew Robathan, Deputy Opposition Chief Whip in the House of Commons
Tel: 01455 283594 / Fax: 01455 286159 southleicscons@btconnect.com

Liberal Democrats (wavering - trying to amend rather than remove Clause 43)

• John Thurso, Shadow Secretary of State for Business
Tel: 0131 337 2314 thursoj@parliament.uk

• Don Foster, Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, and Olympics
Tel: 01225 338 973 / Fax: 01225 463 630 fosterd@parliament.uk

• Paul Burstow, Chief Whip
Tel: 020 8288 6553 / Fax: 020 8288 6550 paul@paulburstow.org.uk

and opposition Members of the Culture, Media and Sports Committee
and the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, very important as it’s believed that they would be the ones to scrutinise the bill in Commons Committee stage were it not being washed up.

Labour (must vote with Government, so need persuading to change Government position)

The Rt Hon Lord Mandelson, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Lord President of the Council
Tel: 020 7215 5621 / fax: 020 7215 5468 mpst.mandelson@bis.gsi.gov.uk

The Rt Hon David Lammy MP, Minister of State (Higher Education and Intellectual Property) Leads on Intellectual Property issues and the Intellectual Property Office. David Lammy was previously Minister for Culture at the DCMS and according to his biography was a champion of museums and public libraries during his time there
BIS Office tel: 020 7215 5923 mpst.lammy@bis.gsi.gov.uk
Alternative parliamentary contacts: tel: 020 7219 0767 / ax: 020 7219 0357 mail@davidlammy.co.uk http://twitter.com/davidlammymp http://www.facebook.com/pages/David-Lammy-MP/19129786540

• The Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Digital Britain) Leads on: Digital Britain, Communications and content industries, including creative industries; and IT and electronics sector
BIS Office tel: 020 7215 5229 mpst.timms@bis.gsi.gov.uk
Alternative parliament contact: tel: 020 7219 4000 / fax 020 7219 2949 stephen@stephentimms.org.uk http://twitter.com/stephenctimms

The above are all at the Department for Business Innovation and Skills 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET

The Rt Hon Ben Bradshaw MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (previously BBC correspondent for Berlin and still a member of the NUJ) (Exeter)
Constituency contacts Tel: 01392 424 464 / Fax: 01392 425 630
Parliamentary contacts Tel: 0207 219 6597 Fax: 0207 219 0950 bradshawb@parliament.uk http://twitter.com/BenPBradshaw

The Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MBE MP, Minister of State Leads on: Museums and Galleries, Libraries, Creative industries
Constituency contacts Tel: 020 8594 1333 / Fax: 020 8594 1131
Parliamentary contacts Tel: 020 7219 3000 hodgem@parliament.uk http://twitter.com/margarethodge

The above two are at the Dept for Culture, Media and Sport

• The Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP, Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal Minister for Women and Equality
26 Whitehall, London SW1A 2WH
Tel: 020 7276 1005 Fax: 020 7276 1006 Leader@CommonsLeader.x.gsi.gov.uk


"Diligent search" a red herring

"The extended licensing provisions will apply to works whose rights-holders are traceable, as well as to orphan works. The Secretary of State may authorize a licensing body to license works for use even in cases where the author is not a member of the body and has not delegated any authority to that body to act as his or her agent.

The extended licensing provisions contain no requirement that the licensing body, or the person obtaining a licence, should carry out a search for holders/owners of rights who are not members of the licensing body. This is in distinction to the orphan works provisions, under which (in theory) no use may be made of a work until a diligent search for the rights-holders has been conducted."
- Action on Authors Rights

There is a lot of assertion by Labour MPs of the requirement for a “diligent search” to be carried out before an orphan work can be licensed, and the “substantial financial penalties” to be meted out to those proven to have failed to search diligently. Here’s an example,
written by David Lammy’s Intellectual Property Office and regurgitated by Michael Wills in reply to a letter from a constituent:

“it is not the case that the legislation says that ‘if someone finds your photograph, wants to use it and decides that they can't trace you, they can do whatever they like with it after paying an arbitrary fee’, as the Stop43.org website claims. Anyone wishing to use an image will have to conduct a diligent search for the owner of the right, and failure to do so would result in revocation of permissions and liability for substantial financial penalties.”

Except that they don’t, and won’t. In the Bill is currently drafted:

• There is no provision that demands that the licensing society and the potential user must both carry out diligent searches, or even that either of them must: the only requirement is that they reasonably believe that someone has.
• There is no statement at all in the Bill as to what happens should the author come forward, except that he/she gets paid - something.
• Furthermore, under subclause 116D(7) the Secretary of State can waive the requirement for a diligent search, and even the requirement that if the author is found, the work must be removed from the orphan works register(s) - seriously, that is really what it says.

So all you have to do is to say “There’s been a diligent search, I’m sure there has”; to which the licensing society can reply “We believe you. Here’s a license. That’ll be a quid - the rate you’d have paid on a microstock site. Now run off and do with it what you will.”

The devil, as always, is in the details.

Next:
The “Market Rate” Myth

Action on Authors’ Rights

Action on Authors’ Rights is a grassroots group set up to campaign in the UK in support of authors’ rights. They have a simple, straightforward and equitable manifesto:

Authors have the right to

• have their intellectual property protected by the state
• have their moral rights properly acknowledged and protected by the state
• decide whether and where they are going to publish, and in what format(s)
• freely negotiate their own publishing contracts and licensing agreements
• negotiate in person, or through agents of their own choice, as they prefer

They have excellent analysis and authoritative quotations on the subjects of Orphan Works and Extended Collective Licensing, their probable effects on authors’ and creators’ well-being, and the likely drivers behind the attempt to legislate for them in Clause 43. Here is an example:

"This clause could potentially destroy the principle of direct licensing, which is the most efficient means of ensuring that a rights holder is remunerated exactly and properly for the use of their work, and lose creators the right to control their own economic and moral rights.”Paul Brown, Chairman of the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies (BAPLA)

They have an email list and a Facebook group: to join, email the organizer. Please join them.

The Privacy and Exclusivity Problems



Privacy

Photographs commissioned from wedding, portrait and social photographers for private purposes are
prevented from publication without permission of the subject by the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988. Many photographers working for charities in sensitive areas do so with the explicit agreement that use of the photographs will be restricted to appropriate contexts, with all other uses being prohibited. Some children depicted in such photographs could be Wards of Court or on the At Risk register and have special privacy rights.

Exclusivity

Commercially-produced imagery usually includes models and proprietary artefacts, whose consents and fees have been based on limited, defined usages of those photographs - other usages would have commanded extra fees. The photograph's copyright holder or other stakeholders in the image such as models, their agencies and others might have commercial, political, religious, moral or ethical objections to some possible uses to which the picture might be put, and if permission were sought, would refuse that permission under all circumstances. The client for whom the photograph has been made is
likely to have contracted for exclusive use.

Provisions in Clause 43 will probably undermine the ability of UK professional photographers to undertake exclusive contracts, since it will never be possible for them to guarantee that their work will not be orphaned and may be licensed to third parties including competitors.

These
rights of exclusivity are guaranteed by international law, Article 9 of The Berne Agreement and Article 13 of TRIPS [the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization], to both of which The UK is signatory, both of which forbid the enactment of domestic legislation that allows any kind of licensing scheme "which conflicts with normal exploitation of the work" or will “unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author” (reasonably interpreted as meaning that the rights holder must be able to control, limit and directly benefit from the work’s exploitation).

By definition, it is impossible for a licensee of an orphan photograph to know conclusively whether or not any of this applies.
No statement issued by the Government or Intellectual Property Office and repeated by an MP has satisfactorily addressed this concern.

Next:
What is a”diligent search”?

What is a "Diligent Search"?

Labour MP Michael Wills has written the following in reply to a letter from a constituent:

“it is not the case that the legislation says that ‘if someone finds your photograph, wants to use it and decides that they can't trace you, they can do whatever they like with it after paying an arbitrary fee’, as the Stop43.org website claims. Anyone wishing to use an image will have to conduct a diligent search for the owner of the right, and failure to do so would result in revocation of permissions and liability for substantial financial penalties.”

The Bill’s proponents have
not defined “diligent search” in Clause 43, not because they don’t know, but because a “diligent search” for the creator and owner of a photograph is practically impossible.

Every single day, thousands of photographs are uploaded to Facebook alone in a process that strips them of identifying metadata even if they had originally contained it, and thereby potentially “orphaning” them. Nobody knows how many billions of photos are on the Internet, let alone which are original works of contactable authors. As many as 90% of the billions are infringing copies according to American Society of Media Photographers’ attorney Vic Perlman’s testimony to US Congress in 2007. There is no cursory, let alone diligent, search mechanism for finding their rightful owners. Diligent search would require visual search capabilities that simply do not exist today. Text searches are especially liable to fail given absent bylines and erased metadata. In fact, were there any remotely effective means of identifying owners of orphan images there would be no “huge orphans problem” in the first place and no opportunity to legislate their use.

Government proposes that all licensed works shall be available for inspection in a register, so that revenant authors may reclaim their copyright and a proportion of licensing fees. Photographers are already obliged to expend large amounts of time and effort searching for and deterring infringing use. This register, or registers – the nature and number of which is being deferred until the Secretary of State can hopefully come up with a workable scheme – will demand every photographer in the UK periodically search in case any of his or her work has become orphaned and licensed by third parties. Why is this business burden on photographers acceptable as a means to allow others to use their work?

For an “orphan work licensee” to lose a claim for deliberate orphaning of a photographer’s work it will be necessary to prove that a 'diligent search" has not been carried out. At what point do you decide that your search has been “diligent”? Just how many haystacks are you going to have to say that you have searched, looking for that needle? How are you supposed to search them? What proof are you supposed to offer that you have? And in the improbable event that you lose the claim, to what “substantial financial penalties” will you be subject? The Government has been resoundingly silent on these points
after five years of "consultation". No statement issued by the Government or Intellectual Property Office and repeated by an MP has satisfactorily addressed this concern.

Next: it doesn’t matter anyway, because
"diligent search" is a red herring

The "Market Rate" Myth

Labour MP Michael Wills has written the following in reply to a letter from a constituent:

“It is [also] not the case that users will be able to make (sic.) an 'arbitrary fee' to use an image. The Government has made it clear that ‘there should be no financial advantage from mis-identifying a work as an orphan work and that deliberate or negligent mis-identification should carry an appropriate penalty.’ Therefore, any regulations would aim to ensure that licensing of orphan works would be at the market rate.”



There can be no mechanism for determining the accurate market rate for any piece of Intellectual Property such as a photograph without knowledge of its provenance - i.e. who created it, how it was created, for whom, for what purpose, and who owns its copyright. It is well established that artworks lacking provenance cannot be properly valued, and that works previously wrongly attributed, for which the correct artist subsequently has been identified, have been drastically re-valued. Is your rumpled bed worth as much as Tracy Emin’s? Probably not, but if it looked the same to an inadequately-informed observer it might easily be over-valued. The converse might also easily happen.

There can logically be no such thing as a “market rate” for orphan photographs, in the same way that there is no “market rate” for art. Consequently, there can be no mechanism by which a licensing body might determine a “fair license fee” for any specific orphan. It is therefore accurate and correct to describe any such fee as being arbitrary. No statement issued by the Government or Intellectual Property Office and repeated by an MP has satisfactorily addressed this concern.

Next:
Misplaced faith in "Consultation"

Misplaced faith in "Consultation"

Labour MP Michael Wills has written the following in reply to a letter from a constituent:

“In any event, as the article you forwarded states, much of the detail is yet to be decided by public consultation. Consultations cannot be ignored by the Government, as the article alleges, and it is a requirement of the Consultation Code of Practice that consultation responses should be analysed carefully and clear feedback should be provided to participants so that they can see how the responses influenced policy.”

An Allegory

A large media company wants to paint the south-facing wall of their big building. They want it black so that their new “green” heating system can use solar heat from the black wall, cutting costs and their carbon footprint. They approach the Council.

Residents in the creative work/live units opposite hear about this and realise that the black wall will make their units depressingly gloomy, making it hard for them to work, forcing them to keep their lights on and considerably increasing their carbon footprint. They'd rather have a white wall. They approach the Council. The Council carry out a "consultation".

Question. What colour does the wall get painted?* - because it cannot be both at once:

a. Black
b. White

Of course consultation cannot be "ignored", but
the final decision is not legally bound to implement all points raised during "consultation", as Lord Fowler pointed out about the "consultation" process around BBC governance that resulted in the barely-workable BBC Trust system, which he says most of those consulted had warned against.

“Consultations” on changes in copyright law, started by the Gowers Review and continued by the Lammy Review, have been going on for more than five years, and yet it seems that “unanticipated consequences” of Clause 43 just keep on emerging.

Problems
concerning privacy and the rights of subjects within photographs, exclusivity of use, the practical impossibility of carrying out a “diligent search” and proving that one has or has not been carried out, and of establishing a “market rate” for commercial licensing of photographs of unknown provenance will not simply evaporate as a consequence of “public consultation”.

Are all of these consequences
really unanticipated? Or have they in fact been anticipated by the Bill’s proponents and authors but regarded as acceptable collateral damage in the pursuit of the Bill’s primary aims?

*(Answer: Black, of course. Don’t be naïve.)

Key MPs to lobby

These MPs will all be key players in the negotiations over the Digital Economy Bill in the wash up. The Bill, and Clause 43, will either pass or fall down with their veto. It doesn't matter if they are not our local MPs; we also can write to them directly in their capacity as Shadow Ministers, Committee Chairs and Party Whips.

Conservatives (potentially supportive)

• Kenneth Clarke, Shadow Secretary of State for Business
Tel: 0115 981 7224 / Fax: 0115 981 7273 clarkek@parliament.uk

• Jeremy Hunt, Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
Tel: 0207 219 6813 / Jeremy@localconservatives.org

• Peter Luff, Chair Business, Innovation and Skills Committee (this committee scrutinises the dept for Business, Innovation and Skills that sponsored DEB)
Tel: 01905 763952 / Fax: 01905 330075 luffpj@parliament.uk

• John Whittingdale, Chair Culture, Media and Sport Committee (already very critical of the bill)
Tel: 01621 855663 / Fax: 01621 855217 jwhittingdale.mp@tory.org.uk

• Patrick McLoughlin, Opposition Chief Whip in the House of Commons
Tel: 020 7219 3511 patrick.mcloughlin.mp@parliament.uk

• Andrew Robathan, Deputy Opposition Chief Whip in the House of Commons
Tel: 01455 283594 / Fax: 01455 286159 southleicscons@btconnect.com

Liberal Democrats (wavering - trying to amend rather than remove Clause 43)

• John Thurso, Shadow Secretary of State for Business
Tel: 0131 337 2314 thursoj@parliament.uk

• Don Foster, Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, and Olympics
Tel: 01225 338 973 / Fax: 01225 463 630 fosterd@parliament.uk

• Paul Burstow, Chief Whip
Tel: 020 8288 6553 / Fax: 020 8288 6550 paul@paulburstow.org.uk

and opposition Members of the Culture, Media and Sports Committee
and the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, very important as it’s believed that they would be the ones to scrutinise the bill in Commons Committee stage were it not being washed up.

Labour (must vote with Government, so need persuading to change Government position)

The Rt Hon Lord Mandelson, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Lord President of the Council
Tel: 020 7215 5621 / fax: 020 7215 5468 mpst.mandelson@bis.gsi.gov.uk

The Rt Hon David Lammy MP, Minister of State (Higher Education and Intellectual Property) Leads on Intellectual Property issues and the Intellectual Property Office
BIS Office tel: 020 7215 5923 mpst.lammy.@bis.gsi.gov.uk
Alternative parliamentary contacts: tel: 020 7219 0767 / ax: 020 7219 0357 mail@davidlammy.co.uk http://twitter.com/davidlammymp http://www.facebook.com/pages/David-Lammy-MP/19129786540

David Lammy was previously Minister for Culture at the DCMS and according to his biogaphy was a champion of museums and public libraries during his time there.

• The Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Digital Britain): Leads on: Digital Britain, Communications and content industries, including creative industries; and IT and electronics sector
BIS Office tel: 020 7215 5229 mpst.timms@bis.gsi.gov.uk
Alternative parliament contact: tel: 020 7219 4000 / fax 020 7219 2949 stephen@stephentimms.org.uk http://twitter.com/stephenctimms

The above are all at the Department for Business Innovation and Skills 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET

The Rt Hon Ben Bradshaw MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (previously BBC correspondent for Berlin and still a member of the NUJ) (Exeter)
Constituency contacts Tel: 01392 424 464 / Fax: 01392 425 630
Parliamentary contacts Tel: 0207 219 6597 Fax: 0207 219 0950 bradshawb@parliament.uk http://twitter.com/BenPBradshaw

The Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MBE MP, Minister of State Leads on: Museums and Galleries, Libraries, Creative industries
Constituency contacts Tel: 020 8594 1333 / Fax: 020 8594 1131
Parliamentary contacts Tel: 020 7219 3000 hodgem@parliament.uk http://twitter.com/margarethodge

The above two are at the Dept for Culture, Media and Sport