REUL Bill Second Update

Author Punch Source Wikimedia Commons

 

Jane Lambert

I have already discussed this bill in Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill on 26 Oct 2022 and REUL Bill First Update on 6 Dec 2022,  It has now completed its passage through the House of Commons and will proceed to the House of Lords tomorrow.  The latest version of the bill can be read here.

Ahead of its second reading in the Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which considers the policy effects of statutory instruments and other types of secondary legislation, has published Losing Control?: The Implications for Parliament of the retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.  The members of the Committee (Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, The Earl of Lindsay, Lord De Mauley, Lord Lisvane, Lord German, Lord Powell of Bayswater, Viscount Hanworth, Lord Rowlands. Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Baroness Watkins of Tavistock and Lord Hutton of Furness) have done so because they believe that the proposed legislation is an extreme example of a skeleton bill which would lead to a significant shift of power from Parliament to ministers.  

As their mandate is to scrutinize secondary legislation it is unusual for the Committee to report on primary legislation.  They explain that they have taken that exceptional step because they have power to consider “general matters relating to the effective scrutiny of secondary legislation” which this bill is likely to affect.

Their concern with the sunset clauses is that important legislation may disappear inadvertently from the statute book. They fear that ministers and their officials may simply overlook important provisions.  They add that there is no machinery for MPs to intervene on behalf of concerned constituents.  As to the proposed power of ministers to amend EU regulations and directives by statutory instrument, they call for an amendment of the bill to enable Parliament as a whole to amend important legislative instruments.  They call for explanatory memoranda to be produced on every piece of legislation likely to lapse or be modified.

The Bar Council, which had previously briefed peers on the bill, welcomes the Committee's report. In his press release Retained EU Law Bill will damage UK’s reputation, says Bar Council of 3 Feb 2023  the Chair of the Bar warned that "the bill in its present form, will damage the UK’s reputation for regulatory stability, predictability, and competence on which growth-promoting investment in critical sectors of our economy depends."

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

IP in Canada

Author John Picken Licence CC BY 2.0 Source Wikimedia Commons

Jane Lambert

On 30 Jan 2023, I discussed the Intellectual Property Office's guidance on  IP in New Zealand  (see IP in New Zealand).  The IPO has published similar guidance entitled IP in Canada.  Like the New Zealand guidance, it covers trade marks, patents, designs, copyrights and enforcement.  It has links to the Department for International Trade's Exporting Guide to Canada and Report a Trade Barrier pages, the British Canadian Chamber of Trade and Commerce and the UK's IP attaché for North America at the British embassy in Washington DC.

The guidance states that the intellectual property authority for Canada is the Canadian Intellectual Property Office ("CIPO").   According to its home page, CIPO is a special operating agency of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada which delivers intellectual property services in Canada and educates Canadians on how to use IP more effectively.  Its services include examining applications for patents, trade marks and industrial designs and the registration of copyrights and integrated circuit topographies. Its education, tools and resources include information on green technology. managing IP, data and research, an IP academy, an IP hub, an IP toolbox, events, webinars and seminars, a newsletter and other publications.  CIPO also publishes several blogs.

It would appear from the guidance that Canadian trade mark, patent, industrial designs and copyright laws are similar to ours.  The main differences seem to be a grace period for patents and a registration system for copyrights,  Applications for patents, trade marks and designs can be made directly to CIPO or through international conventions.

Infringement actions can be brought in the civil courts although the guidance warns that litigation is expensive and time-consuming.   Arbitration, mediation and expert determination are also available,  Information on enforcement can be obtained from the IPHub Enforcement/Infringement.  The Canadian Border Services Agency can intercept and detain counterfeit goods or pirate copies of copyright works.

Anyone wishing to discuss this topic further should call me at +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form at other times.