House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Oct 1990

Mr. Mellor : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unless I am misinformed, I understand that no other hon. Member has given notice of wanting to intervene on any of the subsequent amendments.

Mr. Fisher : I intended to speak to Lords amendment No. 432.

Mr. Mellor : That is not on my note. I had hoped to be able to suggest that we might be able to put all the other amendments to the House en bloc.

Mr. Fisher : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On amendment No. 432, could the Minister say something about the sort of sum--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The Minister cannot do that. First, we should deal with the proposition that we should take the rest of the amendments en bloc. Is there any hon. Member who disagrees with that proposition?

Mr. Cryer : Yes. Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure what en bloc means. Does the Minister mean a select group of amendments or all the amendments? Even though we appear to rush through amendments, our practice gives hon. Members an opportunity to intervene when they so wish. I am opposed to dealing with the subsequent amendments en bloc.

Column 612

Mr. Simon Coombs : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I welcome maximum speed in our deliberations where possible, but there are two groups of amendments on which I should like to intervene briefly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I accept, of course, the points that have been made by the hon. Members for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). We shall proceed as we have hitherto.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Clause 163

Use as right of sound recordings in broadcast and cable programme services

Lords amendment : No. 387, in page 124, line 18, leave out from ("licence") to ("terms") in line 19 and insert--("(a) whose"). Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.-- [Mr. Mellor.]

11 pm

Mr. Simon Coombs : This amendment deals with the delicate balance that has always been struck and maintained between the interests of the music recording industry and of broadcasters, particularly in radio. I urge caution on the Government before they do anything to change that delicate balance.

I am pleased to note that the issue was thoroughly aired in the other place and that assurances were given. I need not detain the House at this stage, apart from urging my right hon. and learned Friend to be keenly aware of the concern in the music recording industry about the fact that a small change in legislation could have a big effect on a major British industry that has always been a successful contributor to the British balance of payments. In that light, I hope that he will recognise the need for caution and will do nothing to upset that delicate balance.

Mr. Mellor : I accept what my hon. Friend says. It is a responsibility, I am almost happy to say, of the Department of Trade and Industry, and I shall make sure that that Department is made aware of my hon. Friend's view, of which I am well aware from representations made to me.

Mr. Gale : Will my right hon. and learned Friend also convey to the Department of Trade and Industry the fact that as there is now no format protection in the Bill, any format programme from television can be pirated and run on radio without any payment whatever?

Mr. Mellor : That is the Hughie Green case that we discussed at length. It all turns on whether it is an idea or whether it constitutes a fully worked through, written document of a kind that can attract copyright protection. I regret that there remains dissatisfaction on that issue. I shall convey that dissatisfaction to my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry, all of whom are prudently absent from the House at this hour.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Column 613

New Clause

Unauthorised decoders for encrypted services etc.

Lords amendment : No. 407, after clause 166, to insert the following new clause--

(" .--(1) In the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 the following section shall be inserted after section 297--

"Unauthorised decoders. 297A.--(1) A person who makes, imports, sells or lets for hire any unauthorised decoder shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(2) It is a defence to any prosecution for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that he did not know, and had no reasonable ground for knowing, that the decoder was an unauthorised decoder.

(3) In this section--

"apparatus" includes any device, component or electronic data ; "decoder" means any apparatus which is designed or adapted to enable (whether on its own or with any other apparatus) an encrypted transmission to be decoded ;

"transmission" means any programme included in a broadcasting or cable programme service which is provided from a place in the United Kingdom ; and

"unauthorised", in relation to a decoder, means a decoder which will enable encrypted transmissions to be viewed in decoded form without payment of the fee (however imposed) which the person making the transmission, or on whose behalf it is made, charges for viewing those transmissions, or viewing any service of which they form part."

(2) In section 299 of the Act of 1988 (fraudulent reception of programmes broadcast from countries or territories outside the United Kingdom)--

(a) subsection (2) shall cease to have effect ; and

(b) in subsection (5), after "297" there shall be inserted "297A".")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.-- [Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Simon Coombs : The House will be aware that I took considerable interest in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. That measure, among many other things, prohibits satellite signal theft and gives satellite service providers certain remedies against the manufacture, importation and sale of unauthorised decoding equipment. But the provisions apply only to signals uplinked from the United Kingdom. Signals uplinked from abroad enjoy no legal protection. That means that there is no legal remedy against the growing proliferation of pirate decoders. About 30 per cent. of United Kingdom homes with authorised decoding equipment are now estimated to have unauthorised decoders provided by Filmnet. That has caused, and will increasingly cause in the future, serious economic loss to United Kingdom satellite services and their programme suppliers. Therefore, we need an amendment to the 1988 Act to enable the Government to extend legal protection to all signals originating from abroad, not just--as the present law provides--signals from countries that already have laws against satellite signal theft. The recent case of BBC Enterprises v. Hi-Tech Xtravision suggests that it is not dishonest within the meaning of the 1988 Act, and therefore not illegal, to buy unauthorised decoding equipment that is available more cheaply from someone other than the broadcaster and to

Column 614

use it to receive encoded satellite signals. That interpretation, if followed by other courts, would render the satellite signal theft provisions of the current statute almost unenforceable. Therefore, an amendment is needed to the 1988 Act to make it clear that an offence is committed whenever a relevant transmission is received with intent to avoid payment, without requiring a further showing of dishonesty. Although the Court of Appeal in the BBC case that I mentioned found that the 1988 Act establishes both a primary right and a corresponding remedy in respect of the manufacture, importation and sale of unauthorised decoding equipment, there was almost unanimous agreement among the judges who considered the case that the current statute is not nearly as clear as previous law in establishing the primary right. Therefore, the 1988 Act should also be amended to clarify that point.

The Broadcasting Bill could be an appropriate vehicle for those amendments to the copyright law. In July, in the other place, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead introduced amendments that would have achieved the desired effect. The Government, in the person of Lord Saunderson of Bowden, said that they were considering the matter and would introduce amendments on Report. But the amendments before us have not met the requirements, as I said. The new clause does not provide the protection asked for.

Among the companies that fear that, in all probability, they will lose heavily financially are the BBC, British Satellite Broadcasting, Sky Television, the Federation against Copyright Theft, the British Video Association, the British Screen Advisory Council and the Motion Picture Export Association of America. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister and the House will recognise the seriousness of the matter, which is why I have sought to detain the House at this late hour.

I appreciate that at this late stage of the Bill's passage it is too late to amend the legislation to deal with those problems. But I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider the matter and, if necessary, be prepared to return to the issue before this burgeoning and important industry in the United Kingdom is severely, and perhaps irreparably, damaged.

Mr. Mellor : These are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to whom I shall certainly convey the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs). I appreciate that there is a problem in relation to Filmnet. The suggestion that emerged from the debate in the House of Lords was that those who sell film rights should, in all conscience, ensure that they sell them only to people who have some interest in ensuring that they cannot be readily pirated. The fault lies not with the Government, but with Filmnet for using relatively crude technology that can be so easily broken into.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be only too happy to become further engrossed in those matters in due course. I, as Minister for the Arts, will not have a continuing role in all this.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 408, as amended, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Column 615

New Clause

Contributions towards maintenance of national television archive.

Lords amendment : No. 432, after clause 170, insert the following new clause--

(".--(1) The Commission shall, for the financial year which includes the commencement of this section and each subsequent financial year, determine an aggregate amount which they consider it would be appropriate for the holders of Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences to contribute, in accordance with this section, towards the expenses incurred by the nominated body in connection with the maintenance by it of a national television archive.

(2) In this section "the nominated body" means such body as may for the time being be nominated by the Commission for the purposes of this section, being a body which--

(a) is for the time being a designated body for the purposes of section 75 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (recordings for archival purposes), and

(b) appears to the Commission to be in a position to maintain a national television archive.

(3) A Channel 3 or Channel 5 licence shall include conditions requiring the licence holder to pay to the Commission, in respect of each of the financial years mentioned in subsection (1), such amount as they may notify to him for the purposes of this section, being such proportion of the aggregate amount determined for that year under that subsection as they consider appropriate (and different proportions may be determined in relation to different persons). (4) Any amount received by the Commission by virtue of subsection (3) shall be transmitted by them to the nominated body.

(5) In this section--

"the Commission" means the Independent Television Commission ; and "Channel 3 licence" and "Channel 5 licence" have the same meaning as in Part I of this Act.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.-- [Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Fisher : I should be grateful if the Minister would say something about this because he will agree that it is an extremely significant development. We have a large but by no means complete television archive, which represents an important cultural collection, and it would be helpful if the Minister told us about the size of what is called the "aggregate amount" and about the cost to franchise applicants. He should also express his encouragement for the enterprise.

Will the Minister also say a little about the nominated body? In subsection (2) of the Lords amendment, that body is mentioned but not specified. There are a large number of different archives in existence, and there are problems to do with compatibility, format and handling. Who will compose the nominated body? How will the commission come to that decision? How will it reconcile the different archives? What sums of money will be involved?

This is an important provision ; we trust that it will coherently lay down the sort of archive that the industry needs for the future.

Mr. Cryer : I also welcome the Lords amendment. It represents one of the many commitments made by the Minister in Committee to some sort of national archeive. Film going back to before the turn of the century in the Weintraub archive at the Associated British Picture Corporation as was, now Goldcrest at Elstree, has been

Column 616

sold to the United States, so valuable historic documentation of how people then lived, in animated picture form, is no longer in United Kingdom ownership.

The Government might say that as long as the film can be seen, it does not really matter who owns it, but there is obviously a greater interest in this country in preserving that sort of footage than there is in the United States, where an owner might see some commercial advantage in disposing of it to yet another owner. I recall that, of the silent British feature films made at the studios of Cecil Hepworth in the 1920s, all bar one--"Coming through the Rye"--were sold to be dissolved to make dope for covering the canvas aircraft fuselages of the time. So we lost a valuable historic collection for relatively small commercial considerations. I echo the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). How much money is envisaged? What sort of costs are likely to be involved? I welcome the fact that the archive, under public ownership and control, cannot be sold off at the whim of some takeover merchant, as happened when the Associated British Picture Corporation studios and film vaults were sold to Cannon--and in turn sold off by Cannon.

Elstree Studios could survive on the income derived from lending films from the archives without making any pictures in the studios. It did that as well, thus adding cream to the cake, but that was stopped, not by any decision by film makers in the United Kingdom but by a decision by Cannon, as it then was, simply to maximise the real estate value of Elstree Studios to offset the financial difficulties in which Cannon found itself in the United States.

11.15 pm

I welcome the clause. It would be interesting to know what the Minister had in mind during any discussions. It is not the Minister's decision, but at least he must have had some discussions about the sums involved, how long it will take the nominated body to set up the archive and what sort of material is currently available. I suspect that the cost of storing video material is lower than the cost of storing film. However, some records must be on film, which must be stored in carefully controlled conditions.

Mr. Mellor : I am glad that our decision to put these matters on a statutory basis has met with the approval of the House. I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that it is a shame when irreplaceable art heritage items are wilfully destroyed. I am glad that he mentioned the institute at Bradford, which is part of the Arts Council's drive for more inner-city arts activities. It is proud of the museum in Bradford, which I gather is important not only for what it achieves but as a centre for visitors who come a long way to see it. That rather proves the advantages of the arts in inner cities because it makes those areas places to which people will go. I found that the other day when I visited the Tate gallery in Liverpool.

I was asked about who would keep the archive. The body has yet to be nominated, but I do not think that it is any secret that I think that it will be the British Film Institute, which is obviously well qualified to do that and is already doing it. We wish to keep up the level of payments in real terms, which will be about £200,000 per annum at current prices from the ITV companies. I am glad to say that, although we have not placed a statutory

Column 617

requirement on Channel 4, it has confirmed its willingness to continue to contribute to the archive and will contribute a further £100,000.

As is always the case, such organisations would like a bit more, but I think that everyone understands that £300,000 is enough to maintain an archive that is properly representative of British television for the years in question. Although the change is not earth shattering, it is one of the useful changes made during the progress of the Bill.

Mr. Fisher : How will the provision operate retrospectively? As I understand it, the provision refers only to the new franchise holders, and the important existing archive of current ITV companies will not be covered. The British Film Institute keeps some but by no means all of the archives. Perhaps if I talk for long enough, the Minister will get some sort of steer on the matter. He appears to be none the wiser and is obviously superbly well informed already. What is the scope of the British Film Institute's present activities and how will those activities link with future commitments?

Mr. Mellor : My advisers told me the bit that I already knew. They do not know the bit that I should like to know. They have confirmed that what I know is right. It was once said of Ronald Reagan, "It ain't what he knows that bothers me, but what he says he knows that ain't so." At least what I know seems to be right, which is that the ITV companies already contribute voluntarily to the BFI. The hon. Gentleman asked about their existing archives and whether there are any plans to pool them in a central point. I do not know the answer to that, but I shall try to find out and inform the hon. Gentleman. Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 173

Power to give broadcasting bodies etc. directions relating to international obligations

Lords amendment : No. 434, in page 136, line 39, after ("may") insert ("by order")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.-- [Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 435.

Mr. Cryer : I welcome the amendments because they fulfil another commitment made in Committee. They translate a direction by a Minister into a statutory instrument subject to annulment by either or both Houses of Parliament. That is a slight improvement in the accountability of Ministers because they have to present a statutory instrument that is subject to perusal by the House.

In case we are carried away by the work done by the people down the Corridor, I should point out that many of these proposals were made in Committee and the Minister found it convenient to introduce them in another place. It shows that there is nothing that a revising committee could not do if, on some happy future date, the House of Lords happened to be replaced.

Mr. Tony Banks : I welcome the amendments. However, I should be grateful if the Minister could refresh failing

Column 618

memories on the implications of clause 173, if amended. For those hon. Members who are not closely following the Bill, the clause, as amended, would state that the Secretary of State may by order direct certain bodies to carry out functions

"for the purpose of enabling Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to give effect to any international obligations of the United Kingdom."

The clause does not specify broadcasting obligations. It lists all the broadcasting authorities--the BBC, the ITC, the Welsh Authority, the Radio Authority and the Broadcasting Standards Council. I assume that

"any international obligations of the United Kingdom"

means, for example, that if we have international obligations under the resolution of the Security Council with regard to the presence in the Gulf, the Secretary of State might seek, by order approved in the House, to direct the broadcasting authorities to carry certain messages, or whatever he may determine.

I want the Minister to confirm whether that applies purely to broadcasting obligations under international agreements--

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : It is a blank cheque.

Mr. Banks : As my hon. Friend suggests, is it a blank cheque for the broadcasting authorities, by order, to carry out any obligations--military or whatever--that the Secretary of State of the day may determine? Will the Minister refresh our memories?

Mr. Mellor : I am happy to confirm that it means only obligations relevant to the broadcasting authorities in question. We are not fundamentally changing their nature to get them to do other things. It is a tempting thought, but one that must be resisted.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill : Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Alistair Darling, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Greg Knight and Mr. David Mellor.

To withdraw immediately.

Mr. Mellor : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before withdrawing immediately, I should like to express my appreciation to the whole House for the businesslike way in which we have been able to discuss the amendments tonight. I am most grateful to all concerned.

Mr. Corbett : Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Had it been possible for the House to leave alone those who have lived with the Bill for nigh on a year, we should probably have made even better progress, and we should not, perhaps, have experienced some of the hiccups that I am told occurred last week. Happily, I was not concerned with those, because at the time I was standing on my head in Australia.

Although there were a large number of amendments, the overwhelming majority were technical. When they were not, they fulfilled pledges which had been given in the House or in the other place.

Mr. Cryer : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) takes a very great interest in matters of privilege. I am sure that the Committee, which

Column 619

seems to have been a fix-up between the usual channels, would benefit from his advice, because he takes a deep interest in such matters. If you would like me to, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should be quite happy to provide a manuscript amendment to whatever resolutions are passed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Perhaps I can have the last word on this matter. It is always a great privilege to preside over the House, but it is especially so when the House is in such a constructive and happy mood.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to ; to be communicated to the Lords.

BROADCASTING

Ordered,

That--

(1) the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House (to be called henceforth the Select Committee on Broadcasting etc.) shall have power to give directions and perform other duties, relating to the broadcasting of proceedings of the House and matters ancillary thereto, in accordance with the Resolutions of the House of 26th July 1977 and 19th July 1990 ;

(2) unless the House otherwise orders, those Members presently nominated to the Committee shall continue to be members of it for the remainder of the present Parliament ;

(3) save as superseded by the provisions of the preceding paragraphs of this Order, the temporary Standing Order made on 29th March 1988 relating to the Committee shall continue to apply thereto ;

(4) the Committee shall have leave to confer and to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on Broadcasting for the purposes of deliberating and of examining witnesses ; and (5) this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.-- [Mr. Wood.]

SOUND BROADCASTING

Ordered,

That Standing Order No. 129 (Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting) be repealed.-- [Mr. Wood.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Next Section

Home Page