| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.18 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East): I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Front-Bench spokesmen for not being present when the debate commenced. I was at another meeting from which I found it difficult to tear myself away.
As the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), who spoke on behalf of the official Opposition, said, we had a most interesting and illuminating debate in Standing Committee, which was characterised by a genuine desire on the part of all the hon. Members who took part to arrive at the best possible decisions, in the interests of the people in whose interests the Bill has been conceived.
The stability and the dignity of the handover, which is to take place on 1 July 1997, will undoubtedly be enhanced by the quality of the civil servants and of the civil service which has characterised the administration of Hong Kong for such a long time. It is therefore right that those who have played such a prominent part in that administration should, so far as is possible, have their interests protected and preserved.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and I were not able to persuade the Minister or any other member of the Committee of the virtues of the amendment that he moved and I supported. During the debate on that amendment, however, all Committee members recognised the need to ensure that the interests of those for whom the Bill has been conceived will be properly preserved, not only for now but in the future.
There is no doubt that these are complicated times in Hong Kong--if I may put it that way--as the date of the handover approaches, but there is little doubt that the Bill is a proper recognition of the contribution that so many people have made to the stability of the colony.
Mr. Hanley:
With the leave of the House. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) for his remarks and for pointing out that we had a vote in Committee. I know, however, that, the vote having been taken, the issue is now regarded as having been satisfactorily dealt with by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and, I believe, by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East. It is good that the House should hear that. I am also grateful to the hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) for the way in which the Bill passed its Committee stage.
As the Member for Leeds, Central said, the Bill has been examined in very fine detail. It now goes to the other place and, as the hon. Gentleman said, I hope that it will come back to this House unscathed and as quickly as possible, because the people for whom we are providing are the people whose contributions to Hong Kong have helped to make it such a flourishing place.
Hong Kong will continue to flourish, and it will be a great success story, up to transition and beyond. The Chinese believe that, we believe it, the world believes it, and Hong Kong also believes it--Hong Kong believes in itself. With the Bill we can reward those who have helped to make Hong Kong such a special place.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor):
I beg to move,
The regulations amend the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 in order to implement all the main provisions of Council directive 93/98, which harmonises the term of protection of copyright and related rights to the European Union.
The directive became due for implementation on 1 July this year, and we very much regret that the complexities of the regulations have meant that we have been unable to complete the preparation in time to meet that date. Indeed, work still remains to be done on legislation to implement article 4 of the directive, which requires the introduction of a new form of protection for unpublished works in which copyright has expired. That article is therefore not covered by the present regulations. We intend, however, to deal with that remaining aspect as soon as possible.
The 1988 Act already complies with one of the main requirements of the directive, which is a 50-year period of protection for copyright in sound recordings and broadcasts and for the rights of performing artists. The directive should be of significant benefit in bringing the duration of those rights in the rest of the European Union to the same level as those in the UK, particularly in relation to the UK sound recording industry. That is an area of considerable economic importance to the UK and, up to now, the terms of protection have been much shorter in several other member states, including Germany.
The directive means, however, that the 1988 Act has to be amended to increase the basic term of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. It will increase from the present life of the author plus 50 years after his death to life plus 70 years. Although that term previously applied only in one member state-- Germany--two other member states also had terms longer than those in the United Kingdom: in Spain the term was life plus 60 years and in France it was life plus 70 years in the case of musical works.
Harmonisation at life plus 50 years would therefore have been difficult because it would have meant protection reductions in three member states. The directive was, moreover, subject to qualified majority voting, and it became clear that most other member states were willing to accept harmonisation at life plus 70 years.
In those circumstances, the UK agreed, albeit reluctantly, to accept the increased term, although I know that there has been quite a lot of debate and controversy about that. It follows, however, that there will also be an increase in most other member states, and the United Kingdom's authors, composers and artists should benefit at least as much as those from other EU countries.
The directive also means that the duration of copyright in films, which is currently 50 years from the making or release of a film, is changed by the regulations and put on a similar footing to the terms for literary and like works. Copyright in films will now last for 70 years from the death of the last to die of the principal director, the authors of the screenplay and dialogue and the composer of any music made specifically for the film.
Sir Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare):
As I have an interest in this matter, I hope to say a few words if I have the privilege to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a differentiation between moving photographs and still photographs. If the Government are prepared to allow the special extension for films, why do they not extend it to still photographs? What is the difference between the two?
Mr. Taylor:
My hon. Friend makes an important point, but the categorisation of "film" in the sense of video film was accepted as the basic definition for this purpose. If photography as such were to be considered an art form, that might bring it under aspects of copyright other than the particular element of video or visual presentations, which are generically called "films". I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said in case there is a distinction that may have eluded me.
Copyright in films will now last for 70 years from the death of the last to die of the group of people consisting of the principal director, the authors of the screenplay and dialogue and the composer of any music made specifically for the film. The underlying reason for the change in approach is that several other member states already protect films on a life-plus basis rather than for a fixed period.
I should also like to explain that the directive requires that the increased copyright terms that it sets will apply not only to future works but to existing ones. That means that the copyright of works currently in protection in the United Kingdom will be extended. Revival of copyright will also occur in the case of works which, although in the public domain in the United Kingdom, are still protected elsewhere in the European Union. However, the terms set by the directive apply essentially only to works from the EU. Those from outside the EU will receive the term granted in the country of origin which, in most cases, will be less than the European Union term.
A number of the regulations relate to transitional provisions in relation to extended and revived copyrights. The Government are well aware of the difficulties that revival could cause, but without this approach there would be no effective harmonisation for a considerable time and UK sound recordings and performances would suffer from remaining out of protection in several other member states.
Moreover, we have tried to do as much possible to ensure that there are adequate safeguards to protect users who would otherwise be adversely affected by revival of copyright. Clearly, it would be wrong if anything done before the regulations came into force and copyrights revived were retrospectively to constitute an infringement of revived rights. That will not be the case, but, necessarily, the safeguards go much further. For example, where arrangements for exploitation of a work in which copyright will revive have been made before 1 January 1995, nothing done in pursuance of those arrangements after the regulations come into force will infringe the revived rights. That means, for example, that if a publisher has entered into commitments to produce an edition of an affected work before the date that I have announced, he will be able to fulfil his commitments without incurring any liability to copyright owners.
We have also had to establish who is to own extended or revived rights. That is not dealt with by the directive but has to be resolved, since otherwise it would be unclear
who is entitled to authorise particular works or to benefit from them, with the result that future use of works could be inhibited. On that aspect, we have tried to take an approach which is both fair and produces the greatest legal certainty. In essence, we have concluded that those objectives are best met by providing that the current owner of copyright will own the rights extended by the regulations and that the last owner of the original copyright will own revived rights.
The House will realise from this introduction that the directive raises difficult questions of balance between competing interests, which have to be addressed in the regulations. We have consulted widely on the legislation-- first, through a consultation paper on the issues of ownership of rights and safeguards for users and, secondly, through a consultative draft of the regulations. In all, more than 200 different representative bodies, firms and individuals were consulted. I have also had many representations from colleagues who have taken a particular interest in the matter, and I am grateful to them for the cases that they have made--personally and on behalf of the organisations that they have introduced to me.
Copyright 5.22 pm
That the draft Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |