| Legal Deposit Libraries Bill
|
|
Mr. Mole: I was telling the hon. Member for Ceredigion that I would support his principle that there should be discretion among librarians, but that they should use that discretion reasonably. I also wanted to reiterate the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam that libraries are already doing good work to obtain access to materials held on discontinued systems. I give the example of the work that has just been completed by the British Library on the BBC Domesday project videodisc. Using its own resources, it has ensured that a format that is no longer accessible could be made available once again to the public. That touches on the point about funding. Funding to allow such work to continue is important. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Ceredigion to the requirement in the regulations that the Secretary of State should consult with the National Assembly and the Scottish Executive to ensure that such regimes are appropriately put in place. Question put and agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 ACCESS TO AND PRESEVATION OF NON-PRINT PUBLICATIONS Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 2—Use of non-print publications: copyright etc.
Column Number: 40
Mr. Mole: Clause 7 is thought to be too permissive and so will be replaced by two new clauses that will be considered shortly. Mr. Thomas: I welcome the replacement of clause 7 by new clauses 1 and 2. The new clauses are more precise, clearer and give a better steer, but there is one problem, although I do not know whether it is due to poor drafting or because it was overlooked. 5.15 pmClause 7(2)(a) mentions the right of a deposit library, or a person acting on its behalf, to copy relevant material
Therefore, the Bill as currently drafted makes the purpose of preservation a legitimate reason for copying material. However, there is nothing as specific in either new clause—I know that we are considering new clause 1 later, but it is relevant because it also covers the current field of clause 7. We must remember that a main job of librarians and archivists is to preserve material, not for the sake of putting it in aspic, but to make it available for future generations. That is the purpose of preservation, and I do not want us to hem in future archivists and librarians by not giving them the explicit right to copy for the purposes of preservation. Without that right, there could be some difficulty if someone starts to feel bolshie about the fact that several copies are being made of legally deposited Column Number: 41 material. They may feel that that is infringing their rights as publishers or that their understanding of the agreement and regulations has been subverted by the library or institution in question. There will be no problem if the institutions have the defence of copying for reasons of preservation, but the new clauses do not make it as clear that a librarian or archivist can copy non-print material simply for the purposes of preservation. I want the assurance that the new clauses will not make it difficult for someone working on behalf of a legal deposit library to do that.To emphasise the point about the material, it is not sufficient to say that a readers’ copy can be a preserved copy as well, as there is more to preservation than that. It is a little about aspic and keeping the article in its cultural context, but also about making the material available in a sensible and understandable way to the readers, academics and researchers of the future. I hope that we will get some assurances that the new clauses do not contain any diminution in the rights of copying and replicating non-print material simply for the purposes of preservation. Mr. Moss: I was reading new clause 1 as the hon. Member for Ceredigion was speaking. Proposed new subsection (4)(d) contains the words that he is looking for. It says that
It does not use the word “preservation”, but if the material is copied, then people can do what the heck they want with it after that. That provision probably covers the point. I seek your guidance, Mr. Benton. We are discussing only new clause 2, not new clause 1 as well, which is to be debated later. Is it appropriate to cover new clause 1 at this stage? I did not realise that both replaced clause 7. The Chairman: Strictly speaking, the hon. Gentleman is right. We are discussing only clause 7 stand part and new clause 2. To discuss new clause 1 would be out of order. Mr. Moss: I retract, then, what I said about new clause 1. I want to ask one question of the hon. Member for Ipswich. Why has he seen fit to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988? New clause 2 will amend section 44 of the 1988 Act by inserting a new section relating to legal deposits. Similarly, the new clause will amend the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997. An explanation of why that was done would be helpful to the Committee. Linda Perham (Ilford, North): On a general point, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said on Second Reading that some publishers had expressed concern about clause 7. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire talked at the beginning about the Bill being rushed through, but this clause is an example of my hon. Friend and those he has consulted making an effort to address the concerns of everyone involved, in particular those of publishers. Column Number: 42 The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire, who has been involved in the publishing industry, made strong points about publishers. I also commend the hon. Member for Ceredigion—a fellow librarian—for making such a good case for libraries and archives. Those of us who have worked in either profession have what is not quite a love-hate relationship, but an interdependent one, much like that of architects and engineers. By the time we have substituted new clauses 1 and 2 for the current clause, it will be shown that there has been great effort to come to terms with the concerns of everybody who wants the legislation to be passed. Dr. Howells: In response to the hon. Member for Ceredigion, an answer was provided by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire: the powers under new clause 1 will enable regulations to authorise copying for the purposes of preservation. However, the questions of the hon. Member for Ceredigion went a little further than that, and we will certainly reconsider the matter to see whether things can be further clarified, as we are talking about an important and valuable function. The new clause is necessary because much of the use of legal deposit material may be delivered by regulations made under its provision. That will involve acts that ordinarily might infringe copyright and/or database right. New clause 2 inserts a provision into part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, namely copyright law, and into the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997, which govern database right. New clause 2(1) provides that anything that is permitted by regulations made under the clause relating to non-print publications will not infringe copyright or database right. Copyright policy is a matter for my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, and it is extremely important that they are consulted on the scope of regulations made under new clauses 2 and 1, given that the new exceptions effectively remove restrictions imposed by copyright and database right. I know that they will want to ensure that only uses that do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of publishers will be provided for by regulations. Our aim is to ensure that regulations on use do not unfairly threaten publishers’ commercial interests. The measures, namely exceptions to copyright and database right, will provide that doing anything that is permitted through regulations on use of non-print publications made under this Bill will not infringe copyright or database right. Additionally, any regulation-making power is included under proposed new section 44A to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations that turn off exceptions to copyright in relation to the relevant material. Mr. Lansley: While the Minister is on the order-making power in new clause 2, I note that on Second Reading he said that the intention was that regulations made under the Bill would be on an affirmative basis, but that it was intended that the regulations resulting Column Number: 43 from new clause 2 would be put into the 1988 Act on a negative basis. That is inconsistent. I wonder why he did that.Dr. Howells: If that were to be done on an affirmative resolution, it would imply that the changes are of greater consequence that those that I envisage being made under the changes to the current legislation that we are discussing. The hon. Gentleman is correct to raise the matter, but if he believes that by applying a negative resolution to the changes we are not giving them the importance that he thinks should be attached to them, perhaps he could explain why. Mr. Lansley: Although we have not discussed new clause 1, it is closely connected with new clause 2. In so far as new clause 1 might prescribe activities that could be applied to the relevant material, for copyright purposes there may be reasons why certain activities might or might not be allowed to happen, and those may have substantial intellectual property values associated with them. That might be the most valuable part of the proposed regulations. From the point of view of protecting intellectual property, the two kinds of regulations—those made under new clause 1 and those made under new clause 2—would have to be read together, so the libraries are allowed to undertake a wide range of activities with protections built in for copyright purposes. If those are seen together, should not they both be exercised through the same order-making power? Dr. Howells: I have missed that and I shall consider it. The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. We need a degree of consistency. My only excuse is that in drafting the Bill—well, I did not draft it, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich did—it is easy to miss such inconsistencies. I certainly undertake to look at that. Mr. Moss: Before the Minister passes the blame to somebody else—[Interruption.] On new clause 2 and the implications for the 1988 Act, the Minister said that this was the prerogative of the DTI and that it will be showing an interest in things. I do not think that that is strong enough for the Committee. Can the Minister reassure us that the matter has been cleared with the DTI and that it fully supports it? Otherwise, we might agree something in Committee that runs counter to another Department. Dr. Howells: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich has talked to DTI officials, who are fully on board. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on it: various Departments are involved in this part of the Bill. I assure him that we are working closely with the DTI. The power is needed to ensure that there is a fair balance between publishers and readers. For example, regulations could be made to ensure parity between the rights the deposit library or reader can exercise in relation to a deposited work and the rights they could Column Number: 44 exercise over a work that has been purchased commercially. I am sure that the Committee will be interested in those important points.It is most unlikely that the regulations under copyright law would be made at the same time as regulations under the Legal Deposit Libraries Bill. The copyright regulations provide a safeguard for publishers. I know that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire has much expertise and interest in that area. Question put and negatived. Clause 7 disagreed to. Clause 8 REGULATIONS: SUPPLEMENTARY 5.30 pmMr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3—Technical advisory committee—
Column Number: 45
Mr. Moss: We have already touched on the substance of the amendment in our opening debate. It is important, particularly in respect of the relationship between the libraries, the publishers and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Subsection (7) refers to regulations that the Secretary of State may bring forward, but only if he or she has first consulted the deposit libraries and, more importantly given the worries that have been raised,
Amendment No. 15 would firm up the consultative relationship in two ways. First, it would put the advisory committee, the body that will develop from the joint committee on voluntary deposits, into the Bill. Secondly, the amendment highlights two critical areas that are fundamental to the publishers’ rights, such as proportionality. It refers to the Secretary of State being satisfied that the regulations
Column Number: 46 That wording was lifted almost verbatim from the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which refers to proportionality in a way that might help draftsmen incorporate it into the Bill. We are not asking for something that is not already on the statute book. Section 22(5) of the Act states:
Similar words applied to clause 8 of the Bill will give the assurance that publishers seek. Amendment No. 15 refers to the Secretary of State being satisfied that the regulations
It concerns anything that might prejudice the economic viability of the publishing organisation. There is similar wording in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 137 of which states:
We have taken wording from existing legislation that protects the two key issues of proportionality and copyright benefit and included it in amendment No. 15. We are talking about regulations that may or may not be brought forward by the Secretary of State. New clause 3 would define the committee, which is a group of people whom the Department will consult and includes the publishers and the libraries. It is an extension of the excellent work that those bodies have already done in bringing forward the Bill. New clause 3 defines a technical advisory committee. The Minister said earlier that he takes on board the need for the consultation and the immediacy of it. It is to be hoped that in response to the amendments he will go into more detail about how he sees that moving forward. The important thing about new clause 3 is not so much the composition of the committee or the fact that it will be consulted on certain issues, but that it points up the key areas that need to be discussed. They are outlined under proposed subsection (4)(d)(i) to (v) and relate to a regulatory impact assessment, particularly on online publication. The need to define UK based authorship or origination has not yet been decided. Subsection (4)(d)(iii) concerns proportionality and paragraph (iv) is about practicality and the fact that the regulations will not be excessively heavy on the publishers. Paragraph (v) is about copyright protection, which I have already dealt with. Those are the key areas that must be discussed. We want the Bill to recognise the importance of the committee. Hence, our new clause and amendment No. 15. We understand that there are “technical problems” with doing that, because of Treasury and cost implications. No doubt the Minister or the Bill’s promoter will explain that to us. We are looking for Column Number: 47 some movement from the promoter towards the publishing community in respect of those key issues. If it can obtain assurances on some of those issues, particularly proportionality and copyright protection, many of the community’s fears and concerns will abate. We have reached an important stage. If we can confront such issues—perhaps not this afternoon, but before the Bill is discussed on Report—we have every chance of making good legislation, which is what we all want. |
| |
|
|
Prepared 6 June 2003 |
