| Legal Deposit Libraries Bill
|
|
Dr. Howells: I stated earlier that I considered the hon. Gentleman’s amendment on constructing an advisory committee to be a helpful guide to how best such a vital job may be carried out successfully. I thank him for drafting it. While I am in favour of the existence of an advisory committee, I do not believe that it should be constituted in primary legislation. If that were done, it would effectively reduce the flexibility of the committee and the Secretary of State. Given that every effort has been made to future proof the Bill, I believe that the proposal would be counter-productive. The constitution of the committee and its functions may need to change over time, sometimes quite radically. I assure the Committee that the Government are intending to establish such a panel to advise the Secretary of State on drawing up regulations relating to legal deposit and subsequent implementation. Such a panel will be made up of representatives of the publishers and the deposit libraries as well as other key stakeholders. However, to enable it to operate in the ever-evolving world of non-print publication and to continue to represent those bodies with an interest in the legislation, we do not consider that the committee should be established in primary legislation. It is also important that some consultation takes place with interested parties that might not be represented on the advisory panel. The existing provisions are preferable to the proposed amendment. New clause 3 would constitute a technical advisory committee in primary legislation. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not agree with me, but I believe that it is an inflexible solution to what could and should be achieved flexibly. It would constitute an advisory panel in the same way in which the advisory panel on Crown copyright was constituted. Doing that in the Bill would leave no opportunity to put things right if it was found that the committee, as originally set up, did not work for whatever reason. The libraries and the publishers would have to live with it until primary legislation could change it. That is why my Department advocates maximum flexibility. We believe that it is right that there should be some good consultation with interested parties before the committee is established and its terms of reference fixed. There would be no opportunity for such consultation if the new clause was accepted. As I said, I wholeheartedly support the setting up of a committee or a panel to advise the Secretary of State on drafting the regulations. However, the committee must be given every opportunity to be a success and Column Number: 48 should not be limited through any inflexible legislation. I am fully aware of the difficulties of legislating on the online environment, so expect there to be extensive consultation with the committee and elsewhere in excess of the usual 12-week consultation period before any regulations are prepared to deal with the online environment, about which the hon. Gentleman is especially concerned.Mr. Moss: I am most grateful for the Minister’s assurances. We know that he is an extremely honourable man and will carry this through, provided, of course, that he is still in post. He has done some sterling work recently with the Communications Bill and Licensing Bill, and may well be promoted in the next few weeks. To whom will we turn then? For the benefit of the Committee, as well as those who take an interest in these things and who will be avidly reading Hansard tomorrow, if there is a change in circumstances and in the personnel of his Department, the commitment that he has given today about the committee or panel—call it what one will—which he hopes to form very quickly, is really a commitment given by the Secretary of State and the Department. Heads are nodding on the Government Benches. It would be nice to have the words in print and perhaps the Minister can provide them in his response. Dr. Howells: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I am in constant contact with my boss, the Secretary of State, who has closely examined the Bill as we are very interested in the subject. She is in Liverpool today celebrating with that city the decision to award it capital of culture, so I am giving an undertaking on her behalf that we will move things forward, as I described. Mr. Moss: I am most grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record. Does he accept that the areas set out in new clause 3(4)(d)(i) to (v) are vital to the discussions that the panel or committee will undertake? Will he tell the Committee what importance he attaches to the key questions of proportionality and copyright protection? That might help the Committee to determine what it will do next or in preparation for Report. Some reassurance would be helpful. Dr. Howells: I will gladly give that reassurance. As I said, this is a good skeleton for setting up an advisory committee. It certainly addresses some key issues that must be addressed in the consultation before the committee or panel is set up, as well as being the meat of the committee when it begins its work. Mr. Moss: I thank the Minister for that assurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Column Number: 49 Mr. Mole: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in
The amendment would add a provision that a deposit with Trinity college Dublin will be required only if the restrictions on the use of the material imposed by Irish law are not substantially less restrictive than those imposed by UK law—the so-called switch. Publishers have rightly been concerned about depositing in a foreign country, and the amendment will ensure that they are as fully protected in Eire as in the UK. 5.45 pmMr. Thomas: Something has just struck me about the amendment. I am looking for confirmation that it applies only to non-print material and that the hon. Gentleman does not foresee a change to the legal deposit of printed books in Dublin. Mr. Moss: I should like to add my three-pennyworth to the debate. I understand that defamation laws in Ireland are stronger than ours. Non-print material that could easily be deposited in the UK could cause problems in Dublin that might not arise here. It would be worth thinking at some stage of building into the clause the fact that publishers should take cognisance of the defamation law in Ireland before sending things to Dublin. Mr. Mole: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion, my understanding is that the amendment would have no effect on printed material. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire makes an entirely valid point about defamation, which will be taken into consideration in due course. Amendment agreed to. Mr. Mole: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in
This a technical amendment consequent upon amendment No. 5. It clarifies the term “relevant material” in relation to deposit in the Republic of Ireland. Amendment agreed to. Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Mr. Mole: The clause now enables different provisions to be made for different purposes, including for different media, descriptions of work and deposit libraries, and it may make exceptions to the general provisions. Regulations will not be made without the consent of the National Assembly for Wales or the Scottish Executive, if the regulations remove or do not confer entitlements on the National Library of Wales Column Number: 50 or Scotland, respectively. There will be no obligation to obtain that consent where the national libraries, or the Faculty of Advocates in the case of legal publications, have access to electronic works by electronic means.In all other cases, the National Assembly and Scottish Ministers must be consulted if the regulations would affect the national libraries in any way. It is also necessary to consult the deposit libraries and those publishers most likely to be affected before regulations can be made. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his words of reassurance. Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman was describing clause 8 in the same terms as the explanatory notes, but that does not reflect precisely the terminology of the clause itself. Subsection (1) states:
What does the hon. Gentleman mean by “or areas”? Does he mean different countries within the United Kingdom, or does he propose some sort of geographical disparity in treatment? I am slightly surprised that those words should have been included. The power to differentiate the various deposit libraries is clear. How would areas be interpreted in that context? Mr. Mole: I hope that the Minister can give us a brief explanation of that. I cannot put my hand on the exact interpretation of area in that context. It may well refer to different areas of works. To finish what I was saying, I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Minister said about approval by the House of draft regulations. Dr. Howells: I am reliably informed—this is not the first time that I have answered questions from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire in this way—that what we are discussing may be able to be removed as a result of the removal of clause 7. We will certainly consider that word before Report. Question put and agreed to. Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 INTERPRETATION Mr. Mole: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 8, in
Column Number: 51 Mr. Mole: Amendment No. 7 removes the definition of publication right, because that is no longer referred to. It is consequential on clause 7 not standing part of the Bill. Amendment No. 8 provides clarification. It includes the definition of publication in the Bill, rather than referring back to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and ensures that the definition is in terms of the work to be deposited, rather than the intellectual property rights in that work, as it would be if the definition in the 1988 Act were used. It is a fairly technical amendment. It will not have a substantial effect, but it will make a definite improvement to the Bill. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: No. 8, in
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT, REPEALS AND REVOCATION Mr. Mole: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in
This amendment merely ensures that the Bill’s format is consistent throughout. Amendment agreed to. Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Mr. Lansley: Clause 10 brings into effect the schedule. Perhaps I should have done my homework beforehand, but I am unaware of what the British Museum Act 1932 did that requires it to be repealed, and what in the Bill supersedes it. Perhaps we might be informed of that before we pass the provision. Mr. Mole: I am dredging the depths of my memory to answer the first of those questions, but not necessarily the second. As I recall, the British Library was originally part of the British Museum, so I suspect that the Act may have been the creation of the British Library as a separate institution. How that helps me with the second question, I am not so sure. Mr. Lansley: That is interesting. Question put and agreed to. Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 52 New Clause 1 USE OF NON-PRINT PUBLICATIONS
Brought up, and read the First time. Mr. Mole: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. After discussion with publishing representatives, it was agreed, as I said when we considered the original clause 7, that that clause was too permissive. Adequate safeguards were requested to protect economic interests and to balance the responsibilities imposed by other clauses. We will therefore replace clause 7 with new clauses 1 and 2. New clause 1 provides that, unless provided for by regulation, nothing can be done with material once it is deposited. Regulations will be able to specify the purpose for which the material can be used. They will also be able to specify when readers can first use it. That is important in terms of high-value, short-life publications, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire and others mentioned. Such a mechanism will allow embargoes to be placed on access to material until its commercial value has diminished. The archive value for the nation will, of course, remain. Regulations will also specify the types of reader that can access material and will place limitations on the number of readers. In that way, a limit can be placed on the number of terminals—if that continues to be the Column Number: 53 appropriate terminology—on which material can be accessed and/or the number of readers who can access it at any one time. Subsection (5) provides that any breach of the restrictions on the use of material by libraries will be enforceable by action against them for breach of statutory duty.I therefore hope that the new clause will be seen as going a long way towards meeting publishers’ concerns. Mr. Thomas: On the whole, I welcome the new clause. I simply take this opportunity to reinforce a couple of points that I made earlier. The Minister was very helpful in responding to a question about preservation and he said that he would reconsider the issue. I am pleased that he said that, but I would like to leave him with just one more thought. The long title says that the Bill makes
So, “preservation” is in the long title. New clause 1 makes allowance for copying electronic or non-print media, but it is couched in terms of copying for the purposes of users. There is a difference between what an archivist does when copying material for users and for conservation purposes. To take another example, one might record a radio programme on a reel to reel, because that gives the highest quality in analogue terms, although goodness knows how it compares in digital terms. However, the user’s copy would be made on a cassette, which would be played on a little cassette machine. In that way, one can preserve the reel-to-reel recording, and there would be no physical deterioration. Of course, there is no physical deterioration in digital recordings, but there is technical deterioration in the sense that the technology moves on, so that what was the dog’s cojones five years ago is not relevant and cannot be used by the reader today. There must be a way of ensuring that the Bill allows archivists to make preservation copies as well as user copies. I am slightly concerned that new clause 1 is aimed exclusively at the user, although meeting users’ needs is a legitimate aim of librarianship. However, we must remember that there is a second aim of librarianship—conserving materials for future users. Libraries must meet the needs not only of the now but of the future. The Minister has already said that he will reconsider the issue to see whether everything is okay, but I wanted to emphasise the conservation and preservation arguments. In moving the clause, the hon. Member for Ipswich, referred to terminals. Five minutes ago, the Minister said that every effort had been made to future-proof the Bill, but is the word “terminals” future proof? I am not sure that it is. I can envisage a time when one will no longer have a terminal but a little palm pilot on which to read a PDF file. We must ensure that we do not rule out ways of co-operating between libraries and secure networks, or even between non-networked networks. Goodness knows what broadband will do for us, when it eventually arrives in Aberystwyth. “Terminals” is a strange word, redolent of computer Column Number: 54 talk of the 1970s and 1980s. We may need to consider it again. I hope that my remarks will be taken on board between now and Report.6 pmMr. Allan: I wish to raise one brief point on subsection (3)(b), on when readers can first use relevant material. It takes us back to an earlier discussion about small-volume, high-value publications. We said that if they were made available, the publisher might wish to put a bar on access for a period of months so that people would continue to subscribe. New clause 1 relates specifically to non-printed material, but the same consideration may apply in publishers’ minds to printed material. If a publisher produces a specialist publication with a subscription list for 10,000 copies a year, he will want to be sure that the non-printed version supplied to the deposit library is held back for six months; but that will not happen with the printed version. It would make sense to try to achieve consistency. If we make a sensible concession to publishers by allowing a delay for non-printed materials, the concession should be made also for printed material. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board. Dr. Howells: Those were all useful points. We shall certainly take them on board and see whether we can improve the Bill to reassure the hon. Gentlemen. Question put and agreed to. Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 2 USE OF NONPRINT PUBLICATIONS: COPYRIGHT ETC.
Column Number: 55
Column Number: 56
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. Schedule agreed to. Bill, as amended, to be reported. Committee rose at two minutes past Six o’clock. Column Number: 57 THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE: Benton, Mr. Joe (Chairman) Column Number: 58 Mole, ChrisMoss, Mr. Perham, Linda Russell, Christine Thomas, Mr. Simon Todd, Mr. White, Brian |
| |
|
|
Prepared 6 June 2003 |
