HC Deb 28 March 1969 vol 780 cc2036-46

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Ben Whitaker (Hampstead)

I am very glad to have the opportunity to raise the long overdue case for authors' public lending rights. I do so not only because of the many writers who live in my own constituency. I am, in fact, hesitant to do so because I must declare myself a modest interest as a writer—less than that of your own self, Mr. Speaker. But I equally declare an interest in that since childhood I have been a keen and grateful user of public libraries in this country. Recently we were very glad to celebrate National Library Week and I am sure that many Members in this House are grateful to the late Andrew Carnegie for the excellent system which I think he started of public libraries in this country, which are, probably rightly, claimed to be the best in the world.

What I cannot agree with is that it is right that these libraries should be in large measure subsidised—involuntarily—by authors. It is true that we in this House are aware of many other categories of deserving people, but that, I submit, does not excuse authors having to pay without their consent a special tax in order to help a very excellent and necessary public service.

Playwrights and composers, for example, have had their similar rights granted to them a long time ago. Authors have families and widows as much as anybody else. A survey by Richard Findlater found that five-sixths of writers earn less than £1,000 a year, and some writers are, indeed, existing, with their families, on less than 30s. a week.

Books are the form of art enjoyed by most people. Public library lending in this country has increased by 40 per cent. in the last ten years, and now amounts to between 550 million and 600 million volumes lent annually. Everyone is very pleased indeed at this growth and many people, including myself, hope that the free principle will be maintained.

In the past a few librarians were worried lest the subject of public lending rights should lead to any reduction of public libraries expenditure. I certainly do not want that, nor that it should be taken out of the present Arts Council fund, nor, equally, that the expenditure should fall in any way on local authorities. On the contrary, I wish that there were much more money for both public libraries and for the arts.

I am pleased to say that many librarians are now in sympathy with the case for P.L.R., and soon, I am glad to say, some of them will be trying, voluntarily, an experiment with the scheme which the Arts Council has drawn up. I think it is now true that only a minority of unrepresentative librarians from among the more elderly ones retain their opposition to the case for the public lending rights for writers.

It is not for authors to suggest how the money should be raised because they are asking not for a favour, nor for charity, but for a simple entitlement. It is, I think, now widely accepted that it is unjust that, whereas the dramatists and the composer has a royalty every time his work is performed, the writer may have his book, which may be the single result of perhaps many years of work, borrowed perhaps 50 times and then re-bound and lent another 50 times without his receiving any royalty for it.

Sir Alan Herbert, and Mr. Benn Levy among many others have been urging this for over 15 years. There are and there have been innumerable proposals, working parties, and committees about this, but, unfortunately, the one thing missing so far has been anything which can be called positive action.

The scheme for distribution, which was worked out by the Arts Council and the Society of Authors over a year ago and which was published in January, 1968, seems as good a scheme as possible. The Libraries' Association was invited to contribute to the deliberations but unfortunately chose not to attend. However, I am told that several librarians have recently approved the scheme.

Put simply, the scheme is based on a sampling from three local authorities' libraries. This sampling method will cause librarians the minimum of work. It is based on the stock in libraries rather than on the number of lendings. It is also based on a descending scale after the first 2,000 copies. It is, therefore, weighted against those authors who are the writers of best sellers, such as the late Ian Fleming or James Hadley Chase. The result would work out at about £85 per year per book in libraries. Income Tax and Surtax would claw back money from the richest writers and the scheme would therefore help the poorest writers, those who are most in need of help.

The only remaining question is how the cost of this scheme, which would be perhaps £2 million a year, could be most painlessly met. The writers urge that their case is a matter of justice and that how it is financed is not their responsibility. It is not, as I have suggested, their case that it should be met at the expense of either the arts in this country or the public libraries.

It has been suggested that one means of resolving this difficulty would be to raise the money through a lottery, but this idea would run into opposition. But whatever the answer, I feel that the Government cannot block proposals without themselves providing a solution. I have come to the conclusion that much the most painless way of raising this money would be by extending copyright on the books of dead authors, which at present expires 50 years after an author's death.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am listening sympathetically to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I suggest that what he is now proposing could not be achieved without legislation.

Mr. Whitaker

I appreciate the point of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I was about to suggest that this could be done voluntarily. Interestingly, the French have been successful in operating a similar system. Their Caisse nationale des lettres is financed by extending the copyright period in this context for only 15 years. They do not operate a public lending right but devote the money to, for example, pensions for writers' widows, loans, bursaries and grants to writers.

I believe that it would be possible that only one-quarter of the ordinary living authors' royalties would be sufficient, leaving publishers with the other three-quarters. Only a penny from the books of dead authors might pay for public lending rights and the Arts Council as well. One hopes that this would be achieved voluntarily and quickly; Lord Goodman, with whom I have discussed the idea, is sympathetic to it in principle.

This is a matter of right and not of charity for a small minority in this country; for writers and their families whose needs are the same as those of anybody else. The present inequitable situation is that everybody connected with books seems to be able to make a living out of books, except for the writers of them. It is true that libraries have helped by spreading literacy, but the other argument used about writers' earnings, the paperback revolution, is not a strong one. For example, I may cite that the 20,000 copies of my book which were sold in Penguin form resulted in my receiving £250, before deducting the £300 expenses for writing the book. I was fortunate in that I had another job, but of writers who make this their chief or full-time occupation, Mr. Findlater found that only half were able to make £500 a year and that one in three of all writers were earning less than 30s. a week. The Arts Council has recently tried a policy of giving grants to a few selected writers, but both the selection and the principle was criticised in, for example, The Times Literary Supplement.

Writers labour under another disadvantage, which we cannot discuss now, in that they are not able to spread their tax load over fat and lean years.

Other ideas have been canvassed to help. Professor Vaisey suggested to me that public libraries might be encouraged to have book shops in them selling books.

What cannot be defended after so many years of patient waiting by authors is any further inaction on the subject; nor, one hopes, will there be any further committees, commissions, study groups or working parties. We recognise the economic problems facing the country at the moment, but, if the Treasury is unable to help, some other way must be found. What cannot be justified is any further delay in the matter.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon (Southend, West)

The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) has done us a service by raising this matter, and I am grateful to him and to the Minister for allowing me to intervene for a few minutes.

As the hon. Gentleman said, this subject has been under discussion for a very long time. I remember the Public Libraries and Museums Bill when you, Mr. Speaker, were in the Chair in a less exalted capacity than now and when we debated the matter very fully.

It is fair to say that, throughout the years, the authors have been extremely moderate in putting forward their case, with which many hon. Members on all sides of the House have great sympathy, and it would be interesting to know the Government's reaction to the Arts Council's Report. The Minister must admit that she has had the Report since the end of 1967. It was published in January, 1968, but we have had no reply to it. I do not wish to be critical, but no one can say that there have been undue haste in replying to it. Indeed, had it not been for Mr. Holroyd's article, I wonder whether we should have had any reply at all.

On 6th March, I asked the Minister if consideration could be given to a detailed experiment within a library or number of libraries to see whether the scheme put forward by the Arts Council is viable. She replied that there were alternative ideas and alternative proposals affecting copyright. She added that a working party is to be set up. The hon. Member for Hampstead is due for a disappointment if he thinks that there will be no more study groups. On 13th March, The Times reported that the Government may set up another working party to examine copyright, and that this may recommend the financing of P.L.R. along the lines which the hon. Gentleman suggested or along similar lines.

It is plain that the stumbling block at the moment is cash. In spite of that, there are four questions which I would be grateful if the Minister could answer. Have the Government now set up their working party to consider public lending rights? If they have, can we be told its terms of reference and, if it is a public body, who is the chairman and who are the members—or is it a Departmental inquiry? If it has not been set up, when will it be?

Secondly, what alternatives have been considered to the State meeting the cost of P.L.R., and will the working party be free to look at alternatives to the Arts Council's scheme or a Government-financed scheme?

Thirdly, has the Minister any proposals to bring together the local authority associations, the Library Association and the authors to discuss the problem, and are representatives of those interests to be included on the working party? What shape will all this take? In a way, it is sad that, for reasons that I will not go into now, the Arts Council inquiry did not have the benefit of the libraries' advice on that occasion.

Fourthly, while I realise that the Minister obviously cannot tell us the results of the working party's deliberations now, can she give an indication of the likely timetable, so that we may know when to expect a final decision one way or the other?

4.20 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee)

I, too, am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) for raising this matter. I only wish that we had more time at our disposal.

The working party that I have in mind is a Departmental one, because the Report from the Arts Council has set off a great deal of public controversy—most of it useful public controversy—and it has resulted in a number of proposals and schemes being brought for-ward. One scheme is that books are too cheap. As 80 per cent. of the hard-backed books are bought by the public libraries, an increase of 6d. on each of those would produce £1½ million. That is one scheme which has been brought forward.

Another scheme concerns copyright which you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled out of order. I cannot pursue that, because anything that was done in the copyright sphere would be a matter for the Board of Trade, not for my Department.

Mr. Channon

Is the Board of Trade represented on the working party?

Miss Lee

No. The working party at this stage is a Departmental Inquiry. In other words, we are examining the various proposals that have been brought forward and the type of public response to them.

There is no doubt that many people feel that the authors ought to get more help than they are getting. I am on record again and again as stating that point of view. But, as the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has said, it was a pity that the librarians were not represented on the Arts Council inquiry. This happened because they felt it was improper for them to be represented if the local authorities were not represented. As three different local authority associations are concerned with library services, the Arts Council felt that this might be overburdening it a little. So what we have from the Arts Council is the point of view of not all, but of a great volume of writers and publishers.

Some people say that there is a case for helping the authors, but not for raising public money in any form to go directly to the publishers. Various schemes have been under consideration for a very long time, but, as the hon. Member for Southend, West very cogently said, at the root of this problem is cost and priorities in public expenditure.

I think that when addressing the Librarians' Conference last autumn I helped to reduce their fears. One of their fears was that there would be a charge on the public libraries. I am totally opposed to that. I think that both the Government and the Opposition are totally opposed to it.

But there is another fear. The Arts Council scheme suggests that 15 per cent. of Government money allocated for the buying of books should be paid into the Public Lending Rights scheme. The librarians point out that we spend £44 million on libraries in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but only a quarter of that goes towards buying books. Their fear at the moment is that other costs go up automatically—rent, rates and labour charges—and that they might find themselves in an even more difficult position than at the moment. I think that we would all agree that there is an urgent need for more expenditure on the buying of books rather than any curtailment. While no one who has advocated the various schemes to assist authors wishes that this should be at the expense of the buying of books or of the librarians, I must point out that many librarians are reluctant to cooperate because they have this fear.

Another thing is that they are now asked to buy books for various categories: adult non-fiction, reference books, adult fiction, children's books and foreign books. The growth in the number of sixth-form children and the great expansion of higher education means that the librarians will have to provide more and more for the intelligent reader. More money is urgently required here. It is obviously a matter of Government priority to know which comes first.

There is a great deal of sympathy with the case that has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and by the hon. Member for Southend, West, but there is also a great deal of controversy about how the money should be raised. I hope that we will rule out any suggestion that it should come by a charge on public libraries. Quite clearly the local authorities do not want it to fall on the rates. We are driven back to the position that if a scheme is brought forward the money will either have to be paid for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer directly or in so me form of copyright. That is really as much as I can say to the House this afternoon.

I venture to add that the Arts Council deserves a great deal more gratitude than it has received in certain quarters for the aid which it is giving to authors. A few years ago there was no Literature Panel, only a Poetry Panel. There is now a Literature Panel. The Arts Council went to the rescue of the London library. It has helped the P.E.N. Club at a very difficult time. It has been responsible for giving grants, subsidies and encouragement of various kinds to Literature, because its intention is to sustain the best in the Arts and to make the best more generally available.

I was rather dismayed to find a distinguished writer saying that the Arts Council's bursary scheme was a waste of public money. In fact, he said that the money was going to the brewers. I hope that he will find an opportunity to retract that statement. In the same Press it was reported that £6,000 had been spent in Wales this year to help all kinds of modest but very worth-while writers.

From the Government's point of view there is a great controversy about how best the Arts Council can help to sustain and to encourage high standards of literature. I can hold out no hope that money for any scheme will be available in the coming year, but I hope that in the following year, when these matters are pursued within the Ministry and in public discussion, it will be clearly understood that it is not for any political Minister to tell the Arts Council how it will allocate its funds to help authors who are struggling to maintain high standards of literature. I look forward in the next year to a continuation of the public discussion which is now going on.

I remember many years ago my old friend Alan Herbert, when he was a Member of the House, advocating a scheme and receiving the support of many hon. Members. I remember, too, that Benn Levy, when he was a Member, advocated a copyright scheme. There is nothing new in any of the ideas being brought forward now. All I venture to say is that now, for the first time, we have a Government who are actively concerned in the matter.

The Government invited the Arts Council to ascertain the views of authors and publishers. I am involved in assembling the views not only of authors and publishers but of librarians and local authorities. I am by nature an optimist and I think that we should find an answer to this problem but it would be wrong for me to say to the House this afternoon that this project has such a high priority for all authors that we can look forward to it being implemented in the very near future, but in the days ahead I hope that we shall be able to work out a suitable scheme.

Mr. Whitaker

Do the Government accept in principle the justice of P.L.R. and can the right hon. Lady give some forecast of when she expects to resolve the present consultations and produce a scheme?

Miss Lee

I made it clear in the autumn when I spoke to the Librarians' Conference that there has been no official acceptance in principle.

In terms of Government priorities we are in a difficult situation. We cannot just about treble the help that we are giving to literature, painting, poetry, all the arts and find something more for authors as well. In an easier financial situation I am optimistic enough to believe that there will be a firm promise in principle, but if I said that this afternoon I should be going beyond what I am entitled to say.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.