Lords Sitting of 6 December 1955

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR Oil the Woolsack.
Prayers

  TRADE WITH CHINA
  2.35 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that (1) in his last annual report to the shareholders the chairman of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation said that the potentialities of British trade with China are as great as they have been for over a hundred years"; (2) that Sweden and Switzerland are executing contracts for China for turbine and steam turbo-generator sets, with boiler plant and electrical switch gear, and that French and Japanese and West German concerns have contracted to supply China with various kinds of iron and steel products, of which West Germany exported to China last year some 7,500 tons, and French concerns more recently some 10,000 tons, all of which items are on the China embargo list; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to enable British businessmen to compete freely on an equal footing with Swedish, Swiss, French, Japanese and West German concerns who are trading with China in the aforementioned embargoed items.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the statement to which the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, refers in the first part of his Question. The chairman of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation went on to say, however, that China would need to expand her exports if she was to obtain the foreign exchange necessary to purchase the industrial goods she requires. As to the second part of
  1092
  the Question, neither Sweden nor Switzerland is a member of the Consultative Group in Paris, but Her Majesty's Government do not consider that the nature and volume of exports from these countries to China are such as to prejudice the effectiveness of the controls maintained by members of the Group.
  The other three countries mentioned by the noble Viscount are members of the Consultative Group. The exports by Western Germany were made in fulfilment of commitments assumed before the Consultative Group had agreed upon a common list of controls. As for the contracts entered into by the French and the Japanese, I would refer the noble Viscount to the answer I gave him on October 26 when I told him that, although the arrangements made in the Consultative Group had achieved a remarkable uniformity, the controls were sufficiently flexible to take account of special circumstances and that occasionally, with the full knowledge of all the members, items under embargo had been exported to China by member countries, including the United Kingdom. As to the last part of the Question, I can assure the noble Viscount that British businessmen desiring to trade with China are on the same footing as those of France, Japan and Western Germany. I have already explained that Sweden and Switzerland are not members of the Consultative Group.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his very comprehensive Answer. May I ask him whether he is aware that it is common knowledge (this is to a large extent substantiated in my Question) and well known in business circles in all the major trading countries, that there is a growing absence of uniformity in the application of the China strategic controls by the Consultative Committee sitting in Paris? And if that is so—and I venture to think it is—is it not clear that, if the present circumstances are continued, British traders will be at an increasing disadvantage in the China market compared with some of their most important foreign competitors?
  LORD MANCROFT: If the disparity should grow to the proportions to which the noble Viscount fears, that might be so. But my information is—and I told him

  1093
  this a little while ago—that a quite remarkable degree of uniformity has in fact been achieved.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Yes, but it is not the uniformity that is really necessary. If I may say so, with the indulgence of the House—
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but the noble Viscount well knows that he must not now make a speech, although he may, of course, ask a supplementary question.
  2.39 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will say whether any conversations have taken place in recent times between the nations represented on "Cocom" having in view the rescinding of the 1951 U.N.O. resolution which imposed the China embargo solely in relation to the Korean war.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, no such conversations have taken place recently. However, the scope of the security controls on trade with China continues to be kept under review.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Marquess for his reply. May I ask him if he is able to inform the House whether Her Majesty's Government will initiate steps to bring this embargo to an end? Further, is he aware that so long as the embargo continues, China is driven more and more for the capital goods necessary to bring into being her industrialisation plans, to the Soviet bloc, to the disadvantage of British traders?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am aware that what the noble Viscount has said in the latter part of his interrogative remarks is an argument which is frequently used; and it is, of course, one which we have in mind. For the rest, I think it is necessary, when discussing this matter, to bear in mind that the resolution of the United Nations was not confined to the end of hostilities
  1094
  in Korea. What the last paragraph of the resolution said was that it
  "reaffirms that it continues to be the policy of the United Nations to bring about a cessation of hostilities in Korea and the achievement of United Nations' objectives in Korea by peaceful means."
  Though the first of those objectives has been achieved, the second, unfortunately, has not. That is one reason, and perhaps the main reason, why this does not seem to Her Majesty's Government to be a timely moment to take further steps in the matter.

SPEED LIMIT ON HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES
2.40 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any statement can be made with reference to the undertaking given by the Lord Chancellor that he and the Minister of Labour were going to confer with all interested parties on the question of raising the speed limit for heavy commercial vehicles.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, the problem to which the noble Earl refers in his Question has been under continuous examination, but it has not yet proved possible to find a practical solution. I regret, therefore, that I cannot make any statement on this matter at present.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his Answer, may I ask him whether I should be correct in assuming that the matter has not been lost sight of and that negotiations are still being continued? I raise the matter because of the wholesale disregard of the law by 94 per cent. of the personnel involved—that is the Government's official figure—which is going on at the present time.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, further to what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has just said, may I ask whether in fact the solution is not to raise the speed limit for these vehicles?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that the Government are not losing sight of this

1095
question. We should all, on all sides of the House, like to find a solution to it. I very much regret that there is nothing further that I can say now. I can assure the noble Earl that those who have this matter under observation are constantly seeking ways of bringing it to a satisfactory solution.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I hesitate to inflict myself on the House again, but here is a question, as the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I am sorry; I beg to ask a question. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor informed us in the debate that there was wholesale infraction of the law. Do I understand from the answer which the noble Earl has just given that the Government are not going to do anything further about it and, that we are, in fact, to be asked to continue to recognise wholesale breaking of the law?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I do not think that is a correct interpretation of what I said. We are seeking a solution and we hope to be able to find one, but it is no use proposing a solution which would be worse than the disease itself.

THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

DIOCESAN EDUCATION COMMITTEES MEASURE, 1955
2.41 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Diocesan Education Committees Measure, 1955, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, this Measure appears to be one of some complexity, but I do not think I need detain your Lordships long, as it is largely
1096
a consolidating Measure, and most of the provisions were accepted by this House when the original Diocesan Education Committees Measure came before your Lordships in 1943. That Measure provided for the setting up of a diocesan education committee in every diocese which should have a general oversight of religious education in the diocese and, in particular, should formulate the policy on church schools and assist those who manage the affairs of church schools in their negotiations with the Board of Education and other bodies. The diocese had the choice either of creating a new committee which would have to conform with the constitution set out in the Schedule to the Measure or it could request the Board of Education to make an order designating an existing body as the committee, in which case it did not need to conform to the Schedule.
Difficulties arose in practice, however, partly through there being no provision for the modification of the constitution of a committee. An amending Measure was therefore passed in 1951. But it has been found that it did not go quite far enough, and some difficulties still remain. The amending Measure permits the making of an Order substituting a new body for an existing one, but does not permit amending Orders. This is particularly unfortunate where the committee is incorporated, as it means that there has to be a new body and the expense of a fresh incorporation for every alteration of the constitution, however slight. Doubts have also arisen over the exact interpretation of the provisions of the 1951 Measure, and it has been found that orders have been made of uncertain validity. Therefore, it was felt desirable to make the position clear beyond all doubt for the future and also to validate anything that may have been done improperly though in good faith in the past.
Rather than prepare a further amending Measure, it was decided to take the opportunity of consolidating the two existing Measures. The only section which is to be left un-repealed is Section 3 of the 1943 Measure, which deals with certain matters relating to war damage, which are only indirectly connected with the constitution of the diocesan education committees. In any case, the section will shortly be spent and could them be cleared up in the course of Statute Law

1097
revision. Except for Clauses 1 and 4, the Measure re-enacts existing provisions, with a few Amendments which are little more than drafting. Clause 1, amongst other matters, permits the Minister to make an amending order, if so requested by the Diocesan Conference with the consent of the Bishop. Clause 3 validates anything that may have been improperly done in the past. This Measure was prepared in close consultation at every stage with the Ministry of Education, as were the other two Measures. It passed through the Assembly without a division or any amendment of substance. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Diocesan Education Committees Measure, 1955, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Lincoln.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
2.46 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 12:
Copyright in sound recordings
(4) The acts restricted by the copyright in a sound recording are the following, whether a record embodying the recording is utilised directly or indirectly in doing them, that is to say,—

(a) making a record embodying the recording;

(b) causing the recording to be heard in public.

(6) For the purpose of this Act the making of a sound recording is the act of making the record in which the recording is first embodied, and the maker of a sound recording is the person who owns that record at the time when it is made:
Provided that, where the sounds embodied in that record consist of a performance of a work, the recording shall not be taken to
1098
be made in the United Kingdom, or in another country to which this section extends, unless, at the time of the performance, the performer, or more than one) each of the performers, is actually present and performing in the United Kingdom, or in that other country, as the case may be.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (4), to add to paragraph (b):
"Provided that a recording shall be deemed not to be heard in public if

(1) the object of the performance of the recording is to afford social amenities to residents in hotels, boarding houses or similar residential premises at which no charge is made for admission to the performance, or

(2) the performance is not made for profit other than profit to be devoted to charitable or religious purposes or purposes beneficial to the community."

The noble Lord said: We now come to a very important Amendment, some may think the most important Amendment in this long list, on the consideration of which your Lordship are now embarking for a third day. It is to do away as far as practicable with the performing right in the public performance of gramophone records which has been brought into existing legislation by what we think, and have argued from this side of the House, was a side wind when the 1911 Act was enacted. Twenty-two years afterwards it was found that that Act gave a performing right to a gramophone record manufacturer, when in point of fact it was always assumed—at least, it is said it was assumed—by Parliament, when it passed the 1911 Act, that the sole right which Parliament was conferring upon the gramophone record manufacturer was a copyright against copying and piracy.
I do not think it is necessary for me to reiterate all the arguments which have been used in your Lordships' House about the evil consequences—and I say "evil"; there have been evil consequences—of the establishment in the courts of this country in 1922 that there was this performing right. I remember arguing the matter before your Lordships' House when the Copyright Committee's Report was being considered. It was argued also in front of your Lordships When the Television Copyright Bill was before your Lordships' House, that ill-fated Bill—happily fated—because on the dissolution it had to go into the waste paper basket. On

1099
the Second Reading of this Bill it was argued with great force that this right was something which should be done away with. I do not think I need go into all those arguments again but can come briefly to the point I want to make.
This performing right was considered by the Copyright Committee when it considered the whole question of copyright. I am puzzled over this one point. If your Lordships have a copy of the Report in front of you, you will find on page 55, where the Copyright Committee deal with this matter, that they say at the end of paragraph 151:
"In effect, what we believe to be the case is that the stringency of the control, of which so many complaints have been made, owes its origin to no question directly related to copyright, but springs from the relations which exist between the gramophone companies and the Musicians' Union."
On page 54, in the middle of paragraph 150, it says this—and this was illustrated, because the whole evidence before the Copyright Committee condemned this performing right out of hand. All those who were commercially interested condemned it; all those who were interested, the National Council of Social Service and everybody else, condemned it; it had not a friend. That paragraph says:
"One of the witnesses expressed the view that the Societies could understand and appreciate the justification for the payment of performing right fees to composers but not the requirement to pay additional fees for playing the composer's music by means of gramophone records,"
And then, at the end of that paragraph, it states:
"The conclusion to which we have been irresistibly driven as a result of our consideration of this evidence is that the rights given have been enforced in an arbitrary and autocratic manner, with the minimum of consideration, and that whatever other changes may be required in connection with the copyright provisions contained in Section 19 of the Copyright Act, 1911, some way must be found of limiting, by Statute, the opportunities of exploitation flowing from the present interpretation of the term public performance in this connection."
If the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission had used that language in one of their Reports to-day, the Government would be seriously concerned to put their recommendations into force. But our complaint is that in spite of all that condemnation, the Government, in paragraph (i) of subsection (4) of this
1100
clause, seek to underpin it and write it into the Statutes in unmistakable language. I am puzzled over the Government's avowed intention to free this country from restrictive practices born of monopoly. I supported very strongly the noble and learned Viscount when he, before your Lordships, introduced a Motion commending the Government's White Paper on the Report of the Monopolies Commission.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): May I say to the noble Lord—it may help him—that I am in the same happy position to-day. I am going to accept the noble Lord's Amendment in principle, so that I am supporting him. It may save him a little time.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: You must let me pause for a moment to get my breath. Never have I had such a pleasant shock. If you are going to condemn this particular line in the Bill, who am I, prosecuting counsel, to go on pleading for its death? I must say that I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Viscount; I cannot find language in which to express my gratitude.
May I now turn to the reasons for putting down this Amendment? I frankly —and I will admit this to your Lordships—would clear this performing right out of this Bill, in all its aspects, completely and utterly. But when I was considering this matter after the Second Reading, I was so worried that I discussed the point with gramophone record manufacturers. I thought perhaps they put up some justification for some restriction. I can say, in fairness, and I think I am not overstating it, that in my discussion with the gramophone record manufacturers they were frank enough to say that they thought this had gone on too long and too far. But they were anxious to have some control over gramophone records that were used for sheer commercial gain—the juke box playing monstrosity (that is the only expression to use for it) in amusement arcades, where somebody goes and puts a coin in a slot and out comes the latest jive record. I think I have the right expressions. There may also be a case where records are actually played, let us say, in the entr'acte in a theatre. There may also be a case where somebody may turn the technical excellence of the new methods of tape recording to commercial gain. I thought

1101
it only right to admit the argument that perhaps there was some justification.
My noble and learned Leader took upon himself the onerous task of being the Parliamentary draftsman in this case, and this is the wording he has used. We thought that in this Amendment we had covered everything we could, but I should like to make it clear that we are not tied to the particular wording. We hope the noble and learned Viscount will accent the spirit of the Amendment: that is to say, when records are played for amenity, in its widest sense, there should be no performing right, no charge made and no licence required; and when records are performed for profit, so long as the profit is for a charitable purpose, there should be no performing right and no licence required.
I expect the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will be rather puzzled by the last few words, "purposes beneficial to the community." That is rather wide, but what we had in mind was something like the village cricket club who want to run a small dance in a village hall in order to buy a mower to mow the village cricket pitch. We did not think that that would fall into the category of either a charity or an amenity, but we thought it might fall within "purposes beneficial to the community." I say, frankly, that if these other things were not brought in, I would prefer to have performing rights wiped right out. I need not argue the case further. I hope that when we come to Clause 14 the noble and learned Viscount will say the same thing, because the same principle is enshrined there. However, that is sufficient for now. I am graceful to the noble and learned Viscount. No doubt he would wish to put what he has to say officially on the record, and to enable him to do so I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 23, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD FARINGDON: I do not happen to share the enthusiasm of my noble friends for this Amendment, and I wish to suggest briefly one or two points which I hope Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind when they produce their Amendment, which I gather is intended to have rather the same effect. In actual fact, I think that we have really fallen into the pit which has been digged by the
1102
legal opinion given to the meaning of the 1911 Act. But this performing right which has been given to the gramophone recording manufacturers—and I agree almost entirely with what my noble friends have said about it—is the only protection that many performers have. I would suggest to the Government that the correct way to deal with this matter would be to give, as is given in certain countries, a performing right to the performer.
Oddly enough, on Second Reading a particular person was mentioned in your Lordships' House. It is a curious fact that that particular person was also the victim—and "victim" is not too strong a word—of the kind of situation of which I am afraid. He had for many years been in the habit of fulfilling a satisfactorily lucrative engagement in the north of England, performing for an association of clubs. He had done this for a number of years and was extremely popular in that neighbourhood. One year the invitation did not arrive. He made inquiries and he discovered that some local person had offered—and the offer had been accepted —to give a gramophone record performance in which certain gramophone records of this particular performer were to be included. This occasion was one which, I suspect, would be either charitable, or, at any rate, beneficial to the community; certainly it would not be profit-making. But clearly an injustice would have been done in this case if the gramophone record manufacturers had not been able to make a claim. I suggest that the real justice in this matter would be to give a performing right to performers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has stated with great frankness and clarity the reasons that have brought him and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, to put forward this Amendment as a solution to this question. The noble and learned Earl said on December 1 that the Amendment represented
"by and large, subject to consideration with them, the length to which they "—
meaning the record manufacturers—
"are prepared to go."
I am not going back to what was said on Second Reading—it would not be profitable—because both noble Lords have explained why they take up this position to-day. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, has said, I can

1103
only remind him that, dangerous as is the position of those who interfere in a private fight, the danger to those who interfere in public peace-making is even more considerable. All I can promise him is that I will read carefully and consider what he has said.
Her Majesty's Government have always regarded this as a practical issue to be settled in a practical manner. Rightly or wrongly, by accident or by design, the right was given in the Act of 1911, and has been acted upon for the last twenty or thirty years, during which time interests have grown up. I agree that sometimes, as the Report of the Copyright Committee pointed out, the right has been exercised in an arbitrary manner, and it was with the eminently practical purpose of keeping the exercise of the right in bounds and under review that the Committee recommended the establishment of the tribunal, without otherwise affecting the interests which had grown up since 1911 or since the decision of which we have heard so much. That was the line Her Majesty's Government adopted in the Bill. But it now appears that the gramophone industry are willing to accept a curtailment of the rights they have hitherto enjoyed, and the noble Lord and the noble and learned Earl wish us to agree. This acceptance of a curtailed right by the industry shifts the balance of the argument, and Her Majesty's Government are quite prepared to accept the Amendment, in principle, subject to reconsideration of the drafting, to which I will come in a moment. There is a French proverb which warns one against being more Royalist than the King, and if I may adopt that, it would be wrong, I think, for Her Majesty's Government to be more phonographic than H.M.V. Also, when I find the lion of the Labour Party lying down with the lamb of the record manufacturers, then, indeed, I can only give thanks for the diversity of human creatures and ask the Committee to pass on to the next Amendment.
I would say a word or two about the drafting of the Amendment. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, explained to us that he had drafted this Amendment in haste, while others were talking. I think your Lordships will agree that the two points to which I should like to give further consideration are reasonable points and do not affect the spirit
1104
of the Amendment. As I understand the object of paragraph (a), it is to deal with the situation where only residents of the hotel are present, and not a case when the big room in the hotel is used for a public performance. I should like to have a look at that, and before an Amendment is finally put down I will show it either to the noble and learned Earl or to someone whom he appoints.
On the second point, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has already drawn attention to a phrase which obviously requires looking at, and that is, "purposes beneficial to the community." I remind the noble and learned Earl of the many dozens of cases on the border line of charitable purposes at which he and I have had to look when we were safeguarding the revenues of the Crown in the courts. I should like to have a further look at that phrase to see whether it is the best or whether we can find something more exact. I do not think that that affects what I have said —that I am accepting the principle of the Amendment—and I have pleasure in informing your Lordships of that fact.
EARL JOWITT: I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount very much, and just say a word or two about what he has said. My own position about this matter is quite plain—I should not have any performing right at all. I think it got into the old Act by an error, and I think the right thing to do would have been to take it out. But I had the sense to realise that in view of the Government decision, there was no chance of their accepting that point of view. That being so, I made friends with the Mammon of unrighteousness and got the gramophone people to come round to see me. We hammered out this wording as the sort of provision to which they would agree, and it is on that basis that I put it forward. As to the drafting, I am only too glad that the Lord Chancellor should look at it. I am very conscious of its imperfections, and in the circumstances they are not to be wondered at: it is not an easy provision to draft. If there is a home where old ladies have a performance of this sort, sometimes their relatives would like to go down and be with them. Aunt Jane, if she is in a home, might say, "Come along and listen to our gramophone." You go, not because you want to listen

1105
to the gramophone, but because you want to please Aunt Jane. It would be a pity if that were to turn it into a public performance. I have little doubt that, with the skill and assistance available to the Lord Chancellor, he will be able to draft wording which is acceptable. I apologise to all noble Lord; who think that I have gone too far, but I have done what I believe to be practical; if I had insisted on my view to the full, I might have got nothing.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am obliged to my noble Leader and my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth for the efforts they have made to come to some agreement on a very difficult question. I am also grateful to the Lord Chancellor for the spirit in which he has met the matter, but I have one or two things to say at which the Lord Chancellor, with his knowledge of my associations of the past forty years, will not be surprised. I have been interested in this matter ever since the passing of the 1911 Act, and even more interested since the astounding decision in the High Court of Justice in 1933. To me, it is an extraordinary thing that Her Majesty's Government, after a period of twenty-two years of non-claim by the gramophone records companies to any royalty of this sort, should have thought fit, by a side wind, to embody the right as a justifiable part of the permanent legislation of the land.
My experience in forty years' dealing with the gramophone companies has not been very encouraging. In the movement with which I have been proud to associate myself for forty years, we have for long years been the subject of a permanent boycott. Your Lordships and my noble and learned Leader must excuse me if I regard this settlement "out of court," as it were, with a little reserve. It is only right that I should warn the Lord Chancellor that, when he tables his actual ipsissima verba of his Amendment to the Bill, I shall study them with considerable anxiety, some pre-vision, as it were, to see exactly how it will work.
What are the facts upon which I base myself? I base myself on the fact that until 1933–34 no such royalty was ever contemplated. Is that not a most extraordinary thing from such a great wealth of power accumulated in E.M.I. and Decca, and one or two other minor companies? Is it surprising that those who
1106
were subject to a deliberate boycott of supply from 1933–34 onwards, as in the case of my movement, should wonder exactly where we are going? I am looking at the matter from the point of view of the possible effect upon numerous bodies in which the Labour movement is profoundly interested—and here I speak for Labour—if the Bill had remained in its original state, and I am thankful to the Lord Chancellor that it is not going to do so. It has been my joy on many occasions, not only in my own former constituency but in many others, to engage in the great local joys of fellowship in the working men's clubs. Until 1934 they had no difficulty; but they have had ever since. It has been my joy for forty years to partake in the educational work of the Co-operative Movement, which now comprises something like 11½ million members, and which is subject to-day to a boycott of supply. All this from gramophone record companies who have been making this approach to get some kind of a settlement which will allow them to retain their right to something which was never intended by the 1911 Act. I am grateful to my noble and learned Leader for pointing that out.
When the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor comes to draft his Amendment to meet what seems to me to be fundamental principle which he has accepted, he must take particular note of the words
"the performance is not made for profit other than profit to he devoted to charitable or religious purposes or purposes beneficial to the community."
In view of my past forty years' experience in this matter, I shall want not only a microscope but double glasses as well to study his Amendment. I thought it was right at this stage to tell the Lord Chancellor in advance that, no matter how grateful I am to my noble and learned Leader and to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth for having made an approach with the gramophone companies, there are million members of a great movement in this country who will watch with the greatest possible interest the development of this matter. How we shall judge the Amendments put down to Clause 17, and how we shall handle the matter upon the Report stage, will depend largely on the wording of the Lord Chancellor's Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before I withdraw this Amendment, I should like to say one word in connection with what my noble friend Lord Faringdon has said. I admit quite frankly that there is a strong case for the protection of the legitimate rights of performers. I should have thought that my industrial record in the world of labour conciliation would make me immune from any grounds of suspicion about that, but at the present time, as the noble and learned Viscount knows, the Copyright Bureau and the International Labour Office at Geneva are considering the first draft of a convention to take care of the proper rights of performers. There is this thing called technological unemployment which, one day, will have to be seriously considered by Her Majesty's Government on an international plane. I do not intend to say anything about it this afternoon, except that it has nothing to do with copyright. That was the very basis of the argument from the word "go." It has nothing whatever to do with it, as my noble and learned Leader said on Second Reading. For all the things it has to do with labour relations on a very high level, it has nothing to do with copyright. That is why I wanted to see it out of this Bill. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 30, after ("public") insert ("in the United Kingdom.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 32, leave out from ("indicating") to end of line 35 and insert ("the year in which the recording was first published:").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential; it is one of the same group. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 41, after ("public") insert ("in the United Kingdom.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT had given notice of an Amendment relating to a local education authority's rights. The noble and learned Earl said: Without prejudicing my noble friend Lord Burden, I do not propose to move this Amendment to-day, since I understand that in the purview of our previous discussion this whole question is under examination.
3.27 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL LORD GREENHILL moved, after subsection (5) to insert:
"(6) The copyright in a sound recording is not infringed by a person who does any of those acts in relation to a sound recording or part of a sound recording if those acts are done for the purposes of teaching in establishments maintained or assisted by a local education authority within the meaning of the Education Act, 1944, or by the Minister of Education."
The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Burden, I have been asked to move this Amendment. Although this is a United Kingdom Bill, the reference here is to the Minister of Education only, and presumably therefore it does not include the Scottish Education Act and the Secretary of State for Scotland, as Minister for Education in Scotland. Therefore, while I bear in mind what my noble and learned Leader has just said, I should like the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, to see whether any consideration that he is giving to this clause also includes a reference to the Scottish position. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 41, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Greenhill.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly take into account what the noble Lord has said. Noble Lords in all parts of the Committee will understand, in accordance with what was said by the noble and learned Earl, that the educational Amendments, in all Parts of the Bill, will be taken into account in the consideration and the discussions which we are having with the Education Ministries in regard to the whole position.
LORD GREENHILL: May I trouble the noble and learned Viscount to say

1109
one thing more? This clause apparently deals only with education authorities. There are in England, and there is certainly also one in Scotland, residential colleges for adults which are not part and parcel of the ordinary educational schemes. Would he also bear that in mind?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With the greatest pleasure.
LORD GREENHILL: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is also a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 42, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 9 on page 17 and insert ("a sound recording shall be taken to be made at the time when the first record embodying the recording is produced, and the maker of a sound recording is the person who owns that record at the time when the recording is made.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit the proviso to subsection (6). The noble Lord said: I am in this difficulty: I can either make my remarks now or make them on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill. The Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount has moved rules out this one, but once again the whole question of the battle we fought on the original Amendment at the opening of the consideration of this clause, is raised. I beg the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to reconsider the whole question of copyright against the copying and pirating of gramophone records. I will not reiterate all my arguments. I do not want to fight the battle we fought on Amendment No. 53. I do not want to reopen the argument; it would serve no useful purpose. May I, however, have an assurance from the noble and learned Viscount that in between now and the next stage of this Bill he will give the matter which we raised serious consideration?
A week-end has elapsed since we dealt with the first half of this clause. I have had an opportunity of reading carefully what the Lord Chancellor said in response to my argument upon the
1110
question of the copyright of American records in this country, and, if I may say so with great respect, I feel that the noble and learned Viscount has left a serious gap wide open that will be against the interests of British manufacturers. I am sure that that is the last thing he wishes to do. He really must look once again at this question of the transference from the public to the private domain of anything that eventually comes under copyright. I shall not argue the point again. All I want is an assurance from the noble and learned Viscount that he will give this matter serious consideration and perhaps discuss it with those people who are far better qualified than I to put forward the technicalities, which I have in mind. If the noble and learned Viscount wishes to reply to me, I will move my Amendment and then withdraw it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 9.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree with the noble Lord that the discussion that we had raised a difficult problem, with difficulties on both sides. I know he appreciated mine and I certainly appreciated his. I have no hesitation in giving the assurance that this matter will be looked into carefully before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for that assurance, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This also is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 13, at end insert ("and 'publication', in relation to a sound recording, means the issue to the public of records embodying the recording or any part thereof "). —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given notice of his intention to move to insert the folic wing subsection:
"(8) For the purposes of this Act the publication of a sound recording is the issue to the public of records embodying that recording by or with the licence of the maker of the recording."
The noble Lord said: In view of the assurance of the noble and learned Viscount, I do not move this Amendment.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Copyright in cinematograph films
13.—(1) Copyright shall subsist, subject to the provisions of this Act, in every cinematograph film of which the maker was a qualified person for the whole or a substantial part of the period during which the film was made.
(3) Copyright subsisting in a cinematograph film by virtue of this section shall continue to subsist until the end of the period of twenty-five years from the end of the calendar year which—

(a) in the case of a film which is registrable under Part III of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, includes the date on which the film is registered thereunder, or

(b) in any other case, includes the date on which the film is first published,

and shall then expire:
(4) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the maker of a cinematograph film shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting in the film by virtue of this section:
Provided that, in the case of a cinematograph film which is made in pursuance of a contract between the maker of the film and another person, for the purpose of advertising the latter person's goods or otherwise for the purposes of his trade or business, the latter person shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to any copyright subsisting in the film by virtue of this section.
(6) Where by virtue of this section copyright has subsisted in a cinematograph film, the doing, after that copyright has expired, of any such act as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection shall not constitute an infringement of any copyright subsisting by virtue of Part I of this Act in any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work.
3.31 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD moved, in subsection (1), after "film" where that word first occurs, to insert "which is unpublished and". The noble Lord said: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 68, 69 and 71 together. They are of a somewhat technical nature but the three of them constitute, so to speak, a single Amendment as far as their purpose is concerned. At this stage, I will not deal with one point in Amendment 71, which "has reference to the fifty years and is a separate issue. The point involved here is
1112
that under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, certain films are not registrable —namely, newsreels, commercial advertising films and certified films of an educational nature for international use. In addition, there is the whole range of sustandard films—films on smaller film than the standard 35 mm, which are not registrable under that Act. So that all the films in that category would not come under subsection (3) (a). Then there are other films which are never shown to the public, nor offered for hire or for sale; these films would not come within the definition of "published" as given in the later clause.
The simple intention of these three Amendments is to declare that copyright subsists in the film as soon as the film is made—that the period of copyright should date from certain happenings. I am bound to admit that the exact wording of the Amendments does not entirely clear up one of the points at which I was aiming—namely, the provision of a period of copyright for a film of perhaps a scientific or educational nature which is never, in fact, shown to the public but is shown only privately and is made only for showing to classes and for similar non-public occasions. As I say, this is a technical point; there is no principle involved in it, and I do not think there will be any dispute. I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount will appreciate the purpose of the Amendment and, without being in any way committed to the wording, I have no doubt that he will, as he has done so often in regard to this Bill, give an undertaking to look at it, in which case my purpose will have been served. I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 68.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 15, after ("film") insert ("which is unpublished and").—(Lord Archibald.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Archibald, has moved this Amendment in so conciliatory a fashion that I am sorry to say that it does raise a difficulty. I should like to explain it to him, and if he can give me an answer now I shall be glad. It is not that I am trying in any way to argue against what he has said on his first point. On the second point, however, I should like to put another aspect to him. The first point is simply a question of the

1113
Convention. The noble Lord's Amendment, Amendment No. 69, contains these words:
"copyright shall subsist in the film … if, but only if, the first publication of the film took place in the United Kingdom or in another country to which this section extends."
My difficulty is that acceptance of these Amendments as they stand would mean that we should not be honouring our obligations under the Universal Copyright Convention. Films are specifically protected by that Convention, by Article I, and the subsistence of copyright is determined on publication not only by reference to the place of first publication but also by reference to the nationality of the maker—that is Article II (1). We must therefore protect a Convention country's film, even if it is first published outside Convention territory. These Amendment; would make that impossible. That is my difficulty. As I say, if the noble Lord could consider it in the meantime, to see whether he can find any way out, I shall be pleased to consider his suggestion. But as I have said (and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, was inclined to agree), we are obliged to adhere to the requirements of the Convention.
May I turn to Amendment No. 71 for a moment—that is, the Amendment to insert a new proviso to subsection (3), and an Amendment which the noble Lord would like discussed at the present time? 'There the position again raises certain difficulties because, taken as it stands, it would make merely for confusion. We have already provided dates from which time begins to run and the proposed Amendment would provide other and different dates. It is the fact that in the case of a film registrable under the Cinematograph Films Acts the date of registration provides what users want to know, a definite, ascertainable date. The Amendment provides three possible dates, some of which are not readily ascertainable. I see some difficulty in realising how a would-be user is to know when the first trade showing of a film was given. By searching the technical press of 25 or 50 years earlier he might find out. Is it easy for him to find out when it was first broadcast? Again, I suggest it is not. One is put in the difficulty of finding a definite, ascertainable date to adopt. I should like the noble Lord again to consider my difficulties in that regard, and if he would care to write to me in the mean-
1114
time, between the stages, I will consider anything he has to say, but at the moment it is difficult for me to go further. It is in a rather different position from the first point, where I think there is a real Convention difficulty. I do not think I can advise the Committee to accept the Amendments at the moment.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for his offer to consider any further points which I may be able to put to him between now and the next stage. With regard to the first point, naturally I fully accept that if the form of my Amendment creates a Convention difficulty, then that is something seriously to be considered, because, as has already been said from these Benches, we are very desirous of avoiding anything which would create difficulties in the acceptance of the two Conventions. I will naturally look again to see whether I can find a form of words which will not raise that particular point. I agree that there would be difficulty, in that we should have dates which are not readily ascertainable. I do not feel that the noble and learned Viscount has quite met my point that the present wording leaves out from copyright certain classes of films. Though I do not want to press that point unduly at the moment, I will include the argument on that point in such further representations I may make to the noble and learned Viscount before the next stage. It is a technical point not easy of discussion, even on Committee stage, and I shall be quite happy to deal with it between now and the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.42 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD moved, in subsection (3), to substitute "fifty" for "twenty-five" [years]. The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will appreciate that this is not a technical Amendment but one which I regard as of considerable substance. While I do not propose to repeat to the Committee the arguments used during the Second Reading debate, I would say that since I put down the Amendment and have had time to think upon it I have been somewhat surprised at my own moderation. I feel that I should have put down a considerably longer period than fifty years, for this reason: the normal period of copyright in artistic, literary and musical works is

1115
the life of the author and fifty years thereafter. Copyright of films usually will vest in a company and, as a company does not die, that formula would hardly be appropriate. Some period might, however, have been taken as representing the life of the author—say twenty-five years—and fifty years added to it, thus making the period of film copyright seventy-five years. That would have been no more than justice.
I believe that the Copyright Committee (on whose recommendations Her Majesty's Government no doubt base their case for a twenty-five years' period in the Bill) were entirely wrong on this particular issue. I have a suspicion that the members of that Committee were not exactly what might be called film "fans." They were not greatly interested in, nor particularly sympathetic towards, films. As they say in their Report, they link films with gramophone records as being more in the nature of mechanical or industrial productions. For the reasons which I gave on Second Reading, I believe that the film is a new artistic creation entitled to the same kind of copyright protection, and as nearly as possible the same length of copyright protection, as any other artistic creation. I believe that would be more adequately represented by a seventy-five years' period, but I put down fifty years, which I think is reasonable. I believe that period would satisfy all the main purposes of the film makers, including those responsible for the classics of the film producers' art.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would the noble Lord help me? This is a merely personal question. As the noble Lord may know, I am intensely interested in films. What sort of "classic" has he in mind?
LORD ARCHIBALD: To take films made in this country since the end of the war, those which come most readily to mind are Henry V and Hamlet; but there are numerous others, like Great Expectations. Though I have not come provided with a list of examples, I shall be happy to prepare such a list and send it to the noble and learned Viscount. The fact that one can name three or four films which in my opinion not only will be shown to film societies and educational institutions but will be revived for public showing the specialised cinemas which
1116
cater for them not merely twenty-five, but thirty-five or even forty-five years from the date they were made—in fact, as long as it is technically possible for them to be shown on such machinery as may come into operation in cinemas in fifty years' time—I believe supports my view. Though it is perfectly true that, for the bulk of films, a twenty-five years' period would be adequate, there are exceptional films, as there are exceptional books and music, for which a longer period of copyright is desirable and necessary, and to which, I feel the film is entitled. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 25, leave out ("twenty-five") and insert ("fifty").—(Lord Archibald.)
LORD CONESFORD: I hope Her Majesty's Government will find it possible to meet, at any rate in part, the Amendment which has just been moved. By this clause the Government are, I believe, doing two very valuable things: they are giving a copyright in a film as such and giving a definite date from which that copyright runs. If both those things are provided, not very much difficulty would be caused by giving a rather longer term than twenty-five years. I admit that there may be contrary arguments which I have not heard, but I have sympathy with the request put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, and with some of the reasons which he gave. I know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is knowledgeable about films. In his intervention he asked for examples of "classic" films. The noble Lord, Lord Archibald, has given examples of British films, but I would give as examples some French films of the great period, like Rene Clair's Sous les Toits de Paris, Le Quartorze Juillet and Le Million. Such films may well be considered classics for longer than twenty-five years from the date when they were made. I do not know what would be the application of the clause to these films; but perhaps the example would be germane. Considering such classic films as have been given as examples, I would support the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, in his plea.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I would press Her Majesty's Government on this point. I consider that my noble friend Lord Archibald has made out an unanswerable case. Though I would agree that there is the consideration

1117
argued by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on Second Reading, yet that is outweighed by the consideration that otherwise the fundamental rights of ancillary copyright holders are jeopardised. As I read the intention of Her Majesty's Government in this Bill, though I may be wrong, at the end of twenty-five years the ancillary rights, or composer's rights, fall. I am looking carefully at subsection (6) from the composer's point of view. My interpretation may be wrong, but if it is, then my mind will be a little easier. Subsection (6) says:
"Where by virtue of this section copyright has subsisted in a cinematograph film, the doing, after that copyright has expired, of any such act as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection shall not constitute an infringement of any copyright subsisting by virtue of Part I of this Act in any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work."
I read that as meaning that these copyrights in this film fall when the twenty-five year period has expired. What I think we must realise is that we are sitting here legislating for the next fifty years. I do not think there will be another Copyright Bill before four Lordships' House for as long a period as that between 1911 and 1956. I am sure that if Lord Man-croft is still alive and in your Lordships' House in fifty years' time, he will devoutly hope that there never will be one.
LORD MANCROFT: Hear, hear!
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is not so much a matter of films that have been produced but of films which might be produced in the future. I, for one, have no fear regarding the progress of the cinema and of the film. But I cannot see what the advantage is of not lining up the film copyright with the established period of copyright of the lifetime of the author or composer and fifty years after. Further, may I draw the attention of the noble and learned Viscount to this pint? If my interpretation of subsection (6) is correct, then this is a flagrant breach of the Brussels Convention which we have all been—and no one more than the noble and learned Viscount—at pains to regard as sacrosanct. If the noble and learned Viscount will look at Article VII of the Brussels Convention he will see that Section 1 says:
1118
"The term of protection granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty years after his death."
Let us now go to Section 3 of Article VII which says:
"In the case of cinematographic and photographic works, as well as works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or photography, and in the case of works of applied art, the term of protection shall be governed by the law of the country where protection is claimed, but shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the works."
That gives the Government a slight let out. But when we come to Article XIV (1) we find this:
"Authors of literary, scientific or artistic work shall have the exclusive right of authorising: (i) the cinematographic adaptation and reproduction of these works, and the distribution of the works thus adapted or reproduced; (ii) the public presentation and performance of the works thus adapted or reproduced."
and then Article XIV (1) states:
"Without prejudice to the rights of the author of the work adapted or reproduced, a cinematograph work shall be protected as an original work."
Note "without prejudice." If you seek to do anything under this clause to prejudice in any way the fifty-year copyright of a composer, you are debarred from so doing by the Brussels Convention. I cannot think it is really worth while, and I submit that on practical grounds, of which we have had some examples from the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, or on other grounds which have been put forward, we should leave the thing as it is, and revert to fifty years. We should not reduce it to twenty-five years.
3.56 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: I do not think that this is a matter for which I am prepared to go to the stake— I think there is a great deal to be said on both sides. Let me remind the Committee what was in the minds of the Copyright Committee when they made this admittedly slightly arbitrary distinction between the two things. They said: "Here is a film which is more like a mechanical contrivance, such as a gramophone record, than a composition or a picture. Therefore, the logical thing to do is to apply the twenty-five years period as for mechanical contrivances." Further, they argued that it is a commercial undertaking and that after twenty-five years the, makers of the film may be expected to have recouped themselves in the matter of profits. I think

1119
that they had in the background another consideration—namely, that if a film is of sufficient importance or artistic merit to be worth re-showing after twenty-five years, then, in the interests of the public, the public showing of the film ought not to be restricted.
It is certainly possible to argue—and it has been argued by the noble Lords, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, Lord Archibald and Lord Conesford—that owing to the progress which films have made a film may, indeed, be a major work of art—that does not apply, of course, to every film. Several noble Lords have spoken about classical films which they would like to see again if they are alive in twenty-five or fifty years time. But the vast majority of films are such that we should never wish to see them again. I think the point is made not by the revival recently of films such as The Birth of a Nation or the Réné, Claire masterpieces, but by a reissue of the classical Greta Garbo film, Lady of the Camellias, I think we were all astonished to find how well that film wore after twenty years and how it showed that Miss Greta Garbo in her day could pretty well "act every actress of the present day off the screen."
That is the type of film which the noble Lord may have in mind, and I think it may be necessary to protect that type of film. Whether twenty-five years or fifty years is the proper period is a debatable point. I hoped for one moment that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, with his interesting turn of mind, was going to suggest a compromise of 33⅓ years or something like that. He feels strongly that it is necessary to have a longer period to protect these classical films and to make certain that they are not denied to the public, and that the period should be equated to the period specified with regard to literary or artistic compositions. I am not prepared to go to the stake for it. I should like to help the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, over two points which are no longer in issue if we accept that fifty years is right. I think he is wrong in his interpretation of subsection (6). That provides that after the twenty-five years period has expired the exhibition of the film shall not constitute an infringement of any copyright in the form of authors' rights, in the works which are comprised in the film. These subsist for
1120
fifty years after the death of the composer or author, whichever it may be.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth also argued Convention points. What he was saying was that the Bill as drafted might be contrary to the Berne Convention. Article 7 (3) provides that
"In the case of cinematographic and photographic works as well as works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or photography, and in the case of works of applied art, the term of protection shall be governed by the law of the country where protection is claimed …"
So far as the author is concerned, he has the exclusive right, given by Article 14, of authorising the adaptation of his work for cinema performance. Obviously, this right is exerciseable only for the copyright life of the film, otherwise the words in subsection (3) would not have much meaning. But that point and subsection (1) are not very material now. If your Lordships think that fifty years is going to be in the better interests of the film-going public, which certainly includes myself, and in the interests of higher works of art, which the films certainly now provide, I shall not ask your Lordships to force a decision on this matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thank the noble Lord for his reply to my point. If he accepts my noble friend's Amendment, which I take it he has done, my argument falls to the ground, because subsection (6) would be out of the Bill. I expect that my noble friend Lord Archibald will be delighted at the result.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I must thank the noble Lord most warmly for his reception of my Amendment. I understand that he is going to advise the Committee to accept it. I am glad that he has not listened to the voice of the compromiser but has decided that, if he is to go part of the way, he may as well go the whole way. I think this will be warmly welcomed by the more important film-makers for whom I am pleading in this matter. I think that time will show that it has been a wise decision.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I beg to move this Amendment, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 37, leave out ("twenty-five") and insert ("fifty").—(Lord Archibald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD moved, in the proviso to subsection (4), after "goods" to insert, "or services." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a small and technical one. Advertising films are made in order to advertise both goods and services, and I propose the amendment for the sake of clarity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 2, after ("goods").insert ("or services").—(Lord Archibald.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not sure that this Amendment is necessary, but in order to show the good feeling that exists to-day I will accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ARCHIBALD: This is a complicated point which I hope I shall be able to make clear. If the noble and learned Viscount advises me that I am worrying unduly, I shall be happy to take his advice on the matter. The point at issue is that there are cases where there is a contract between the maker of a film and a company whose business it is to provide finance for the making of films. The clause as it stands reads:
"… made in pursuance of a contract between the maker of the film and another person … for the purposes of his trade or business,"
If his trade or business is the financing of films, it would appear that in that case the copyright would go not to the maker of the film but to the person providing the finance for it. I know that that is not the intention of the clause. It may be that I am unduly alarmist in envisaging that that possibility may arise out of it, but I should be grateful if the point were looked at. I beg to move.
Amendment moved——
Page 18, line 2, leave out ("purposes") and insert ("improvement or the more efficient conduct").—(Lord Archibald.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Lord has a point here, and our words may be rather wide. Again I hope he will allow me time to consider the best form of words, and on my undertaking to do that perhaps he will not press his form of words at the moment.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I thank the noble and learned Viscount and I am happy in his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ARCHIBALD: This Amendment will bring the clause in line with other provisions of the Bill. If parties wish to provide an alternative arrangement about who shall have copyright, they should be left to do so. It is a small point, which I have no doubt the noble and learned Viscount will consider with the others. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 4, after ("Act") insert ("and in the absence of agreement to the contrary,").—(Lord, Archibald.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that this Amendment is necessary to carry out the noble Lord's purpose, but again I shall be happy to look at it, if he will withdraw his Amendment at the present time. If we do not put down an Amendment, I will communicate with the noble Lord and explain why.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I thank the noble and learned Viscount and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, tell the Committee how he proposes to deal with this subsection now that he has accepted my noble friend's Amendment to extend the period of copyright of a film to fifty years? This Amendment has no real importance now. If the noble Lord wants to leave subsection (6) in, I have no objection, but I should have thought it would be better out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 13, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know what the merits or demerits of subsection (6) may be, but I think the noble Lord is entirely mistaken in thinking that it has no import just because the period of copyright of a film has been altered from twenty-five to fifty years. Clearly, the period of copyright as ascertained in the light of the Amendment and the period of copyright under subsection (6) are not co-terminous and I think he would be labouring under a delusion if he thought the subsection as it stands is otiose if interpreted in the light of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Archibald.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I entirely agree with the noble Viscount. When we come to my next Amendment, I shall not move

1123
it. Subsection (6) cannot be taken by itself, and perhaps I should have put down an Amendment to subsection (5), because there are some words there which are ambiguous. Does "making a copy of the film" mean making a print of the film or does it mean making an imitation of the film? Obviously the meaning given to these words affects the purpose of subsection (6). I imagine that the intention is that it should mean making an imitation of a film, not making a copy or print for the purpose of showing. On the interpretation of this point depends whether the provision of paragraph (b) is operative or not. A film cannot be shown in public after the expiry of copyright unless it is possible to make a print, and if it were held that the making of a copy of a film was the same thing as making a print, which I do not think is so, then we might be in difficulties.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I might deal with the point which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has raised, I think he will find that it requires further examination. The effect of the Amendment would be that after the period of copyright in the film had expired, all the constituent copyrights in the film—that of the author of the book, the scriptwriter or scriptwriters (there is often more than one), the composer and so on (or any person deriving title from them), could be asserted so as to prevent the showing of the film either outright or except on payment of fees. That is a complete negation of the intention that the film itself should have an independent copyright at the termination of which the performing rights in the film should be in the public domain. I think your Lordships will see the disadvantages, because it is to be expected that each of the constituent copyrights will run for a different period, dependent on the length of the lives of the various authors and composers; so that, before anyone could act safely on the assumption that the film was in the public domain, he would have to be sure that all the original authors and composers, scriptwriters and so forth had been dead for fifty years. That is just the situation which I am sure noble Lords would go out of their way to avoid.
I should like also to look at the practical position. I am given to understand
1124
that the usual practice of film companies is to buy the film rights in a book or play for the whole of its copyright life, so that, while ostensibly the copyright in the film would be for twenty-five years only, the company making the film would continue to enjoy the author's rights for his lifetime plus fifty years, and in this way continue to control the showing of the film. It is true that, in so far as the composer is a member of the Performing Right Society, the film company will probably not have bought the performing right in his music, but the composer is assured of his rights during the copyright film and thereafter for all purposes except so far as the actual showing of the film is concerned.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, would point to the part of the Bill which was concerning him, about the question of copying.
LORD ARCHIBALD: The same page, paragraph (a) of subsection (5).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The noble Lord asked me whether "making a copy of the film" means the making of a print of the film or of an imitation of the film. It was intended to cover a print of the film; but that is a slightly different point. If the noble Lord has any further point, again I should be grateful if he would communicate with me.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I think there is a point which would be helpful to the noble and learned Viscount. I will send it in.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I was looking at the next Amendment. In view of what the noble and learned Lord has said and the explanation which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft gave earlier, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14:
Copyright in television broadcasts and sound broadcasts
14.—(1) Copyright shall subsist, subject to the provisions of this Act—

(a) in every television broadcast made by the British Broadcasting Corporation (in this Act referred to as "the Corporation") or by the Independent Television Authority (in this Act referred to as "the Authority") from a place in the United Kingdom or in any other country to which this section extends, and

1125

(b) in every sound broadcast made by the Corporation or the Authority from such a place:

Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a television broadcast or sound broadcast in so far as it is a repetition of a television broadcast or sound broadcast previously made from such a place either by the Corporation or by the Authority, and is made by broadcasting material recorded on film, records or otherwise.
(3) The acts restricted by the copyright in a television broadcast or sound broadcast are the following acts, if done by utilising the broadcast in question either directly or indirectly, that is to say,—

(b) in the case of a sound broadcast, or of a television broadcast in so far as it consists of sounds, making a sound recording of it for the purpose of selling or letting for hire records embodying that recording, or for the purpose of broadcasting the recording or of causing it to be heard in public, or, where such a recording has been so made, making a record embodying that recording;

(c) in the case of a television broadcast, causing it, in so far as it consists of visual images, to be seen in public, or, in so far as it consists of sounds, to be heard in public;

(d) in the case either of a television broadcast or of a sound broadcast, rebroadcasting it.

LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved to leave out the proviso to subsection (1). The noble Lord said: We now pass on to slightly different matters. The effect of this Amendment, No. 80, is to give copyright in all broadcasts on sound and television, whether recorded or live, and thus ensure that, under the terms of the tribunal provisions in Clause 23, licences for the public performance of all television broadcasts are brought within the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Clause 14 of the Bill, as printed, gives a broadcasting copyright only in live television broadcasts or the first showing of recorded television broadcasts if they have not previously been broadcast live. The effect of the Amendment I am now moving, since it gives broadcast copyright to all broadcasts (that is, both firsts and repeats), is that those which are recorded on film will have their film rights under Clause 13 as well as their broadcast right under Clause 14. I think it is undesirable that licences should be needed separately for the film rights under Clause 13, and it is proposed to put down an Amendment at a later stage to render this
1126
unnecessary, but the precise scope of the Amendment I am not in a position to set out at the moment in any detail. The Amendment is necessary as film copyright is not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal.
As regards sound broadcasts, the Bill as printed gives no performing right in a live sound broadcast, but recorded sound enjoys the performing right given to records under Clause 12. The Copyright Committee recommended against a performing right in sound broadcasts, and it is proposed that there should be no performing rights in recordings made by the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. That is the purpose of this Amendment, which I hope will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 19.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I tried to follow the noble Lord's argument carefully. Do I understand that he is trying to reconcile the Bill with the argument I raised on Second Reading, about recordings, re-recordings, and original recordings? Because I do not quite follow him if he is not. He says that there is no copyright in a sound broadcast; but if the broadcast is by a gramophone record there must be, except that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has now accepted my Amendment on Clause 12; that must make a world of difference.
As I pointed out on Second Reading, one-third of the B.B.C. programmes are recordings of some sort; some are original recordings of a gramophone record some are recordings of the recording of a gramophone record; some are recordings on tape, and some are recordings of recordings of recordings. Do I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has tried to work out a solution for the poor, unfortunate little backroom boarding-house keeper in Scarborough—my favourite illustration—which would be for her to stand against her little wireless set and turn it on and off as a copyright recording came on or as a live broadcast came on? I do not think I followed the noble Lord precisely. I tried to.
Has he taken into account now that there will be no copyright in playing a gramophone record or giving a public

1127
performance of a gramophone record if that takes place under certain circumstances which I outlined? It does not matter very much whether the gramophone record is played on a gramophone in the room, whether it is played on a gramophone in a studio where it is broadcast, or whether it is played on a gramophone and then recorded to be broadcast at some other time. Has he taken that point into consideration? I expect it is my fault I have not followed perfectly, but that is what I understood; that he was trying to make simple the dilemma of what is a copyright performance and what is not.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think the fears of the noble Lord are probably unfounded. As I understand the present Amendment it is to leave out the proviso as regards repetitions, and if the noble Lord will turn his attention to Clause 14 (3) I think he may relieve his mind of any undue anxiety as to the Blackpool boarding-house keeper, because it seems to me unlikely that the Blackpool boarding-house keeper will do any restricted acts.
LORD MANCROFT: My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has put one of the points I was going to make, and therefore I will not repeat it. When I was talking about the Amendments we are going to make, I was talking of the Amendments the drafting of which had been put in train before the various steps that were taken this afternoon. I cannot guarantee that the effect is the same now as it was before the changes to Clause 12 were made, and I shall have to look into the point again. Our landlady has now switched from Scarborough to Blackpool, but her difficulties are the same. I will bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said in looking at this matter again.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think I shall have to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, with the proviso that at the next stage of the Bill, the Bill as it will then be printed, with this Amendment in it, will be subject to another Amendment which the noble Lord has not yet had time to have drafted. I want to be as helpful as I can. I understand the noble Lord's dilemma, and I offer no objection to this Amendment, with the proviso that we shall have to look at it closely in the light of the
1128
Amendment that he will put down on the next stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This is really a drafting Amendment and I am only trying to be helpful. We are now dealing with the period for which a television broadcast or sound broadcast shall subsist. The proposal in the Bill is to give the copyright for twenty-five years. Subsection (2) says:
"… and any such copyright shall continue to subsist until the end of the period of twenty-five years from the end of the calendar year in which the broadcast is made, and shall then expire."
What I propose is that it should read:
"… twenty-five years from the end of the calendar year in which the broadcast is first made.…"
Surely I am right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 10, after ("is") insert ("first"). —(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: I agree with what the noble Lord says. I accept the Amendment in principle, but I thought we had taken care of this point ourselves in our Amendment to Clause 14, at page 19, line 11. I believe that covers the point the noble Lord is making, and I would rather my Amendment were accepted.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If it is the same thing, I will not take up time by arguing the matter. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment does what I hope I have now persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, it does. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 11, at end insert—
("(3) In so far as a television broadcast or sound broadcast is a repetition (whether the first or any subsequent repetition) of a television broadcast or sound broadcast previously made as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section (whether by the Corporation or by the Authority), and is made by broadcasting material recorded on film, records or otherwise,—

(a) copyright shall not subsist therein by virtue of this section if it is made after the end of the period of twenty-five years from the end of the calendar year in which the previous broadcast was made and

(b) if it is made before the end of that period, any copyright subsisting therein by virtue of this section shall expire at the end of that period.")—(Lord Mancroft.)

VISCOUNT HALLSHAM: This Amendment enables me to ask my noble friends on the Front Bench whether the period of twenty-five years for broadcasts is the right one, now that they have accepted fifty years for films. I was not quite so keen on fifty years for films as some noble Lords who spoke. I should have thought that the best broadcasts which had been made were more likely to survive for fifty years than the best films, although that may well be a matter of opinion. I wonder whether noble Lords on the Front Bench will consider whether their conduct in accepting fifty years for films does not carry the corollary that they should accept the same period for broadcasts.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I did not say anything about films, although I was sceptical of the proposal to extend the period from twenty-five to fifty years. I hope this will not be made a precedent. After all, the law of copyright was originally intended for the purpose of protecting authors, artists and musical composers in the fruits of their labours. We are now dealing with the collective productions of great corporations, which are really on quite a different footing from the individual efforts of persons who depend for their living upon and deserve a certain amount of protection for, their artistic talent. When it comes to films, and still more when it comes to broadcast performances, which are the production of teams of twenty, thirty or forty people, we are on very different ground. And if it be said that some of these things are great works of art and will live for more than twenty-five years, the fact that the copyright has expired at the end of twenty-five years will not prevent their living.
LORD MANCROFT: I must confess that I had not considered this point. I have frequently had the privilege of hearing my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham on the radio, but I have never yet seen him in a film. I will consider this matter, but I must confess that my mind is moving rather more in the direction of what the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has said. I was not wholly in favour of the change to fifty years for films, for the reasons which the noble Lord has given; but your Lordships appeared to think more that way, and I gave in. But this is a different matter,
1130
and I should like to look at it much more carefully before giving any promise. I think the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has answered the chief objection which my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham may have had in mind. I will look at this, but with only a slight promise that the same concession will be made.
LORD FARINGDON: I hope the noble Lord will look at this point with care. At first hearing I find myself in agreement with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham. Apart from the fact that I think there is, in general practice a certain convenience in having the same length of time, there is no sanctity about the period of fifty years. But if it is to be fifty years for one thing, then I feel it should be fifty years for another. In my view, there is a better case for broadcasts than for films. In broadcasting, the original broadcaster will retain an interest in subsequent broadcasts, and it seems to me that his copyright should be preserved. Under this Bill it will be completely extinguished, so far as broadcasts are concerned, in twenty-five years, whereas if he had written it—and presumably in a case where he had written it, it would be the whole of his lifetime, plus fifty years—it would not be.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment, which goes with Nos. 84 and 89, is a drafting Amendment. With the others, it makes clearer the conditions under which a film of a broadcast may be made for private purposes, without infringing broadcast copyright. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 17, leave out from ("making") to end of line 22 and insert (", otherwise than for private purposes, a cinematograph film of it or a copy of such a film.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: I beg to move Amendment No. 84.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 24, leave out from ("making") to end of line 30 laid insert (", otherwise than for private purposes, a sound recording of it or a record embodying such a recording.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: It is very difficult for anybody who is not a lawyer to make any useful contribution

1131
to this debate. To start with, I must confess that I am a director of Electric and Musical Industries, Limited, and also of the Greyhound Racing Association, so I come under both films and shows. I have not taken much part in the debate, but I think one point wants to be appreciated, and that is the difference between the record and the show. When you make a record you spend money on producing some sound and you expect to get some money from selling those records later; and if you can get more money from people who have heard them in a public place, so much the better. But when you are organising shows, many of them are "once only" occasions. They are of interest only for the one night, for the one time, and never again. Consequently, you cannot organise, say, a big boxing match, unless you are certain that people are going to turn up to see the actual fight where it takes place. If you do not give protection to the promoter from the point of view of broadcasting, you may, and will, get the absurd spectacle of nobody appearing at the place where the incident takes place, with everybody up and down the country looking-in at it. That would be absurd for the promoter. But it is not only the promoter who will be hurt; it will, in fact, result in nobody ever promoting anything. It is for that reason that I hope the Government will be firm in seeing that the broadcasting of the "once only' events will be confined to the home and not be allowed to be broadcast for public gain in public places.
LORD MANCROFT: I am interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Brabazon has to say. If he will look at Amendments Nos. 86A and 86B, he will see that the point he has just made with regard to sound is even more to the forefront of the argument when it is concerned in the matter of television. The point he has made is well known and well understood. It does not occur on Amendment 84, which is purely a drafting Amendment, but I have his point firmly in mind.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Am I to understand from the noble Lord that the Amendment he has just moved, and the Amendment lower down, take care of the point to which I wanted to draw his attention in regard to Amendment No. 85?
LORD MANCROFT: Not wholly.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Then I shall have to argue that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.33 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (3) (b), to omit all words beginning "for the purpose of" down to the end of the paragraph. The noble Lord said: Are not the words that I seek to leave out, from "it" in line 25 to the end of line 30, redundant? I should have thought that all those words are superfluous. What you are trying to do in paragraph (b) is to say that the acts restricted by the copyright are, in the case of a sound broadcast or of a television broadcast in so far as it consists of sounds, making a sound recording of it. That is the restriction you wish to impose. Why have all this other paraphernalia tacked on to it? Surely, that is covered in paragraph (c), which says:
"in the case of a television broadcast, causing it, in so far as it consists of visual images, to be seen in public, or, in so far as it consists of sounds, to be heard in public."
That is seeing and hearing in public. Paragraph (c) is the restrictive act, and in paragraph (b) surely the restrictive act is making a sound recording of it. I only thought I was helping the noble Lord by cutting out redundant words. The main issue I shall join with him will be under paragraph (c). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 25, leave out from ("it") to end of line 30.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think the noble Lord who has just spoken has a good point here. Indeed, I would go further than he did, because he suggests that the words he seeks to leave out are unnecessary. I would suggest that they are dangerous, and I will tell the Committee why. I think it is an extremely dangerous thing to allow people, for private purposes or otherwise than for gain, to make sound records of broadcasts. They can be used for all kinds of fraudulent and improper purposes. I speak as one who broadcasts occasionally. If a sound record could be made of my voice saying something in a broadcast and then used out of its context at some subsequent period of time, for the purpose of making it appear as if I had said something which I never did, I should be, I

1133
think rightly, rather resentful. Those who broadcast in public on controversial subjects have always been afraid of this happening. In foreign countries this has been done quite deliberately in order to ruin the reputations of those whose reputations are sometimes open to attack—namely, public men. It has been done by dictatorships, and it has also been done unscrupulously in America. I am not at all sure that the true view is that the sound recording of a broadcast ought not to remain at all except in the hands of the person owning the copyright; and I cannot, for the moment, see why the limiting words should be present.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am only too happy to accept that, because I am not a lawyer. I should have thought that what the noble Lord wished to guard against—and I quite accept that it should be guarded against—was contained in paragraph (c), because that says that a recording of a television broadcast must not be seen or heard in public. If the noble Lord thinks it is better to have both, I do not mind. I make no point on this, and I put it down only because I thought it was a good point to bring up on drafting.
LORD MANCROFT: Now we come to quite a different point. Let us leave drafting for the moment and consider the purpose. The drafting, which I think is correct, was to meet a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, on Second Reading, and the point to which my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham took exception. If I remember aright (I have not his speech in my hand, but I remember the content of it), the noble Lord, Lord Burden, wanted to protect the amateur enthusiast who likes to make records for private use without gain. In that we saw no objection, and it is for that we have provided in the Bill. It is a very restricted right. I must confess that I have not considered the point my noble friend Lord Hailsham has made, but I wonder whether his fears are not slightly ill-founded, in view of the tight restriction we put in. Not only did we do it in order to meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Burden, but I ought to tell your Lordships that representations in favour of the right to make records for private use were made to us by the British Sound Recording Asssociation when we were preparing the interim Bill last February. A letter was pub-
1134
lished in The Times newspaper on that point, and it was to meet what we considered a legitimate point that we redrafted the Bill. I do not think the fears which my noble friend Lord Hailsham has are well founded, if I may say so with great respect—at least, I hope they are not. That is what we intended to do, and I hope that your Lordships will agree that we have not gone too far.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: May I put the point again? Many of us—and I think the noble Lord is one—have broadcast from time to time. As the Bill is drafted at the moment it is open to an unscrupulous person to take a sound recording of my voice, or of my noble friend's voice, for purposes which he need not specify and which he may not give effect to for a number of years after he has made that sound recording. I cannot conceive any legitimate purpose of anybody, other than the broadcasting authority to whom I sell my broadcast, making a sound recording of my voice. Nor can I conceive of anybody, for any legitimate purpose, making a sound recording of my noble friend's voice. I cannot conceive why this should be done by people who are described as "enthusiasts." I can understand why criminals might want a sound recording of somebody else's voice. I can understand why people who wish to pervert one's opinions might make a sound recording of my voice or other people's voices, but I cannot conceive any legitimate or honourable purpose for which it would be wanted. Therefore, I say, let the broadcasting corporation for whom one is broadcasting have the copyright, or let the owner of the voice keep it to himself.
LORD FARINGDON: I can tell your Lordships what people make these recordings for, and that is for their own pleasure. I daresay they do not often make a recording of the voice of the noble Viscount (the noble Viscount himself said he was unable to imagine why they should) for, having heard him, they no doubt turn to the Listener to read again his weighty words; but they do make recordings of things like operas. An acquaintance of mine who is rather expert at this particular hobby made some recordings of a number of performances given at, and broadcast from, Glyndebourne and those, after the death of Fritz Busch, were the

1135
only existing recordings of those operas. They were of considerable interest, quite apart from their original use.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I appreciate the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, but there is another side to this question. It is, of course, conceivable that over the wireless or television there may be broadcast a libel upon some individual. I do not see any reason why that individual should not be entitled to take a recording in order that he should have evidence, if necessary, to protect his reputation against something which otherwise might do him infinite damage.
LORD CHORLEY: We must all have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, but it is a little unrealistic to think that a Copyright Act will be the way to handle an offence of that kind which he properly describes as "criminal." If it had to be stopped, as it ought to be, it ought to be dealt with in a criminal measure rather than by the sort of civil sanctions which are attached to a Copyright Act.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If my Amendment has done nothing more, it has been the cause of an interesting discussion. I think I am swayed by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. If your Lordships will give me permission, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.43 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (3) (c), after "seen in public," to insert:
"at a theatre, cinema, concert hall or other similar place where a charge is made for admission."
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I will speak to this Amendment and the next at the same time. This is, I suppose, perhaps the most important Amendment to this Bill. We had some extraordinary good fortune in removing from the gramophone record clause in Clause 12 the performing right. This is what I seek to do here. I do not think it is right to bring into this Bill a principle which has caused so much trouble ever since 1933 in respect of a performing right in gramophone records. I repeat what I said before in reply to my noble friend Lord Faringdon, that I
1136
have a profound respect for the rights of any employee who is a performer in any field—music, theatre, television, broadcasting or anything else; but the first thing I fear is that we shall set up by this Bill the very same whip with which to scourge ourselves at some future date as we did in 1911.
What is the Government's confessed reason for putting in this performing right? Go back to the days of the Copyright Committee. They said, without a blush, that the real reason for recommending a performing right in television was so that the B.B.C. could issue licences and charge for a public performance of a television programme, because do not forget that the Copyright Committee's Report was issued before the advent of any other broadcasting organisation. It was said that the only way to persuade sports promoters to give their entertainments, whether it be boxing, football finals, cricket test matches or Wimbledon, was to enable the B.B.C. to meet their ever-increasing financial demands. In point of fact, it was said (I think my memory is correct) by the Lord Chancellor, on the Second Reading of this Bill, that the whole future of the televising of sporting events rested upon this one question of finance. And yet when the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, wound up for Her Majesty's Government on the Second Reading, what did he say? He said that the Opposition were not to imagine that anybody was going to "get fat" upon the proceeds of this performing licence; it would amount to only "a few shillings"—those were his exact words.
LORD MANCROFT: Yes, but the noble Lord will remember that, when I was talking about "a few shillings," I was talking only about our old friend the Scarborough landlady.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That I quite agree. It was only to cost "a few shillings." I can assure the noble Lord that, in view of the increased money that will be required in future to placate the financial demands of the sporting promoters, now that the Government have brought a competitor into the field to push up the price, it will take something more than "a few shillings" per hotel, boarding-house or anything else; because since the Copyright Committee's Report was issued we have had the advent of the I.T.A.

1137
I will not discuss the merits or demerits of the Independent Television Authority, but in this context of cost the net result of its intervention has been to increase the B.B.C.'s expenses for many of these outside television broadcasts by anything from four to ten times what they were paying before. I shall not argue whether that is good or bad, but it is a fact. If, as I heard the other day, £100,000 is to be the fee charged for (I think it is) the right to broadcast or to televise a succession of sporting events, it is going to take more than a few shillings per head from the hotels of this country. But I say it is wrong in principle; it has been brought in again by a side wind. Cannot we really learn from experience? The other thing was brought in by a side wind. What is brought in by a side wind is—that some extra revenue is necessary to see that television fills its proper rôle of giving a wide coverage.
I maintain that if television is going to cost a lot more money there is one way to meet that cost, the same as every other increased cost has to be met—that is, out of the general television licence. What is the good of saying that you are going to give a performing right with all the past knowledge that you have of how that can be abused? How do you know, how can you say, that that performing right will not be abused by certain sections, the same as the performing right given to a record manufacturer has been abused over years? Cannot we learn? If you want the B.B.C. to have sufficient funds properly to fulfil their function of providing the British viewer with all the entertainment which the British viewer has a right to expect, increase the licence fee. You might feel inclined to give them back the £2 million a year you take from them now. That would pay for a lot.
Why go to this subterfuge? After all is said and done, we have to pay for things if we want them. We have now to pay increased costs for riding on the buses—no doubt that is necessary. The London Transport Executive has given a reason which to me sounds a sensible reason. Surely the reason for increasing the cost of a television licence is that it costs more to put on the screens the Cup Final, the Test Matches, Wimbledon, or a boxing promotion. Why pillory one section of the community—the hotel, the boarding house, the working men's club?
1138
Then, how far do you go with this? Every television set in a shop window which is switched on and shows the visual performance but does not transmit the sound would have to have a performing fee licence—it is a public exhibition; it is allowing sound or vision in public.
I come to the next point. There are now two authorities—the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. When the establishment of the I.T.A. was proposed in the Television Bill, now the Television Act, it was the declared intention of the Government that it should be a complete private enterprise service and that it should cover by its advertising rates its costs of providing programmes. In direct contradiction to their proposed policy, the Government are now, by a side wind, giving it public funds by this right to collect a licence fee. What would be the result? Can your Lordships imagine the Independent Television Authority, which must stand or fall by getting its programmes on to the screens, by hook or by crook, just as newspapers seek to increase their circulations, collecting these fees? Can you imagine them saying that they want a fee from a hotel for projecting their programmes containing advertising matter upon the screen of the hotel television set? I should think they would go round and pay the hotel to show it. What does this mean? It means that the B.B.C. are the only ones who will have the stigma of collecting a licence fee. What will happen? I am sure the Government do not want this. I could accuse the Government of a number of things, but I do not think I can accuse them of this. Do they really want to handicap the B.B.C.? Do they really want the B.B.C. to charge a public performance licence fee and the I.T.A. not, so that the can one day say, "Viewing research. Ours is double or treble that of the B.B.C."?
What is the reason for giving this performing right? If it is true—I still cannot think that it is anything but true—that the real object is to increase the revenue, to provide that amount of revenue which will allow all the best sporting events to be shown on television, then the only way to do it is for the Post Office to collect an increased fee, as they do today, and for everybody to pay an equal share, whether they view their television in their homes, in the atmosphere of their local public-house, or in a work-

1139
ing men's club. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, may reply that the tribunal to be set up will be able to give social services a right to apply for a licence without paying anything. But what will be the tribunal's position—a tribunal set up wholly and solely for copyright purposes —if it is projected into the difficult field of industrial relations, a field in which they have no right and are not competent to interfere, and if we have various people putting a pistol to the heads of programme companies or the B.B.C. saying that any licence they grant must contain something like the terms and conditions that were once imposed by Phonographic Performance, Limited, supposing that there is industrial trouble? Surely, the simple way out is to follow the excellent example which the Government have now set in accepting the principle of our Amendments to Clause 12, and not have any performing right at all.
We have tried to put forward Amendments, and in those Amendments we have tried to be specific. I do not think that television performances should be shown on the screens of cinemas, as may well happen in the future, or in theatres where payment is made for admission, without their paying something for that privilege. We have a right to say that that shall apply in every other case. Surely Her Majesty's Government are going to be consistent. I have been hoping that the noble and learned Viscount would jump up and say that I need go no further because the Government would accept this Amendment. We treat this as we treated the previous Amendment, as a matter of principle. We think that there should be no charge for performing rights. When a person buys a television set he should be able to use that set for any purpose whatsoever; and he should be charged the appropriate overall licence fee for any purpose whatsoever except, as I have said, where an entertainment is shown for the purposes of commercial profit in a place such as a theatre or hall.
Again, we are not tied to the actual wording of the Amendment, but our view is that this is the only means by which one can achieve the object and be consistent. I now see the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, sitting on the Government Front Bench. When the noble Viscount was speaking during, I believe, the Third
1140
Reading of the Television Bill, he said that the Government gave way on the question of the £750,000, and did so against their wishes, only to placate noble Lords who wanted that arrangement. The noble Viscount then said that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the I.T.A. should stand on its own financial feet, a private enterprise, augmenting its revenue as required through its advertisements. This Bill means that they will be getting public money into their coffers, and will give them the right to charge a licence fee for public performance. We hold that in view of all that has happened in the past this is a completely wrong principle. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 32, at end insert ("at a theatre, cinema, concert hall or other similar place where a charge is made for admission.").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
5.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: With respect to the noble Lord who has just spoken, I feel that, though he spoke with much emphasis, he was drawing a totally false analogy with the performing rights situation as it exists elsewhere, and probably was misguided in the policy he was urging upon Her Majesty's Government. I confess to being no friend of those collecting societies that try to stop land-ladies and hotel-keepers from hearing small performances of their members' works-I believe that has been vastly overdone. But as I understand this subsection, it does not perpetuate or extend that situation in any way. Unless I am vastly mistaken, it puts into the hand of two great public corporations (and, with respect, both the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. can come within that category) the right to stop public broadcasts of their own copyright material. I see no fear whatever that they would employ the services of the societies which collect twopences on gramophone records in order to enforce those rights from a landlady in Blackpool or Scarborough. It seems to me to be fanciful and unreal to imagine that they would.
The question one has to consider is whether or not the right to stop these public broadcasts, for which admission is not paid, is rightly put in the hands of public corporations. I am not going to pursue the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, about

1141
the Television Act, about which I expressed myself rather freely at the time. These two corporations exist by sanction of Parliament, and both are entitled to be regarded by Parliament as responsible public bodies. I should have thought that the balance of advantage lay almost entirely the other way. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, some forty minutes ago, expressed great fear on behalf of promoters of public entertainments. He was mainly interested. I think, in sporting events, but the same principle would apply to other public entertainments, which may or may not be broadcast by the B.B.C. I sympathise with his fears, though perhaps they too were exaggerated. One does not know how things will work out in practice. Let us see how the noble Lord's Amendment could operate upon those fears of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara.
Suppose that you have something like the Wimbledon tennis or a boxing match at Manchester. The promoters of the boxing match will obviously be afraid of selling the broadcasting rights to either the B.B.C. or I.T.A. if they think their "gate" will be affected. That was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and with certain limitation I agree with that view. In the end, if promoters are to broadcast the events which they are promoting in such a way as to affect the "gate," it means killing the goose which lays the golden egg, because ultimately the event itself is destroyed. Supposing the Committee accepted the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, how would it work out? It would mean that if there were a boxing match in Manchester which the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. wished to broadcast to the nation in the interests of the viewing public (and their desire to do so is one in which the Committee will sympathise), they would go to the promoter of that boxing match in Manchester and say, "We want to broadcast your boxing match." "Oh no, you won't," says the promoter, "because if you do so every public-house in this town will be able to show that boxing match to their customers without those people going to the ringside and paying the gate." As I see it, that would be the net result of the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble Viscount will be good enough
1142
to look at subsection (4) of Clause 27 he will see that that subsection is put in, presumably, expressly to guard against that contingency. With the greatest respect, what the noble Viscount is now saying has nothing to do with the fundamental principle of giving a performing right. What he has to say is how that performing right, and the licence to exercise that right, is to be operated in the circumstances he is now putting forward. I take it that it is covered by subsection (4) of Clause 27.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am bound to say that this Bill is very complicated and it may be that the interlocking provisions have a different effect from that which I had supposed. If I am making a mistake here, I am sorry. But, with respect to the noble Lord, I think he has got performing rights on the brain about this particular Amendment. When we are talking about giving copyright to the two great corporations, we are not talking about the same thing in pari material as giving the performing rights to numerous individual performers who, through collecting societies, can hold the public up to ransom. The argument which I was endeavouring to put to the Committee is, l should have thought, sound, subject to the possibility (which shall certainly look at) that I may not have related this Amendment to Clause 27. I will not express an opinion on that point without looking into the matter carefully.
The argument I have endeavoured to pose is that if this Amendment were allowed it would make it much more difficult for the two great corporations to get the broadcasting rights of any public performance, because in the main it would be possible for persons who did not charge for admission but who had an interest in attracting people to their premises for other purposes—as, for instance, entertainment or drink—to put on a show in such a way as to interfere with the gate of the promoters. I should have thought, with respect to the noble Lord, that it would operate in such a way as to limit the rights of the public as represented by the two corporations, to see broadcasts of the kind to which Lord Brabazon of Tara referred. I may be wrong; the noble Lord will no doubt tell me if I have seen this in the wrong light.

1143
I should like just to add this. When we are dealing with a question of copyright in television films and sound broadcasts we are dealing with something which is rather novel in its kind. I value copyright in most of the things which I either write or say not so much because of their commercial value—because I am sorry to say that they have very little—but because of the protection which copyright gives to one's right of privacy in regard to so many of one's utterances and writings, the right to prevent unauthorised use of them. When I broadcast I know that I put the copyright of my broadcast in the hands of the corporation, whether it be the B.B.C. or the I.T.A.; and I am thereby preventing with numberless, anonymous, unexcept in so far as they may be licensed for proper purposes by a public body. If it turned out that that copyright was going to be interfered with by permitting reproduction except to those who charge for admission, I should begin to feel—as I know would a great many people who broadcast on public issues—anxious lest unauthorised use be made of their words or performances. I believe, for the reason I have given, that the noble Lord is worrying too much about performing rights in this matter. We are not dealing with numberless, anonymous, unidentifiable individuals who may exercise their rights through a collecting society. We are dealing with two great corporations, and I do not believe that, if this clause were as it stands approved, these corporations would be likely to abuse the rights and the confidence which Parliament has placed in them.
5.14 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: Listening to the noble Viscount who has just spoken, I began to wonder whether I had understood the Amendment correctly or not. I thought it raised very simple points. May I go back and give your Lordships my understanding of it? When this Committee reported—I forget when it was but I believe it was a year or so ago—they recommended this right and they stated—I am reading from Section 201 of the Report:
"it will be recalled that one of our principal reasons for proposing this right was to enable the B.B.C."—
that was the only corporation then in existence—
1144
"to make its financial offers and its conditions of control sufficiently attractive to the sports promoters and others to induce them to allow televising."
That is why they suggested it. It is obvious that there is this thought in the minds of the sports promoters always: if I allow televising, the more I allow such television the more likely it is that people will not attend my events; therefore, I want to be compensated. I think that is right. If you give them enough compensation they may run that risk in certain cases; I do not know whether they would in all. In the case of cricket, I know that unfortunately the idea is entertained that if you allow too much televising you will not get cricket encouraged at all and the local clubs will suffer as funds will dry up.
We have to consider whether this is fair; whether we are imposing a right tax on the right people. That is where I begin to think we are wrong. Whether you take it under this Amendment or under Amendment No. 87, it is exactly the same point—there are two ways to arrive at the same result. If you are going to raise a sum of money to enable the B.B.C.—I will discuss the I.T.A. presently—to make its financial offers attractive, you must be fair in levying the charge on the right people. I do not think it is fair to levy an extra charge, for instance, on hotels or boarding houses. I say that for this reason: first of all, the number of people who see television in boarding houses or hotels as compared with the people who see it in their own private houses is very small. I think there have been some calculations on this point, and it works out at something like 5 per cent. of the total viewers.
LORD DERWENT: I believe it to be 1 per cent. of the total instruments in use.
EARL JOWITT: In fact, it is a very small group. Secondly, of those people, a very large number who are staying in hotels or boarding houses for the summer months, or something of that sort, will have left their television sets in their own houses and have already paid for the licence. Then comes the problem: can it really be said that it is fair that those people who have gone to stay at a hotel or a boarding house, leaving their television licence at home, should have to pay extra to see television at the hotel or boarding house? I do not think it is.

1145
I do not like this right. I have already compromised about performing right so far as gramophone records are concerned. I am prepared to compromise here. Speaking for myself, I should say that if anyone goes to the length of having a cinema or theatre or large hall, charging for admission and getting people to go there to see the television show—that is to say, enriching himself by reproducing the work of others—my withers are un-wrung about him. I do not mind if he has to pay something extra for that. I think that is fair. But I cannot think it is right to extend that principle to these other places such as hotels where no charge is made for the performance as such. It seems to me quite unreal.
Consider the position. Suppose you have people at a boarding house sitting round and looking at the television. Suddenly something affected by this provision comes on. I suppose some official of the hotel will have to run and switch off the television unless they are prepared to pay extra fees. They may or may not be willing to pay. But that does not seem to me to be a good idea. I think this question has been immensely complicated by the introduction of the I.T.A., which when this Committee existed was not in being—I am not going back to the old controversy about I.T.A. I disliked it then and I dislike it to-day. As Lord Hailsham has told us, it is a public corporation and it must be treated as such. But there is this great difference between the I.T.A. and the B.B.C.: the I.T.A. depends upon advertisers for its revenue to keep it alive. The wider the public watching its television broadcasts, the better it is for the advertisers. Therefore if you are going to show the Grand National—that is the thing that we always hanker for on television—the man whose toothpaste or clothes-cleaner or pills is, advertised before the Grand National comes on is going to pay an enormous sum of money for that advertisement The I.T.A. will already get the extra revenue without making any charge at all. Has that been considered? Obviously, the more attractive the I.T.A. programmes are made, the larger their viewing public; and the larger their viewing public, the more money will they get for their programmes. So, I.T.A. are going to benefit twice over First, they are going to get more from the advertisers because they have these attractive pro
1146
grammes, and, secondly, they can levy an extra charge. I think that is a great difficulty and frankly do not know how to deal with it.
But on the assumption that I have to treat the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. on an equality in this respect, I humbly suggest that a fair compromise is this: where a cinema is charging for admission to see this televised event, let the proprietor pay some of that money to the television company in order that the television company may be in funds with which to compensate the promoter of the race, so that she suffers no harm. That is fair enough. But I cannot think it wise to extend this charge to clubs and other places. I do not see why we should exact this extra charge from a small section of the viewing public who already pay. I very much hope that, in the way they have done with regard to gramophone records, the Government will accept either this Amendment or the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, which is perhaps an equally satisfactory way of arriving at this result.
LORD JESSEL: I think it would be convenient if I said a word about my Amendment before the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor replies. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has indicated that he likes my Amendment. Obviously, I am in sympathy with the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and by the noble and learned Earl, but, frankly, I like my Amendment better. The noble Lord's Amendment specifies places and I think that might lead to difficulties of interpretation, especially in regard to the phrase "a similar place." Later there is Amendment No. 90, submitted by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, which also tries to do the same thing as my Amendment. Here again I think my Amendment is better. The noble Viscount's Amendment also has the disadvantage of specifying places to be excluded, which will lead to difficulties in interpretation. And these Amendments leave out one or two places like clubs and pubs which are not also restaurants.
In my submission, the only satisfactory distinction we can draw is between places which charge for admission and those which do not. We knew that that can be administered because that is the test on which entertainments duty is now levied.

1147
I do not want to weary your Lordships with the arguments which the noble and learned Earl has put so well, but I should like to say a word about Clause 27 (4), which should be considered with Clause 14 (3) (c) to see what would be the effect if my Amendment were not accepted. So far as I can understand it, the position is as follows: the performing right tribunal which is going to be set up will have jurisdiction in disputes between television users and the organisations which issue licences for performing rights, not only to decide whether the licence fees and other conditions are reasonable, but also to decide whether the refusal of the licence is unreasonable, and, if they think that is so, to grant a licence themselves upon terms which they consider reasonable.
Clause 27 (4) provides a complete exemption to this rule. It says that where facilities for television broadcasts have been granted upon conditions which exclude the granting of a performing rights licence, the tribunal shall not hold a refusal or failure to grant that licence to be unreasonable. What does that mean? It means that if the promoter of a sporting event permits the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. to televise that event on condition that the programme is to be received only in private homes or within specified times, the performing rights tribunal will have no power to decide whether that condition and the consequent refusal of a licence is unreasonable, and every television user who comes under the ban will have no redress whatever. We shall then have a position where the promoter of any entertainment televised by arrangement with the televising authority will have the absolute legal right to insist that all television sets in such places as hotels, boarding houses, clubs and canteens shall be turned off during the broadcast of the event in question. It does not matter if the tribunal think this unfair. They are powerless to interfere, because the contract made with the promoter and the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. has this condition.
If my Amendment were accepted, all these hotel lounges, canteens, et cetera, would be taken out of the scope of this subsection, which surely can only be intended to apply to places where charges for admission are made. I can appreciate the promoter's point of view when he
1148
wants to black out entirely the reception of a television programme over an area, such as with the boxing match in Manchester to which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, referred, but I cannot think it would be of much advantage to him to stop certain users in the area or to insist that certain users in the area, if they have the privilege of receiving this broadcast, should pay a small licence fee. It seems to me that under the Bill as it stands, it would be possible for the promoter to make it illegal for television sets in hotels and other places to show certain programmes even if the extra licence fee charged, as contemplated under the Bill at present, had been paid, for I presume it will be an annual fee; it cannot be an ad hoc fee for the special performance. I think that my Amendment is based on common sense, and I certainly support Lord Lucas of Chilworth's Amendment, although I would ask him to withdraw his and support mine for the reasons I gave when I started my speech.
5.30 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I would briefly support the argument so ably put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. He has given the true reason why some such provision in the Bill as we are now considering is necessary and why none of the proposed Amendments would work. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, during the Second Reading debate, in an important sentence which I think explained the right that we were conferring by this clause as well as it could be expressed, said it was as much a problem of control as of payment; and that was the same point as was made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who always speaks so persuasively from the Opposition Benches, in his speech assumed throughout that the event would be televised and that all we were really considering was what payment it would be fair to charge. But, of course, the problem is quite different. The problem which has to be faced, as was made quite clear by the Copyright Committee, is this: unless you confer some copyright somewhere, various events will not be televised at all; that is the real problem which this House has to face. The Copyright Committee made it quite clear that their approach was the same approach as I am quite certain is common in all quarters of this House—namely,

1149
that they wished to create as few new copyrights as possible; therefore they put forward what they thought was the minimum new copyright which would enable sporting events to be televised at all; and that, I think, is what they have accomplished.
I have no doubt that there are points of detail and possible Amendments which deserve great consideration, but I am quite sure that the suggestion behind all the Amendments that we are now considering, the suggestion that one can make payment for entry the test, will not do. My noble friend Lord Hailsham gave the example of pubs; You do not pay for entry into pubs; you pay for what you buy after you have entered. My noble friend Lord Jessel has, very persuasively, put the point of view of hotels. Is it, however, really to be said that if the Savoy Hotel, for example, chooses to give, possibly, an expensive supper on a night when some great event can be televised but makes no charge for admission (a charge is made for the supper but not for admission), it is not giving a public performance, for which it is quite natural that it should have to pay a fee if this copyright is to be conferred?
I suggest that the Copyright Committee have proposed—and the Government have accepted their suggestion—that this minimum extension of the law of copyright is necessary if the public are to have television of certain events at all. Once you confer that copyright, the question then arises as to how you are going to guard against the abuse of the copyright so conferred. That is why we have all these provisions dealing with the tribunal to which we shall come later. The only point, I think, that we have to consider at this moment is whether it is plausible to make the test of liability whether you have paid for admission to the place or not, and I suggest that is quite impossible.
I have read, not without sympathy, a good many of the claims that have been made on behalf of the hotels, the smaller hotels, and I think that, as regards the quantum of what they should pay, a great many are extremely persuasive. Where they fail to persuade me is in their claim that they shall be entirely excluded. In fact, I have sometimes found in the same document, and even on the same page of the same document, the following two arguments: "We get no benefit wrhatso-
1150
ever from providing television, and therefore we ought not to have to pay; but we must provide it because otherwise people would not seek our custom at all." Whatever you may think of those two arguments individually, they do not run very well in double harness, and I think the sooner that is realised, the better. They should not say at one and the same time, "We are bound to provide this service, otherwise we should not get our public, but we gain nothing whatsoever by providing it." That does not make sense. They sometimes go on to say that television is of the same sort of necessity as the provision of water. Suppose it were. So far as I know, the Savoy Hotel does not pay the same water rate as a private householder.
I think a good deal of nonsense has been talked on this subject, and I hope that I am not adding to it. But, for the reasons I have given, I believe, first, that the Copyright Committee have proposed the minimum extension of the law of copyright which will enable sporting events to be televised at all; secondly, that the Government are right in adopting that recommendation; and thirdly, that the right way to provide against abuses is by the tribunal provisions to which we shall come later on in this Bill.
LORD MANCROFT: Perhaps it might be of some use if I now gave the Government's view. If the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, wishes to speak afterwards, he is of course at liberty to do so. But I want to give the Government's view now, while what my noble friend Lord Conesford has said is fresh in my mind. My noble friend has put what I would have said far better than I could possibly put it. So far from adding nonsense to what has been said, he has put the case more logically and clearly than I have heard it put for some time. I am not going to spend any further time on it, except to put two points which this very simple and yet very difficult problem puts before us. There is no question here of "grinding the face" of the Scarborough landlady. There is the tribunal to referee, in case there is any injustice or if any exorbitant charges are made. It is not a question of raising fees to provide extra cash to the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. or the promoters. We can dismiss that point entirely. It is solely a question of control.

1151
The two broadcasting organisations and the programme companies of the I.T.A., as well as the sports promoters, all feel strongly that the right to control the public performance of television programmes should be no less wide than it is in relation to literary, dramatic, and musical works and films. If this Amendment and the parallel Amendments are accepted we feel, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, who spoke on a different matter some time ago, that there will be a real risk that we just shall not get the programmes which we all want. The criterion between public admission and payment is exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has put it. I will not weary your Lordships any more. That is all there is to it. I ask your Lordships to believe that we regard this as a matter of importance, and if your Lordships do not agree with the arguments you have heard put forward we must come to some other solution.
LORD DERWENT: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I might have a further opportunity of speaking, now that he has answered me. What does he mean by saying that this is not a question of money? Either you have to provide enough money to pay your sports promoters, or you do not want the money at all. Is my noble friend suggesting that they should have copyright without any fees?
LORD MANCROFT: No; the noble Lord has misunderstood me. I said that it is not primarily a question of money. This is not put in as a money-making provision. It is primarily to get control to say that this event shall be broadcast and this event shall not. The money is a consideration, but I was looking at it primarily from the point of view of the Scarborough landlady, and that is what I meant by saying that money is not the primary consideration in the Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: It may well be that it is the primary consideration of the landlady. On Second Reading my noble friend rather laughed it off by saying it was only a few shillings. But a few shillings an hour, a few shillings a week, or what? A few shillings for what? How is this to be charged? Is there to be an annual fee? If there is to be an annual fee, as suggested by my noble
1152
friend Lord Jessel, which seems to be the easiest way of collecting it, how much will it be? How can the tribunal say a year in advance what the person will see in the way of sports and what a fair charge is? If it is an ad hoc charge, how on earth will that be made? If it is an ad hoc charge, it cannot be enforced, and no hotel keeper will give a promise when he does not know what will be shown. What I think my noble friend Lord Conesford forgets is this. Agreed that you have to have some control, the question is where is it to start and where is it to stop. We maintain that you are taking a small proportion of your licence holders and putting the whole burden on them. As I understand it from my noble friend Lord Jessel, he considers, as a matter of principle, that that is unfair. The only person who suggested yet another way out of the difficulty is the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who suggested that there should be no copyright at all. That, I believe, might be a more satisfactory answer. In spite of what my noble friend Lord Mancroft has said, I hope that my noble friend Lord Jessel, or the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will press this matter. Of the two, I prefer the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Jessel, because I think it is less ambiguous.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: It is perfectly clear from the discussion that has taken place that this provision of the Bill dealing with copyright in broadcast and television is introduced purely and simply for the commercial purpose of making bargains between the promoters of sporting events and the two corporations whose business it is to broadcast. It is not introduced for the primary purpose for which copyright exists in the Bill generally—namely, for the purpose of preventing somebody from profiting from the artistic or intellectual labour of somebody else. Nor is it introduced even for the purpose for which copyright is given to gramophone records—namely, in order to prevent somebody from making a copy of the record and being able to make that copy without undergoing the heavy overhead expenses necessary for that purpose. If that were intended there would be nothing in this clause about prohibiting public exhibition of these things; there would merely be a prohibition against re-broadcasting. That is perfectly proper. There is no reason why one broadcasting

1153
organisation should be allowed to pirate the activities of another and get the benefit of it for next to nothing.
But that is not the point at issue here. This is a proposal to prevent people from seeing or hearing certain broadcasts, even although they would see them upon television instruments or hear them from radio sets for which a private licence has been bought. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has said that the primary object of this provision is to control these things. But whatever the Government may think the object is, there is not the slightest doubt that in the course of time what will happen will be that the promoters of public events which are extremely attractive will be able to exercise pressure upon the B.B.C. and upon the I.T.A., and will force them to turn the switch, which in turn will force the B.B.C. and the to impose onerous conditions upon every listener or viewer out of whom they think they can get a considerable sum of money. That is the inevitable commercial repercussion of this provision. It is all very well to say that the tribunal (which we will come to later in the course of our discussions) will be in a position to prevent it. None of us knows just what will happen in those circumstances, or by what criteria the tribunal will be guided in coming to their decisions. Therefore, if this clause is passed, we are allowing something to take place which will have repercussions that none of us can completely envisage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I ask your Lordships whether we cannot come to a decision on this important matter. Does the noble Viscount want me to give way?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I have instructions to wind up this discussion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I will peak only briefly. I want to make it clear that we are completely dissatisfied with this departure from the tolerant and sympathetic attitude we have had on the previous clauses of the Bill. It is obvious that the Government have made up their minds that they are going to carry this clause through at all costs. Therefore it is necessary to
1154
pinpoint that they are doing this in the face of warnings which have been issued to them from the beginning of the controversy, as between people who think as I do, or as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, did at the time of the Television Bill, and a great number of people in the country—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I hope the noble Viscount does not suggest that I feel differently about that particalar matter now, because I do not.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am sure the noble and learned Viscount does not, and he has been arguing the legal merits of the clauses. I did not suggest anything else. What is clear is that the Government were warned in the discussions on the Television Bill about what might be the effect of their decisions and that legislation in relation to this particular recommendation of the Committee which was set up and presided over finally by Sir Henry Gregory. It is plain to us that in order to provide the requirements of this increased competition between the separate television organisations funds have to be raised somewhere else. In fact, the history of television under the B.B.C. has been that it has not been necessary to have excess levies upon the users in the country for the benefits conferred upon them by television.
LORD CONESFORD: I should be grateful if the noble Viscount would give, way for one moment. Sir Henry Gregory's Committee made the recommendation of the right which die noble Viscount is now contesting before the I.T.A. ever came into existence. So the problem can scarcely arise out of the I.T.A.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I am well aware of that, and I was coming to the point that that recommendation was made nearly four years ago. We had quite a long time to consider it before the warnings were given from these Benches as to what would he the effect if the Government persisted in their television policy. It is quite certain, at any rate, from what has been quoted from the statement of the noble Viscount., Lord Woolton, when speaking on the Television Bill, that there is a good deal of feeling about the matter in that direction. It is also quite certain,

1155
from my recollection, that the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, and other Government speakers, inclined to my point of view, which was that there would be no further charge upon the public or upon the Exchequer other than, first, the advertising revenue and, secondly, the completely limited sum of £750,000 a year to that corporation.
Now what has happened in the meantime is that, for nearly the last four years an increasing number of films have been shown on television—films of sporting events and many other less desirable things—and, in spite of all that was said, no real difficulty has arisen. To say that people stay away from shows entirely because there is a television reproduction would be leaving out of account all the other facts. People are staying away because there is a bigger demand on their purses for other things and because entertainment tax has been increased. It is no good putting it down to the one thing—that there is a television service. All these matters have to be taken together. What the Government are really doing—as was hinted at by my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch and, I think, has been mentioned before from these Benches—is, for the first time in the history of our legislation, putting a new property right into a new kind of industry. That is what has happened, and the country had public warnings of it and what it will cost them.
In my view, it is entirely contrary to the pledges of the Government which were given in connection with the Television Bill, and it is really no use the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, trying to ride off by describing these things as being nonsense. People will not know whether they are chargeable until they are charged and hauled before a tribunal to see whether they are guilty or not. Is there to be any appeal from the tribunal? I think it is a most extraordinary state of affairs, introduced by the Government who were elected, they say, to try and reduce the number of controls in the country. I feel so strongly about the matter that I shall have no hesitation in going with my noble friends into the Lobby. We must stick to our Amendment, but I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, that I like his Amendment, too, and if
1156
his Amendment could be carried I should certainly withdraw my earlier one on the Marshalled List.
5.53 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think everyone will agree that after the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, every aspect of this matter has been canvassed: and I rise to put, as shortly as he did, the point of view of the Government, which opposes his own. The noble Viscount has drawn one herring of outstanding redness across the debate. He has tried, with that skill and vigour which all of us know he possesses, to infuse prejudice as between the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. Let us get it perfectly clear that that is not what your Lordships are being asked to vote about. On this issue the B.B.C. and the T.T.A., as I understand the matter, stand with the programme companies, as well as with the sports promoters, in feeling strongly that the right to control the public performance of television programmes should he no less wide in relation to their functioning than in relation to literary, dramatic and musical works and films.
As my noble friend Lord Conesford has pointed out, this matter came to the Copyright Committee and was considered, and its merits were decided before any question of the I.T.A. arose. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to consider whether or not you regard it as important that the vast number of viewers in the home—because they are the vast number—should have a chance of seeing the outside broadcasts which undoubtedly are one of the most popular and important parts of television at the present day. That is the issue. Without this provision it is going to be increasingly difficult to secure that these outside broadcasts are given. As my noble friend Lord Conesford said, it is a question of whether there will be a broadcast at all. That is the first point your Lordships have to consider: is that desirable? It is not a question as to whether the I.T.A. is desirable. It is a question which began on the issue as to whether it was desirable that the B.B.C. should do it alone. Now there are two companies, and it is equally desirable, I submit, that both should do it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I intended to make the point that the experience of the last four

1157
years has been that there has been a steadily increasing number of contracts made with the sports and other promoters for these matters, and that there has been no real difficulty; nor has that experience proved anything like a pointer to the kind of conclusion—which is made quite hypothetically—that it will lead to the stopping of these live performances.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the noble Viscount's view, but my answer to the noble Viscount is that his view is not shared, first, by the B.B.C. to whom he has paid such deep and sincere homage; secondly, by the I.T.A., to whom he has not paid such homage; thirdly, by the programme companies, and, fourthly, by the sports promoters. The misfortune which the noble Viscount has to-day is that nobody that I have ever heard, except some speakers in this debate, agrees with him as to the position, and certainly the four bodies of opinion that ought to know best disagree with the noble Viscount. That is the point I was putting. The second point is that the need for what we are suggesting was propounded, as the noble Viscount has said, four years ago by a body that was considering the special position of the B.B.C. The third point that I put to the noble Viscount is that we are not considering merely 1 per cent. of the instruments, as I think my noble friend Lord Jessel put it, or 5 per cent. of the viewers We are considering, as we are bound to consider, and as noble Lords opposite would consider, were they in the Government, the needs of the ordinary viewer at home who does demand these sporting events.
Now I come to the next point. If it is right that the views of these bodies should be considered, should there he some possibility of control? I am not going to go hack over the question of establishing some right in the broadcasts that I have mentioned. I stand by, and I want your Lordships to know that I stand by, the quotation from my speech on the Second Reading which the noble Lord Lord Conesford, referred to: that this is as much a matter of control as of money. The reason for that is that a promoter must take note of what might happen in the big hotels, the restaurants and the gathering places in the neighbourhood of a particular event. I have listened carefully and with as open a mind as is possible to one who has studied the subject
1158
very fully, and I think your Lordships will give me credit for having listened carefully to everything that has been said in this debate on this Bill. I really find some difficulty, however, in finding an answer to that point. How can you expect promoters to welcome the showing of an event on their own doorsteps? I happen to be most familiar (because my constituency was within a few miles of the Grand National course, just as the noble Viscount's constituency was not very far away from it) with the feeling there. Everyone in Lancashire knows the feeling that that matter has created. The same thing might occur with regard to a boxing match or anything of that kind. I believe that the establishment of the right to some control is surely a reasonable matter. Again, I submit that it is irrelevant—is is not quite so ruddy a herring as the last one, but it is a fairly good pink—to say too much about the small hotels, because in this matter it is the bigger gathering places which are important.
The Amendment concedes the principle of places where people are congregated. We say that, in order to meet the requirements of the sporting promoters and the broadcasting companies, one has to go further than that. If there is a case of hardship, it can be considered separately; but here we have, as I say, to establish the right and the control. I ask your Lordships to consider only this. I do not think that anyone can say that I have been unreasonable in the Committee stage of this Bill. I have tried hard to accept anything that I possibly could. Even in some cases when I was not convinced, I have almost leaned over backwards in order to accept Amendments because I feel that its right for your Lordships' House. But here we have come to a very important climax from the point of view of television viewers and of the televising of outside broadcasts. For the first time in the consideration of this Bill, I ask your Lordships to consider seriously whether you are likely to jeopardise television.
6.3 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount or the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, can answer a question? Both noble Lords seem to me to have introduced on their part —not a red herring but a herring into this controversy. What do they mean by

1159
"control"? I, too, have listened closely to this debate with, I think, an open mind. I am interested in this question of control. I take their point—I think I accept it; but how do they intend to exercise control? The issuing of licences will not be a control. It may be another means, as my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt said, of raising extra money, but then we should be discussing whether or not it was the best way of raising it. But how are you going to control it? Are you going to forbid the pubs and clubs and hotels in a certain area to turn on their apparatuses on a certain occasion or between certain hours? How is this to be done?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, has asked that question. Of course, if it were a broad area, it could be done by not allowing television in that area. That does not answer the point. The point that really needs an answer is how to deal with substantial places that I have called public gathering grounds. If they are public gathering grounds then it will become known and it will be possible to get an injunction against them to stop them from doing it. That can be done. Suppose that the noble Lords who are moving this Amendment had left out "cinemas." There would not be the slightest difficulty, it being known that cinemas have to advertise in order to carry on. If they were getting this television, an injunction could be obtained against them because they would be doing it contrary to the licence. Nobody is going to worry about taking injunctions against "Sea View" boarding-house, with five bedrooms: but if there are 500 people in a big hotel dining room, you will worry and, on the facts which we assume, you will succeed.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: May I ask one question?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: We have heard a lot of talk about the finance of this matter. I should like to know what sort of figures are envisaged. We have heard it suggested, on the one hand, that it is going to cost only "a few shillings." With regard to these sporting events, the television authorities want sums of money enabling them to bid up
1160
to the figures which the sporting promoters want. The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, suggested—and it seems to me a valuable point—that these licences would not be paid in respect of each individual event but for the whole year. I should like to know the sort of figure that the Government and the Lord Chancellor have in mind. Do they imagine that a few hundred thousand pounds a year will enable the television authorities to buy all the entertainment rights in the sporting events and others which they are going to carry through? I should have thought the cost would certainly run each year to £1 million or more. Whatever the amount, it has all to be raised from hotels, boarding-houses and the like. Is it not rather misleading to talk of only "a few shillings"? It seems to me that in some cases, such as large hotels, it will run into quite a number of pounds. We have to face realities. The question I put to the Lord Chancellor is: What is the global sum that he imagines the television authorities will require in order to be able to buy all those rights in the sporting events which have been referred to?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has put a question which no one could answer, because it is impossible to say what events in any particular year they will want to televise. Let me take the example of Test Matches. The amount that is paid for them will vary enormously. Also, the amount which is asked from the different classes of people who own the places where they will broadcast will vary. Of course, it will be—and we shall come on to consider this when we discuss the tribunal clauses—for the tribunal to say, within the conditions, as has been pointed out earlier in our debate, whether that amount is right. At the present time, for me to try to give any of these figures would be attempting to deal with something which is intangible and which will vary every year. I am afraid that I cannot go further.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: May I just put this further question. If the noble and learned Viscount cannot give any figure and cannot envisage the total amount required, is it not rather unreasonable of the Government to say that it is going to cost only a few shillings? It is just as impossible to decide how many

1161
shillings or pounds it is going to cost as it is to envisage how big is the global sum that will be required.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that the remark of my noble friend Lord Mancroft about a few shillings, which was confined to the small boarding-house is—whatever is the verbal opposite of an exaggeration—an unnecessary diminution of the problem, because on any basis, when you are considering, as my noble friend was, the small boarding-house, the amount must be small. But I do not wish to mislead the Committee. If one is considering a first-class hotel, with a dining room holding 500 or 1,000 people, then the amount will be much larger. I want to be quite frank on that point.
LORD SILKIN: I have not taken part in this debate so far, but before we divide on this matter I should like to see where we stand. It seems to me that we are not so far off as may appear. In his concluding remarks, the noble and learned Viscount said that nobody is going to worry about "Sea View" boardinghouse with five bedrooms. I take that to mean that even if they show television to their boarders he does not imagine that anyone would take action against them and—I hope I am not going too far in saying this—that possibly a "blind eye" will be turned to them. Largely, those are the people about whom we are concerned. We do not want to have to put those people in the position of having to go to a tribunal to decide how much they have to pay, with all the difficulties about which noble Lords opposite have spoken—whether the charge is to be per performance or per annum, or what.
On the other hand, speaking for myself, I am not concerned about the hotel with 500 visitors which puts on a television show, or about whether they charge for it: they are quite capable of looking after themselves. But is there not a possibility that the Government might reconsider the question of the boarding house and the pub, and leave the large hotels to look after themselves in some way? I know that there are difficulties of definition, and I am not asking the noble and learned Viscount to say here and now how it can be done. I have not worked out any line, but is it not possible to achieve what I believe the common sense of this Committee really wants—not to
1162
worry about people who, either directly or indirectly, are making a charge? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, that if a hotel is charging thirty shillings for a dinner the question of how much of it is attributable to television is irrelevant; but I think the common sense of this Committee is that the small people should not be harassed by having to go and get a licence, by having to appear before a tribunal and so on. If, somehow, we can devise a method of separating the matter, I think that the Committee as a whole would be satisfied.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think the reply of the noble and learned Viscount to the question of my noble friend Lord Faringdon exposed in stark nakedness the absurdity of this proposal. As my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch has said, the Government do not really know where they are getting to. The noble Lord, Lord Jessel asked: is it going to be an ad hoc licence, a daily or a yearly licence? Then somebody comes along and says, "We are going to have a 'black-out' over a certain area. I have paid my licence fee. Do I sue somebody for obtaining money under false pretences?" The answer to this is money. No sporting promoter of any kind promotes any sport unless he is going to be paid sufficient money. This is where the financial angle is at stake. We are against this principle of building another property right such as Parliament created in 1911, to its everlasting embarrassment and shame.
There is a way out of this difficulty. The noble and learned Viscount was quite right—there are more sporting events on the television screens to-day than there have ever been. There is no copyright, but more money has been forthcoming. I disclosed to the Committee—this is authentic—that sporting events and outside broadcasts are today costing the B.B.C., if anything, four to ten times more than they did before the setting up of the They are finding the money; they will have to find the money. Money will be the answer. I do not care whether it is a boxing match promoted by Jack Solomons or whether it is any other sporting event; money is the answer. You will never control the in the way that the noble and learned Viscount is thinking. You will bring down a host of

1163
trouble such as has happened before. There will be pistols at everybody's head. In this atmosphere the noble and learned Viscount might just as well have "gone the whole hog" and given the copyright in every sporting event into the hands of the promoter who promoted the event. In the last analysis, that is precisely what we are trying to do here.
I am afraid that we have a dividing line on the matter of principle. The noble and learned Viscount has been very conciliatory—he has been a model, if I may say so—but this matter is too vital; we cannot afford to let it go. There will be a lot more said on the matter before
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 34, at end insert ("at a theatre, cinema, concert hall or other similar place where a charge is made for admission").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
6.27 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved to insert at end of subsection (3):
"Provided that a local education authority within the meaning of the Education Act, 1944, or the Minister of Education, shall not be deemed by virtue of this subsection to commit an act restricted by the copyright in a
this Bill becomes "a good and perfect Act." I should not mind the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel. But I did not even want to go to the length of making the deciding factor the charging for admission; I wanted to leave outside the small charitable show where admission was charged. If I sense the feeling of the Committee, I think that they would rather divide now than wait any longer. With those few words I would ask the Committee to divide.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—
Contents, 19; Not-Contents.41.

CONTENTS

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Crook, L.

Lawson, L.

Derwent, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Furness, V.

Faringdon, L.

Mathers, L.

Greenhill, L.

Morrison, L.

Archibald, L.

Henderson, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Jessel, L.

Silkin, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

St. Aldwyn, E.

Conesford, L.

Selborne, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Selkirk, E.

Freyberg, L.

Swinton, E.

Gifford, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Hampton, L.

Reading, M.

Goschen, V.

Hawke, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Albermarle, E.

Woolton, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Ferrers, E.

Aberdare, L.

Luke, L.

Home, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Mancroft, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Bennett of Edgbaston, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Munster, E.

Carrington, L.

Sandys, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Cawley, L.

Som̃ers, L.

Radnor, E.

Chesham, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Teynham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

television broadcast or sound broadcast if, for the purposes of teaching in an establishment maintained or assisted by them or him, they make or use a sound recording of the broadcast or, in the case of a television broadcast, they make or use a cinematograph film of the broadcast."
The noble Lord said: I believe that the B.B.C. has under consideration a considerable development in the television service for schools. It will be appreciated that some provision of the kind suggested in this Amendment is necessary; otherwise, unless the curriculum in the school is adapted to the broadcast, the effect of the broadcast would be lost. I am quite willing for this Amendment to be left for discussion with the educational authorities similarly to other educational Amendments. My

1165
point might, however, be met by the next Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, providing no recording made in a school is subsequently used for broadcasting and that the use of a recording in a class room is not held to have been in public. That Amendment may cover what I have in mind. I am, in any case, content to have this matter discussed, and I hope that a satisfactory solution will be reached with the educational authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 36, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Burdeh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly give all consideration to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, and this aspect of the educational Amendments will receive due weight and thought. The next Amendment is really consequential on the Amendments Nos. 83 and 84, and I do not want any doubt about the position of the noble Lord, Lord Burden; but I will consider the point he has raised.
LORD GREENHILL: May I ask whether the same observations apply in regard to Scotland?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord can be quite sure that, what-ever I do, I never forget Scotland.
LORD BURDEN: In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has already said that this Amendment, No. 89, is consequential on Amendment No. 85. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Burden, was in his place when Amendment No. 85 was discussed. I realise where the noble Lord, Lord Burden, was and I think I ought to explain to him that the point which I debated with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, when that Amendment was under consideration, was merely our attempt to meet a point made by Lord Burden on Second Reading. I wish to make it clear that that was done to help him, though not in the way he has just mentioned—it was in a slightly different aspect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 43, at end insert—
"(5) For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section a cinematograph film or a copy thereof, or a sound recording or a record embodying a recording, shall be taken to be made otherwise than for private purposes if it is made for the purposes of the doing by any person of any of the following acts, that is to say,—

(a) the sale or lefting for hire of the original or any copy of the film, or, as the case may be, of any record embodying the recording;

(b) broadcasting the film or recording;

(c) causing the film or recording to be seen or heard in public."—(Lord Mancroft)

LORD BURDEN: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. My grand-daughter, I assume, will now be able to hear a sound recording that I make on my tape-recording machine.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I wish merely to say that we do not propose to debate this Amendment at the present time, but reserve our right to take any action we wish on the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH had given notice of an Amendment to add to the Clause:
"(6) This section shall not apply to the use of television receivers in boarding-houses, hotels, restaurants, halls, convalescent homes, where there is no charge for admission and no commercial advantage is secured by the owner of the television receiver."
The noble Viscount said: We have already debated a very large part of the matter with which this Amendment deals, and I do not 1Dropose to move it. The wording is slightly different from that of one or two of the other Amendments. We should like to consider what we might wish to move or not to move at the Report stage, I do not move this Amendment now, but reserve my right to take action on the Report stage.
6.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 14, as amended, shall be agreed to?
LORD ARCHIBALD: There is a point to which I would direct the noble anti learned Viscount's attention, though I have not put down an Amendment dealing with it. I should like him to give his attention to the point before the next stage of the Bill. If necessary, I may put

1167
down an Amendment for that stage. The point to some extent arises from problems that are being discussed in connection with sporting events, but it is not confined to them. It arises out of the fact that increasingly we are likely to have regional programmes, particularly in the case of the I.T.A., when the programme contractors are serving special regions. It is possible that there will be, let us say, a contractor for Wales or Scotland, who wants to put on a programme for that area only and who makes arrangements either with the author of a story or with the writer of a play for a limited licence for that given area; and a lower fee would then be paid than if the programme were being put on on a national basis. It may be that the author or the dramatist is willing to have it put on in Wales or Scotland in advance of a big London presentation, and gives a limited licence for that area only. Now there are in existence—and I believe they are likely to increase their activity—broadcast relay services, which will also be relaying television programmes. Unless there is some provision to limit the activities of the relay services the programme contractor himself may be in the unfortunate position that his limited licence is violated by the relay services "piping" the programme out of the region for which the licence has been given and into a region for which no licence has been given. That is a point which I think might be met by some slight addition to subsection (3) of this clause.
There is another aspect, which I am not sure can be dealt with by copyright, that needs consideration; that is the possibility of a relay service acting in the other way and "piping" a programme into a contractor's area in such a way that it would work harmfully in respect of the work which the contractor is trying to do. I think I am right in saying that when the Television Bill was under consideration, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor advanced as one of the supreme arguments for regional contractors that it would be possible for them, if so minded, to help to build up what one might call regional culture. The programme contractor might be prepared to set aside a particular time for a programme which he knew it would take a long time to build up in popularity. He might think that, because of its cultural
1168
aspect, it was worth "plugging" over a long period. But if he is subject to the competition of an ephemeral but attractive programme from another region which is being "piped" in just at that time, all his efforts will be wasted. These are two aspects of the same problem, and I think they are well worth looking at. I trust that the Lord Chancellor will agree that they may be given consideration before the next stage of the Bill is reached.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for putting forward these most interesting aspects of an important point. I will certainly look at them. I must confess—though I suppose one ought never to confess one's lack of foresight—that I personally had not thought of them, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting them into my mind.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Copyright in published editions of works]:
6.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 15, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: This is another clause in which the Bill is inventing a new right of copyright that has never existed before. In this case, it is copyright in what is called an edition of a literary, dramatic or musical work —by which I understand it is intended to refer to the actual typescript in which the work is printed. Not only is this creating a new form of copyright which has never existed before, but it is also creating the copyright retrospectively because the provisions of this clause will apply to every edition of such a work which has been published within the last twenty-five years. It is therefore giving to the persons who originally printed these works a right of property which they never expected to have. If it had been confined to the future it might have been more defensible. But it is, I think, on the face of it, retrospective in its effect.
I imagine that the reason for creating this new right of copyright is that there has been brought into use in recent years a process which I believe is technically known as "offset printing," by which it is possible to photograph the printed pages of a book or piece of music and thereby produce a new edition which resembles, in facsimile, the original. This

1169
is a new art which has been developed, and it has attained, I believe, a considerable degree of perfection. It may be that there is something to be said for giving the printer a copyright for the future, but I am unable to see why there should be any right of this kind with regard to a book published many years ago, issues of which have become completely exhausted, and out of which the printer has made all the profit he ever expected to make.
It does not appear to be reasonable that industrial progress should be handicapped in this fashion. If we go on in this way, the next step will be that should somebody invent a new method of setting type at half the cost of the existing methods of doing it, there will be a proposal that printers of books should have sortie kind of protection against that. This is something which is quite outside the sphere of copyright. It has nothing to do with protecting the skill and labour of an individual involved in creating some new work of literature and art. It is a purely industrial question and it ought to be left to be settled by the ordinary process of commerce and should not have been in this Bill at all.
LORD MANCROFT: That is that! Now we know what the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, thinks of this clause. The clause does not appear to me to be very controversial, as there are no Amendments put down to it. This new clause is intended to implement the recommendations of the Copyright Committee set out in paragraphs 308 to 310 of their Report. This includes protection against the copying of published works by means of photographic process. The Publishers' Association raised this question with the Copyright Committee and suggested that there was a general risk that publishers might find their typographical layout being copied by other unscrupulous publishers without the latter going through the laborious and expensive method of typesetting and other technical processes, which I am afraid are beyond my comprehension but which are essential to the preparation of original editions. That is the reason for the inclusion of this provision, and I think it is a fair one. If it is considered outside the scope of the Bill in the very purest conception of the law of copyright, I think the noble Lord must forgive us because it seems to fulfil
1170
the needs of all concerned, and the Publishers' Association asked for it. I shall look more carefully at the technical points which the noble Lord has made and which I am afraid are above my comprehension at the moment; but I consider that the clause is a useful and generally acceptable provision.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Supplementary provisions for purposes of Part II]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (6), after ("film") to insert ",broadcast." The noble Lord said: This is a small point. If the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will look at this subsection, he will see that it reads:
"Where by virtue of this Part of this Act copyright subsists any sound recording, cinematograph film or otter subject-matter,…"
Surely the noble Lord intends to include a broadcast in that, as it is now a matter of copyright, and does not intend that to be swept up in "other subject-matter." Surely the inclusion of broadcast makes the subsection clearer. That is the object I have in moving this Amendment. It may prevent trouble later on. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 32, after ("film") insert ", broadcast").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: When I first looked at this subsection, I did not have much doubt about what it meant. If the noble Lord thinks there is an ambiguity, no doubt others may think there is one, and I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is very kind of the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Action by owner of copyright for infringement]:
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH moved to add to the clause:
"(8) No action for infringement of copyright shall be undertaken where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the sound recording has been used solely for educational or recreational purposes, without commercial advantage thereby being secured."
The noble Viscount said: The clause to which my Amendment refers provides for powers and procedures in regard to action by the owners of copyright against

1171
infringement. I am bound to say that my Amendment slipped up somewhere in the first two lines. The words "be undertaken" should read "succeed." My experiences with youth clubs, guilds and educational classes in the large Co-operative Movement have led me to put down this Amendment. The Government have come down on the side of giving copyright to gramophone records and films. There is certainly going to be a mass of litigation arising out of this Bill and, much as I dislike the Bill as a whole, I think it would help greatly in its administration if the bodies to which I refer in my Amendment were clear about their position. After listening to the explanatory speeches we have had from noble Lords opposite with regard to Clause 14, I am rather horrified at the moment at the amount of litigation which is likely to arise. It seems to me that there is unlimited opportunity for litigation and for a large employment of counsel in cases before the tribunal itself. Here is a plain and straight issue which I think should appeal to the noble and learned Viscount as being likely to assist the Bench in doing their work. Obviously there will be a great deal of legal expenses thrown upon these non-profit-making educational and recreational bodies. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 8, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough).
LORD SOM̃ERS: I think it is highly probable that I am the only representative in your Lordships' House of that downtrodden section of the community, the composers. While I entirely agree with the noble Viscount on the question of educational purposes, I must say that the composer's work is not particularly lucrative. I hardly think anybody can make a living by it and I think it a little unfair to include "recreational" in the Amendment, because if youth clubs, and organisations of that sort wish to use a composer's music, surely it is only fair that they should pay for it. Educationally I entirely agree with him. Obviously, it is a good thing that young people should be taught something about good music—if we can say that our music is good, and I think we can—but otherwise I think it is unfair to expect a composer to produce music and then get nothing in return for it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Before the noble Lord opposite replies, may I say that my object in putting forward this Amendment is not to prevent a performing right fee, which is normally due now to a composer or author, from being paid where appropriate, but to prevent the kind of bodies I am referring to from being pursued for royalties on gramophone records. That is my point. If my Amendment does not properly meet that, perhaps the Government, if they accept it in principle, will help with it on the Report stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot go so far as to say I accept it in principle, but I will consider this aspect with the other aspects of the educational matters. It is rather difficult to see at the moment what I can accept until we have had a chance to consider, in the light of the speeches made in the House, the whole of the educational problems. I had the same point as the noble Lord. Lord Som̃ers. I was not quite sure how far the noble Viscount wanted to go between the owner of the copyright in the sound recording and the author's basic rights. I am grateful that the noble Lord has introduced that point. I should also need to have a further and more detailed look at the cases of recreational purposes. I assure the noble Viscount that I will consider this aspect with the others and bring my views on the whole matter before the House on the Report stage.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I am much obliged and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Rights of owner of copyright in respect of infringing copies, etc.]:
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment and the next are nothing more than drafting Amendments. They are required to avoid an ambiguity which arises from the conception, adopted in the Bill, that copyright subsists in what is really an abstraction: that is, cinematograph films. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 2, after ("means") insert ("the original or").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This, also, is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 4, leave out ("a reproduction, record or copy") and insert ("an article")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: As the Amendments, Nos. 97 to 102, hang together may I ask the noble Lord whether it is his intention to accept them?
LORD MANCROFT: No.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Then as we may have some discussion on
1174
them and we have an arrangement to adjourn at seven o'clock—it is five minutes to seven now and I know the noble and learned Viscount has had a heavy day and so have I—perhaps we could commence with those Amendments at another time.
LORD MANCROFT: I beg to move that the House do row resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Marcroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.
House adjourned at six minutes before seven o'clock.