COMMONS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 2 November 1988)

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. In moving these amendments en bloc I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 71, 181, 396 and 408. All the amendments concern the definition of broadcasting for the purpose of copyright and continue the process of certification and improvement of that definition which began when the Bill was previously in your Lordships' House.
Amendment No. 3 does a number of things. First, it removes the distinctions in the Bill between broadcasting by satellite and terrestrial broadcasting. It was pointed out to us by the broadcasters that some terrestrial as well as satellite broadcasts may in future be capable of reception by the public without being broadcast for general reception. Perhaps I may give an example; namely, the proposed BBC night time service for the medical profession. Such services need to be brought within copyright.
Secondly, the need to deal with that point provided an opportunity to carry out a general restructuring of Clause 6(1). We believe that this clarifies matters all around, not least by removing the reference to "broadcast for general reception" to which a number of objections have been raised. We believe that the result is a major improvement and dispels any remaining doubt about the kind of transmissions which are to be treated as broadcasting for the purpose of copyright.
On Amendment No. 3 we have done our best to meet the concerns expressed to us by the broadcasters that we might have failed to cover encrypted services, directed at specialised and consequently very small audiences, and services where the body transmitting the broadcast contracts out to someone else the task of producing the programmes and marketing decoding equipment.
Amendment No. 4 is a drafting amendment to meet concerns put to us by the ITV contractors. Its purpose is to put beyond any doubt that in the case of an ITV transmission both the IBA and the programme contractor have the status of broadcaster and are thus first owners of copyright in the transmission. As your Lordships will be aware, we thought we had dealt with this matter before the Bill left this House to go to another place but after 202 subsequent discussion with the broadcasters we came to agree that the drafting was still not quite right. Both Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are the result of lengthy consultation with the broadcasting organisations which I understand are now fully content with what is proposed.
Amendment No. 71 to Clause 69 is consequential on Amendment No. 3 to Clause 6 and Amendment No. 181 to Clause 169 is consequential to Amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 396 makes a minor consequential amendment to the amendment in Schedule 7 to the Medicines Act, and Amendment No. 408 corrects a related omission in the list of repeals in Schedule 8.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, the amendments proposed by the Commons, as the noble Lord pointed out, leave out the expression, "broadcast for general reception" which the noble Lord said created a number of problems. It seems to us that leaving out that expression also creates a number of opposite problems, if I may put it that way.
I can understand that a broadcast for general reception should come within the ambit of the Bill and should be properly defined. However, as I understand it, in the Bill before us, as amended by the Commons, there are certain transmissions by wireless telegraphy which are not for general reception but which are capable of being lawfully received. I refer to Clause 6 of the Bill and the amendment proposed. For example, no doubt, in his ministerial car, the noble Lord has a telephone, and that telephone acts by wireless telegraphy. Indeed, police radios and radio transmissions of various kinds act by wireless telegraphy. They may not be for general reception. Indeed, I am sure that the noble Lord's conversations in his ministerial car are not for general reception.
Nevertheless, there seems to us no reason why, if, by a modulation of frequencies, something goes wrong and the noble Lord's conversations on the telephone are overheard by me sitting listening to Beethoven's Seventh Symphony on FM radio, that should be unlawful reception. After all, I am receiving those things when I am tuned into a programme for which I had a perfectly good licence.
Clearly, car telephones, police radios, taxis and similar operations have circuits on which they operate. They are not for general reception: but they are capable of being lawfully received. The noble Lord may tell me that they are not capable of being lawfully received and that if he interrupts my listening to Beethoven's Seventh Symphony through having a conversation with one of his colleagues in the Government, I am in some way behaving illegally because I am receiving what he is saying. It seems to me that that may be a difficult point to argue in the courts. We ask for a little more justification as to why the expression "broadcast for general reception" has been left out of the Bill.

§ Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, says that it may be very difficult to do something when it comes to the courts. I do not see how asking the Minister for his view as to the position on the law can be of any help. In courts of law in this country one cannot quote Hansard as such. Therefore, even the Secretary of State's views would be of little use as recorded in Hansard.
In speaking about broadcasts generally and the attitude of the broadcasters with whom I have been associated, I made a grave omission; that is, to thank the Minister's officials for the great courtesy and help they have given during the Recess to those in broadcasting offices.

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, thank you very much. I fear to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. However, if ever at some time in the future I am guilty of spoiling his reception of the Beethoven concert, he should turn off his radio immediately because it is not lawful for the public to receive taxi, police or telephone transmissions. In fact I believe that it is physically difficult, if not impossible, to pick up that sort of reception on normal radio or television broadcasts.
It is not lawful to overhear services which are for private reception. There are, however, broadcast services which, by very definition, are for public reception. These amendments reduce a number of anomalies concerning not only those services which are broadcast for general reception but also those encrypted services directed to very specialised and small audiences which are nevertheless broadcast and picked up by audiences.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I shall certainly turn off my radio should I be unlucky enough to hear anything that the noble Lord says on his car radio. I shall not report it to Labour Party headquarters in Walworth Road.
Do I understand from what the Minister said that the expression, "broadcast for general reception" is therefore redundant in the Bill as it left your Lordships' House?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, yes, it is redundant for that purpose.