My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

No, my Lords.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on 20th January the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, in answering my Question as to whether there had been any importation of uranium from Namibia since 1984, said that there had been no imports by the Central Electricity Generating Board? Is this not somewhat economical with the truth? Is it not the case that the original contract for the purchase of uranium from Namibia came not from the Central Electricity Generating Board but from the Ministry of Defence? Is it also not the case that the 1,100 tonnes of uranium for that contract, or part of it, has been imported by the Ministry of Defence since 1984?

My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper asks whether we have imported any uranium which originated in Namibia since 1984. The Answer that I gave the noble Lord was the correct one. As a matter of fact we have never imported any uranium originating from Namibia because it is uranium ore that we import and not the metal itself.

My Lords, surely that is even more economical with the truth. The Question that I asked the Government and which the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, answered on 20th January was concerned with uranium ore. The Answer given by the noble Viscount was that there had been importation of uranium ore by the Central Electricity Generating Board. That is importation by this country. I am now asking whether it is the case that the original contract came from the Ministry of Defence and that that uranium ore from the Rossing mine in Namibia has been imported since 1984 by the Ministry of Defence?

My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, it really is not very satisfactory for him to place a Question on the Order Paper, receive an Answer and then complain that he has not had the Answer to some different Question. The Question that I answered was the Question that appeared on the Order Paper today. The Question that my noble friend answered was the Question that appeared on the Order Paper on that day.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that Her Majesty's Government refuse to allow uranium from Southern Africa to be included on the EC list of sanctions? Will he also say whether or not Her Majesty's Government or this country import uranium from other countries which have in turn imported it from Namibia?

My Lords, certainly not recently.

My Lords, if we need uranium why the blazes should we not import it from Namibia? Namibia is a very small country which, almost alone in Africa, has the advantage of being well-governed and not starving. Why should we not assist her by importing one of her very few exports?

My Lords, that is because recently we have not needed any.

My Lords, is there not another answer? Does the noble Lord agree that the United Nations has decreed that no uranium, uranium ore or uranium oxide—whichever form the noble Lord likes to take—should be imported by any member of the United Nations from Namibia so long as Namibia remains illegally under South African administration? Is it not the case that the uranium oxide which the noble Viscount. Lord Davidson, admitted had been imported by the Central Electricity Generating Board was imported in breach of the United Nations decree?

My Lords, I am afraid that decree number one of the United Nations Council for Namibia was made outside the competence of the General Assembly which set up that particular Council. Therefore we regard it as null and void.

My Lords, would it not have been better for the noble Lord to have given that Answer straight away instead of trying to make a play on words as to whether or not it was uranium that was imported?

My Lords, I always try to answer the Questions which are either on the Order Paper or are put to me subsequently, not the ones which might unexpectedly have been in the minds of noble Lords.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making a new forecast at Budget time.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that whereas the Treasury had previously forecast an outturn for this year of something of the order of a deficit of £3.5 billion, most external experts consider it to be £6 billion on the balance of payments? That therefore would be a very serious situation bearing in mind that at the present time the rate of imports is three times in volume the rate of exports. Have the Government in mind any policies which will stem the situation by stimulating import substitutions?

My Lords, as I said, there will be a new forecast in three weeks for the current account deficit at the time of the Budget. However, as regards import figures, recent figures for import volumes have been very erratic. It is not surprising that imports are growing relatively strongly, given the rapid growth in United Kingdom domestic demand and activity. The rise in imports is not confined to consumer goods. Rising imports of materials, semi-manufactures, intermediate and capital goods reflect rising output, stock building and investment rather than a surge in consumer spending.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the figure of £3½ billion or approximately three-quarters of 1 per cent. of GDP which the Chancellor has forecast for the autumn is not especially excessive in current circumstances? Indeed, it is well within our capacity to sustain. However, does the Minister also accept that there is genuine concern in many quarters in the City and elsewhere about the level of consumer demand? Is that concern shared by the Department of Trade and Industry, and, if not, why not?

My Lords, I accept the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. The figure of three-quarters of 1 per cent. as a percentage of gross domestic product is not that great, particularly when compared with figures from, for example, the United States, Germany and Japan, where trade balances are some 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. of gross domestic product, or indeed in comparison with our own gross domestic product in the mid-1970s, which was also 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. of GDP.

In reply to the second part of the noble Lord's question about concern in the City over possible overheating of the economy, I can do no better than point to the CBI's most recent survey, which was published yesterday. That survey showed a record number of firms reporting export order books above normal. The CBI expects export orders and deliveries to rise in the next four months.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that CBI forecasts tend to be somewhat erratic according to the season? Will he give the House an assurance that when the Chancellor makes his forecast, that will take fully into account the increase in net contribution by the United Kingdom to the EC budget following the recent somewhat questionable activities in Brussels?

My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me to go further than the Question on the Order Paper in discussing the EC budget agreement. However, I am sure that when my right honourable friend makes his Budget forecast he will take everything into account.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the problem of the current account deficit is in line with the forecast made by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on overseas trade some two to three years ago? Does he agree with his right honourable friend the Minister for Energy in saying that oil revenues, which have bolstered the revenues of this Government, have been used to finance unemployment payments for the numbers of unemployed people, which have been rapidly increasing since the Government came into office?

My Lords, I am not sure that I can relate what the noble Lord has just said to any statements which may have been made by my right honourable friend. As regards the noble Lord's concern about manufacturing industry, the Government are very pleased that the volume of manufacturing exports was 9 per cent. higher in the fourth quarter than it was a year ago. Output is also up by 5½ per cent., comparing the fourth quarter with a year earlier. As for the proceeds of North Sea oil, I point to the enormous increase in UK net overseas assets, which is now the largest of those of all major countries as a proportion of GDP.

My Lords, the Minister has rightly said that the rise in imports was due to manufacturing, raw materials, and so on, as well as to consumer goods. Is he able to give us a breakdown between consumer goods and raw materials?

Not without notice, my Lords. However, I may be able to produce some figures and perhaps write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, is it not the case that imports of raw materials into this country, expressed as a percentage of imports, is under 16 per cent?

My Lords, as I have said, I do not have those figures with me. However, in my earlier reply I did not concentrate solely on the import of raw materials. I also mentioned the import of semi-manufactures, intermediate and capital goods, as well as stock building and investment.

My Lords, is it not strange that the noble Lord has given an Answer such as that without having the details at his fingertips? Surely it is not acceptable in your Lordships' House to put up a smokescreen without the figures to back it up.

My Lords, if I came to the House with all the figures which might conceivably be asked for on a Question such as this one, my brief would be several times larger than the one I have.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his answers appear to many of us on these Benches to be unduly complacent? With the inevitable decline of oil in the next decade or so, the balance of payments is going to undergo a dramatic reverse which will eat up the reserves of which the Minister is so proud.

My Lords, I am by no means complacent about the figures. I attempted to point out some of the good points about the figures, such as the large increase in exports of manufactures. We have held our share in manufacturing industry in world terms since 1981, compared with many decades of decline before that.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, figures so far available indicate that increases in output and new orders in 1987 have been particularly impressive. For the first three quarters of 1987, compared with the same period in 1986 and using constant prices, output has risen by 9 per cent. and new orders by 17 per cent., or 26 per cent. if the Channel Tunnel is included. Independent forecasts suggest that the industry will continue to expand, albeit at a less rapid rate, over the next two years.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply and the interesting information which it contains. Will he indicate what kinds of project are causing the increase in activity or whether a general demand for building work is producing those good figures?

My Lords, within the total output private sector expansion has led the way with a particular boom in commerical developments in London and the South-East. The optimistic outlook is boosted by new orders for the Channel Tunnel, Canary Wharf in the London Docklands and the Dartford crossing. A recent state of trade survey suggests that the prosperity of the industry is beginning to spread throughout the country where new developments such as the Metrocentre in Gateshead have led the way.

My Lords, I welcome the general figures that have been given. I am sure that everyone is pleased to hear that there has been an increase. Is the Minister aware that the latest quarterly report of the Building Employers Confederation predicts a continuing downturn in council house building activity? I therefore ask him once again—and this question has been asked before from all sides of your Lordships' House—whether he will ask the Secretary of State in another place if there is any possibility of releasing further local authority capital assets in order to get on with the increased council house building programme that is so desirable and so necessary in most parts of the country.

My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is specifically concerned with the general state of the construction industry. If the noble Lord would like to put down a Question on the point that he has just raised I shall be more than happy to answer it.

My Lords, I am sorry that I have to come back on that reply, but the figures that the Minister has given me are from the report that I quoted. I think that it is relevant that the public sector contains the biggest building sector in the country and not the smallest.

My Lords, does not the concentration of commercial development in the South-East just referred to by the noble Lord underline once again the comparative neglect of the rest of the country?

My Lords, I also drew attention to the most encouraging signs that this development is spreading to the rest of the country. An example was, as I mentioned, the Metrocentre at Gateshead.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government are contemplating introducing specialist computer training at all levels of education to meet the very obvious demands in the next decade for first-class computer experts in the construction industry?

My Lords, the Government have started an initiative through the Manpower Services Commission for some 20,000 places in order to reduce the skill shortages. I shall have to write to the noble Lord on his question on computer training in the construction industry.

My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to take note of the fact that within the construction industry there is a body called the National Housebuilders Registration Council which issues a certificate during the building of a house and on its completion stating that it is in good condition? That is welcomed by many builders but there are others who will not have anything to do with the National Housebuilders Registration Council. It may go a little wide of the Question but can the Minister tell me whether the Government intend to ask some of those builders to join the council?

My Lords, the cowboy builder is a menace both to the reputable builder and to the consumer. In January 1987 the department launched a working party to examine ways of tackling the problems caused by the cowboys. The working party's report is due at Easter.

My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that he was given by the questioner a pretty free hand in choosing the period of comparison and that he decided to refer to an upturn in construction over a period of only 12 months? Would he care to give the House any more meaningful figures covering a longer period, such as five or 10 years?

My Lords, I shall be more than happy to do so but I suspect that I shall need to be asked a rather more specific question.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the amount of construction and development activity going on in the North of England, taken from a line very far above Watford, is probably greater today than it has been for very many years? If one were to look at that activity in detail it would be extremely encouraging, not least to those of us who come from that part of the world.

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for those remarks.

My Lords, the noble Lord has twice mentioned the Metrocentre in Gateshead, which I know very well. What has he to say about a society which allows hundreds of millions of pounds to be used to develop that centre (which simply duplicates the high street shops—the latest instalment opened yesterday, financed by the Church of England—and which provides betting facilities for children) yet at the same time does not allow surrounding local authorities to use their own resources to build houses?

My Lords, the success or failure of the Metrocentre will depend on the consumer.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, no such request has been received.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that that Answer is in conflict with information that I have had from the chairman of that authority? Is he also aware that that authority has had to reduce from 15 to 10 the number of beds provided for premature births? Is he also aware that because of the cut-back more than one baby has died while places were being sought in other authorities? Is he satisfied with the fact that the children of that area of Manchester have less than the national average chance of living? The figures for premature baby deaths, infantile mortality and deaths in the first 12 months of life in that area of Manchester now stand at twice the national average. Is the Minister happy about that situation? If he is not, when will he do something about it?

My Lords, the problem which the noble Lord brings to the attention of the House today is one, as he says, of a reduction in the number of beds in that particular paediatric unit from 15 to 10. I should make the point that within that unit are exactly the same number of doctors and the same number of nurses. What has happened is that with advances in medical science, which mean that smaller babies can now be treated—for example babies under 2lb. in weight—it has become necessary to use intensive care nursing with more nurses per baby. I am aware that the district health authority is in discussion with the regional health authority to produce two more cots for the unit, but that will require extra staffing.

My Lords, how can a Minister justify a situation in which urgently needed special care baby cots are cut by a third? How long can this game of Russian roulette with children's lives go on? Does he accept that, whatever may or may not be the solutions to the problems of the NHS, the most urgent need at the moment is to stop the bleeding and to stop those beds being taken out of use, particularly when children are dying?

My Lords, the point that I was trying to make clear is that there is no cut in resources in that case. I explained why; namely, because of the medical decisions made on the ward there had been a reduction from 15 to 10 cots. I also explained that discussions were going on between the district health authority and the regional health authority to have two more beds in the unit.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he is saying in fact that there is no extension of facilities, the status quo is being maintained and any increase in demand is not being met?

My Lords, I am saying that the nature of the demand has changed and the circumstances have changed to take account of it.

My Lords, bearing in mind the beds that have already been lost from the Duchess of York's Hospital for babies in Manchester, does the Minister accept that it would be highly undesirable for any further beds for premature babies to be lost from St. Mary's Hospital, Manchester? Can he give the House an assurance that there will always be beds for premature babies in the Manchester area when needed?

My Lords, within the region, yes. Within any particular district I am afraid that I am unable to give that assurance. I repeat that discussions are going on to provide two extra cots for that unit.

My Lords, can the noble Lord undertake that some allocation will be made from the special funds for the reduction of waiting lists to redress this problem?

My Lords, yes, within the waiting list fund quite a lot of money has been found for central Manchester, as has £300,000 from the special bridging fund; and £518,000 has come from the extra allocation announced by my right honourable friend the Minister for Health in December. It is for the region and the district concerned to allocate precisely where those moneys are to go.

My Lords, is the Minister saying that the decision to reduce the number of cots available is not a matter of resources? If so, how much is saved by a reduction in the number of these cots?

My Lords, to exemplify my original Answer to the first supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, nothing is saved in this case.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how the trained nurses will fill the gap at St. Mary's Hospital? The same problem of the shortage of skilled nurses in intensive care has arisen at the Birmingham Children's Hospital. Is the Minister aware that the training facilities for these nurses are very limited? Will the Government make further provision outside the London area for the training in these specialised areas?

My Lords, yes. As I told the House the other day, a new training course in Birmingham for such nurses will be provided very shortly. Over and above that, there is the problem of people leaving the nursing profession. The reason is widely regarded as being the amount of pay for particularly stressful occupations, of which I would regard paediatric nursing and intensive care paediatric nursing as two examples. We are waiting for the report of the nurses and midwives salary review body to tell us where it considers that extra moneys would be most appropriately spent.

My Lords, does the Minister recall that in my first supplementary question I made the point quite forcefully that, because of the reduction of beds in Manchester, efforts have to be made to find placements for children in Liverpool and Leeds? I understand that there has been more than one death while children were awaiting placements in some of these other hospitals.

Is he aware that I am totally dissatisfied with his answer? The Government have an overall responsibility. I wish that the Minister would stop foisting the responsibility onto regional and district health authorities. Is he aware that those of us who have a regard for our city of Manchester are not prepared continually to sit back while the children in this area do not have the same chances of survival as those in other areas of the United Kingdom? In the end it is the Government's responsibility and nobody else's. When will he do something about it?

My Lords, the Government's responsibility is underlined by the National Health Service Act, which, as the House well knows, gives us the duty to provide health care facilities. We do this on the basis of delegation to regions and from regions to district health authorities. It has always been done in this way. The Government's primary responsibility in this area is to make enough finances available globally for such distribution.

My Lords, will the Minister accept that babies who are born prematurely have already demonstrated a commendable lack of interest in waiting lists? We need an assurance that there will always be beds available somewhere in the Manchester area for premature babies who need hospital treatment. Can he give that assurance?

My Lords, I have given the assurance that sufficient beds will be available in the region. However, for obvious reasons I am unable to do so for particular districts.

My Lords, is it not true that a review is considering some of the problems already addressed this afternoon and the funding of the health service? Is it not also true that it is a poor use of your Lordships' time to discuss in isolation a very emotional case without the background knowledge of how the millions that are going to the Manchester area health authority are being spent?

My Lords, I am able to answer the questions that are put to me only to the best of my ability. However, I confirm that the review body is being asked to recommend rates of pay for a new grading structure for clinical nurses which has recently been agreed by the nursing and midwifery staffs' negotiating council. The new structure will mean better rewards and recognition for those nurses who provide hands-on care to patients and will place more emphasis on post-basic skills in key specialisms such as paediatric nursing and intensive care.

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Third Reading of the Land Registration Bill and the Second Reading of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Bill will be taken.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Aberdare.)

My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships' House long but it may be helpful if I set out the basis of the Bill and its importance to London and the people who live and work in our capital city.

The Bill is designed for the improvement and development of certain local government services in London. It contains provisions in respect of the operation of night cafes, and of the problems of litter. It deals with the growing problem of abandoned shopping trolleys. A substantial part of the Bill is concerned with revising and regulating conditions relating to street trading.

The Bill is promoted by Westminster City Council but has the backing of the two local authority associations affected by the Bill: the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association. I declare an interest as the president of the ALA; and in respect of a petition lodged against the Bill I am advised by the National Market Traders Federation. They have combined with the Federation of Street Traders Unions. Together they have enjoyed a substantial amount of consultation with the promoters.

Many matters which some years ago led to dispute in the GLC general powers Bill have been resolved and the street traders wish to aknowledge this. However, a matter of substance remains unresolved. This relates to a right of appeal by traders to an independent arbitrator in the event of a dispute with a participating council—a right contained in previous legislation but absent from this Bill. I am advised by the promoters that they acknowledge this deficiency and that they are anxious and willing to satisfy the burden of the petition.

With this measure of agreement, and a desire to reach mutually acceptable solutions, I have every confidence that the Committee of your Lordships' House to which this Bill will be referred can assist in giving London and Londoners a Bill making these modest changes in the regulations that govern important aspects of our lives. That is why I commend the Bill to the House.

My Lords, I am very interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, of his split personality in this matter, in that he is on the side both of the promoters and of the petitioners. However, that is his problem. All I can say is that there is a petition from the Federation of Street Traders Unions and the National Market Traders Federation, and unless this petition is withdrawn it will be referred in the usual way to the Select Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle be appointed a member of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the place of the Lord Ackner, resigned—(The Lord Chancellor.)

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 10, leave out ("in accordance with") and insert ("under the provisions of").

My Lords, I am afraid to tell the noble Lord that I can see nothing at all in his amendment. I certainly do not see it as an improvement. If anything, the Bill as it stands is better because copyright is not something which subsists under the Bill but in accordance with it. I would urge your Lordships to reject the amendment on those grounds.

I should like to point out that the House has plenty of amendments of substance with which to deal. Perhaps we should not spend too much time on amendments which do not require a great deal of discussion. I believe this to be such an amendment.

My Lords, we all appreciate the amount of time that the Minister gave to our amendments at Committee stage. However, I regret that he has taken that point of view. I should like to point out to him that in Committee I tabled a number of drafting amendments intended to improve the language of the Bill. We need only look down to Amendment No. 4 tabled in the Minister's name, to find that my point about bad wording and bad drafting has been taken up and that he has tabled an amendment accordingly. We could go on to Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 35 and 40, all of which relate to proposals which I put forward and which have been taken up by the noble Lord. Amendments have now been tabled along the lines I suggested in order to improve the wording.

From time to time it may happen that for no apparent reason my proposal does not find favour in the Minister's eyes. However, I should like to point out that my suggestions are valued and used by him. In my opinion, I am right about this matter and he is wrong.

My Lords, I must say that the noble Lord on the Front Bench has been a little sniffy about my noble friend's series of drafting amendments not only in this Bill but in others. I sometimes find him to be a little long-winded but, generally speaking, he has had more successes than failures and I believe that they should be welcomed.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say that I welcome the contributions to our debates from the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. At the Committee stage he made many helpful suggestions. Between that stage and Report I have taken as much trouble as possible to deal with the matter and I have come back with government amendments hopefully satisfying a number of the points raised by him. However, there is a limit to the number of drafting amendments which have no substantial effect on the Bill. I was making the point that there are many issues of importance which we must discuss in the Bill and I do not believe that this amendment makes any improvement.

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 13, after ("(b)") insert ("original").

My Lords, noble Lords will remember that in Committee we debated whether the word "original" should appear in this clause, and that was an instructive debate. I believe that my noble friend has something of a point, although it can probably be explained satisfactorily by the Minister. The question is: if the word "original" is included in paragraph (a), does that by implication mean that paragraphs (b) and (c) are devoted to unoriginal works? I believe that there may be involved something more than a slight drafting point, but perhaps the Minister can explain the matter.

My Lords, this is more than a drafting matter; Amendment No. 2 is clearly a matter of substance. It is precisely because the concept or originality does not work in the case of sound recordings, films, broadcasts and cable programmes that the Bill treats them differently. Sound recordings and films are covered by Clause 5(2), which provides that:

"Copyright does not subsist in a sound recording or film which is, or to the extent that it is, a copy of a previous sound recording or film".

Amendment No. 17 would replace the word "of" with the words "taken from" to resolve a doubt about that formulation. However, that point does not affect this matter. Broadcasts and cable programmes are covered by Clauses 6(6), 7(7)(b) and 14(2) and (3). Together they provide that there is no copyright in an infringing broadcast or cable programme and that copyright in a repeat broadcast or cable programme expires at the same time as that in the original—"original" here meaning simply "first".

The reason for this treatment of sound recordings, films, broadcasts and cable programmes is that to insert "original" in Clause 1(1)(b) as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, would produce the wrong result. What is an original sound recording? It could be said that once one person has made a recording of a particular work, no other recording of that work could be original, so that the first person to record Beethoven's Fifth Symphony made an original recording but everyone else who did so, at least after they had heard and been inspired by the first recording, did not make an original recording and therefore did not acquire copyright. This is not what we intend for films and sound recordings, and if it was, the relevant industries would be aghast, and rightly so. Copyright should subsist in a sound recording or a film except to the extent that it is made by taking an existing recording or film and making a copy from it. Identity of subject-matter, and thus lack of originality in subject-matter, is irrelevant. We went through all this at some length in Committee and we shall do so again in a few minutes—rather more shortly, I hope—when we consider Amendments Nos. 17 and 39 in my name, and I hope that the House can accept that originality is not a concept appropriate to sound recordings and films.

Similar arguments, although not identical, apply in respect of broadcasts and cable programmes, and I do not propose going into further detail now. I explained the point to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, in our debate on Clause 14 stand part in Committee. To deprive a repeat broadcast of all copyright on the grounds that it is not original would substantially undermine broadcasters' copyright, because a repeat is not a copy of the original, it is a repetition, and a person who wrongfully exploited the repeat could say, perfectly correctly, that he was not doing anything, even indirectly, in respect of the original. Therefore, I must resist Amendment No. 2.

Turning to Amendment No. 3, I must resist this amendment as well. The originality of typographical arrangements is adequately catered for by Clause 8(2), and nothing is gained by inserting "original" here. As to whether the singular or the plural should be used, I am sure that we could spend many hours exploring every possible avenue; but I see no point in doing so or in accepting this amendment. The Bill is clear enough as it stands. I hope that in view of the explanation I have given, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the length at which he has dealt with the points that I raised. I find it a complicated matter and I find it strange that it should be essential to specify originality in one case but wrong to specify it in others. I want to read carefully what the Minister has said, and I am sure I shall then feel happy about having withdrawn the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 2, line 14, leave out from second ("work") to ("and") in line 15 and insert (", other than a dramatic or musical work, which is written, spoken or sung,").

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his response to our Amendment No. 6. I am course speaking to Amendment No. 4 and also, in the same grouping, Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. The noble Lord is entirely correct in his interpretation of our amendment. We seek to establish that a separate right from that of the creator of the material might also come into existence in the recording, whether it is a recording by a shorthand typist or a folk song recorder or a ballet notator, or whatever. In the light of what the noble Lord has said, I shall be very glad not to move my amendment and hope that the Minister will bring something forward on behalf of the Government on Third Reading.

My Lords, as I was the mover of the first amendment accepted by the noble Lord in Committee, perhaps I may be the first to congratulate him on the work that he has done in preparing so many amendments to deal with the matters raised at Committee. I should also like to congratulate the staff and his colleagues in his department for the tremendous amount of help that they have given in preparing this matter.

My Lords, the Minister was kind enough to say that I was at least partially responsible for his Amendment No. 5. He might have gone on to say that I was almost wholly responsible for Amendment No. 4.

moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 2, leave out line 25 and insert ("whether the record is made by or with the permission of the author.").

moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 2, line 25, at end insert—

("( ) The copyright in a spoken literary work shall not be infringed by the use for broadcasting purposes of a recording made of the author's speaking of such work, if the recording was not made by him or at his direction.").

My Lords, I assume that in addition to Amendment No. 7 we are speaking also to Amendment No. 35, in the noble Lord's name, as they both cover essentially the same point.

Amendment No. 7, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, closely parallels the amendment which he moved in Committee to insert a new clause after Clause 30. Its purpose is the same; that is, to prevent those whose spoken utterances are recorded by a broadcaster—for example, in an interview—from being able to invoke copyright to prevent or control the editing of the recording by the broadcaster.

The noble Lord's Amendment No. 135, to Clause 73, is allied to the first but goes a good deal further in that it would suspend the application of the right to object to unjustified modification to all works made for the purposes of broadcasting. There is, however, a saving in this case aimed at curbing the scissors of the overzealous editor. This provision would allow the integrity right to operate in respect of speech recorded for broadcasting which was subject to the proposed new copyright exception in Clause 3.

I understand the concerns of broadcasters which underline these amendments. We have considered them carefully since they were discussed by your Lordships in Committee and indeed have discussed the issue with the broadcasters themselves. As regards the proposed exception to copyright in the spoken work, I have to say that we remain unconvinced that there is here a potential problem serious enough to warrant the curtailment of rights that this amendment would involve. As I said in Committee, we believe that in most cases the spoken words that are recorded will not be copyright works at all. In the rare case where there is a copyright work the broadcaster will in many instances be able to claim benefit of the fair dealing exception in Clause 30.

Finally, there is the point that if a person willingly goes into a studio to be interviewed, or allows an extempore speech to be recorded by a broadcaster, he will almost certainly be held to have granted that broadcaster an implied licence to use the material in question in the way such material is normally used.

On the other side, we must not forget that copyright is about protecting works. If a spoken item has sufficient substance to it to amount to a work, and it is given material form by being recorded, why should the author not receive the same protection as if he had written it down?

In spite of these reservations we do not want to create unnecessary difficulties for broadcasters, and if we can find a way of reconciling their concerns with the degree of protection which those whose spoken words are recorded for radio or television are entitled to, we are willing to consider it. We cannot accept the amendment as it stands since it would remove protection not only from those who know their spoken words are being recorded but also from those who are recorded unawares, and that seems wrong. However, we shall reflect further on the matter and if necessary discuss it further with the broadcasters.

I now turn to the noble Lord's Amendment No. 135, to Clause 73. I have to say that I see no justification for a general exception to moral rights for all works made for broadcasting. That goes very wide and I cannot believe the broadcasters really need it. The proposed saving to the exception for spoken words excepted from copyright control is, however, an interesting suggestion which we should like to consider further in our general reconsideration of the issues we have just been debating. I cannot say now whether it provides the right answer but we shall look at it.

In conclusion, I shall anticipate our later debates on Chapter IV of the Bill by saying that, among other amendments to the moral right provisions, we are seriously considering an exception for those modifications to a broadcast or cable programme which may be required by a regulatory authority in pursuance of its statutory duties, for example, to prevent obscenity. If that is adopted it will remove one important obstacle which broadcasters have told us they see in the provisions as they stand at present. I hope that that is reasonably clear and that, in the light of the undertaking I have given to the noble Lord that we should like further to consider this without commitment, he may feel able to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. I thought that I had drawn the teeth of his argument against my argument by putting forward the fact that fair dealing would not be of any help to the broadcasters. The definition of "work" would not cause as much trouble as the noble Lord indicated and there was no question of an implied licence.

However, the noble Lord recited those difficulties against my amendment without giving any reasons for them or arguing them. In view of his undertaking given in relation to both these amendments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 2, line 27, after ("photograph") insert ("hologram").

My Lords, I thank the Minister for Amendment No. 15. I shall make a further point about that in a moment if we are going to discuss that amendment, or perhaps after he has replied.

I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that we need a separate definition of a hologram. It is defined in the dictionary as a photographic plate or film containing a holographic pattern. A holographic pattern is defined elsewhere. As I said at the Committee stage, the process of a hologram was very similar to one used by Lipmann in a colour process very nearly 100 years ago. The amplitude of different coloured waves was then recorded in the thickness of the emulsion. This has always been regarded as a photographic process and I believe that in exactly the same way holograms are a photographic process.

In Amendment No. 14 it may well be self-defeating because it says that a hologram is a product which is not a photograph. I am sure that any lawyer would say "a hologram is a photograph therefore a hologram does not exist". I reject the idea that we need to define a hologram. In due course, after the Minister has spoken, I should like to come back to Amendment No. 15.

My Lords, I cannot match the depth of technical knowledge which is demonstrated by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. In speaking to Amendment No. 8, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16.

The noble Lord, Lord Brain, initiated an interesting debate in Committee as to the definition of a photograph. As he rightly said, the Government are seeking a definition which covers not only the present state of the art but also future developments. The question was also raised as to whether holograms are adequately covered. This is a concern to which my noble friend Lord Mottistone has returned with his amendments. To make explicit mention of holograms as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone proposes, might seem to meet that specific point.

However, it is technologically limited, which was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brain. It assumes a relationship between photography and holography which may not remain the same. It also implies a limit to the meaning of "photograph" which may have the effect of excluding future things from being photographs which ought to be included but which do not fall within narrow concepts of photography and holography. We believe that definitions in this field should be technologically neutral as far as possible. This is why we have taken a further look at the definition of "photograph" itself.

We believe that the definition of "photograph" offered by Amendment No. 15 in my name is technologically neutral and will embrace all works that your Lordships feel should fall within the ambit of the term "photograph", including holograms. We no longer have to concern ourselves with the question whether a hologram is a product of photography or a process akin to photography. It is unquestionably a recording of light or other radiation from which an image may be produced.

In looking at the definition of "photograph" we realised that there was merit in expressing the definition of "film" in Clause 5 in similar terms and that we have done in Amendment No. 16, which is also in my name. But there is one important difference. There is no reference to light or other radiation in order to ensure that films produced by the manipulation of computer graphics are covered. One result is that the phrase "moving picture", which the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken—who I see is not in his place at the moment—found archaic, has been replaced by "moving image". I therefore invite my noble friend Lord Mottistone to withdraw his amendment as I believe that my amendments will meet his concern.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I say that I am rather puzzled. I first saw a hologram a few years ago at an exhibition and it was utterly different from anything I had ever seen before. It is a perfectly clear word and if it had a definition I should have thought that one should have it defined entirely separately from a photograph, with which it shares some but not all of the technique of production. I cannot see any objection to having a separate definition.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his support for the principle of my amendment. He went to the root of the problem. Why not have a separate definition if it is different? In view of the fact that I am advised, and I repeat that holograms can be produced by a variety of processes, including photograph processes, I would question the definition from the dictionary that the noble Lord, Lord Brain, produced. He said that it is defined in the dictionary as a photographic plate. I suspect that the dictionary to which the noble Lord referred is not as up-to-date as it should be.

My Lords, the dictionary also mentions photochromic methods of producing holograms and other things. "Photochromic" is covered by the Government's definition of photography which might not have been as it was originally described. The Government's definition of photography covers holograms and any other form of three dimensional device-making by lasers and things like that.

My Lords, we could go on indefinitely. We have already taken nine minutes and that is not bad. This is a technical issue. I take the point that my noble friend has made and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brain. My advisers may or may not be satisfied with those arguments. I have to reserve the right to attack the problem again, perhaps not in your Lordships' House but in another place. It seems to me that we are jolly nearly there and perhaps we are. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 2, line 27, leave out ("or sculpture") and insert (", sculpture or collage").

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am wholly satisfied with the amendments that he has brought forward but have two questions. First, are the Government satisfied that collage is the only form of composite work that needs to be covered under this provision? It so happens that in Committee I raised the question of collage because I know somebody who is a great expert in collage. There may be other forms of composite work whose authors I do not know quite so well. I wonder whether it was mere chance that brought collage into the Bill or whether the Government had in fact researched all forms of composite work.

Secondly, so far as I can see, there is no definition of collage in the Bill whereas there is a definition of sculpture in Clause 4(2) and there are various definitions of works and expressions in Clause 162. Do the Government intend to put a definition of collage into the Bill as it is finally drafted?

My Lords, I agree and accept what the Minister says; but would it not be better if the word "collage" appeared after "graphic work"? "Collage" seems to be much nearer a graphic work. As the noble Lord probably knows, the Douglas Cooper collection at the Tate has a number of collage, several of them by Picasso and other cubists. They are much nearer to graphic work than they are to sculpture. I do not want to be unduly pedantic but perhaps at a later stage or in another place the noble Lord will consider the right place for this word.

My Lords, following on from what the noble Lord has just said, does it really matter? Clause 4(1)(a) says,

"irrespective of artistic quality".

They can be anything. It hardly matters.

My Lords, in answering the two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I would say that in my original answer I believed that a collage was probably covered in any case. We could run up a long list of types of work, whether or not composite, but I believe that composite works are covered.

As regards the definition, we believe that no definition of collage appears because it is not needed. The courts ought to be able to recognise one if they have one before them. Regarding the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, we could argue about the order in which these matters should be set out and whether a collage is nearer a graphic work. We shall of course consider what he said. I am sure that it is not a matter of enormous importance, but we want to make the Bill as correct as possible and we always look at everything that your Lordships have said. In the meantime, I beg to move.

moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 2, line 30, leave out ("or").

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, has come back to the question of typefaces. We had a long discussion on this matter in Committee, and I think we covered the ground very fully. For my part, although I started off with a view which the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, takes, I was more or less persuaded by the Government in the end that they were right; and, on further reflection, that conclusion has been strengthened. Therefore we do not support the amendments, and I hope that the Government will not accept them.

My Lords, I feel that I shall disappoint my noble friend and please the noble Lords opposite on that basis, because I must resist my noble friend's amendments. With those amendments we turn again to the issue of typefaces, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has reminded us, was fully discussed in Committee. I can do little more than repeat the points that I made when similar amendments were moved. However, before doing so I should point out that Amendment No. 11 speaks of,

"a design for a typeface"

rather than

"the design of a typeface",

which is the expression used in Clause 55. I am not sure whether any distinction was thereby intended but I have assumed that it was not.

The 1956 White Paper stated that it was the Government's intention to amend copyright law to give the creator of an original typeface the right to control reproduction of the typeface as well as the importation and commercial distribution of copies. The protection was to last 25 years and the UK would then ratify the Vienna agreement on typefaces. However, during preparation of the Bill, it was realised that it is unnecessary to create a separate class of work to achieve the desired result. The design of a typeface is an abstraction which will be recorded in a drawing, engraving or other artistic work. The reproduction of the design would therefore be an infringement of copyright.

Furthermore, it is unnecessary to protect a set of typefaces as such since infringement of the copyright in a set would be an infringement of the copyright in one or more characters of the set. Therefore the Bill allows copyright protection for typeface designs to continue as it is now; that is, on the basis of the protection now afforded to artistic works. If the typeface design is commercially exploited, then Clause 55 ensures that the effective copyright term is limited to 25 years.

Clause 54 ensures that the use of typefaces in the ordinary course of printing does not infringe the copyright. The design of, or for, a typeface is an abstract concept. Once it is fixed in some way—for example, drawn on paper—it become an artistic work which is entitled to copyright protection as such. I do not think that we should add abstract concepts to the list of works which should have copyright protection. It is rather like adding to the list the phrase "an idea for a painting". An idea, whether it be for a painting or typeface design, becomes a work only when it is set down on some medium.

I turn to the point raised by my noble friend that the Bill does not protect typefaces recorded in databases. The typeface starts life as an artistic work and it retains that characteristic for all time. The fact that it may subsequently be stored in a computer database does not affect that position. Anyone who steals the design from the database will infringe copyright in the original artistic work. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation, although I must admit that I did not fully understand it. However, if I understood him correctly, he said when the work was recorded on a piece of paper it became an artistic work. But surely it starts off on a piece of paper. That is what the artist does. Therefore, it starts as being an artistic work. It ceases to be an artistic work and then when it is recorded it returns to being an artistic work. I may have misunderstood the point, but in any event I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 12:

My Lords, obviously I must begin my remarks by thanking the Minister for responding so well to the amendment which I moved in Committee. I hope that I shall not seem too churlish if I look this gift horse in the mouth for just a moment. I believe that my amendment which referred to a work of architectural or engineering construction, was better than the draft which the Minister has adopted.

I say that for the following reasons. I wanted to emphasise that I had engineering structures in mind. I know that there are dictionary definitions of architecture which include structure; and I have to submit to that fact. However, it is worth recollecting that not all engineering structures are fixed. For example, many bridges are supported on rollers so that they can move. It is also true that many engineering structures, including buildings, are supported on raft foundations which move up and down, sometimes in response to the movement of nearby tides. Therefore, such buildings might be thought to be fixed but in fact are not; they can move in at least one direction, if not in all.

Let me look this gift horse further in the mouth. Last week I was in Sydney where I saw displayed side by side three great examples of British engineering and architectural merit. One was the Opera House, which I mentioned in Committee and which is clearly a building. It was described as a "typewriter full of oyster shells" by someone. Nearby is Sydney Harbour Bridge,which is almost a fixed structure. It has a hinge at either end, and it may well have one in the middle (although I cannot remember) so that it can move up and down. We can, I think, admit that it is a fixed structure within the meaning of the Minister's amendment. But between those two examples of engineering and architectural excellence was sitting "Queen Mary II", which is a boat. It is not fixed; it is not a building.

It is likely to be thought of as a work of artistic merit in the sense in which we are using the word in the Bill. But what strikes me—this is a new thought that has come to me since the Committee stage—is that, although we have dealt with structures and buildings, we have not dealt with or attempted to deal with ships; that is, unless ships are dealt with later in the Bill under the general heading "design right". One could perhaps move from a bicycle, where design right presumably applies, through a variety of forms of transport until one eventually reaches ships. I do not think that that is what is intended by the Bill, but I merely draw attention to the fact that the definition which we now seek to include by way of the amendment has some defects. I welcome it. I am grateful for the attention which the Minister has given to the point that I raised. I hope that it will be looked at further, and that at a later stage in the proceedings the formulation will come nearer to my original definition.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for considering sympathetically what my noble friend Lord Howie and I said in Committee. I suppose that my noble friend and I can claim joint copyright for this amendment. Nevertheless, as always, great minds think alike. I too was worried by the fact that ships were not covered by the formulation that the noble Lord and the Government have adopted. No doubt there is some reason why they have put "fixed structure", and I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to explain that. In the hope that an explanation will arrive very shortly, perhaps I may say in the meantime that I am happy that the noble Lord and the Government have accepted the points that we made. We hope he can explain and somewhat calm the worries which my noble friend Lord Howie and I have.

My Lords, I suggest that, "a work of artistic craftsmanship" describes a ship admirably.

My Lords, in attempting to satisfy the various points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, at Committee stage, we have indeed inserted the words "fixed structure". I am tempted to say to him that perhaps the only things that do not seem to be fixed are the goalposts in this particular debate. I should just like to address the points that noble Lords have made.

First, with regard to the matter of ships, I believe the original designs would be drawn by a naval architect whose drawings would be protected under the Bill. The expression "engineering structure" does, as the noble Lord said, include structures which are not fixed. The concept of moveable structures is recognised in Clauses 89 and 100. We do not want to encompass moveable engineering structures which are in no sense buildings such as chemical processing parts or indeed ships. They must seek their protection elsewhere, including under Part III on the design right in articles. It is for the courts to identify the borderline between fixed and moveable structures; but we do not want to extend works of architecture to cover the latter. I hope that is helpful to noble Lords.

moved Amendment No. 13:

moved Amendment No. 15:

My Lords, I said I should like to listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, had to say about this amendment when it was being discussed earlier. I have a brief point to make. As he well knows, I am concerned with the words "or a reprographic copy". Many photographers would regard an enlarger under the definition of reprographic copying process as a reprographic copying device. This is a genuine concern and will cause confusion in the minds of photographers seeking to protect their works. I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to consider removing those words by the next stage and amending the definition of reprographic copying to the extent that such copying does not result in the creation of a photograph.

moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 3, line 10, leave out from ("recording") to ("may") in line 11 and insert ("on any medium from which a moving image").

My Lords, before we pass from this amendment, perhaps I may briefly say that I am naturally rather pleased that the proposal that I made in Committee stage—that the phrase "moving picture" should be replaced by the expression "moving image"—has been adopted. I mentioned at the time that this was an accepted modern phrase, and I instanced the case of the Museum of the Moving Image which the British Film Institute is now busily engaged in establishing on the South Bank. I am glad that the Government have recognised that this phrase is a more flexible one than "moving picture" for which some Members of your Lordships' House expressed a continuing affection.

moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 3, line 13, leave out ("of") and insert ("taken from").

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on arriving at what I think is about the only possible compromise in a very difficult situation. A lot of noble Lords from this side of the House criticised the Bill as drafted, and indeed found it very difficult to understand how the position was tenable in the long run. I accept that the Government will be taking out Clause 17(4) with reluctance, but I think that that is the only way for them to proceed and we support this amendment.

moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 3, line 18, leave out from ("(b)") to end of line 19 and insert ("—

(i) which is not encrypted, or

(ii) which is encrypted but for which decoding equipment has been made generally available to members of the public by or with the authority of the person making the transmission,

and which is capable of being lawfully received by members of the public;")

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for returning us to proper English in the Bill and for accepting our objections to the original drafting. I am still a little concerned about the expression "lawfully". I do not wish to dwell on it this afternoon, but I think that we shall have to have a another look at it and see whether we wish to come back on that at a later stage.

I am not entirely satisfied with what the Minister said in giving reasons why he felt that "lawfully" had to be retained. Nevertheless, as I say, I shall not pursue the matter today. We shall have to look at it with our advisers and see what happens at the next stage.

moved Amendment No. 19:

Page 3, line 21, leave out subsection (2).

moved Amendment No. 20:

Page 3, line 31, at end insert

("or if he is responsible for the whole of the contents of the broadcast and, while not being the person transmitting it, makes the arrangements with that person necessary for the transmission").

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has said, the purpose of these amendments is to ensure that in the case of broadcasting by independent television the relevant programme contractor, as well as the IBA, qualifies under Clause 6(3) as the person making the broadcast, and therefore the first owner of copyright in it. As the Bill stands only the IBA will qualify as the maker since that organisation alone, not the contractor, fulfils the condition in Clause 6(3)(a), and Clause 6(3)(b) will thus not apply.

The question of authorship and ownership in relation to broadcasts is one that we have been discussing in some detail with the IBA and the Independent Television Association since the Committee stage. They have explained to us very fully why they consider that both the authority and the contractor require to be owners of copyright in the broadcasts. I am happy to say that we concur. We have put certain suggestions to them as to how this might best be achieved in the Bill and, indeed, the words of the noble Lord's amendments are not entirely unfamiliar to us.

We therefore accept these amendments in principle. We should, however, like to consider further the form they ought to take, and, indeed, as the words have been inserted, the subsection would be self-contradictory. There are still one or two minor points to sort out, such as whether a complementary amendment is needed to Clause 10, and whether we have adequately covered the position of the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority. If the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, feels able to withdraw the amendment, I undertake to come back with some proposal on Third Reading.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. In view of his undertaking, I shall of course withdraw the amendment. I understand his undertaking to be that the Government will bring forward an amendment to cover the position that has been put to him by members of the ITV legal department. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 22:

Page 5, line 31, leave out ("or film").

My Lords, when I spoke to the earlier form of amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I pointed out that, while I profoundly sympathised with the notion of giving the maximum recognition to the director of the film, who undoubtedly plays a crucial role in the ultimate product that emerges from the screen, nevertheless in practice in the film world it is generally recognised as considerable sense to regard the person who makes the arrangements to put the film together primarily as the author of a film. He is the person who provides the finance for that purpose or arranges for the finance to be obtained by the distributor, or whoever it may be.

When it comes to the practical problem, it is inevitable that an express arrangement will be made as to the financial interests in the film. It is therefore more likely to create problems than to solve them by having a primary situation that the director and producer are to be regarded as joint authors.

In the practical context this would be a totally undefined relationship. It would have to be resolved by express contract in every case. Although I have great sympathy for the idea of recognising the vital role of the director—it has been recognised in the Bill as drafted by way of conferring upon him a moral right, of which I entirely approve—I think that on the whole we might create more problems in attempting to reconstruct the position as defined in the existing law. So far as I am aware, this situation has not hitherto created any particular problem or dispute as between directors and producers. It is therefore with a certain measure of reluctance that I find it difficult to go along with the amendment, which substantially reproduces the earlier amendment in regard to the position of the director and producer of a film.

My Lords, I hope that the Minister has something useful, positive and sympathetic to say about the amendment. I should like the Minister to address himself particularly to the problem in the context of the European nexus. If we are moving inexorably towards harmonisation, observance and compliance with a great many of the practices of the European scene as we in Britain understand it, the Minister has to tell the House how he sees this to be different from what I am advised by the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians is a disturbing feature.

This is contrary to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead. He said that the present position has not caused any disturbance or upset, and indeed implied the contrary. He did not say that there had been great dissuasion and argument. The ACTT and many others are grateful for the care that the Minister has taken since Committee to consider their representations. I understand that there have been discussions not only in correspondence with the Minister and his colleagues but also with the Minister's officials.

If the position is as outlined by my noble friend Lady Birk, then on the Continent the director has the same rights that an author has. The concept is that "author" includes film director in Europe but excludes film director in the United Kingdom. We are arguing in terms of what moral rights are worth once they have been given. One might say that they are worth a great deal. Both the ACTT and the film directors who seek to have their views represented to the ACTT tell me that prima facie it does not look as though they will be worth a great deal.

I think that the Minister has also to deal with the direct question of who, in the eyes of the public and indeed of the industry, carries the greatest clout as to the credit that needs to be taken for a great many film works. My noble friend Lady Birk instanced Sir Richard Attenborough. I am certain that many of the films that were directed by Sir Carol Reed, Sir David Lean and many others are looked upon as their films. I know that the original work from which a film was produced clearly in many instances was not written by those people, but they are seen to have enhanced enormously the quality, the worth and the economic value of the work.

I should be very grateful if the Minister could tell me at this stage why a chance, as it appears to me, is being missed of creating a unique opportunity to harmonise with Europe on a relatively simple issue. What we are really asking is, should not the director, who in most instances is worth a share of the economic value in a film which he has directed, be seen on the face of the Bill to be entitled to more than that which appears, good as moral rights are, to be the value of moral rights?

My Lords, I find myself more in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, on this amendment. I hope that the Government will resist it. I think that directors on the whole can protect themselves by contract and they do not need special protection in this Bill. No one need weep any tears here about Sir Richard Attenborough. He is thoroughly protected by contract and he does have the credit of "a film by Richard Attenborough". If one goes along this road one gets into a quagmire, because an author of a film also happens to be, dare I mention it, the screenplay writer.

Whose film is "A Man for All Seasons"? Is it Robert Bolt's or Fred Zinnemann's? This amendment would give Fred Zinnemann the authorship as director but it would exclude Robert Bolt. We do not need to go down this road. The principle here can be protected by contract. I may say that I have a fierce hostility to the move which has been apparent in the past few years for saying "a film by". No film is by any particular individual. It is a collective piece of work and in most cases it is inspired by an original work. "Great Expectations" could be said to be a film by David Lean, but does one not mention Charles Dickens, on whose marvellous material it was based?

As a screenplay writer I resent the idea that the director is an author. Films are a collective and we should all, director, producer or author, have our whack of any profits that are available. But I do not think that we should enshrine in a Bill a special position for director.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he comment on the European situation where the position appears to be different to the point he is arguing?

My Lords, the Europeans have always been awkward in this respect.

My Lords, I agree to a very great extent with what my noble friend Lord Willis has just said. It seems to me that in the case of a motion picture there are a number of authors or there can be considered to be a number of authors. As my noble friend said, there is the original writer, who would be Herman Melville in the case of Moby Dick; then there is the screenplay writer whom he mentioned. There may be another screenplay writer and then finally there is a director. It is a matter for the Bill to decide which of these should be described as the author. But what confuses me about this amendment of my noble friend that we are considering is that it does not make this point clear.

We are told in the Bill that "author" means the person who creates a work. Then we are told that that person shall be taken to be in the case of a film the director of the film as joint author. That is what we are told about the director of a film. But if there is a joint author it means that someone else has to be a joint author with the director. But who that other person is in the case of a film is not revealed. I should be interested to know who my noble friend has in mind as being the other joint author who is not at present specified.

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, explained, these amendments seek to ascribe authorship of a film to the director. As I read the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Morton of Shuna, the director is to be regarded as a joint author, although it is far from clear to me who is to be regarded as the other joint author. That is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has just raised.

It would appear from the deletion of "film" in lines 21 and 32 that the person making the arrangements for the production of the film is not to be regarded as an author and so he would not be entitled to even a share of first ownership in the copyright in a film.

We believe that to be totally wrong. The Bill as drafted preserves the existing position by vesting copyright in a film in the person who has made the necessary arrangements. It is his investment of money and resources which makes a film possible and it is he who should reap the economic benefit.

In all the representations that we have received from film directors in the build-up to this Bill, their concern has always been the lack of recognition of their creative input in the making of a film. They have not been seeking economic rights: they recognise that these rights should be with the producer.

It is true that in some countries, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, directors are recognised as authors or co-authors of films and the copyright is passed contractually to the producer. I would add that we see no need for there to be absolutely uniform treatment of the legal rights of directors across Europe. We are not aware of any difficulties that have arisen because different European countries treat the ownership of copyright in different ways. We are free to look at the issue of directors' copyright on its own merits and have done so with the conclusion that I have already explained. But we see no merit in changing our long-established practices and imposing on film production companies the additional task of acquiring rights from directors and any other designated co-authors in a film, as yet unmade, for which the company is putting up the money.

We believe the legitimate aspirations of directors to receive recognition of their contribution to the making of a film are met by the provision of moral rights for directors. The directors' concern is their artistic reputations. The provision of moral rights gives them what they need to defend and to enhance these reputations. We believe it is going too far to give them economic rights as well.

I see little point in labelling the director as author, or even co-author, of a film for purely cosmetic purposes. It raises the whole thorny question of which of the many potential authors involved in a film can be said to be the author of the film. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, expressed strong views on this in Committee and has also done so now on Report. If the purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the moral rights of directors are protected, they are unnecessary. On the other hand, if the purpose is to take economic rights from the producer and give them to the director, then I must strongly resist. I certainly cannot support a change for purely cosmetic purposes to satisfy the desire of one particular group of creative people to get a special mention.

My Lords, with the exception of the stalwart support from my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, there does not seem to have been all that much joy expressed on this amendment. I must confess that I think that one of the reasons for that is that this is something new which both breaks new ground and introduces a new element and new people into the general part so to speak. It is quite likely that perhaps the wording of the amendment, although I think it is very much better than that of the original amendment, is still not quite right. But that is a different point. If the principle were accepted surely that could be worked out.

The Minister, and I think my noble friend Lord Kilbracken, also asked who was the other party to this. Of course it is the writer. I think that the Minister said "co-author" and I consider that that is probably better than "joint author" anyhow. In answer to the question whether there have been, as my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead asked, any representations from directors, I can say that there have been. I have had such representations myself.

My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will give way for a moment. She may well have received representations from directors. However, we have not.

My Lords, I have a letter addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, from the ACTT, which is speaking on behalf of directors.

My Lords, I do not know what the Minister has received. However, I received represent-ations some time ago as a governor of the British Film Institute. We are attempting to introduce directors jointly, rather than suggesting that they take over the kudos, rights or established rewards of authors. So far as concerns the producers, it remains open to them, as I said in moving the amendment, to take an assignment of that interest, and they may do so in advance of the making of the film.

My noble friends and I shall look at the matter again. It is clear that the actual wording is not correct. Even if it is simply a matter of semantics, perhaps we should get it right and then think about whether we shall take the matter further at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 25:

My Lords, the Minister has said that my amendments were apparently innocuous. After listening to his speech, I must say that they may have been apparently innocuous to him but they were not so to me. He has now had to bring forward the long series of amendments to cope with the points which I made. I believe that that is an example of the way in which a Bill can be improved, not only by my amendments but by all of the 400 or 500 amendments which were put down concerning points which we wished to raise. That is an example of the way in which a Bill can be improved as it passes through this revising Chamber before going to another place.

I shall read carefully what the noble Lord has said concerning his amendments. However, I wish to say how much I welcome his decision to agree with what was said on the previous occasion concerning the duration of photographic copyright and additionally on the basis of the duration of copyright in other works which will go on for 50 years after the death of the photographer. That is very important. It will be greatly welcomed by journalists and photographers. I appreciate what the noble Lord has done.

My Lords, the noble Lord has introduced a large grouping of amendments. It is somewhat difficult for us to speak to all the amendments which he has grouped together. However, we are glad that he has rethought the question of unknown authorship. Before endorsing the amendments unequivocally, we shall have to read them more carefully between now and Third Reading and see whether we find that the present situation is to our satisfaction.

In the meantime, perhaps the noble Lord will clarify a point as regards Amendment No. 30. That amendment inter alia produces a new subsection (2) to Clause 12. The amendment reads:

"If the work is of unknown authorship copyright expires at the end of a period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was first made available to the public".

That is perfectly clear. The amendment goes on:

"and subsection (l) does not apply if the identity of the author becomes known after the end of that period".

Given what subsection (1) says, does that mean, if copyright has expired in a work of hitherto unknown authorship and the authorship becomes known after the copyright has expired, that the copyright is in some way reinstated? If that is right, it is rather curious. However, I can see the case of a young painter or a young maker of porcelain paying for his meals in a restaurant. We all hear stories of Paris in the 1920s when young, poor artists used to pay for their meals by throwing off a few paintings here and there. The restaurant owner could not remember who they were but it subsequently turned out that they were Picasso, Matisse, or whoever it may have been. If that work were reproduced and shown to the public 50 years later, Picasso might well still have been alive and established it as his work. That is liable to be a relatively rare occurrence. Nevertheless, I should be interested to know whether my interpretation of this amendment is right or wrong. If it is wrong, it seems to me that the amendment is perhaps a little unclear and might be looked at again.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I can answer his point by saying that in the circumstances that he described copyright would not be recaptured. Once copyright has expired under the provisions relating to works of unknown authorship, subsequent discovery of authorship does not revive copyright. I hope that that is clear from the Bill, and perhaps the noble Lord will accept that response. I have listened to what the noble Lord has said and I shall double check that point. However, I believe that the drafting is correct.

moved Amendment No. 26:

Page 6. line 7, leave out ("separate from the contribution") and insert ("distinct from that").

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, has condensed a rather complicated argument, and I understand why he has done so. I confess that it has been rather difficult to follow. If he has been scratching his head for the past few weeks, we have been scratching our heads for the past few minutes to try to find out what he has been saying. I think that we shall have to read what he has said, and if necessary we shall formulate our position at Third Reading.

moved Amendment No. 27:

Page 6, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

("(2) Subject to any agreement to the contrary, where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work for the purpose for which it is created, but for any other purpose the employee is the first owner of any such copyright.").

My Lords, one point has occurred to me apropos this amendment and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook can clear it up. Let us take the case of an organist who is professionally engaged, and, I presume, the employee of the church. If he writes some music which is performed in the church for the purpose of a particular service, who is the owner of the copyright?

My Lords, I hope that the Government will consider this amendment seriously, because there is some force in the arguments. About five years ago there was a classic case in the United States of an employee of a big advertising agency who was asked by his employers to write down the philosophy of the agency—a task which I have to say horrifies me. Nevertheless, this gentleman wrote down the philosophy of the agency and its approach to business and so forth. It was so successful and went down so well that the employers decided that they would publish it. It sold millions of copies. The employee did not receive a penny but the agency did.

There was another case of a doctor who developed a diet specifically for the United States navy. The diet was successful. I am sure that many of your Lordships will have been on it: it is called the drinking man's diet. The diet was again so successful that it was published privately and sold millions of copies—again not to the benefit of the doctor.

There is a case here that the Government should consider. This amendment is very carefully drafted. It provides for the sacredness of a contract but it also provides for other purposes. It is a very useful amendment and I hope that the Government will consider it seriously.

My Lords, in moving this amendment my noble friend said that he spoke at the same time to Amendment No. 29. If we are now discussing Amendment No. 29, it means that we have to do so without having heard from the Minister his reasons for wishing to delete an extremely important subsection that completely changes the emphasis of this Bill for a great many journalists, whether they are writers or photographers.

If subsection (3) is deleted it means that a person who produces work for a newspaper or publication is no longer able to sell it separately because the copyright belongs to the newspaper publishers. That is not normally the case at present. We have only to think of books of newspaper cartoons by such people as Giles or collections of articles. I brought out a selection of 70,000-word or 80,000-word articles that had previously been published and in all such cases the copyright passes completely to the writer. That I feel is the correct position.

If this subsection is dropped it means that anybody who is employed does not have the right to make a collection of that work and publish it. That can be done by his employer, who owns the rights in that material. The employer can publish it and receive the royalties from sales of that book. The Government's decision to delete that subsection is a very major change. I can only hope that the Minister will be able to give a very good reason for his wish to delete it from the statute.

My Lords, we are discussing where the line between creative work and the rights of employees should be drawn. The Whitford Committee considered this point and said as a general principle that employers must be able to expect that if they engage someone to produce copyright work as part of his day-to-day work and pay him to do this, then they and they alone should be entitled to the use of that work.

The exception to that general principle that applied to newspapers was an historical accident, because in 1911 there were no other media than print. If we make, as is suggested, only a partial distinction between creative work and what is done by an employee, we shall create in practice an impossible situation for newspapers.

It is said that newspapers can contract with their employees. It is extremely difficult for them to contract with employees who they are already employing. It is easier for them to make contracts with new employees. But what are the employers to do if the trade union representing employees instructs all its employees not to make separate contracts?

To adopt the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, would, I am informed, establish a nightmare for newspapers and periodicals. It seems to me that it is going far beyond the realities of life to present staff journalists as creative artists.

The effect of this amendment will be to extend the inherited discrimination, because it will apply to staff photographers as well. I pointed out at Committee stage that the effect of the amendment now being proposed would be to remove £3 million a year from the revenues of local newspapers, which own the copyright currently in photographs taken by their staff photographers. Under this amendment they would lose it and with it the profits of the sales of photographs of local weddings, carnivals and the like.

I welcome very warmly the amendment of the Minister and was very grateful for the way in which he responded to the points that were made at Committee stage. I very much hope that the House will not approve the proposed amendment.

My Lords, I support these amendments. I do so for exactly the reasons which have been expressed by the last speaker whom I consider was wrong. As I understand it. local photographers very often, indeed normally, on small newspapers photograph the scene outside the church for the paper and are then allowed to take other photographs at the reception entirely for their own use and with their own copyright. This amendment, and in particular the government amendment, will remove something that already exists and will cost the newspapers more, because they will then have to reach an agreement with their employee for all the rights that he is forgoing and matters of that kind. I should not be in the least surprised if the journalists object very strongly to the change in the situation.

I support the one amendment wholeheartedly. The other I reject on the ground that it is removing not an old Spanish custom but one of the ways in which small local newspapers run efficiently and cheaply.

My Lords, I am puzzled at the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. As I read the amendments, the copyright remains firmly in the hands of the newspaper when one is considering the purpose for which the object was commissioned. His employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work for the purpose for which it is created. In using illustrations of fetes, weddings and so on, we are talking about a photographer who is an employee of a newspaper and is sent on an assignment to take those pictures for the purpose of being used in the newspaper.

I am not an expert in this matter, but my understanding is that the copyright lies with the newspaper. It has been said that to alter that will be removing something which already exists. I can understand anyone with a vested interest objecting to losing something which is at present enjoyed. However, as I understand the matter, that is not the purpose or the effect of the amendment. I fail to see how the interests of local newspapers in particular, which have my highest respect and regard, will be disadvantaged.

The Minister has yet to explain why he believes that the deletion of subsection (3) will be neither punitive nor injurious to employees of newspapers. I do not wish to see that happen but I wish to see the rights of a newspaper as at present enjoyed fully protected.

My Lords, as a publisher of magazines, I welcome the Government's Amendment No. 29, about which we are speaking a little prematurely. At the same time I have, up to a point, an underlying current of sympathy with Amendment No. 27, moved by my noble friend Lord Williams. There appears to be an element of natural justice in what he says. If I knew precisely what was meant by the words:

"for any other purpose the employee is the first owner of any such copyright"

I might be strongly influenced in that direction. However, he did not make that matter clear in his remarks. It has since appeared that it is in part connected with the business of photographers and their later sales of photographs taken in the course of their employment.

By coincidence, one of my magazines is engaged in employing a photographer to replace one who has left us to go freelance. In that I see an interesting situation. We employ the gentleman as a photographer and pay him a salary. We also provide his photographic equipment and process it. We provide a motor car for his use in travelling to assignments, which we produce and not he.

Are there any vacancies?

If the noble Lord is a good enough photographer. I should like to see his face about our office in any event, quite apart from his photographic abilities. However, we provide the gentleman with the facilities to carry out the work and it is obviously correct that we rather than he should reap the benefits from that.

The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, mentioned that the possible losses from such revenue to local newspapers amounted to approximately £3 million. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, questioned that figure or put it in a different perspective. As I understand the matter, the figure of £3 million came from a survey of local newspapers carried out by the Newspaper Society. Therefore it is a computation of the expectation of the loss made by the proprietors, who might be expected to know.

I believe that Amendment No. 29, tabled by the Minister, is to be wholly welcomed. I should like to hear how far my noble friend Lord Williams wishes to go in his Amendment No. 27 before making up my mind. In so far as it relates to photographers, I am not impressed at the moment. However, if he will further explain the phrase "any other purposes" I may be more sympathetic than I appear to be at the moment.

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and adopt a rather cautious approach to Amendment No. 27, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. He said that the amendment was intended to bring the Bill in line with the position under the Patents Act 1977. However, I do not appreciate his justification for that suggestion. I believe that his amendment does not go far enough. Where an employee, subject to contract though he may be, makes a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is of such value to the employer that the employer makes a lot of money as a result, as of right the employee in all those fields should have the opportunity of asking the employer for a slice of the profit which has been made. If the employer tells him that he can have nothing, the employee should be able to go to a tribunal as of right. That would be the position under the Patents Act.

My Lords, the position of the photographer, as described a moment or two ago, surely is that when he is working in his employer's time taking photographs at a local wedding the copyright must belong to the employer. However, if he ceases his official work for his employer and takes other photographs in his spare time, as requested by the various guests at the wedding, that is another matter entirely. I do not believe that that situation would be interfered with an any way by Amendment No. 29 proposed by the Government.

If one takes the position of a staff employee of a newspaper, it is not sensible to say that the copyright does not absolutely belong to the employer. In the same way, someone who designs a packet of cornflakes, writes a verse or two upon it and designs a lovely picture does not expect to receive some copyright value from it if it is used for other purposes. Let us suppose that his employer, the cornflake maker, decides to use the design on a hoarding or advertisement. There is no more to be attributed to the original employee than there was in the beginning because he has already been paid to do that job in his employer's time.

We have now arrived at a new situation in which newspapers are to set up databases in order to extend the freedom of information. One will be able to apply to a newspaper—which will no doubt charge a fee—to obtain information about any particular subject by a particular person. After paying the fee, the button will be pressed and out will come all the material. If one then allows the staff employees to share in the copyright royalty each time that is done, the whole process will be impossible, because there will be myriads of pieces of information stored away and one will never be able to trace them. The process will become totally confusing.

I cannot see why one should continue with a situation in which people who happen to be employed on the staff of a newspaper should be treated differently from those who happen to be employed on the staff of a motor car design section or on designing cornflake packets and so forth. A staff employee is entitled to his paid holiday, his pension and to all kinds of benefits which a freelance journalist does not receive. It is part of his general employment. It is absurd to attempt to make a distinction and say that he may have a residual right in a copyright once it has first been used. The more electronic devices and developments there are, the more confusing the issue will become. I welcome the approach of the Government in hoping to delete subsection (3).

My Lords, I believe that Amendment No. 27 is likely to lead to considerable difficulties; and, at any rate in its present form, I believe it would pose very great problems for newspapers. For example, let us suppose a journalist is asked by his editor to write an article or series of articles on a particular topic for insertion in one or more issues of his newspaper. Is it then to be said that if that article or series of articles is to be farmed out by the journalist to some other newspaper, whether here or abroad, that is "another purpose"? It seems to me that that might well be the construction of this section and it would mean that a newspaper could not have an exclusive right in the production of its own journalists and that seems to me to lead to a very extraordinary anomaly.

On Amendment No. 29, it seems that the rather special position in which journalists find themselves under the old law is really anomalous. There does not seem to be any compelling reason for that anomalous situation and I should not have thought that they would lose very much by this change in the law. However, I certainly take the view that to try and deal with this situation by distinguishing between something which is produced for the purpose of the particular employment and something outside that employment will lead to immensely difficult questions of interpretation and create a measure of turmoil in many newspaper offices.

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate on Amendment No. 27 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and also spoken to Amendment No. 29 in my own name. At the outset I should say that I believe there is some small measure of agreement between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in that we both seek to move away from the position as it stands at the moment, which is somewhat anomalous for newspaper owners and employees. However, that is where the noble Lord and myself part company because he moves in one direction and the Government move in the other.

We return now to the question of ownership of copyright and the amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, which proposed the deletion of Clause 11(3). As I explained to the Committee, the ownership provisions are long-standing and we wanted to consider the views expressed in Committee before reaching a decision.

I should like, if I may, to speak first to my own amendment dealing with newspapers. I shall then go on to the more general question raised by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Morton of Shuna. We have concluded that making a special case for newspapers and their employees is no longer appropriate. It may have been so in 1956, but the development of new technology has made this special treatment less tenable for two reasons. The growth of other methods of reporting news—by television, radio and cable—means that newspapers are treated unfavourably not just compared with other employers generally, but also with other employers of reporters. The second point is that there are many ways in which newspapers can benefit from new technology, but they are hampered by having to seek and pay for appropriate copyright clearance. I should like to give an example which I think highlights the anomaly of the situation. A newspaper can keep an archive of press cuttings without any difficulty. If, however, the editor wanted to transfer these cuttings on to a computer database, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, to create an electronic archive with all its obvious advantages, special permission would have to be obtained.

We were also concerned about the effect of the change in authorship of photographs on newspapers. Newspapers would have been in a disadvantageous position in relation to staff photographers, and local newspapers particularly stood to lose considerable sums of money which at present they receive from the practice of selling photographs to the public. We have therefore concluded that newspapers should not be treated differently from other employers, and that Clause 11(3) should be deleted. I think that your Lordships' House is broadly in agreement with the proposition that newspaper employees should be treated no differently from any others, and we can now look at the question of whether employees in general should own any copyright in works which they produce in the course of employment.

The Government's position is that employers should own copyright in their employee's work. It seems to us that if an author wants the security of employment and relies on the employer to provide the materials, the guidance, and is paid for doing it, then it is only right that the employer owns any resulting copyright. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is proposing that all employees should have the right currently enjoyed by journalists to exploit their works when used for purposes other than their employer's business. This is not a new suggestion. It was one of the possibilities put forward in the 1981 Green Paper on the ownership question.

The Green Paper noted that:

"there is a clear consensus of opinion that considerable practical difficulties would arise in determining what was within the contemplation of the parties at the time a work was made".

The problem of defining the purpose for which the work is created would introduce uncertainty where at present there is none, and would upset established practices in every sphere of commerce and industry. I should add that the Government received very little support in favour of this suggestion. It was therefore decided that we should continue to vest copyright in the employer.

I should like to answer two specific points raised by noble Lords. First, the noble Lord, Lord Somers, asked me who would own the copyright in the instance of an organist employed by his church. The case of an organist writing something for his church is very simple. If he is employed by his church, copyright will belong to the church. That case is no different from any other case of employment. Of course, it is always possible for the organist and his church to agree to the contrary, in which case copyright will belong to the organist.

Turning to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brain, he said that the Government's amendment will remove present practice under which local photographers can take photographs for their own exploitation. The amendment in my name will not alter the present position of photographers because the present law confers ownership of copyright in photographs on the owner of the film, which will almost invariably be the newspaper employer. The Bill as drafted alters that position and my amendment restores the present position, albeit on a different legal basis. The practice described by the noble Lord, Lord Brain, must exist at present by virtue of contract or the gratuitous consent of newspaper employers and there is no reason why it should not continue. I also suggest that if insuperable problems were seen in 1981, this would be even more the case today as advancing technology opens up ever more avenues for the use of works. We believe therefore we should retain the principle that the employer owns the copyright. For that reason, I urge your Lordships to oppose Amendment No. 27 but to support Amendment No. 29.

My Lords, I am grateful to the many noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. It has demonstrated a certain division of opinion, and, indeed, a certain division in principle. Perhaps I may take one or two points in somewhat random order. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, complained about the expression:

"for the purpose for which it is created"

and asked me to explain what it meant. I can only refer to the text of the Bill as at present drafted in Clause 11(3) where it refers to employees of newspapers, magazines or similar periodicals and states:

"applies only so far as relates to publication of the work in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical".

That is what we had in mind when we were drafting this amendment: to endeavour to ensure that the position relating to journalists at the moment is maintained and indeed extended.

The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, chided me for not getting my Patents Act right. The noble Lord is the great expert on the Patents Act and I believe, as he mentioned in Committee, it was the noble Lord who actually got Sections 39 to 43 relating to employee inventions into the Patents Act.

My Lords, one of them.

My Lords, one of them. Clearly we do not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, would like but that is precisely because we do not want to throw newspapers into the confusion into which, we are told, they would be thrown if we adopted what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, suggested.

My noble friend Lord Howie asked me to expand a little on the phrase "for any other purpose". Apart from what I have replied to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, I can do no better than refer to the two examples given by my noble friend Lord Willis. They were two excellent examples of exactly what "for any other purpose" means. The examples given of the advertising agency and the diet invented for the US navy are to the point and I am grateful to my noble friend for referring to them.

I believe that here we have one of the few major issues of principle in this Bill. We on our side believe that employee rights in general should be protected and encouraged and the Government have come down firmly on the side of employers retaining the copyright. That is a clear division of principle. I do not believe that it will be sorted out by argument and discussion and there is not much point in talking further. Therefore, I intend to ask the House to give its opinion.

moved Amendment No. 28: