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

My Lords, the Government are well aware of the views of many Members of your Lordships' House about the drawbacks of the dock labour scheme. However, as has been made clear in another place, there are no plans at present to change the operation of the scheme.

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend, as I must, for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware of the damage that the scheme has caused to a number of ports including the Port of London, formerly the greatest port in the world? Are the Government happy to see the scheme continue, even though its power of mischief is somewhat reduced by the fact that it has already eliminated so much?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for following the convention of thanking me for my Answer. We are aware of the many drawbacks of the dock labour scheme and some of the harm that it has caused to ports in the past. However, there are no plans at present to change the operation of the scheme.

My Lords, can the Minister give more detail about the alleged irregularity of the unions with regard to the implementation of the scheme? Is it not a fact that unions have not made trouble for employers and developers? If that is so, why do we not leave well alone?

My Lords, it is true that there has been comparatively little industrial action in the ports, but I believe that that has much more to do with the economics of running the ports themselves than the actions of the unions. However, that is a matter on which those who run the ports are far better qualified to speak than I.

My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as a director of the company which employs the largest number of registered dock workers. Will the Government not prepare legislation to bring an end to this scheme? It distorts trade, blights the ports involved, causes serious injustice between workers inside and outside the scheme who are working alongside each other in a port, prevents the recruitment of young workers and is totally in opposition to all the principles for which this Government stand. The average age of workers in the scheme nationally is about 47; but this week I visited a port where the average age is 52. The scheme will not wither on the vine. Will the Government do something about it?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I am aware of the many defects of the scheme. There are no plans for legislation at the present time. But, of course, I cannot speculate on what view might be taken in the future.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I am glad to learn that there are no plans at the present time to change the scheme. May I seek an assurance that if at some time in the future there are plans to make changes these will only be embarked upon after full consultation with both sides of the industry?

My Lords, I think that we shall have to wait to see what happens should the Government develop plans to deal with the scheme at some time in the future.

My Lords, as it was not an unreasonable request, I should like to reinforce the question which the noble Baroness put to the Minister. Surely, both sides of the industry ought to be consulted. Will the Minister give that assurance?

No, my Lords.

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

My Lords, we have noted the guild's views. The 1985 White Paper Airports Policy, however, set out the pattern of airport development to meet the demand for air travel into the mid-1990s. We naturally keep the adequacy of capacity, including runway capacity, under review, as does the Civil Aviation Authority, which has a statutory duty to make recommendations to my right honourable friend on such matters.

My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the Minister on his recent appointment as president of the permanent commission set up to administer Eurocontrol. May I wish him well in it and say that the House hopes that his appointment will provide us with opportunities for asking questions and congratulating him on the work accomplished? Reverting to the Answer which he has given this afternoon, in addition to noting what the guild has said, does the Minister feel able to comment on two points which it has made? The first is that every attempt to set up a fresh runway has met with opposition from pressure groups and the best solution has been blocked. The second is that competition for funds from airfields operated by private companies must not be allowed to deny investment in new airfields.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind words at the beginning of her statement. I have to say, however, that the presidency of the permanent commission is something which comes up in turn among all the member states so the appointment is not very much to my own personal credit. Regarding pressure and environmental groups in airport development, it is a fact of life that airport developments have environmental implications and the Government have to take those into account. It is also true to say that in arriving at decisions about airport development, we have to have regard to the wider national interest.

So far as concerns investment in new airport capacity, one of the main reasons for privatising the British Airports Authority was to give it access to private finance. While public airport companies remain under local authority control, their external finance is subject to government control. I should mention the example of the new London City Airport which has recently been opened and which was entirely privately financed. Money is available for that kind of development.

My Lords, may I put to the Minister the supplementary questions which I raised last Thursday and which his noble friend Lord Davidson said that he would refer to the Minister for a reply this week? Is it not the case that the problem of runway capacity is mainly in the South-East, and that the runway situation elsewhere in the United Kingdom is okay? Is it not also the case that the problem in the South-East could be surmounted if the target of 25 million passengers per annum at Stansted was reached? Is the problem in the South-East not one of lack of runway capacity but of lack of safe air space capacity?

My Lords, the noble Lord endorses the 1985 White Paper recommendations on capacity in the South-East which take into account the development of Stansted. The first stage would increase capacity to 8 million passengers, and the second stage to 15 million. It does not go beyond that at the moment; but there is a possibility that capacity could go up to 25 million if a second terminal is built. That would of course require planning permission. There is also a good deal of capacity at regional airports. The Government have given a great deal of encouragement to the development of regional airports. We have authorised investment of £240 million since 1979 in regional airport development, which is a high figure. We are very encouraged to see the growth which has taken place in recent years, particularly at airports such as Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow. Turning to air space, the CAA is satisfied that with the use of flow management at peak times it will be able to handle the expansion of traffic level implicit in the 1985 White Paper.

My Lords, can the Minister say whether it is too late to hark back to the scheme which was first mentioned in this House in December 1967; namely, that with the present ideas about the extension of airfields there exists the possibility of reclaiming Maplin or Goodwin Sands as a site for a fourth London airport?

Yes, my Lords. I think that it is too late to go back to those plans.

My Lords, while the Minister is giving his attention to the vast demands of the airlines, will he bear in mind the cost-effectiveness and convenience of general aviation and make sure that those aircraft are not squeezed out in the rush for extra airline space?

My Lords, of course we take into account the needs of general aviation. However, we feel that at major airports such as Gatwick and Heathrow the commercial services must take priority and may eventually force out business in general aviation from those airports. We have encouraged the development of a series of airports around London in order to cope with that, and I hope that in conjuction with the Ministry of Defence there will shortly be some development at Northolt.

My Lords, in considering this matter will my noble friend have in mind the major contribution that civil aviation makes to the British economy and in particular the aid to the balance of payments for the tourist industry that it facilitiates? In those circumstances will he look very anxiously at the question of whether there will be enough runway capacity available in a few years' time?

My Lords, we are the first to recognise the immense achievement of civil aviation in this country and the contribution that it makes to our economy. As regards the provision of extra capacity, the Civil Aviation Authority has a statutory duty under the Civil Aviation Act to make recommendations. Up to now it certainly has not done so.

My Lords, is it not perfectly clear to the Minister that there is a great deal of unused capacity in this country and, moreover, that its concentration on London is largely in the hands of the commercial interests of the sellers? What action are the Government taking to use the existing capacity in the North of England and Scotland, something which is so necessary for the economic development of both those areas?

My Lords, I think that I answered that question to some extent when I gave the figures for investment in regional airports. The noble Earl may be aware that traffic at Manchester grew by over a quarter last year and that more or less the same increase was seen at Glasgow and at Birmingham. There are therefore great opportunities for those regional airports.

My Lords, following the noble Earl's question, does the Minister not agree that a reduction in the landing charges at Prestwick, for example, may make a terrific difference to the willingness of airlines to fly to Scottish and northern provincial airports?

My Lords, airport charges are a matter for the operator. The Government would not attempt to influence the operators of those airports about how much they charge. In the case of Prestwick, the British Airports Authority will be reviewing the situation at that airport next year.

My Lords, if I may put a supplementary question, does the Minister not agree that the Government have an interest in the social problems in the South-East and that it may well be their responsibility to help with the airport charges in the North in order to relieve those social problems?

My Lords, I have not noticed the airport charges at Manchester, though I suppose that I ought to be quite careful about what I say as regards the MMC report having detracted from the growth of that airport. As I said a few minutes ago, it is growing tremendously fast.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the last two inquiries about the management of airlines coming into this country the point about diverting aircraft to the regions, including Scotland, was very carefully examined and it was found that there is a limit to the extent to which that can he done? If it is overdone, visitors to this country who wish to come to London find that they cannot land here and they go either to Amsterdam or to Paris, with the result that we lose out altogether. It is a matter of balance and I think that my noble friend has that balance right.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. There is indeed a danger that if we try to force people to use airports to which they do not wish to go, we may lose traffic to Schiphol, Paris and Frankfurt. The Government do not seek to force people to fly to places to which they do not wish to go.

My Lords, when the Minister talks about airports to which people do not want to go, is he aware that that applies also to London?

My Lords, I do not have the figures with me at the moment, but many million people every year want to go to London.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a great many people, particularly tourists, want to go to Scotland by aeroplane, and that it is very difficult to fly direct at the moment? Does he consider that it would be a good idea to expand Scottish airports before the whole southern part of Great Britain slips into the sea under the weight of aeroplanes?

My Lords, as I said earlier, there has been a very large growth recently, particularly at Glasgow. As we all know, Prestwick has its difficulties but it offers trans-Atlantic services. There is nothing to stop somebody starting a service to Scotland.

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

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has given local authorities additional capital expenditure consent of £6 million in the current year in respect of preparations for the implementation of the community charge, and proposes to allocate a further £15 million next year. The rate support grant settlement for 1988–89 includes a total of £12 million in respect of current expenditure on preparations for implementation. We expect that, when the community charge is in operation, additional administrative expenditure will be in the range of £17 million to £22 million per annum.

My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that interesting reply. Despite the very substantial figures that he has quoted, is he aware that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has indicated that the amounts allocated, particularly on the current expenditure budget, represent only half of the amount that will be required? In that event, will the Government meet the shortfall? Further, will he confirm that the amount expended on the collection of rates under the present system will be doubled under the new arrangements? Does he consider that that represents a sensible allocation of resources for local authority expenditure at a time when social services and other essential services are being severely limited?

My Lords, perhaps I may deal first of all with the point raised by the noble Lord in relation to CoSLA. So far as concerns capital expenditure, consent of £21 million compares with local authorities' initial bids of £20 million and will be ample to allow local authorities to make satisfactory preparations for the new system. As regards current expenditure, as I have already indicated, £12 million is for the current year, and so far as concerns 1989–90 that will be taken into account when the revenue support grant is fixed for that year.

My answer to the next question the noble Lord put to me is that we estimate the present administrative cost of the domestic rating system to be around £20 million; so the cost of the new system will be roughly double that figure. That is consistent with the fact that there will be twice as many community charge payers as there are domestic ratepayers. That has given the new system the added element of accountability, which we debated in this House during the passage of the Bill.

To put the matter in another context, local authority expenditure in Scotland amounts to £4·2 billion. Forty million pounds, which is estimated to be the current cost of running this system, is 1 per cent. of that sum; or the increase is one-half of 1 per cent.

My Lords, I am sure many people will be surprised that the Minister is so confident that there will be a great deal more money raised by the poll tax. He must be aware of the number of people who have refused to register on the electoral roll because they are afraid of being included for the poll tax.

Will he confirm that the capital allocation that he mentioned will consist of new money and not be money taken from some other capital works that could have been undertaken? Will he also confirm that the revenue expenditure, which is any revenue expenditure wholly in count for community charge purposes, will be allowed by the Government as falling within the government guidelines and will not he liable to councils having a clawback because due to the increased charge they have exceeded the limits of the original allowance?

Finally, are the Government learning anything from the passage of the Bill in another place with regard to the remainder of the United Kingdom? Will there be changes in the Scottish legislation because of what is happening in another place? Even at this late date will the Government not give a thought at least to postoning the application of the Scottish Bill until the provisions apply to the whole of the United Kingdom?

My Lords, so far as I can recall, there are four questions there. First, are we going to change our mind and hold back the implementation next year? The answer to that is no. Secondly, I gave an assurance to the House on 30th June last year. If there were changes in the English and Welsh Bill which made it necessary to have a look to see whether we should change our own, I gave this assurance:

"If refinements arc made to the proposals we will of course consider whether any parallel changes need to be made to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act".—[Official Report, 30/6/87: col. 1191

On capital allocation, we indicated that we would look at that. We now have the figure of £20 million. We feel that is a realistic figure for the capital allocation.

My Lords, new money?

My Lords, yes, new money. With regard to any extra that will be required, noble Lords will know that my right honourable friend has announced capital expenditure this week of £395 million; and it is of course up to local authorities to decide how to spend that money.

Finally, the noble Lord asked a question about the problem of the revenue for the ongoing implementation of this Act. Total administrative costs will be taken into account in future revenue support grant settlements. We do not envisage that any form of specific grant will be appropriate.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Scotland the hostility to this measure—miscalled the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act—is even greater than that felt by a number of respected former Cabinet Ministers of the Conservative Government? Are the Government aware that as the English counterpart to the Scottish Act—to which my noble friend's question refers—makes progress in another place, this adds evidence to the view advanced from these Benches that the Government's approach to the business of the reform of local government finance was completely misconceived?

My Lords, I recall the very strong views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, when the Bill was passing through this House. It comes as no surprise to me that he should ask a question of this kind. However, at that same time, it was very clear from Members on the Benches on which he sits that the present rating system was a totally unacceptable way of carrying on. That is why change was made.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm this? Did he state that the cost of collecting rates at the present time is £20 million per annum? Under the new arrangements that will he £40 million per annum. That was justified on the basis that they would be collected from more people. Will he confirm that he is collecting the same amount of money? It is the costs of raising that amount of money that are significant, not the number of people who will have to pay rates.

I asked him—I know that he is a sensitive and civilised person—whether he regarded this as a sensible allocation of public resources. Local authorities are limited in provision of social services and other services, but they are now being asked to double the cost of the collection of rates, while accepting the burden of £12 million for the new register.

My Lords, we debated this at great length. We talked a great deal about accountability when the Bill was passing through this House. That is what the new system is about. The noble Lord says that the same amount of money will be collected. We shall have to wait and see whether that is the case. However, being the good businessman that he is, I believe that he will not consider that 1 per cent. out of the total expenditure on local government in Scotland is an undue amount to ask for the administrative costs of raising the tax.

My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the Minister on making this appalling tax appear almost credible.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Davidson will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on electricity privatisation.

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 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Transfers) Bill and the Statistics of Trade and Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 will be taken.

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

The need for these amendments to Standing Order 38 arises from the Procedure Committee report to which your Lordships agreed on Monday. The effect is to permit debates on Select Committee reports to be taken as early business whenever that is desirable. I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Beaverbrook.)

moved Amendment No. 112:

My Lords, this amendment would allow television broadcasts and cable programmes to be recorded for private purposes without infringement of copyright. I find its placing in Clause 65 somewhat odd. Clause 65 is concerned with the reception and retransmission of broadcasts in cable programmes. With respect, I venture to suggest to the noble Lord that the amendment would sit more happily with Clause 63.

Clause 63 already provides some of what is set out in this amendment. Clause 63 re-enacts existing law and provides that the copying of broadcasts and cable programmes does not infringe the copyright of the broadcaster or the operator of the cable programme service. It does not mean that broadcasts can be copied without infringement of copyright in the works included in the broadcast.

Let us take an example. A live broadcast of a sporting event may be recorded for private purposes without infringement. A broadcast of a copyright film may not, since this would infringe the copyright in the film, the screenplay and the music. So also would the broadcast of copyright dramatic or musical work. That is the present law and the Bill does not change it.

The amendment seeks to allow the recording of any television broadcast even when it includes copyright works. The Berne Convention permits exceptions to the right of reproduction—what we refer to in Clause 17 of the Bill as —"copying"—only in very limited circumstances. Article 9(2), to which I referred in our debate on Clause 29, allows member states to permit copying only in:

"certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author".

We are not constrained by the Berne Convention in respect of the copyright in broadcasts and cable programmes. We can therefore make what exceptions we deem appropriate within the much looser limits of the Rome Convention, which covers broadcasts. We are not however wholly free to make exceptions in respect of works covered by the Berne Convention. Any exception must comply with Article 9(2).

It may well he that some recording of television programmes does not conflict with normal exploitation or unreasonably prejudice the copyright owner. I am inclined to the view that time-shifting falls in this category although I know that views differ on this point. On the other hand, the off-air recording of a feature film which is retained for repeated use does, I believe, damage the copyright owner's interests. Some people build up video libraries by recording films from the television rather than buying or renting them. The amendment would allow this latter practice and is, I suggest, therefore incompatible with our Berne obligations.

I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment rather than press an amendment which runs counter to the convention, which he has been so eloquently urging upon us in other connections.

My Lords, it is interesting to note that the Government have apparently changed their view of the meaning of the Berne Convention since the publication of the White Paper on the subject. I am referring to paragraph 6.26. It does not appear to us that there is a breach of the Berne Convention in private recording for time-shifting purposes, and that is intended. It is strange that the drafting of the amendment has not been criticised but only its positioning. If the Government would accept the amendment if it were placed somewhere else in the Bill, I should be prepared to do that. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 113:

After Clause 68, insert the following new clause:

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 113 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I do so in order to correct the procedure of the House. I understand that it is not proper for a noble Lord to say why he is not moving an amendment. An amendment must be moved, a reply must be given and then it can be withdrawn.

My Lords, the amendment is not moved.

My Lords, in that case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 116:

Page 27, line 16, leave out ("or").

moved Amendment No. 117:

moved Amendment No. 118:

Page 27, line 19, leave out from ("building") to end of line 20 and insert ("also has the right to be identified").

My Lords, I should like to express my gratidude to the Minister for responding to the debate at Committee and attempting to correct in the Bill a matter which I considered to be wrong. He eventually agreed that it was wrong.

I regret to say that, as in the debate on Tuesday, I am not wholly satisfied. I should like to ask the Minister to look again at the situation and see whether he can come closer to the amendment which I tabled at Committee. My reason for saying that is that, as I see the sitution, the Government have endeavoured to meet my point of including engineers and others, in addition to architects, by the use of the word "building" in the Bill.

However, as far as I have been able to discover—and I may be wrong—there is in fact no statutory definition of a building anywhere. The only definition which I have been able to find describes a building as being a constructive edifice—which is certainly correct—designed to stand permanently, covering a space of land usually covered by a roof and enclosed by walls serving as a dwelling, store house, factory or shelter for animals and so on. Of course that defines a building in the commonplace sense but in the sense of the Bill as it now stands, "building" has been extended to include such structures as bridges and the various engineering structures which I referred to in Committee.

I hope that the Minister does not feel that I am carping. I am not trying to carp because I am grateful for the extent to which he has moved in my direction. However, I wonder whether he would consider looking into my remarks and moving a shade further in the direction of the amendments which I tabled in Committee.

My Lords, the noble Lord is very difficult to please at times, but it is not our intention to exclude designers or authors, if you like, of bridges and the other examples that he mentions. We have looked at this and I understand that we are happy with the terminology as it is in the Bill at the moment. I always look carefully at what he has said and we shall check to see that we are happy. However, I give him an undertaking that it is not our intention to exclude the examples he gave.

moved Amendment No. 119:

Page 27, leave out lines 23 to 26.

moved Amendment No. 120:

moved Amendment No. 121:

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 121, Amendment No. 122:

In subsection (2)(b), at end insert (", or

(c) by securing that when the author or other first owner of copyright parts with possession of a copy made by him or under his direction or control, the author is identified on the copy").

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. The usual procedure when a composer has a piece of music published is that the publisher buys the copyright when publishing it, paying a nominal fee of £5 or something of that nature, and thereafter is the holder of the copyright. Will that cease to be the case? It is a condition that I have always disliked.

My Lords, perhaps I may first respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. He referred to the Berne Convention. As he told the House, the author has the right to claim authorship and I must emphasise the word "claim". The presence of a name on a book is no indication of a claim, as I have explained. The amendment in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Morton and Lord Williams of Elvel, is not required by the Berne Convention and I believe that it would confuse matters, not help them.

Perhaps I may give another example of, say, a picture that is signed by the artist. Often that signature is there because the person who buys the picture wants it for its future value. As we know, unsigned pictures can be less valuable than those signed by the artist; but that signature is not necessarily going to be an assertion of the author's rights in this respect. As I said, it could be there for another reason.

Referring to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I can assure him that the provisions in Part IV do not affect the assignment of copyright at all.

My Lords, I have great difficulty in seeing why an artist who signs a painting is not claiming or asserting that he painted the picture. If he signs the picture and he did not paint it he is committing something else, but that is a different assertion. If an artist paints a picture and signs it he is saying, "I am the author of that painting". I should have thought, taking the Berne Convention in its English translation, that he is claiming authorship of the painting. In ordinary English, that is what he is doing. I know that lawyers have a bad——

My Lords, with apologies to the noble Lord and with the leave of the House, let me say that in many cases the artist may not be claiming his moral rights. Certainly he may be identifying himself as the painter of the picture, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that he is asserting the new moral rights that have been granted to him under this Bill. An artist's signature will be an assertion of paternity right for the purpose of exhibition only and not for any other purpose.

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, but my confusion is getting worse and worse. I understand that the Berne Convention says that independent of the author's economic rights—so he is not doing anything to make money or lose money by it—he has the right to claim authorship of the work. In ordinary straightforward English, he is saying, "This is mine, I did it". If an artist signs a painting, or an author puts his name on a book, he is saying, "This is mine, I created it". That is the moral right of authorship; that gives him the right to say he did it and under the Berne Convention the right not to have other people mucking about with the work.

Those are the two moral rights we are speaking about. I should have thought that once you put your name on something you have asserted your authorship, which is not an economic right but a moral right. For the reasons which I have tried to make clear, but obviously I have not succeeded, at least with the Minister, I press this amendment.

moved Amendment No. 123:

Page 28, line 24, at end insert—

("(c) any computer-generated work.").

moved Amendment No. 124:

My Lords, I find this very confusing because we have here a large group of amendments which in themselves may he fine when one is considering them in relation to authorship and writing. We have a much wider scope than this; namely, artistic works and subjects like that. I wish that the Government had been a little more selective in the grouping of the amendments, which would have made it easier for us to discuss them.

Having made that comment, I do not feel that the same points always apply. I quite accept the noble Earl's point about the need to produce composite works in a good editorial fashion without always having to go back to the author and other questions of that kind. On the artistic side I am concerned very much with the subsequent use of photographs when the photographer has left the employment he was in when he took the photographs. He becomes much more famous. If somebody crops his work subsequently so as to make a thoroughly bad photograph, it is very discrediting to his reputation. I believe that he still has a moral right.

As regards the identification of photographers, I understand that it is common practice in all newspapers in the United States and in other parts of the world to identify all the photographers. Very often articles have to be edited. Photographs may have to be cropped slightly but the photograph is the whole work of the photographer. If it is a montage or the coming together of two or three photographs, that is a different point. It is not a photograph by the photographer, and the authorship is then that of the person who compiles the montage or the changes. Why should a photographer not be identified? This is the problem we have when we talk about one author with one part of the product. While I support some parts of some of the amendments; on others, I am neutral. I make the point, however, that this is taking a shotgun when we ought perhaps to be taking a rifle.

My Lords, I wish to speak in particular to the Minister's Amendments Nos. 127 and 136, and also to Amendments Nos. 127A and 136A standing in my name. I warmly welcome the Government's Amendments Nos. 127 and 136. The Bill as originally drafted provided that the right to be identified as an author and the right to object to unjustified modification of a work would apply to the publication of works in newspapers. There was a widespread fear—particularly among newspapers such. as The Times and periodicals such as the Economist, a fear which was ventilated at the Committee stage—that the exercise of those rights would severely disrupt the editorial process and in addition create industrial relations difficulties. Indeed, we were told by the editor of the Economist that it would be impossible to publish that periodical in its present form were the Bill to be enacted.

The effect of the Government's amendments is to restrict the application of the moral rights' provisions by providing that they do not apply to the publication of works created for the purpose of being published in a newspaper. That will mean that journalists will have no legal right to insist on a byline on news stories or photographs or to object to the modification or editing of copy. It will also prevent the exercise of moral rights by, for example, readers contributing letters or reports or freelance contributors or advertisers.

The exercise of moral rights in such circumstances would have posed a threat to an editor's right to edit and would have emasculated his responsibility for the form and content of his newspaper. The government amendments provide that some protections are afforded to authors in respect of the subsequent exploitation of works appearing in newspapers. It seems to me that the amendments will result in no injustice whatever and that some of the anxieties of, for example, freelance contributors, can be dealt with in the manner which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, urged during the Committee stage; namely, by establishing contractual relationships.

Finally, Amendments Nos. 127A and 136A add to the exceptions in the government amendments news agencies. It is very important that we clarify this point and ensure that there is no ambiguity concerning the list of exceptions. One of the factors about which editors of newspapers and periodicals were deeply concerned in the moral rights of modification and attribution was the interference with speed, which is essential in the production of newspapers. Time is even more of the essence for a wire service. There is not time to consider whether there should be an attribution or a modification, and to exclude news agencies from the operation of these exceptions could result in anomalies. For example, the Press Association (which in this country supplies most newspapers with a great deal of their domestic news) could be putting out news stories with attributions attached to them in a manner which the statute would forbid to the journalist employed on the newspapers taking the Press Association material. This would clearly be an unacceptable anomaly.

I therefore very much hope that the Government may be prepared to accept my amendment to add news agencies to the list of exceptions. It is an amendment which in no way affects the principle or the substance of the legislation. I beg to move.

My Lords, I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 134A. The Minister will know that this relates to a point I raised earlier on the advice of the Association of Cinematograph Television and Allied Technicians. It has a real concern about the value of the moral rights, although it is pleased to see them in the Bill. The more one looks at it, the more one sees a real danger in Clauses 9 and 73 in relation to film directors that the rights which are given with one hand are taken away in all other normal circumstances.

Clause 73(c) states that the right not to suffer unjustified modification to a work does not apply where copyright is vested in the director's employer, which is the producer. However, this will almost inevitably be the case. The director's moral rights in this respect are held to be rendered almost meaningless. If the Minister acknowledges that or disputes it, there will be those outside the House who will be pleased to hear what he has to say. We can look at this matter in another way. It appears as if the Bill is saying that a director, writer or any other author may not object to an unjustifiable modification if his employer or the producer of the film agrees to that modification. That effectively gives the right to make unjustifiable modifications to the very people who would normally seek to do so.

I know that the Minister is likely to say at some stage during the debate that it will be for the courts to decide what is unjustified in terms of modification. But does the Minister really intend to allow individuals to make unjustified modifications merely because they undertake the arrangements for the film. I know that those outside the House will be interested to hear how the Minister tackles the point.

My Lords, I intend to speak to Amendment No. 134 which seeks to leave out paragraph (b) of Clause 73. From what has happened in Committee, and at the Report stage earlier, it does not appear to us that we can challenge the attitude taken by the Government about the right of employees to have themselves named necessarily in the work that they create. However, Clause 73 deals with the right of the author not to suffer unjustified modification. Clause 73(b) states:

"where the copyright in the work originally vested in a person other than the author … and the modification is made by or with the authority of the copyright owner",

the author loses the right not to suffer unjustified modification. I can see, and concede, up to the point that your Lordships have decided the debate thus far, that the unemployed author has lost the right, so to speak, to have himself named. But I ask the House to consider what will happen if his name is mentioned? He is being named and his work is being unjustifiably modified. It is being distorted, made a fool of and it is prejudicial to the author's "honour or reputation"—I quote the last few lines of Article 6 of the Berne Convention.

First, is this subsection not a breach of Article 6 of the Berne Convention by phrasing it in that way? If we restricted it to cases where authorship was not shown, then it might be a different matter. But imagine, for example, someone who writes political commentary for a newspaper which does not necessarily agree with his political views. He could find that that newspaper will use his name but change wholly and unjustifiably the nature of what he wrote. Such a person might object strongly to that course of action.

To take a non-political instance, imagine the late Neville Cardus had been writing—as he did for the Manchester Guardian—and suddenly found his work transferred into one of the tabloid newspapers. He might well object to his type of writing being edited down to fit, say, the Sun or some such newspaper.

It appears to me that if there is unjustified modification in the author's published work then that is wholly wrong. That is why the amendment has been tabled. For that reason I shall move Amendment No. 134 when we come to that stage.

My Lords, as I see it, the issue in relation to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, regarding "composite works" is a simple and practical one. Like most of your Lordships, I have no objection to authors being identified, journalists having by-lines and photographers being properly identified when their work is reproduced in magazines, newspapers, books or elsewhere. The trouble is that when one deals with "composite works" in relation to magazines and encyclopaedias—the Economist has already been mentioned—one finds that each individual item becomes a team effort. In a sense that situation is provided for because a magazine might well place on its contents page a list of staff including writers, editors, and so on, so that in a general sense their moral right to participation in that magazine has been recognised in a general, if not specific, way. I am talking in this instance about the magazine as a whole and not the individual article.

When one comes to an individual article, one may well find that it has passed through the hands of its author, an editor, a re-writer, a sub-editor, a typographical write-out man, someone else who might have composed the headlines, and so on and so forth. Therefore unless I am mistaken in my interpretation of the Bill, each of the aforementioned persons would require to be identified at the end of every piece of "composite work". For example, each article in an encyclopaedia or magazine would he almost like the end of a film where the credit titles roll on and on, starting from the highest to the lowest person who has been associated with the work, while we all wait anxiously to see whether we can leave the cinema without offending the film's massive authorship.

The noble Earl, Lord Stockton, has made his case. I hope that the Government, even if they do not accept the amendment this afternoon, will at least look at it carefully with a view to returning on Third Reading with an amendment similar in nature to that which he has moved.

My Lords, I support the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in regard to film directors. I ventured to disagree with him at an earlier stage when it was suggested that the copyright should vest jointly with the director. I did so on the grounds, which I think the Government supported, that this was a matter which could be left to contract. However, when one comes to the issue of the director's moral right, he ought prima facie not to be subject to total modifications by the producer which would put him in a very invidious position. Here again, I think that that is a matter which could be adequately dealt with by contract. If the producer requires the right to modify the director's work, as indeed he probably will, then the exact degree to which he can do so should be stated in the contract which is invariably drawn up when arrangements are made for the production of the film.

There does not seem to be any justification in depriving the director of such protection. He does, after all, make a major creative contribution to the content of the film and should not therefore be in a position where he can be totally overridden by the producer, unless the director stipulates precisely the extent to which his rights can be modified. The onus should be on the producer to indicate in the contract the degree the producer can modify the director's work. Therefore to eliminate paragraph (c) of Clause 73 as propounded by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, seems to me to produce a more just and satisfactory result.

My Lords, I should like to support the Government's amendments in regard to allowing newspaper editors in effect to do their job. I ought here to declare an interest as I am an editorial director of the Westminster Press and a member of' the Association of British Editors and the Guild of British Newspaper Editors.

The situation which would have existed before the amendment was brought forward would have created a nightmare for editors and a charter for anyone who wanted to disrupt his ability to control the shape of the newspaper. Few people who have not worked in the newspaper industry realise how speedily a newspaper has to be put together and the degree to which an editor is forced to delegate decisions. For example, a chief sub-editor who is putting together scraps of information on a running story of, say, a riot or a natural disaster, has no time to refer his decisions upwards. There may be an inquest afterwards, but, at the time, he has to back his own split-second judgment in compiling a report from several different sources.

Similarly, a news or a picture editor who is briefing a freelance reporter or photographer on some fast-moving drama cannot get down to the minutiae of negotiating the terms and conditions on which any contribution may be published. There is no time to lose if the story is to be be put into the next edition. That is why allowing a reporter the right to insist on being identified or not to suffer alteration to what he has written or possibly dictated over the telephone from notes would he unrealistic and impractical in a newspaper context. I do not believe that newspaper editors wish to curtail the moral rights of writers to enjoy freedom from interference with what we might call literary works. But the Bill, as it stood, would have put editors in an impossible position and would have given undue disruptive power to people who might want to get in their way. Therefore, I welcome the Government's amendments.

I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, for the introduction of news agencies into the scene. As a former news agency reporter, I am aware that it is especially relevant to include them.

My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, I shall speak also to the amendments spelled out by my noble friend Lord Stockton. We discussed in Committee whether the moral rights provisions should apply to employees and, in particular, whether there should be special provisions for newspapers, magazines, periodicals and composite works. Many representations have been made to us and we have now had the opportunity to consider them and indeed all the arguments put forward in Committee.

I should first like to deal with the general question of employees and the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Morton of Shuna, and, concerning film directors, Amendment No. 134A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. We believe that giving employees and employed film directors the integrity right would cause all sorts of practical problems and the Government's views on this point remain as expressed in Committee.

There are so many instances where, in the course of normal working practices, a work will be modified in some way, and we believe that it is only right that the employer should be able to do this. It is worth pointing out that in the case of film directors many will be freelance and so not "employed" as defined in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, suggested that directors of feature films would not normally have any moral right to prevent unjustified modifications because they would be employees.

Most directors of feature films are not employed by the producers of the film. I accept that in television the situation may be different. In that context, I believe that it is right to safeguard the employer's interests as Clause 73 does.

I should like to turn to two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. He raised a fair point about how an author can be made a fool of or have his views modified so that everyone sees the modified work, and, as a result, receives a false impression of the author. I suggest that in that case the author would have been defamed and would be able to sue for libel. There is nothing in the Berne Convention which requires every point in it to be dealt with by a tailor-made provision. Here we have a Berne obligation adequately met by the common law. It is the opinion of the World Intellectual Property Organisation that the law of libel, insofar as it goes, is an entirely adequate means of giving effect to some of our Berne obligations.

I should like to deal with the first of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Stockton. The effect of this amendment would be to disapply the paternity right to employees. In Committee, I explained the Government's view that although the employer should be able to modify what his employees have been paid to create, the employees should at least be identified as the authors of their work. However, we have now had cause to reconsider this. Many employers would be faced with difficulties in identifying authors of works, even the very shortest works; for example, a caption on a television screen. This would be safely dealt with only by renegotiating contracts of employment to waive the right, and employers might be left in a difficult position if employees refused to waive the right. The Government cannot see the justification in that and feel that for much the same reasons as the integrity right is disapplied, so the paternity right should not apply to employees either. I am therefore happy to accept this amendment in principle. I think, however, that some reconstruction of the clause will be needed and film directors will need to be covered. So, if my noble friend would withdraw the amendment, I shall return on Third Reading.

I should now like to speak to my own amendments to Clauses 71 to 73, and the special case of newspapers. The Government have received many representations about the dire effect of moral rights on newspapers. We have been told that the paternity right would cause them problems in two respects; first, that every article would require a by-line, including those only three or four lines long and, secondly, that in many instances it is impossible to identify the author because there are different contributors to a piece, or because a work is heavily edited to match a particular house style. With the integrity right, the problem arises out of the widespread use of freelance journalists and photographers who, unlike employed journalists and photographers, would have the right to object to unjustified modification of work.

There can be no doubt that the nature of the newspaper industry makes it different from other forms of publishing. The deadlines are extremely tight. Newspapers do not have the time to seek waivers of moral rights when dealing with freelance reporters or to check whether the paternity right has been asserted. The rights would also be costly and cumbersome to administer. We understand that the relationship between editor and freelance journalist is often an informal one and one that perhaps would not survive with the requirements of moral rights. The fast-moving nature of this industry would make the operation of moral rights very difficult indeed. All this could lead to less use of freelance writers, and at worst restrict the supply of information.

The Government have therefore decided that moral rights should be dissapplied in works created for the purpose of publication in newspapers, magazines and periodicals. In the case of the integrity right, this disapplication extends to any subsequent use of the work elsewhere, to cover such things as the publication of books containing extracts from newspapers. If however a work is written for another purpose—for example, when an extract from a book is published in a newspaper—then moral rights will apply.

I should now like to deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brain. He referred to the need, as he sees it, to retain the moral right for photographers so that they can object to subsequent modifications of their works. In Clause 71, we are concerned only with the right to be identified as the author of a work. Clause 72 deals with unjustified modifications. Clause 73 also ensures that that right does not apply to employees.

The other amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Stockton would include "composite works" within that exception. Since reaching their decision on newspapers, the Government have received a number of representations from publishers of composite works. The nature of the work and the pressures of tight deadlines are much the same as those of the newspaper world and we believe that a similar exception should be made. We are not however happy with the proposed definition of "composite works" and if my noble friend is prepared to withdraw his amendments, we shall endeavour to come back at the next stage with our own version.

We are also aware that the newspaper exceptions may not cover news agency services. In reply to Amendments Nos. 127A and 136A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, I can say that we shall be looking carefully at this point and if necessary will come back with amendments at the next stage.

It may be helpful to say that I am therefore prepared to accept in principle Amendments Nos. 124, 127A, 128, 136A, 137 and 260. I shall obviously be supporting my own Amendments Nos. 127 and 136. I am afraid that I have to resist the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton, Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord Williams of Elvel, Amendments Nos. 134 and 134A.

My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his wisdom, perspicacity and imagination. With the assurances which he has given, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

rose to move Amendment No. 125:

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way. I understand that the Statement is ready, and perhaps the noble Lord will he kind enough to allow us to take it.

My Lords, your convenience is my convenience.

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on electricity privatisation which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the future of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales.

"In our manifesto, we promised to bring forward proposals to privatise the industry. Our purpose is to give the customer and the employees a better deal and a direct stake in the industry. I believe the industry will achieve more if it is moved into the private sector, freed from government interference, and made accountable to its customers and shareholders, including its employees.

"In framing my proposals, I have adopted six principles:

Decisions about the supply of electricity should be driven by the needs of customers.

Competition is the best guarantee of the customers' interests.

Regulation should be designed to promote competition, oversee prices and protect the customers' interests in areas where natural monopoly will remain.

Security and safety of supply must be maintained.

Customers should be given new rights, not just safeguards.

All who work in the industry should be offered a direct stake in their future, new career opportunities and the freedom to manage their commercial affairs without interference from government.

"There is substantial room for competition in the electricity industry. The distribution and transmission of electricity are largely natural monopolies, in which it would not be economic to duplicate resources. But there is no natural monopoly in electricity generation, which accounts for some three-quarters of the cost of electricity. Only if competition is introduced will there be real incentives for generators to build power stations efficiently, to have their stations available and to fuel and run them efficiently.

"There are three conditions which must be met if competition in generation is to develop. First, the effective monopoly enjoyed by the Central Electricity Generating Board will have to be ended. It will not be sufficient to leave the CEGB in its dominant position and rely on the growth of competition from Scotland, France and private generators. Secondly, ownership and control of the national grid will have to be transferred to the distribution side of the industry. However well regulated, the CEGB would have little incentive to allow competing generators fair access to a grid it owned and controlled. Private generating companies would have little incentive to enter the market and compete. Finally, the CEGB's obligation to provide bulk supplies of electricity will have to be ended, since it obliges the CEGB to take all the key decisions on power supply.

"I therefore propose to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to provide powers to restructure and privatise the industry. These powers will be used to reorganise the CEGB into three new companies. The first will be a new generating company, owning some 30 per cent. of the CEGB's existing capacity, all of it non-nuclear. The second will comprise the remainder of the CEGB's generating capacity, both fossil-fuelled and nuclear. The third will be a national grid company, whose ownership will be transferred to the 12 existing area hoards. The area hoards will in turn be converted into 12 distribution companies, preserving their strong regional identity. The Government will consult the industry about the implications of privatisation for the employees and continuing functions of the Electricity Council, but the council itself will be abolished when the new structure is put in place. Once they have been established, the shares in the 12 distribution companies and two generating companies will be sold to the public and employees.

"In future the distribution companies will be able to look to private generators, Scotland, France, the two large generating companies or their own generation to meet demand. The new structure will introduce competition, which will be the best guarantee of the customer's interests. But the legislation will also provide safeguards and new rights. It will create new opportunities for employees.

"First, it will establish regulatory arrangements to promote competition, to provide incentives for efficiency and to oversee electricity prices to the consumer.

"Secondly, a number of measures will be taken to ensure the security of supply. Because there are no alternatives to electricity in many of its uses, security of supply is of great importance. The legislation will therefore place a clear obligation to supply on the 12 distribution companies, which will ensure that they contract for sufficient capacity. But security of supply is not simply a question of having sufficient capacity. Power has to be transmitted through the national grid, and the grid controllers have a central role in planning and directing the use of power stations so as to prevent the failure of the system and to minimise cost. Our proposals will ensure that the national grid company, owned by the distribution companies, retains this central role. The integrity of the grid and the operation of power stations in merit order will be preserved.

"The other principal condition for maintaining secure supply is to ensure that electricity is generated from a diversity of fuels. It would be irresponsible to rely on fossil fuels to meet all our electricity generating requirements. The legislation will therefore provide for a clear obligation to be placed on the distribution companies to contract for a specified proportion of non fossil-fuelled generating capacity.

"The legislation will also incorporate an electricity supply code, consolidating and updating the legislation that currently governs the supply of electricity, dating back to the last century. Above all, we will maintain present standards of safety throughout the industry.

"Finally, the legislation will establish new rights for the consumer. Even after privatisation, the local distribution companies will remain natural monopolies. Although their prices will he regulated, I do not believe this will be sufficient. The consumer will therefore be given the right to financial compensation if the distribution companies fail to provide a guaranteed level of service. They will also be required to provide a range of indicators of standards of service, which will be published.

"Competition and the other measures I have described will benefit the consumer. But the employee will also benefit, and that is just as important. The new structure of the industry will provide wider career opportunities for employees, and there will be attractive provisions to ensure that they can acquire shares. Existing pension obligations will be safeguarded. The legislation will make no changes to the industry's negotiating and consultation machinery.

"Because of the importance of these proposals, I am today publishing them in the form of a White Paper and copies are now available in the Library and in the Vote Office.

"The electricity industry has much to be proud of, but I believe it can achieve more. My proposals will create a modern competitive industry, owned by the public and responsive to the needs of customers and employees. There are real benefits in prospect".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. However, I am afraid that there are a number of questions which I shall have to ask him today. The first question has to be: why? We know about the manifesto commitment, but we have seen with other issues that manifesto commitments arc not always implemented and often the mandate is questionable. So what evidence is there of the need to privatise? At the moment we enjoy security of supply. The Minister gave us six principles to which he is working, but the first five of those are already satisfied.

Security of supply was proved in the recent disasters that we suffered, particularly in October last year. Nothing could have been better than the work which the present supply industry carried out. We are aware too that an efficient integrated system is widely recognised throughout the world as being the best way of organising. There is not a non-integrated electricity supply system anywhere in the world. We wonder what the excuse is for dismantling that in the way which is now being proposed.

We have low prices in spite of the recent increases which have been announced. I shall return to that in a moment. May I ask who has advised the Secretary of State on his proposed structure? Is he not attempting to construct an inappropriate competition model in an industry where it is not in place anywhere in the world? We should like to evaluate the quality of the advice, so I must ask the Minister again where that advice came from. Regarding prices, does the Minister accept that an Electricity Council report shows that our electricity prices are the seventh cheapest of the 20 OECD countries, and that the six countries where prices are cheaper all have state-owned electricity supply industries? That is a point which should not be readily abandoned.

The Statement mentions security; but it is not at all clear from the paragraph on security who will be ultimately responsible for it. Does the Minister appreciate the importance of security of supply in this very sophisticated society where our whole economy can be brought to a halt if there is any long interruption in supply?

We have a debate tomorrow morning on the paving Bill for this legislation and I propose to reserve my other questions until then. However, I must finally say to the Minister that at the end of this exercise which we are now discussing we shall still have a regulated monopoly. The aim of competition will not be achieved, it has been admitted even in the Statement. Is this not just a money raising exercise in order to finance more tax cuts?

My Lords, I too should like to welcome the Statement and the opportunity that it gives us of initially having a discussion on this important issue, and asking some questions.

Incidentally I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether he can throw any light on the fact that The Times this morning was able so accurately to forecast what was contained in the Statement that was read to us today. I should also like to remind the noble Viscount of the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, on Monday, the burden of which was that a Green Paper would be preferable to a White Paper so that we could have a wider debate. However the Government have decided otherwise and we are now faced with the White Paper. I should like to limit myself to five questions which I believe cover the crucial issues which arise from this measure.

First is the question of security of supply. This has already been referred to by the noble Baroness. Lady Nicol. Many of us have been concerned at the debate which has been going on about this in which the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, has pointed out in many statements referred to in the press that he would not feel that the security of the supply of electricity could be guaranteed if the CEGB were broken up. That was a viewpoint expressed by the man who is managing the industry at present. Are the Government satisfied that the question of security of supply can he adequately catered for under the measures which they now propose?

Secondly there is the matter of competition on which the Government set great store. But will this new arrangement induce the maximum degree of competition? We shall have two mammoth concentrations of power of which 70 per cent. will be concentrated in one company and 30 per cent. in another. What chance will the smaller generators have in facing up to those- two great companies? There has been much discussion in the press on the part of economic experts who have taken the view that if there was to be a break up and competition was to be stimulated there should have been many more companies involved.

Thirdly there is the matter of the proportion of non-fossil fuel to be used for the generation of electricity. This was mentioned in the Statement and is presumably to cover nuclear energy. But when the proportion is imposed on the distribution companies (which is apparently intended) will it include other forms of non-fossil fuel energy such as wind power, tidal power, and so on'? Will the companies be able to choose between the different forms of non-fossil fuel energy in the proportions which are allocated to them?

Fourthly there is the regulatory system. It is interesting to note that the Government consider that the regulatory system for electricity should be a good deal tougher than that which was proposed for gas. Many of us felt that that was fairly weak when it was going through the Committee stage. But if there is going to be a tough regulatory system in a situation in which competition is being stimulated, how will this bear down upon the smaller companies? Are they likely to suffer from an excess of regulation which will prevent them from competing with the bigger companies which could take that in their stride?

Finally there is the matter of the consumers. A lot of emphasis was put in the Statement on the rights of consumers. But what was not clear was whether the consumer councils were going to be retained or not. There was a debate on that in this House last night in which we compared the contrasting ways in which the consumers' interests were attempted to be safeguarded in the telecommunications industry and in the gas industry. Which way will it go under electricity? That was not clear.

My Lords, I shall start by warmly congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, on her appointment as the official Opposition spokeswoman on energy. I must say that I sympathise with her for having been thrown in at the deep end and in having as her first task to respond to a Statement which is both technical and inevitably politically controversial. But she has shown that she is clearly not out of her depth on the subject. I look forward to facing the noble Baroness across the Dispatch Box, if not always in harmony at least with goodwill on both sides.

I should also like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for the very amicable relationship which we enjoy outside the Chamber although it may not always have been apparent inside the Chamber. I wish him well in his retirement from the Front Bench.

Before beginning to answer the questions from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord perhaps I may just remind your Lordships on a general point that a White Paper setting out the proposals in detail is being published today. Some of the questions which have been asked already do find an answer in the White Paper. Also, there is to be a general debate on energy in the name of my noble friend Lord Beloff on 9th March which will give your Lordships an opportunity to discuss all aspects of energy generation in detail. This of course does not preclude a debate on the White Paper which if required would be arranged through the usual channels. However I thought it courteous at this stage to remind your Lordships of that debate.

The noble Baroness asked me a number of questions. First she asked why the Government were doing this. The proposals of my right honourable friend are widely supported within the industry. The majority accepts that it is perfectly possible to have the grid and power stations owned by different companies. The Institution of Electrical Engineers takes the same view. These proposals will preserve the current role of the national grid while introducing real competition. We feel that real competition will come about under the proposals.

As regards the overseas experience. I must say that every electricity supply system in the world is different. Nowhere else in the world is there a supply system like the one we have at present. Most systems—as indeed our own system at the beginning of the century—evolved piecemeal. In Germany for example there are over 600 companies supplying electricity to the consumer. Overseas models provide useful lessons for us to learn and we have studied several overseas systems. That has shown that no one country's system is the best and is the one that we should use. As the Government have shown with previous privatisations, they are leading the way and not following other countries.

Regarding prices, there is considerable misunderstanding. The price increase that we are talking about in April is in effect the first electricity price increase since 1985. On average domestic electricity prices have fallen by about 15 per cent. in real terms over the past five years and average industrial prices have fallen by even more than that. The electricity price rise due in April will add only between one-fifth and one-eighth of 1 per cent. to industry's costs in England and Wales.

Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke about security of supply. As I have already indicated, that is covered in detail in the White Paper. I shall quote from the beginning of paragraph 44 where it is stated:

"There are three principal conditions for a secure supply of electricity: Proper control of the generating and transmission systems, to ensure that power can be delivered where it is needed. Sufficient generating capacity to meet demand. Protection against interruptions in fuel supply."

All those matters are covered in that section of the White Paper.

As regards alternative forms of supply, of course all the area boards will be able to take their supply from whatever is available and is offered to them. That is where the choice really comes in. The regulator, about which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked, is based on two of the Secretary of State's six principles: competition is the best guarantee of the customer's interest, and regulation should be designed to promote competition, oversee prices and protect the customer's interest in areas where natural monopoly will remain. Distribution transmission will remain largely a matter for monopolies which will need an effective regulatory regime; and this will be based on price control as for gas, telecommunications and airports. The Director General of Oftel in his recent consultative document concluded that no case appears to exist for changing from a "price-cap" approach to one which is more closely related to the rate of return.

On the last point made by the noble Lord. Lord Ezra, on the consumer interests, I certainly sat in and listened to the Unstarred Question last night put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I can assure your Lordships that it will be very much in the interests of the area boards to ensure that consumer relations are given the very highest priority. In addition, the benefits of the national grid will be maintained. There will be guarantees of standards and regulation, including technical regulation, as there is at present. There will be penalties for companies which perform badly, and compensation for consumers. We will ensure that power is supplied to consumers in an efficient, reliable and safe manner. I hope that I have answered most, if not all, of the questions put by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.

My Lords, perhaps I may ask several questions of my noble friend. He referred first to the Government's belief that the industry will achieve more on this new basis. Will he be good enough to give the foundations for that belief, seeing that the competition will be very much more apparent than real so far as most customers are concerned?

My second question is: to whom will the duty to supply, at present on the shoulders of the generating board, he transferred? My next question is this: is my noble friend aware that the suggestion that the responsibility for the grid to be transferred to the area boards is one which causes me at any rate considerable alarm and concern?

Lastly, does my noble friend appreciate that to propound a policy for electricity which makes no reference to coal is really something very unrealistic: so much so that proposals which do not contain such a reference can hardly be taken very seriously?

My Lords, perhaps I may take the extremely important question of coal first. I must tell my noble friend that coal will continue to be the major source of fuel for electricity generation for years to come. British Coal has increased its productivity by 50 per cent. in the last four or five years and my right honourable friend is confident that it can supply coal reliably and competitively. Her Majesty's Government have shown their commitment to the future of British Coal through an investment of £2 million a day. I stress that reliability will of course be important from the point of view of getting contracts and the geographical position of British Coal will continue to give it an advantage so far as competition is concerned.

I must disagree with my noble friend on one point. I am quite convinced that there will be a very strong element of competition and the transfer of' the grid from the CEGB to the area boards will have a considerable effect on this. The purpose of privatising the industry is to introduce real, visible and effective competition. I would advise my noble friend perhaps to postpone judgment upon these matters until he has read the White Paper.

My Lords, would the noble Viscount care to tell the House a little more about who will eventually own the industry? Is it not a fact that at the moment the industry is owned by the taxpayers? Would he care to tell us what steps will be taken to ensure that foreign interests will not be enabled by various means to own this industry? Also, will the Minister address himself to the explanation that the industry is all for what he has proposed? For instance, would he tell us the response of those who work in the industry, that is, the employees? What consultation has taken place with them to enable him to make that statement? Would he also care to tell us what consumer bodies he has consulted in order to be able to say that those who are affected by the industry are all for it too?

My Lords, the industry will be owned by the shareholders and I trust that the employees will be very strongly represented among their number. So far as foreign interests are concerned, I have to say to the noble Lord that this is looking much too far into the future at the moment. I am afraid that that is as far as I can go.

My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether the White Paper includes any references to various knotty problems lying behind the scenes, such as the future of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, the future of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, the future of the NNC (that is the Government holding in the subsidiary which designs nuclear plants), the future of Barnwell, which does "trouble-shooting" for the conventional plants, the future of the fast reactor at Dounreay and the future of British Nuclear Fuels in relation to what the new set-up is going to be? If the White Paper does not include those items, I think that before we debate it there should be a supplement issued to the White Paper dealing with them.

My Lords, I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that the future status of the NII, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and the NNC will not be changed by the proposals announced today. The nuclear safety regime does not depend on the ownership of the power stations. We are determined to maintain the current high standards.

So far as Barwood is concerned—that is the CEGB's generation and transmission research division—it will be up to the industry to propose the best means of continuity in order to make the best use of its important expertise. As regards the fast reactor at Dounreay, in itself privatisation will not mean any change. I can say that the Government remain committed to the future of their nuclear programme.

My Lords, will my noble friend accept that there are many in the country tonight who will be greatly relieved that such a Statement has been made, particularly as it affects the nuclear industry? It will be seen as being implicit in the White Paper that the Government confirm their wholehearted support for that industry.

Will my noble friend also accept that the seven-minute Statement which he made contained an enormous amount of information which the House will wish to study with care. Indeed there are many questions which come to mind which it would be wrong to pose without further consideration. However, will he accept that there are two points which I believe to be of vital importance? The first is the commitment in the first of the requirements which the Secretary of State has set out, that the supply of electricity will be governed by the needs of the consumer. One would hope that within this context it will be borne in mind that the domestic consumer in this country has enjoyed cheap electricity for a very long period of time and that it will be necessary, between now and the time that a Bill following upon this White Paper is presented, for a major exercise in communication to be carried out. Is it not the case that the Government are fortunate in having as their Secretary of State for Energy probably the best communicator within the Palace of Westminster.

Finally, will my noble friend accept that the integrity of the grid is essential? We are happy that it is to be maintained and that the merit order within the power station sector is also to be maintained. These are of vital importance to future supply.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and accept everything that he says. I shall convey his remarks to my right honourable friend.

My Lords, can the noble Viscount confirm one matter that I understood him to say, namely, that the ordinary consumer of electricity will still be confronted with a monopoly supplier and that there will no competition at that level at all? Therefore, the market for electricity at that level will be regulated, subject to price control, and in any meaningful sense of the word there will be no competition or free market in that respect?

My Lords, there will he competition.

My Lords, where will there be competition?

My Lords, some of us at least do not believe that the consumer can be reconciled to increases in electricity prices by a massive public relations exercise, as appears to have been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin. Can the noble Viscount explain why, when the raw materials— the fuels that generate electricity—are coming down in price, a 10 per cent. increase in price is necessary?

Secondly, can he reply to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Ezra as to how the details of the White Paper appeared this morning in the press? Thirdly, can he say what will be the effects of the proposals upon the coal industry in Scotland?

My Lords, the question of Scotland is a separate one. In due course there will be a Statement on Scottish electricity and a separate White Paper.

I cannot comment on what appeared in the press this morning. I am not the Minister but the spokesman in the House. I do not know about that at all.

My Lords, the noble Viscount has not explained why a 10 per cent. increase in electricity prices is necessary when the prices of the fuels that generate electricity are decreasing.

My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, perhaps my noble friend can help me on several points in the Statement, which leaves me blinded by science. First, is it not the case that, if the grid is to maintain the existing highly successful merit order in which stations are brought into supply under conditions of competition, the generators will all need to have surplus capacity to compete, which in turn must surely raise rather than lower prices?

Secondly, can he say whether the two mammoth companies of the CEGB—one being 30 per cent., and the other, 70 per cent.—will themselves be mainly responsible for providing the new generating capacity valued at £45 billion to provide 13 GW of electricity capacity by the end of the century? Will they provide it all or part and, if the latter, how large a part are the Government looking to other new companies to provide?

My Lords, we are going quite a long way into the future. The Statement says that the existing Central Electricity Generating Board will be re-organised into three new companies. It continues:

"The first will be a new generating company, owning sonic 30 per cent. of the CEGB's existing capacity, all of it non-nuclear. The second will comprise the remainder of the CEGB's generating capacity, both fossil-fuelled and nuclear. The third will be a national grid company, whose ownership will be transferred to the 12 existing area boards".

In addition, the area boards will be able to generate electricity themselves so there will be competition.

My Lords, can my noble friend explain why it is suggested that all the nuclear stations should be grouped in one of the two generating boards? Can he assure me that this will in no way inhibit the transfer of the shares in both generating boards to the general public and that there is no fear that he has not listened to the anxieties of those who said that nuclear power would be safe only in state hands? Is it not a fact that in many of our competitor countries round the world some of the most efficient nuclear stations in operation have been operated by private companies?

My Lords, the Government are confident that investors will be attracted to the prospects of the privatised industry. The private generating companies in other countries have shown that nuclear power can be a successful private sector investment.

My Lords, perhaps my noble friend can answer a question that occurred to me in the course of the Statement. There are of course not simply two great groups of nuclear fossil and non-fossil fuels, but many different types of generator. Who would be responsible for the fundamental and applied research in this field as to the different types of generating capacity that will be employed? Where is the scientific research in the picture?

My Lords, the new companies will have the same motivation to invest in research and development. It is possible that the increased commercial awareness that will result from privatisation will increase useful research and development in consumer-related areas.

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm whether the White Paper refers to the provision of new capacity needed by the end of the century?

My Lords, I regret that I do not have the answer at my fingertips. Perhaps my noble friend would like to read the White Paper first.

My Lords, the noble Viscount, in reply to my noble friend Lord Peston, said that consumers would enjoy a competitive situation as between different sources of supply. The choice in generation and scope for competition is defined in paragraphs 41, 42 and 43 of the White Paper, of which I have a copy. It is perfectly clear from the White Paper that the distribution companies will have to bid for part of their business in a competitive environment. According to the White Paper:

"Adjacent distribution companies could find themselves competing to supply large users near their common borders".

Is it not the case that this does not apply to small consumers, the matter to which my noble friend Lord Peston referred, so that there will he no competition in that respect?

My Lords, a large number of companies will allow greater scope for competition by emulation and inter-company comparison. It will give the regulator a wider range of information on which to base his judgments. The companies will be able to build on their own local identity and existing customer relationships. Even with 12 companies, each will he one of the largest companies in its area.

My Lords, on Monday the House accepted a recommendation of the Procedure Committee of this House that Statements should not exceed 20 minutes. I have not intervened— in any case, I am in the hands of the House—but that was accepted by the House only four days ago. We ought at least, I think, pay some cognisance to what we accepted on only Monday.

Perhaps I may suggest that, after we have taken the question of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, the House might then consider how we proceed, having taken half an hour already. I realise that this is an important Statement. That is why I have not intervened before.

My Lords, I assume that when the noble Viscount refers to the grid he means the national grid and ignores all the other grids that exist in electricity supply.

In the last severe winter, by common agreement distribution boards moved staff and resources from one area to another to ensure security of supply. That was arranged through the normal working arrangements of the Electricity Counci. Will there be an obligation on any of the new distribution boards or companies to supply that kind of service to other areas? If not, will it he left entirely to their own commercial judgment to decide the cost of providing such services, should they provide them?

My Lords, supplies of electricity will continue to be secure and reliable. The benefits of the national grid will be maintained under privatisation in the same way as they have been maintained when not privatised.

My Lords, with all respect to the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, I did not ask about the national grid. I want specifically to distinguish betwen the national grid and local grids. I must explain because evidently the Minister does not appreciate the difference. There are two kinds of grid: there is the national grid and in rural areas there are grids which supply electricity to outlying farms and dwelling houses. In the last severe winter it was necessary to transfer resources from the Merseyside and North Wales electricity board to the south. Will there be an obligation on the hoards to carry out that kind of exercise? If there is, will the Minister tell me who will bear the costs of transferring those resources from one board to another?

My Lords, it will be in the interests of the area boards that all electricity supplies are maintained all the time. I am afraid that I cannot answer the last part of the noble Lord's question.

moved Amendment No. 125:

My Lords, I could see the point of this amendment if it were restricted to news broadcasts on television and radio. However, if one is producing a play or some other literary or artistic work, why should the author not have the same rights as in a theatre production or elsewhere? I should have thought that if television companies are upset by the amount of time they have to give to showing credits, they could save a considerable amount of time by taking off the assertion of copyright that they put at the end of a programme—by the BBC, London Weekend Television or whoever—which takes up much more time than the credits.

My Lords, this amendment seeks to disapply the right of an author or director to be identified when a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is broadcast and that work has been,

"made for the purpose of broadcasting".

I have to say that we have considerable difficulties with this amendment. I can understand the difficulties broadcasters might have if they always had to identify the composer of a musical work which was broadcast. This would create considerable difficulties in respect of programmes featuring records of popular music, for example, or of advertisements with a musical content. But for this very reason the Bill already omits any right for an author or composer to be identified when a musical work or its accompanying lyrics are broadcast. The element of the amendment which relates to music is thus unnecessary.

As to the rest, we do not believe that the right to be identified, as we are amending it, need create any undue problems for broadcasters. We are, as I have said. agreeing to disapply the paternity right to employees, and this includes the employees of broadcasting organisations. As to freelances, the author of a featured literary or dramatic work would, I believe, normally he identified anyway when his work is broadcast. In the case of films, only the director has the right to be identified and that right is surely a reasonable one.

Further, I would remind your Lordships that the right to be identified does not arise in cases where certain copyright exceptions apply. The important ones for this purpose are the fair dealing exception for reporting of current events, and the exception which allows incidental inclusion of a work in another work without infringement of copyright. One consequence of that last exception is that broadcasters need have no fear of inadvertently infringing an artist's right to be identified when a picture or advertisement is included incidentally in a television programme as background or scene-setting.

Finally, I find it hard to see the justification for a distinction between works "made for broadcasting" and other works. The circumstances are not the same as in the newspaper industry, and the tight deadlines to which that industry is subject do not usually apply to broadcasts. Therefore the arguments for an exception regarding works created for publication in newspapers do not have the same relevance here. To apply the distinction in the broadcasting field would be difficult in practice, but even if it were workable, why should the author of, say, a major radio play, or the director of a substantial television documentary, he deprived of the right to be identified, when other authors and directors whose works or films are broadcast are not? In this case the distinction seems unfair, and to serve no practical need.

For those reasons, I have to resist the noble Lord's amendment.

My Lords, am I right in thinking that the words "made for broadcasting" are the key words? They imply something like a signature tune or background music which, as a rule, is identified. Certainly, music which was not made for broadcasting but for ordinary concert purposes should be identified. I should not allow a work of mine to be broadcast if it were not identified.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He has put forward an interesting analysis of the reasons why the Government cannot accept this amendment. I find it difficult to understand why he should exclude broadcasters from being relieved from cluttering the screen with a number of credits when newspapers have been excluded from having to put forward credits in this way. I am also grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Somers, for raising an interpretation of the amendment and I am equally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, for his advice as to what should he put on the screens, which I shall communicate to my ITV clients.

In those circumstances I do not propose to detain your Lordships further by analysing in detail the proposals of the Minister. I shall withdraw the amendment on the understanding that the matter will he brought up at Third Reading.

moved Amendment No. 126:

Page 28. line 33, leave out ("(1)").

moved Amendment No. 127:

My Lords, I call Amendment No. 127A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, as an amendment to Amendment No. 127.

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 127, Amendment No. 127A:

Line 1, after ("apply") insert ("to a newsagency service or").

moved Amendment No. 129:

My Lords, I hope that the Government are prepared to accept this amendment, which is a considerable improvement on Clause 72(2)(b). We are interested in fitting the Bill to the Berne Convention. That and the first five lines of Clause 72 deal with unjustified modification, and therefore one is not really interested in what may be justified modification. Unjustified modification is defined in fairly clear terms in Article 6 of the convention. Those words are repeated virtually in their entirety in the amendment. The amendment then goes on to make a very necessary provision to deal with actions that would be against other laws in this country. I strongly support this amendment.

My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord explaining this amendment, which reflects two concerns of broadcasters. The first concern is that the right not to suffer unjustified modification is subject to a double test which goes beyond the requirements of the Berne Convention. The second concern is that it is unreasonable to allow authors or directors to invoke the right to prevent modifications to broadcasts when these have been required by a regulatory authority in pursuance of its statutory duties.

Since Committee stage we have considered these issues with both broadcasters and the authority set up to supervise their activities. With regard to the first point, we are prepared to accept that the right in Clause 72 goes rather unnecessarily wide of the Berne Convention in subjecting modifications both to a test of reasonableness and to a test of avoidance of prejudice to honour and reputation. Only the second test is strictly required by the convention, and we therefore agree in principle that the test of reasonableness should be dropped.

In retaining the test of prejudice to honour and reputation the amendment proposes to follow closely the actual words of Article 6^bis of the convention. We should like to reflect further on that suggestion.

Turning to modifications which are made in pursuance of statutory requirements, once again an exception to the right seems reasonable on consideration. We are prepared to agree that the rights should not apply to modifications made to broadcasts in consequence of regulatory requirements; for example, in regard to the showing of obscenity or acts of violence. As to the wording and precise extent of the exception, we should like to reflect a little further. The amendment proposes an exception not just for broadcasting but for all regulatory purposes and we should need to consider the implications. Nor am I convinced that the exceptions should necessarily apply to modifications made voluntarily in anticipation of possible requirements by a regulatory body as opposed to those specifically required.

It may also be desirable to allow the author or director to dissociate himself from the modifications. In the light of what I have said and the undertakings that I have given to come back with proposals of our own, perhaps the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment at this stage.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, for emphasising the way in which the amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, conforms so closely with the Berne Convention. It appears that the Minister is drifting towards maintenance of their position under the Berne Convention, but perhaps that is a little unkind at this stage of the evening.

We shall arrange to look at the Minister's speech when it is published in Hansard and return to this matter later. Is the noble Lord proposing to put forward a government amendment of his own? The Minister is nodding. I understand that he will be prepared to put down a government amendment dealing with this point. I should be very grateful if such an amendment could be given to me at a fairly early stage. The timetable for the future progress of this Bill has already been curtailed to some extent. That has made it a little more difficult for some of us to make arrangements to meet people who were interested in improving the Bill. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Minister for his undertaking. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 130:

Page 29, line 29, leave out ("or").

moved Amendment No. 131:

moved Amendment No. 132:

Page 29, line 33, leave out ("architect is identified on a building which") and insert ("author of such a work is identified on the building and it").

moved Amendment No. 133:

moved Amendment No. 134:

Page 30, leave out lines 10 to 13.

My Lords, when the Minister replied he said that I was wrong to say that modification was not covered. He will find that under Clause 72(4)(a) photographers will have a right. It is being given, or excluded, by this amendment, according to the way that one looks at it.

My Lords, under the amendment what would be the position of a newspaper that had contracted to supply a news programme to a cable company, was therefore précising material, and was then tackled on the ground of unjustified modification?

My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may try to answer that question. At the moment the writer's name is put in, it is unjustifiably modified, and he has no remedy under the Bill. The Minister says that he has a remedy under common law on libel. If the amendment is agreed to he would have the right not to suffer unjustified modification. If some Member of your Lordships' House, or the Government, were to come back with an amendment restricting this to authors who were named, it would be difficult to oppose such an amendment.

My Lords, I am always in sympathy with amendments which safeguard the rights of employees in relation to intellectual property rights. My experience on nationalisation, or on denationalisation, has been that quite often the rights of employees are forgotten. While I am trying to be sympathetic to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, I cannot see what right the employee has lost in these circumstances. Where is the employee being damaged? No doubt when the Minister has replied I shall be able to make up my mind, with the advice of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor.

My Lords, I spoke to this amendment, as did other noble Lords, earlier. We are therefore having a re-run and a slight re-hash of the amendment this afternoon, after what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, described as a natural break. We believe that giving employees and employed film directors the integrity right would cause practical problems. The views of the Government remain as expressed in Committee on this point. There are many instances where, in the course of normal working practices, work will be modified in some way. We believe that it is only right the employer should be able to do this.

Perhaps I may turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brain. He is quite right in saying that photographers have moral rights. The point that I sought to make earlier is that employed photographers do not have the integrity right under Clause 73(b).

I was going to resist the noble Lord's case. However, I should like to reconsider his point about named authors. I believe that the issue has enough merit for us to reconsider it. Perhaps he will be willing to withdraw the amendment at this stage. I cannot give an undertaking, but it is a novel idea that is worthy of consideration.

My Lords, I am very much obliged to the Minister. I should have thought that the idea was not novel to him and to those advising him. He is being too kind to me. However, if the Minister wishes to consider this matter again, I actively encourage that. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 135:

moved Amendment No. 136:

had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 136, Amendment No. 136A:

Line 1, after ("apply") insert ("to a news agency service or").

moved Amendment No. 138:

Page 30, line 27, leave out ("trade or").

moved Amendment No. 139:

Page 30, line 29, leave out ("trade or").

moved Amendment No. 140:

Page 30. line 31, leave out ("trade or").

moved Amendment No. 141:

Page 31, line 24, leave out ("trade or").

moved Amendment No. 142:

Page 31, line 34, leave out ("trade or").

moved Amendment No. 142A:

Page 32, line 17, at end insert ("in writing").

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Graham has said, also in the group are Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 tabled in my name and in the names of my noble friends Lord Williams and Lady Birk. Amendment No. 143 has the same intention and is to the same effect as Amendment No. 142A by inserting the words "but only" after the word "waived". However, Amendment No. 144 gives point to that because it removes the possibility of waiving accidentally and informally, provided for in Clause 77(4).

The object of the amendments is to ensure that people who have moral rights do not waive them when they do not appreciate what they are doing. If the moral rights are to be taken seriously, clear evidence must be available to show a readiness to give them up. Thus it is sufficiently important for the waiver to be in writing. For example, as regards moral rights the Government have taken the view, as we have discussed, that if one is to assert one's moral right to paternity it must be in writing. It therefore seems reasonable that if one is to waive that one should also have it in writing.

I imagine that the purpose of Clause 77(4) is to deal with a situation where the author could, by his conduct, lead somebody else to act on the assumption that the right had been waived. However, we suggest that the subsection is defective because in most cases estoppel relates to consent to a specific situation and not to a permanent waiver. The general law of contract could operate to permit informal waivers without giving the author due opportunity of reflecting on the right that he is giving up. Therefore it would seem to be better that if the right is to be waived it should be made clear by having it in writing what is being waived and for what purpose.

As subsection (3) makes clear, the waiver may relate to the whole work, to one performance, to a description or to something else. If in that situation one has some form of informal waiver, one is entering a long court case which may be lucrative to the lawyers involved but which does not achieve much for anybody else. If we are to have this clause—and I see the point of having a waiver—let us have the waiver clearly understood so that everyone knows where they stand.

My Lords, consents and waivers of rights always cause a great deal of trouble if they are merely oral and not in writing. I support the amendment as a practical and realistic way of dealing with the matter.

My Lords, the Bill deals with the protection of intellectual property and this part is about the protection of moral rights. We strongly support such matters. My noble friend Lord Graham is right in essence in saying that such waivers should be made in writing so as to preserve the utmost clarity in order that everyone knows exactly what is happening and that matters are permanently on the record.

I have one slight hesitation, but it may well be that my noble friend will remove it when he replies. In the everyday rough and tumble of newspaper and periodical publications, decisions must often be taken rapidly against deadlines. It is not always the case that the author is immediately available in the office to provide a waiver in writing. He may well be on an assignment, or at his home or somewhere else. It is foreseeable to me that to insist that all waivers should be in writing, though desirable, may be impractical.

If my noble friend can remove my doubts about that matter I shall support him, because I support the intention of his amendment. However, if he cannot remove my doubts I shall be unable to do so.

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 142A I shall speak also to Amendments Nos 143 and 144. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, seeks to prevent consent from being given except in writing. I cannot accept such a proposition. Let us suppose an author writes a play. Shortly before its performance, the producer telephones the author and asks if he can make certain cuts. The author agrees. There is no time to obtain consent in writing. I believe that is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie. Is the author then to be able to sue the producer for damages for breach of his integrity right? It is an elementary proposition of law that a person cannot sue for damages in respect of anything to which he has consented whether the consent is signified in writing, orally or by conduct. This applies in contract law, personal injury litigation, the law of trespass and, indeed, copyright, and I believe that moral rights should be no different.

As to Amendments Nos. 143 and 144, my remarks will in fact be confined almost entirely to Amendment No. 144. I take Amendment No. 143 to be no more than an underlining, as it were, of the requirement that to he effective a waiver must be in writing. I do not dispute that, but I do not think that we need the amendment to emphasise the point.

The real question is whether moral rights can be lost by giving them up in a contract, or by the effect of the law of estoppel or, in Scotland, personal bar, without there being a consent within subsection (1) of the clause or a waiver in writing within subsections (2) and (3). I should mention that Clause 160 provides the translation of "estoppel" into "personal bar" for Scotland. I must say that I am not sure that leaving out subsection (4) would be enough by itself to cut out the effect of contract or estoppel—it might be necessary to say something positive—but for the purposes of this debate I shall assume that it would be enough.

I think that the inclusion of subsection (4) can be explained simply as a matter of justice—justice, in this case, for the person exploiting the work. We must not overlook that that person is as much entitled to justice as the author, composer or artist whose work he is exploiting.

Let us take, first, the case of a contract. If an author gives up his rights in a contract, he will normally have received something in return, usually money; otherwise there would have been no contract. Immediately we have the point that if he received something for giving up his rights, he ought not to be able to change his mind and insist on them. Let us take an example. The contract in the example cannot be in writing; otherwise there would be a waiver in writing and no further problem. Nor can it amount to consent by the author to the doing of a particular act; otherwise there would be a consent within subsection (1) of the clause, and again there would be no problem.

Suppose that an impresario, wishing to encourage new talent, advertises in the press for the submission of songs for performance in a show devoted to new songwriters. The writer of any song that is performed is paid £50; and the advertisement says that it is a condition of submitting a song for performance that all moral rights are waived. There is no consent to doing any particular act; there is no signed, written waiver. But there is a contract, and it would not be right, subject to anything contained in the general law of contract, for the song-writer to be able to turn around afterwards and complain about an infringement of his moral rights.

I now turn to estoppel. Suppose, for example, that an author who has assigned his copyright tells the assignee orally that he has no intention of enforcing his moral rights. This is not a contract nor is it consent or written waiver, but it creates a promissory estoppel. If the assignee relies on it to his detriment, such as by making cuts in a published edition or public performance of the work, the author ought not to be allowed to change his mind without giving reasonable notice in accordance with the principles of promissory estoppel. The author is not prevented for all time from reclaiming his rights, but he must give reasonable notice. I understand that the law on personal bar has much the same effect. If the law on estoppel and personal bar were not permitted to operate, the author could sue the assignee for any unjustified cuts which the assignee had already made in reliance on the author's apparent abandonment of his rights, and that would simply not be right.

The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, spoke of the relationship between consent and waiver and suggested that Amendments Nos. 142A and 143 are essentially on the same point. I do not believe that that is so. Consent means consent to the doing of an act; there must be an act in contemplation. Waiver means giving up the right completely or to a limited extent without any particular act necessarily being in view. It is that distinction which underlines the difference between subsection (1) under which consent needs no writing and subsection (3) under which waiver needs writing. For those reasons, I must resist these amendments.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the care he has taken. But he has not satisfied me. Perhaps I may deal with the point made by my noble friend Lord Howie. I appreciate, as I said in my opening remarks, that there may be circumstances of great speed and pressure. My noble friend quite fairly questions the practicality of this. I acknowledge that there are, and are likely to be, practical difficulties. However, by virtue of proxy and power of attorney in the absence of the right which is being infringed, I can see practical people coming to practical solutions. I am talking here in terms of little people as opposed to big people and it is their interests I wish to protect as much as possible. The Minister has failed to distinguish——

If an editor is at one end of a telephone and the author is at the other, what kind of proxy or other intermediary can assist?

If there is good faith and integrity between the two of them, I believe this matter could be resolved by virtue of the trust that one has in the other.

My Lords, the flaw in this argument is that there is no proof of a telephone call. The Minister gave the example of a play where the producer rings up and says, "I want to make cuts". What proof is there of that telephone call? To me, that is the big problem. I accept that perhaps this amendment goes a little too far in demanding that everything should be written. However, I have been in circumstances personally where phone calls have been made. I could not prove the phone call; it was my word against the producer's word.

I have a friend who wrote a saga about an East End family and without any consultation it finished up under the title, "Rabbi on Mars". I am not joking. He was not consulted in any way. I do not believe that this amendment would have protected him in those circumstances, but I do not think that to rely on telephone calls, as my noble friend Lord Howie has indicated, is enough, not in the jungle of the film world, at least.