Capital Allowances Bill [H.L.] (Hansard, 5 February 1990)

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Cashfern)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this consolidation Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran
My Lords, I hesitate to intervene at this stage, but noble Lords will notice that the Capital Allowances Bill, which is of considerable significance, has been amended by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I was a member of that committee and initiated the amendment. The subject matter of the amendment was approved by committee members from the other House.
The mischief with which I sought to deal was the fact that, although the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 referred to capital allowances for patents and, inter alia, other intellectual property matters, the consolidation Bill did not include any reference to that Act. I therefore felt —this point was received with great sympathy by other members of the committee —that a capital allowances Bill should indicate to practitioners the position of capital allowances in relation to intellectual property matters. I am sure that institutions such as the BBC are not particularly interested in capital allowances for intellectual property matters, but it is an important matter.
As a result of a compromise with the committee, it was decided to introduce on consolidation of the Bill an amendment, which is to be found on page 143 of the Bill, to Clause 161(11), which states: Chapter I of Part XIII of the principal Act" the principal Act is defined on page 142 as the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988— (which relates to patents and know-how) contains further provisions relating to capital allowances". I took the view that a practitioner dealing with patents in the field of industrial property would expect a capital allowances Act to contain some reference to the important subject of patents and know-how. Nevertheless, the committee said that that kind of compromise would be effective.
I take the view that, having incorporated the amendment in the Bill, the Title of the Bill should be amended. I must therefore draw the Government's attention to the fact that the Title of the Bill should include some reference to the fact that it includes capital allowances in relation to patents and know-how. It seems to me that that would be of great help to practitioners who deal with that important subject. The Prime Minister is a great supporter of the idea that intellectual property matters should be brought to the notice of industry. Practitioners —not merely members of large companies with plenty of money, but members of small companies —would expect a capital allowances Act to include some 524 reference to the position relating to patents and know-how which are so important to industry today.
The Government may feel that they wish to consider the matter before the next stage of the Bill in order to bring forward an amendment to the Title of the Bill so that it may make some reference to the fact that capital allowances in relation to patents and know-how are dealt with in the Bill, rather than being simply hidden away in Clause 161(11) on page 143.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the situation is that the Long Title of the Bill is: An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to capital allowances". In other words, the Bill does not profess to be an exhaustive consolidation of capital allowances. When capital allowances were gathered into the Capital Allowances Act 1968, the capital allowances relating to patents and know-how were left in the Income and Corporation Taxes Acts. The reason was that they are so intimately bound up with other provisions of those Acts that it is not possible to have a sensible separation. There would be a tremendous amount of duplication in the statute book if the provisions that are necessary in relation to capital allowances in that area were duplicated in the Income and Corporation Taxes Acts and again in capital allowances legislation.
The Long Title warns that these are only certain enactments relating to capital allowances. The joint consolidation committee, as the noble Lord pointed out, has in Clause 161 now put in a clear marker to where other enactments are to be found which deal with capital allowances. The joint committee took the view that this was the right way to do it and I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to leave the matter there. If he wants to move an amendment in Committee, we shall have to have a Committee stage. It is of course up to him to decide.
However, the advice that I have been given from parliamentary counsel is that the Long Title of the Bill is correct as it stands and that the attention of practitioners is sufficiently directed to the other Act by the amendment to which he has referred. I am advised that that was the practice in the past. In that situation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to object to my Motion that the order of recommitment be discharged. It is, however, up to him.

§ Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran
My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to comment on what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said. His view is that to the practitioners in this important field of patents and know-how a reference to capital allowances, hidden away, if I may presume to say so, in Clause 161(11) is a clear indication to practitioners that they have to look into this Bill. I hesitate to differ from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Despite the advice that the noble and learned Lord has received from his advisers, it seems to me that as a practical matter the Title of this Bill should be amended in order to include a reference to the fact 525 that, although it refers to certain other Bills, the Capital Allowances Bill certainly includes a reference to the capital allowances to be afforded on patents and know-how matters.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to move an amendment to the Long Title, we shall have to have a Committee stage. I take it that the noble Lord has objected. Therefore the House must resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran
I am not acquainted with the full procedure for dealing with this matter. Certainly I have not yet tabled an amendment. I only obtained this Bill this morning. However, my amendment to the Title would be to include the words: ("and to consolidate certain enactments relating to capital allowances including capital allowances in relation to patents and know-how."). I am not sure whether by merely putting forward orally this amendment I am using the correct procedure. However, that is the amendment that I would have put down had I had time to consider the matter further.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
I seek leave of the Committee to ask where we now stand. I believe that. at Committee stage, especially when we are dealing with something so abstruse as the Long Title of the Bill, we ought either to have a written amendment before us or a Motion set down on the Order Paper, and preferably the latter. I should have thought that a purely oral amendment would be out of order whatever the situation may be.

§ Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran
I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord. It may be that this is a matter that should be considered at the Report stage of the Bill.

§ Lord Belstead
In the circumstances, I think we have reached the point at which the noble Lord will be in a position to vote against the Long Title of the Bill but, as he has not produced a manuscript amendment, there is no amendment before the Committee.