HC Deb 21 April 1961 vol 638 cc1553-6

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

11.6 a.m.

Mr. Christopher Chataway (Lewisham, North)

I have no desire to detain the House for any length of time over this Measure, since I believe it is no longer now a matter of controversy.

This Bill seeks to amend the legislation of 1799 which was re-enacted in 1869, and which represents some burden upon the modern printing industry. The Bill does not seek to remove from printers the obligation of showing an imprint when this is necessary. If this Bill passes into law, printers will continue to show their imprint upon the majority of articles that they produce. They will do so out of pride in their work and as an advertisement of it. They will still be required to do so by law in all instances where there is a possibility of sedition, obscenity or libel.

This Measure will, however, relieve the printing industry of the obligation of putting an imprint upon a wide range of articles that were never envisaged by the Act of 1869, which is still in force. Perhaps the greatest measure of relief that this Bill will bring in due course is to printers who, up to now, have been unable to collect debts due to them, because under the Act of 1869 a printer who failed to put his imprint upon an article, even though at the request of the customer, has been unable to collect the sums owed to him by the customer, and there have in recent years been a number of instances of this kind.

There are other ways in which this short Measure will, I believe, be of value to the printing industry. As was said by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), who was of great assistance during the Committee stage of the Bill, although it is a two Clause Measure, it is quite wide-ranging and of some considerable importance to the industry.

I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, and my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for their assistance and the assistance of their Department, and I should like to thank also the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), who raised a number of most valuable points during the Committee stage. I wish to extend my thanks also to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Holman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman), both of whom have taken a close interest in this Measure and who have great knowledge of the printing industry.

I hope that the Bill will receive a Third Reading today and will, in due course, prove to be of value to the printing industry.

11.10 a.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

As the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) has said, this is a small but not unimportant Bill, and in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) who, unfortunately, cannot be here today, it is perhaps desirable that something should be said from this side of the House in support of the Measure. I add my congratulations to those which have been expressed at earlier stages to the hon. Member for Lewisham, North in having exercised his good fortune in the Ballot in choosing to bring forward what everybody regards as a very desirable and long overdue reform of this important branch of law.

There is no doubt that printers have suffered in recent years from the fact that the existing obligations with regard to printer's imprints—which have remained in effect for many years—have proved, in modern conditions, to be unduly onerous. It is right that there should be a printer's imprint on all newspapers, books, magazines, political pamphlets and anything that could be of a controversial or perhaps seditious nature—in fact, on any printed material which might give rise to complaint. It is essential that the name and address of the printer should be ascertainable from such documents.

That requirement, which has existed for more than a century for the benefit and protection of the public, need not, however, apply to things like Christmas cards, visiting cards, letter heads, wrappers, cartons and dozens of similar printed documents, which are in wide circulation both commercially and socially. There is no justification for requiring a printer's imprint in such cases. It is quite incongruous to find a printer's imprint on a Christmas card.

The problem which confronted the hon. Member for Lewisham, North, and the Home Office at an earlier stage—because that department had a Bill of this kind under consideration for a long time—was to find adequate language to give effect to their intentions. There was a very useful discussion about the language in Committee, and the Bill has been amended. There has been the closest co-operation on this subject between both sides of the industry, and although no one can pretend that the words now used in Clause I are entirely free from doubt or ambiguity, nevertheless they are probably as appropriate as it is possible to get.

While I desire to support the Bill, it is just as well to say a word of caution. There may be in future some doubt about precisely what is meant by words grouped together in a manner calculated to convey a message… The word "message", in my experience, is a new term of precision, used in this Bill for the first time. Instances were given in Committee of slogans which might be construed as conveying a message—political slogans, for example—and which should still be subject to the existing law. They are not in the same category as Christmas cards, visiting cards, and greeting cards, which are quite properly exempt.

However, the Bill, in its present text, has found such a general consensus of opinion that I am sure we all wish it success in the relief that it will give to the printing industry.

11.16 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Dennis Vosper)

On Second Reading, I told the House that the Government gave their full support to these proposals, and I echo those words now. As the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said, this matter has been under consideration for some time, and we are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) for taking the initiative in bringing this Measure before us.

I was unavoidably absent from the Committee proceedings, but I must congratulate my hon. Friend on removing from Clause 1 the double negative which caused some offence on Second Reading. I also congratulate him on his very lucid expositions, which augur well for any future Bill which he may introduce. This Bill will be of value to the trade and to the rest of the country generally.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.