§ As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
10.10 pm§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is a non-controversial amending measure. It is of restricted scope and is directed to two particular purposes. Since this is the first time that the Bill has come before the House, let me briefly state what these purposes are.
Clause 1 and schedule I amend the Trade Marks Act 1938, the Registered Designs Act 1949 and the Patents Act 1977 so that the Patent Office will no longer be obliged to keep its statutory registers in documentary form. The Patent Office will therefore be able to computerise such parts of the registers as it finds expedient as soon as this becomes possible. The public will be able to inspect the material on the computerised registers—for example, on VDUs at the Patent Office—and to obtain hard copies.
The other main subject of the Bill is service marks. Provision is made for the registration of service marks by the Trade Marks (Amendment) Act 1984, which was originally introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell). That Act is not yet in force, but the Government intend to implement it from 1 October this year. Before that can be done, however, a number of consequential amendments need to be made to existing legislation, and that is the purpose of clause 2 and schedule 2.
Several amendments to the Bill were effected in Committee, but they were all technical. Some were consequential on amendments already effected in another place, and others were directed to correcting an omission in the 1984 Act. They were all, as I have said, technical amendments and the Bill before the House today is, in all major respects, no different from the Bill as brought from another place.
§ Mr. Bryan Gould (Dagenham)This small but useful measure is brought forward at a time when the whole world of intellectual property is in a state of rapid transformation. First, there was the White Paper "Intellectual Property and Innovation" published in April this year, which I assume presages a major piece of legislation to be introduced in the new Session. Then there is the change in the status of the Patent Office, a change which I should make clear that Labour Members regard with some scepticism, and which has aroused the anxieties of the work force at the Patent Office. That is one aspect of the new legislation that we shall consider with considerable care and critical judgment.
Less controversially, there is the impending decision to be taken as to the siting of the European Community's trade marks office. I make clear the support of Labour Members for the campaign waged by the Government in support of siting the office in Britain. We support that campaign, both on its merits and because we believe that it is high time that we had placed with us in this country the headquarters of a major European Community institution. It is a sort of quid for a substantial quo.
264 In case you are on the point of saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that none of those matters is strictly relevant to the Bill, I concede immediately that the Bill, as the Minister has said, concerns itself with two small but, in their own way, important points. The first enables the Patent Office to bring itself into the computer age. I think that the Bill removes obstacles rather than commands the Patent Office to do that. The Patent Office is well advanced in its plans for the computerisation of its records. Secondly, the Bill, in a sense, makes consequential amendments which will pave the way for the introduction of service marks in October this year.
We support both those worthwhile measures. Accordingly, during the brief earlier stages of the Bill, we have contended ourselves with asking the odd probing question and watching the progress of the Bill with a benevolent eye. Now that it has reached its final stage, we are happy to give it a Third Reading.
§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for allowing this brief debate to take place. I am sure that he agrees that, because the Bill originated in the other place and was considered in Standing Committee, it is appropriate for us to spend some time rehearsing it on the Floor of the House.
I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on the smooth passage of the Bill which he has piloted through the House. Obviously, there were more complex debates in the other place. The alliance is grateful that the Government listened carefully to the contribution of my noble Friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, some of whose amendments were considered in depth and some of which were accepted. His knowledge is recognised by both sides of the House.
The Bill's objectives, restricted though they are, are to be applauded. Some work remains to be done if the legislation is to meet the needs of modern business. I single out the inclusion of service marks as an especially welcome provision. We do, however, have some doubts about the costs of acquiring these new service marks. If small business men use professional advisers, it can cost as much as £1,500 to £2,000 to obtain a United Kingdom patent. If that is extended to a worldwide patent, it could cost as much as £50,000. The Government would do well to bear in mind those costs and to ascertain whether they can be reduced.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran described this aspect of the law as being full of "fulginous obscurity" — a well-known Welsh expression. We believe that small inventors should be able to register service marks more cheaply than at present.
As Lord Lucas and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, we now have the White Paper on intellectual property. I think I would be ruled out of order if I followed its arguments, but I should like some of its ideas to be included in the legislation. I accept that, if that had been done, the measure might have been made controversial and its progress might have been stymied.
We are still slightly surprised that the Government did not respond more positively to the proposal to extend privilege to patent agents who do trade mark work. Those agents do work which, in other cases, would be done by solicitors or even counsel. They play an important role in the creation of wealth and work extremely closely with 265 industry. It is slightly perverse to continue this lack of privilege, to which reference was made in the other place. Recently, in "Reports of Patent Cases 1983", Mr. Justice Nurse is reported as having said:
It seems odd and perverse that, if a trade mark agent was entitled to advise a client in relation to legal matters and to conduct certain legal proceedings on his behalf, the same privilege should not apply as would certainly apply in a case where the advice was being given and the proceedings were being conducted by a solicitor.We should have been happier if such a provision were included in the Bill. We hope that there will be opportunities to include such a measure in the not-too-distant future.I return to where I began, by congratulating the Under-Secretary of State on piloting the Bill so smoothly towards the statute book.
§ Sir John Page (Harrow, West)I commend these new measures, which will modernise the registers of trade marks and bring Britain into line with the most modern practices in the rest of the world. In this new modernized 266 system there is a perfect opportunity for the European trade mark office to be brought to England, to Greater London. It would be a great advantage for the country to have the European trade mark office here and it would be right and proper that it should be so. I must say, in an entirely objective manner, that the place for it to be is Harrow. We have an old intellectual background, with a modern dynamic community. Nowhere in Europe could fulfil all the criteria for the office more successfully than Harrow with its nearness to London airport and London, magnificent communications and magnificent schools.
I am grateful to have this opportunity, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who is in his place and who, with his European knowledge, blazed the trail for the Government to follow to Harrow. We hope that soon the whole weight of the Government's prestige will be behind having the European trade mark office in England and I think that it should be in Harrow.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.