'Information, 58D (Hansard, 25 July 1988)

§ Mr. Mills
I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There was some confusion: I had wished to speak on privilege—patent agents and trade mark agents—but the remarkable and exciting pace of our proceedings rather caught me out. I hope that you and the House will forgive me.
Clause 288 introduces one of the most important matters in the Bill—criminal penalties against industrial counterfeiting. It is perhaps mean of me to raise a final point at this time of night, but I congratulate officials and the Minister on a job well done. They have done something to help industry and to ensure that the jobs that we have been losing—perhaps 100,000 of them—through industrial counterfeiting will now be protected against such activities.
My amendment tries to ensure that the communications between the statutory bodies—the trading standards officers, the customs and the police—are as good as they can be, so that information about industrial counterfeiting is exchanged when it is suspected or detected. I raised this in Committee, but I am told by trading standards officers that the solution described by the Minister then was not entirely simple. My amendment would allow freer disclosure of information between the statutory authorities, as well as between trading standards officers, the Customs and industry.
My hon. Friend knows the point that I am making. So as not to detain the House for too long, I shall ask him only two questions. First, is he truly satisfied that we have communication both ways between the statutory authorities? I am assured by the trading standards officers that it is not a simple matter of saying that the powers already exist. Secondly, will he go further and accept my amendment or, if not, make some helpful remarks on the information that will be passed between those authorities and industry?

§ Mr. Butcher
Amendment No. 278 is very similar to an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) in Committee. At that time, I said that there was little harm in the authorities disclosing the types of information identified in what are now paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of the new clause to be inserted in the Trade Marks Act. However, I said that no specific provision was needed because the authorities were already free to disclose the information. Nothing has happened since to cause me to change my opinion on this point, and I consider that it would be positively misleading to insert a provision along those lines, with the implication that without it disclosure would be prohibited.
That leads me to paragraphs (c) and (d). They also featured in the previous amendment, and I resisted their inclusion on two grounds. The first was that information of this sort necessarily includes an element of judgment on 217 the facts that would prejudge the very matters that must be decided by a court, whether civil or criminal. It would be wrong for the authorities to release to one side only information that may be of use in possible litigation.
Our other reason for rejecting the amendment was that it would be wrong to regard trade mark proprietors or their representatives as being on a par with the official enforcement agencies. If anything, the way in which the amendment is now structured brings that point into stark relief.
I hope that for the reasons that I have given, especially that it would be misleading to insert such a provision, my hon. Friend will sympathetically consider withdrawing his amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman need not do that. His amendment is being discussed with a group.