BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 6 December 1960)

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, in the normal course of events one would have accepted this Motion without any comment, but there are special circumstances which have arisen which I think make it necessary for me to give the House some short history of the events leading up to the appearance of this Motion on the Order Paper. It arises, as the Motion says, on the Patents and Designs (Renewals, Extensions and Fees) Bill, which some weeks ago was introduced into this House as, largely, a non-controversial matter to ratify a Convention arrived at in Lisbon. But it contained a provision which some of us, on both sides of the House, thought inappropriate in a measure of this kind: a provision which enabled the Board of Trade, by Order, to lay down and vary from time to time the fees which were to be charged on patents.
On the Second Reading I took some objection to this provision. I thought that the combination of those two was inappropriate. But I thought that, if the Government insisted on retaining Clause 2 of the Bill, any Resolution for the variation of fees should be by way of an Affirmative Resolution of the House and not merely subject to a Negative 14 Resolution. I gave my justification for it. After all, these fees had remained in existence for something like 80 years. It was not likely that they would be altered frequently, and when they were altered, as they might be, I thought it was for the Government to make a case justifying the alteration of the fees and getting the approval of the House.
The noble Earl who was in charge of the Bill did not agree with this contention, and accordingly, by arrangement with the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, who had also taken this point, he and I agreed that I should put down an Amendment to delete Clause 2 and that he should put down an Amendment, the terms of which we agreed upon, requiring that any variation in fees should be approved by each House of Parliament The noble Earl refused to agree to either of those Amendments. I think that most Members of the House were not satisfied that his reasons were sound, and on the Committee stage I asked him whether he would not go back to his right honourable friend and discuss the matter with him and see whether he would not agree that the Amendment was a reasonable one. The noble Earl refused to do that. He signifies otherwise, but he did, I assure you. I thereupon gave him notice that, in those circumstances, I would put the same Amendment down on the Report stage, in the hope that he would think again about the matter and get the views of his right honourable friend; and I did put the Amendment down. Incidentally, the noble Earl informed me that there would be no Report stage at all. Well, he was mistaken about that. Hansard speaks for itself. I did not think that such facts as I was going to give would be contradicted by the noble Earl.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, I must correct the noble Lord. I assumed that no one would want a Report stage. When the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that he would want one I immediately said that if your Lordships wanted a Report stage, of course there would be one.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, I will leave it at that. It now appears—I understand that this is the case—that the noble Earl has been authorised to accept an Amendment on the line that has been advocated from this side of the House right through the proceedings, and also 15 from the other side of the House. It is on that basis that we on this side have agreed that the Third Reading may follow the Report stage in the terms of this Motion. But I thought I ought to explain that.
My reason for making what might be regarded as "heavy weather" of the matter is this. The objective of all of us in this House, in these comparatively non-controversial measures, is not to make politics out of it but to improve the measures to the best of our ability. This is a minor measure, but on Thursday we are to deal with a major measure with some hundreds of Amendments, as the noble Earl will have seen —and he has not seen all the Amendments yet: there are some more to come. The noble Earl wants to get it through in three days. Speaking for myself, I am perfectly willing to co-operate. We do not want to make "heavy weather" of these Amendments, or to make politics out of the Bill: we are just out to improve the Weights and Measures Bill to the best of our ability and to send it to another place in a better form than it is at present. Our sole desire is to protect the consumer and do the best we can with the Bill; and that is a desire which is shared by every Member of this House who will be taking part in the discussions.
If the attitude of the noble Earl on those Amendments is going to be what it was on this Amendment, then I can assure him that he is going to have a very difficult time, and I cannot guarantee that he will succeed in getting the Bill through in the time that he has set himself. I am sorry to have to talk in this way, because it is not characteristic of the noble Earl, who is normally perfectly courteous and amicable in his dealings. But I felt that in this particular case he has been somewhat ungracious in not promising in terms to discuss the matter with his friends on an Amendment which seemed to many people a perfectly reasonable one.
I should have understood if, at the end of the day, the noble Earl had said that he had discussed it, and that his right honourable friend did not see his way clear to agree. I should have understood it, though I should not have agreed with it: but that would have been in 16 accordance with what I think has gradually become the tradition of this House. I therefore felt that I ought to raise the matter, partly for its own sake and partly because we are going to have a much greater experience of the ordinary give-and-take of Parliamentary Business during the next few days, and, unless it can be dealt with in a more gracious and helpful spirit, I am afraid that we shall not get through in the time the noble Earl has set himself.

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
My Lords, I must say that I think that the noble Lord who has just spoken has himself been a little ungracious in this matter. I rise to reply simply because I think it would be embarrassing for my noble friend to do so. Of course, it would have been quite improper for my noble friend to discuss in public the kind of consultations which have taken place between him and the Department which is responsible for this Bill, but I think I can say without impropriety that he has taken a very great deal of trouble in order to secure authorisation to accept an Amendment which he felt was in accordance with the wishes of the House, and in accordance with propriety. For that, the only thanks he gets from the noble Lord is something in the nature of a complaint that he has done something which he should not. My desire, of course, is that these Amendments should be examined in a purely uncontroversial way. But, having heard the noble Lord, I must say that I do not think it is much encouragement to my noble friend, who has taken a very great deal of trouble, and who has at last succeeded in getting for the noble Lord himself his Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH
My Lords, I want only to say this: that we are trying to do all we can to assist the Business of the House. As the Weights and Measures Bill has been mentioned, perhaps the noble Earl who acts as the head of the discussions in the usual channels will tell the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that we are doing what we can to facilitate extra time. We shall continue to do so, if we can be sure that we get reciprocation.

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
I am sure the noble Viscount can count entirely on any move on his part to facilitate 17 Business being fully reciprocated on the part of the Government, and I should like to thank him for his assurance.

§ LORD SILKIN
Might I ask the noble and learned Viscount: is it not the normal practice for the Minister who is in charge of a Bill in this House, if he thinks that a point is worthy of consideration, to say that he will discuss it with the Minister concerned in another place, on which assurance, very often, the Amendment is withdrawn? It is quite a common practice, and it was only because that practice was not adopted in this case that I made by complaint. If the noble and learned Viscount will make inquiries of some of his colleagues, he will find that it is quite a common practice.

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
My Lords, I am quite clear about this: that it would not be in accordance with practice for a Minister in charge of a Bill to make a reply to an Amendment which was not in accordance with the authority he had received from the Government.

§ LORD SILKIN
Of course not.

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
It might well be in accordance with practice for him, despite being unable to do that, to go back privately to his right honourable friend and to make representations, and to obtain a fresh authority; but he would not be entitled to say that publicly.