PRINTER'S IMPRINT BILL (Hansard, 8 June 1961)

§ LORD EBBISHAM
My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I must first of all, as a member of a family firm engaged in the general printing trade, declare an interest in it. I think it would be true to say that, from the time Caxton brought the craft of printing into this country, printers as a general rule have been in the habit of putting their name or mark on almost every piece of work which they produce. Indeed, they have been pleased to do so as a form of advertisement. There was, however, no legal obligation on the printer to put an imprint on his work until the end of the 18th century.
With your Lordships' permission, I would for a brief moment refer to history. In 1799, the country was at war and the spirit of revolution was much in the air 1239 There was an insurrection in Ireland, and there was great danger of revolutionary ideas spreading from the Continent. To meet these dangers, the Unlawful Societies Act, 1799, was passed, which set very tight restrictions on the Press and on political freedom. Among these regulations were those requiring that, apart from some very narrow exemptions, a printer must put his imprint on every piece of printed matter he produces, under penalty of £5 per copy for every violation. Since that date, there have been only very minor amendments, notably the Newspapers, Printers and Reading Rooms Repeal Act, 1869, which was a liberalising measure, but the provisions regarding printers' imprints were preserved in the Schedule to that Act.
Not only must a printer do this under the law, but he must also keep a copy of every such paper or book for six months, marked with the name of the person for whom it was printed. Failure to comply renders not only the printer liable to a fine, but also any person who publishes or disperses any of these books or papers, or even assists in doing so. There are a number of printed papers which are exempt from the requirements as to imprint, such as bank notes, bills of exchange, insurance policies and various matters of that kind, including papers printed by authority for the use of either House of Parliament. In that connection, I may say that although that applies to publications from the Stationery Office, it is a general fact that the Stationery Office do put their imprint on virtually every piece of prim Which they produce. Therefore it rather amused me, when I first went to the Printed Paper Office to get a copy of this little Bill (which, as your Lordships see, is printed on two sides of one piece of paper), to find that the first copy I was given was printed only on one side and had no imprint of the Stationery Office on it at all. That rather amused me, as a printer, because it is the sort of thing which happens in the best regulated printing establishments.
There is also an exemption in respect of the impression of any engraving or the printing by letterpress of the name, or the name and address, or business or profession, of any person, and the articles in which he deals, or any papers for the sale of estates or goods by auction or otherwise. 1240 This list of exemptions is extremely limited, and it takes no account of the new printing processes which have come into use during the past 82 years, nor of the varied products, which are continually being expanded, of the printing industry of to-day. For example, the printing of the name and address of a person and the articles in which he deals is exempt only if the printing is done by the letterpress process and not if the lithographic or photogravure process is used. Papers for the sale of goods are exempt, but not papers for the advertising of services.
The present law requires the imprint to be placed on a wide range of printed matter where it is not really practicable or desirable for the imprint to appear. Examples are labels, envelopes, letter-headings, menus, order forms and the like. None of these articles could conceivably be seditious, libellous, obscene or in any way objectionable. The imprint requirements in respect of these items constitute a serious handicap on the printing industry. Often the customer instructs the printer to leave the imprint off, and although there have not in recent years been any prosecutions of a printer for this technical offence, the law is brought into disrepute through many of these technical breaches. Moreover, printers who omit the imprint face a more serious difficulty than that. The printer cannot enforce payment through the courts for his work if it ought to bear the imprint but in fact does not, as the courts will not enforce payment for anything which is illegal. As a matter of fact, there have been a number of instances in recent years where customers have been able to avoid payment because of this technical infringement by the printer, even though in many of those cases the imprint was left off at the express instructions of the customer himself.
The British Federation of Master Printers has for some years been anxious to amend the printer's imprint requirements as preserved in the Act of 1869 so as to exempt articles which could not conceivably be objectionable. And I should like to emphasise to your Lordships that printers are not seeking by this Bill in any way to avoid their responsibility for any work of an objectionable nature. That is in no sense the object of this Bill. We are, however, seeking 1241 exemptions for such items as I have previously mentioned where it is obviously impracticable to put an imprint on.
Clause 1 (1) (a) of the Bill exempts papers and books which do not contain words grouped together in a manner calculated to convey a message. Where the message is purely a conventional one, such as a greeting or invitation, there is also no need for an imprint. Subsection (1) (b) exempts drawings and illustrations and other pictures which represent only floral or other designs, such as a registered trade mark. Any publication which could possibly be seditious, obscene or objectionable will, of course, still require an imprint. Subsection (2) of this same clause releases a printer from the obligation to preserve copies of articles which are not required to bear an imprint. Subsection (3) extends the exemptions in respect of the printing by letterpress of certain articles to the printing of these articles by any other process.
It could perhaps be argued that in a Bill of this kind it might be better to set out in a Schedule the exemptions contemplated, but the difficulty of drawing up a Schedule which is in all senses complete, and which would not have to be revised almost every year, would be very great indeed. This question was considered in another place, but after some thought and discussion the formula which is now before your Lordships was thought to be the best in the circumstances. My Lords, this measure is a small one, and very limited in its scope; but it will serve to bring back into good repute a part of the law which at present is impractical, and it will, of course, be of considerable benefit to the printing industry of this country. It is for these reasons that I hope the Bill will have the blessing of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, I rise first to thank the noble Lord for the way in which he has introduced this Bill. He has made perfectly clear something that must have been very obscure to all of us on first reading, and I can assure him that the Bill will have no obstruction 1242 from this side of the House. It is, as he said, a very small measure, and as I listened to what he said I was rather surprised that it did not go a little further. For instance, the particular point he mentioned—which is of great interest to me, as a solicitor—is not dealt with in this Bill at all. I do no know that I have ever had to contest a printer's claim, but if I had I might have looked at the imprint to see whether it was there or whether that was a legal ground for objecting. But that point is not dealt with. I take it that he mentioned it as a matter of interest, but there is no attempt to deal with the particular matter in the Bill itself.

§ LORD EBBISHAM
If I may answer the noble Lord, it was felt by the sponsors of this Bill that cases where that sort of thing might occur would be covered by the fact that it will no longer be illegal to omit the imprint.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, I have no doubt that they have been very well advised, and I will leave it at that. But certainly we have every sympathy with the purpose for which this Bill is being introduced, and we hope that it will be passed.

§ LORD HASTINGS
My Lords, I am sure the whole House will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ebbisham, not only on introducing this useful little Bill but also on the clear and concise manner in which he did so. Also he made a difficult, complex and rather dry-sounding Bill rather interesting with his historical introduction to it. In fact he has done his job so well that I need to detain your Lordships for only a very few minutes.
I would just add, as a matter of interest, that under the Unlawful Societies Act, 1799, which limited printers to a a very great extent, not only could they be fined for leaving off the printer's imprint but the Act actually authorised the arrest without warrant of distributors of printed matter which did not bear the printer's imprint. The subsequent Act of 1869 repealed most of the earlier enactments and what remains relates chiefly to the printer's imprint. The purpose of retaining these provisions was 1243 that they were considered useful to protect the public from anonymous publications and to provide a means of tracing those responsible for seditious and libellous or other objectionable printed matter; and that part of the Act is, to a certain extent, to be continued in the new Bill for the same reasons.
As the noble Lord explained, a person who prints any paper or book must first of all print on it his name and address. Secondly, if the paper is printed for reward he must keep for six months a copy marked with the name of the person for whom it was printed. It is an offence to disregard either of these requirements. But, of course, in latter days the uses of printing have been so extended as to make the requirements quite out of keeping with modern conditions, and it is not surprising that for some years the Federation of Master Printers have been pressing for amendment of the law. My right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, has been sympathetic to these representations, and it was, therefore, with Government help and encouragement that this Bill was prepared, and I have pleasure in commending it to your Lordships.
Before finishing, however, I should like to explain why the imprint is not being abolished altogether. If the requirement that printed matter must bear the printer's name and address were done away with altogether it would increase the difficulty of detecting those responsible for printing libellous matter and might encourage a less responsible attitude towards the printing and distribution of printed matter in general. The Act also serves as a useful weapon against the occasional case of objectionable printed matter where no other civil or criminal course of action is possible. In fact, surprising though it may seem, there have been five such prosecutions since 1954.
Therefore, this Bill reduces the categories of printed matter on which an imprint is required, though it does not abolish the imprint altogether. Printers asked to be relieved of the obligation to put an imprint on certain printed matter, and the noble Lord, Lord Ebbisham, explained that part of the Bill pretty fully. He mentioned some of the articles which are exempt at the moment 1244 and others which will be exempted in the future, such as those of a purely conventional or decorative nature, greeting and invitation cards, packaging materials and paper napkins.
The danger of unreasonable prosecution for failure to comply with the imprint requirement to which the noble Lord, Lord Ebbisham, referred, is unlikely, because the consent of a Law Officer must first be obtained. Of course, the printers lay themselves open to the difficulty of collecting payment and being unable to enforce payment through the courts if there is not an imprint on the article when there should have been. This is the point the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, brought up, and it is believed that this is looked after in the Bill; and if it is passed this particular sort of individual chicanery will not be able to occur in the future.
The formula in Clause 1 subsection (1) seems at first sight rather imprecise, but it is necessary to confer the desired exemptions by means of a formula which refers to the content of the printed matter rather than to the article itself; that is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Ebbisham said, a list of articles to be exempted is not put in a Schedule because, in the first place, of course, that list would be in danger of getting out of date fairly soon, and secondly, and mainly I think, because an exemption in this form would not prohibit the printing of objectionable matter on an article of an exempted class. For example, it could be that wrapping paper could be printed with an objectionable message and the wrapping paper might be exempted, but of course the contents on the wrapping paper to which this clause refers would be creating an offence, and therefore in that case it would be necessary to have a printer's imprint on that wrapper so that the person who had been responsible for printing the objectionable message could be traced. That is the reason why, as I say, the content is referred to rather than the article itself.
I think noble Lords will agree that printed matter falling within this formula would be innocuous—that is, the exempted matter would be innocuous—and could well be exempted from the requirements relating to the imprint and to the keeping of copies of printed matter for six months, which creates a very onerous condition of storage on many printers—in fact, on all printers. The 1245 exemptions. It seems to the Government, provide a reasonable measure of relief to printers in this matter and I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.

§ LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE
My Lords, might I ask one question? To-day a great deal of matter is issued in imitation printing by typewriting methods and duplication of typewriting methods. To what extent is that covered either by the existing law or by the proposed alteration in this Bill?

§ LORD HASTINGS
My understanding of the Bill is that that is taken care of under subsection (3), which refers to the fact that exemption is now given to printing from engravings or by letterpress. In future it will be extended to printing by any process, and therefore I think that these things will be exempted as well and will simply be subject to the condition that they cannot produce "words grouped together in a manner calculated to convey a message," or "a drawing, illustration or other picture", other than a geometrical or purely floral design. I think I am right, but if I am wrong I am sure my noble friend will correct me.

§ LORD EBBISHAM
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for the support which he and noble Lords on his Benches have given to this Bill. I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, that I would endorse everything my noble friend has said about the question of duplicating. That is exactly the point which is brought up in subsection (3) of the Bill. I would also thank my noble friend, Lord Hastings, for the support which the Government have given to this Bill.