Lords Sitting of 29 March 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps have been or are being taken to deal with the misuse of assistance given to housing associations as exposed by the present revelations in relation to assistance given by the G.L.C.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it is primarily the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that proper use is made of the funds which they make available to housing associations. The Department is considering the need for further guidance, particularly in the context of responsibility for the homeless.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply and while she will be aware that everybody appreciates the importance of the work of those housing associations which are doing a splendid job, may I ask whether she is aware that people are concerned about the fact that this incident occurred? Is it possible for the Government to ensure that, for example, the National Association of Housing Associations, the National Federation, or the Housing Corporation, shall be entitled to make sure that, when housing associations apply for grants, it is established that they are either registered or are reputable people?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I share the support for housing associations mentioned by my noble friend. The Government are convinced that housing associations which are registered and controlled by the Housing Corporation
754
have played, and will continue to play, a very valuable part in helping local authorities to cope with the stress area rehabilitation and the needs of the homeless and the underprivileged. As I understand it, the Greater London Council has powers under its Act by which it can make monies available to various voluntary organisations to do some minor rehabilitation to some low standard housing. This was done under these powers and not by means of a housing association. When the new Bill on homelessness comes before this House and eventually gets approval and agreement, the Department will issue a code of guidance in which it will stress the importance of local authorities checking with housing associations to make sure that they are dealing with registered bodies.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: However that may be, my Lords, and to come down to brass tacks, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the Government are really convinced that the scandal, to which the subject of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has given rise, is not a question for the Director of Public Prosecutions or a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry Evidence Act?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords; I admit that I did not see the television programme, but I have read reports of it. While we accept that what was shown in that television programme gave cause for concern—I am sure it did to every Member of your Lordships' House—I would remind the noble and learned Lord that we saw only one side of it. The GLC is now in negotiation with Yorkshire Television for an opportunity to put its side of the matter. Despite what the noble and learned Lord has said, before this event one of the associations concerned had been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I understand that both of the housing associations which were referred to have now been referred to the DPP.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to reconsider what is being done at present? Although she is aware, as we all are, of the tremendous importance of housing associations, it is essential, as the Government are subsidising these associations, that they should

755
have considerable regard to ensuring that housing associations which receive grants consist of reputable people.
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, in view of the fact that not only local government contributes to this work but that these organisations also collect money from various individuals, may I ask the Minister whether these organisations are registered under the Charities Act? Are they duly inspected?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, those Organisations which are registered with the Housing Corporation are subject to very stringent controls; the problem arises with regard to the unregistered ones and where local authorities do not always take the trouble to check that the associations are registered. The new code of guidance which we will be issuing shortly will stress to local authorities the need to check that the organisations which they are using are reputable and, where possible, are registered with the Housing Corporation.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is it not a fact that not every local authority has felt bound to engage a housing association to assist in the building of council houses and to provide accommodation for those in need? In other words, is it not true to say that many local authorities do not engage housing associations but resort within their own authorities to what is known as direct labour?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that is another question, but the housing associations have done an extremely good job with many local authorities. We hope that they will continue to do so and that their services will still be asked for by local authorities.

SKIN DIVING AND SHELLFISH STOCKS
2.45 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the great increase in commercial skin diving around the coasts of Britain and whether they will consider some system of control by licensing in order to conserve the stock of shellfish from undue exploitation.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, commercial skin diving, which took place chiefly around the Cornish coast, has declined recently. The Government are, however, aware that the activities of amateur skin divers have created problems for fishermen in certain areas such as Start Bay and Hope Cove in Devon and the Government hope that these can in future be solved by discussion between the local Sea Fisheries Committees and the British Sub-Aqua Club.
Viscount MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that in my part of Scotland—the Western Highlands and the Inner Hebrides—skin diving has not declined, and that skin divers can clear an area of most species of shellfish very quickly indeed, to the detriment of local fishermen using conventional methods? Is the noble Lord further aware that many skin divers come long distances by car and have no connection with the area where they fish? Would the noble Lord not agree that, as these skin divers can earn as much as £100 a day and sometimes a lot more, it might be logical to license skin divers in the same way as fishing boats are licensed?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, while I note what the noble Viscount has said, I should like to say in reply that there is no evidence at present that skin diving is having an adverse effect on the fish stocks generally. However, it would be open to a Sea Fisheries Committee to propose a local bye-law if it believed that local circumstances required it. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would give careful consideration to any such proposal.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, might this not very well be part of the study of the Working Party of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries

757
and Food which is being set up at the present moment and which really needs a certain amount of legislation?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, so far as this affects fish farming, which I know that the noble Baroness always has in mind, it will of course be taken into account.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, while my noble friend's comments about what is happening on the West Coast of Scotland are certainly true, would the noble Lord also consider my belief that there is not any method by which local Sea Fisheries Committees can ban this type of operation? It is mainly done by students, who make very large sums of money during their holdiays and have a nice time. Would the noble Lord also bear in mind in the fish farming context that there are many possible developments for increasing mussels, oysters, lobsters and so on, all of which are at the moment frustrated by the inability to control the development which one has started?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords. I am sure that there is a lot in what the noble Lord has said. Any such proposals would of course have to be very carefully considered. We must remember that skin diving is not solely a method of fishing: many people dive simply to observe or photograph marine life. The Government have no intention of interfering with their enjoyment.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that I referred to commercial skin diving, not skin diving for pleasure? Nobody wants to license that.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not know about Scotland. I shall go into that and will communicate with the noble Viscount, if he will allow me to. So far as commercial skin diving in the West Country is concerned, this has declined very substantially: there were 20 skin divers three or four years ago and there are now two or three.

COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE: SECURITY
2.48 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any of the Governments who are expected to attend the forthcoming Commonwealth Conference have asked for security assurances for their representatives during their stay in this country.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): No, my Lords.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does not that somewhat negative reply indicate that many of the delegations will provide their own security facilities, and has not General Amin already offered to be accompanied by at least 250 of his very formidable bodyguard? In view of the expense involved in providing security facilities, would it not be better to encourage those delegations to follow the lead of General Amin and to be accompanied by their security assistants and accomplices, in order to save a great deal of expense and trouble?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: On the contrary, my Lords. I have every confidence in our police, with whom the responsibility for the protection of those attending this conference lies.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, in view of the fact that it is President Amin to whom attention is drawn, it is we who need to be protected against him and his bodyguards?
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Answer that he gave was a very poor, impoverished answer? Is he aware that we have the utmost confidence in our police force and that I was not asking that question? I was asking whether these people who are coming here—many of whom will be very welcome—will be providing their own security facilities? Can my noble friend answer that question with a "Yes" or a "No"?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not aware that any visiting delegation for the Heads of Government meeting is providing its own protective facilities because they are well aware from previous experience of the excellence of the provision by our own police.

AIRLINES AND PASSENGER OVERBOOKING
2.50 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the inadequate publicity given by British airlines to the overbooking compensation scheme, they are in a position to add to their Statement of 13th July last.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I understand that passengers denied carriage due to overbooking are given full details of the compensation scheme by the airlines, including advice as to their rights. In addition, the Airline Users' Committee has published a booklet referring to passengers' entitlement to compensation.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, that reply really will not do. Is the Minister aware that passengers are told of their rights when they have been off-loaded, when it has actually occurred? They do not know of them beforehand. Is he further aware that the Airline Users' Committee—seeing that he has mentioned the Committee—has been quite unable to obtain any information about the actual publicity given by the airlines? Lastly, does he recall that on 13th July last he told the House that the Civil Aviation Authority required the airlines to publicise these arrangements? Could he comment on what actually has been done?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords; I agree with my noble friend that the information is given only after a passenger has been "bumped", as the expression goes; "denied carriage" is the more technical expression. I can understand my noble friend's view that this information should be given to passengers before they get into that situation, so that they know their rights earlier. I know that my noble friend has put forward her views in the Users' Committee (of which she is a member) and that these views have been conveyed to British Airways. I understand that a reply has now been received by the Committee, and no doubt my noble
760
friend will be examining it at the next meeting. But if it will help her I will undertake to write to the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority putting forward the views that she has expressed and adding my own support to her.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I am most grateful for the support of my noble friend. Is he aware how much we appreciate this? However, may I ask whether he would also convey the fact that we are sick and tired of making these requests from as long ago as last July? Now we are told that an answer is on the way. Would he agree that, whether or not it is satisfactory, that is far too long a period for people to wait?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I think that the answer that is on the way does not date from last July, but from more recent representations which have been made. But I certainly will study what my noble friend has said and will convey that as well.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that on these occasions—and I have been a sufferer—very often one finds that quite a number of airline personnel are travelling on concessionary passages, probably free? In one instance, a group of us, having paid for our tickets many weeks previously, stood our ground and asked that all the concessionary passengers be turned off. Seven were turned off, and six of us went on ahead. Surely it is up to the airline to ensure that people who have paid for their tickets and have booked some time ahead should be given priority over others who are travelling on concessionary grounds?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I think that that is reasonable, and I am sure that airlines take that kind of position into account. There may be accidents otherwise from time to time, but in general I should think that that kind of consideration would be very much borne in mind. I referred to a reference about overbooking in a publication of the Airline Users' Committee. In that there is advice to passengers who are "bumped" that they should stand their ground in the way that the noble Lord suggests.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I do not want to weary the

761
House, but with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, I do not mind who is put off the plane because I think nobody should be. But would the Government, in the person of my noble friend, convey to the Civil Aviation Authority that they feel that it is the right of passengers when making their booking, whether it be at an agency, at British Airways, or anywhere else, to know of their rights, and could there not be a notice to this effect at all agencies?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am aware that that is my noble friend's view, and it is that that I will convey to the chairman.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I accept that this new scheme, for all its disadvantages, is a considerable step forward; but would the noble Lord not agree that the problem is really caused by those passengers who book one or more seats on one or more flights and then fail to show up?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, certainly that is an aspect of the problem which has been debated several times in this House, but I notice that my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry has tabled a Question on the substantive business of overbooking for consideration on 5th May when, hopefully, I will be able to deal more fully with that matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 43 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the Easter Recess—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE, TRADE AND AID BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
JOB RELEASE BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

COMMUNITY LAND (EXCEPTED DEVELOPMENT) AMENDMENT (WALES) REGULATIONS 1977
2.57 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones) rose to move, That the draft Community Land (Excepted Development) Amendment (Wales) Regulations 1977, laid before the House on 10th March, be approved. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will speak to the two Motions in my name, which relate to the Development Board for Rural Wales. Each Instrument is concerned with the position of the Development Board for Rural Wales under the community land scheme. The two existing Statutory Instruments which are to be amended already protect the position of the Welsh Development Agency, some of whose property is being transferred to the Board. The amending Instruments now laid in draft would, if approved, give similar status to the Development Board for Rural Wales. I refer first to the Community Land (Excepted Development) Amendment (Wales) Regulations 1977. These amending regulations seek to widen Class 8 in Part I of the Schedule to the Community Land (Excepted Development) Regulations 1976 in favour of the Development Board for Rural Wales. They amend the 1976 regulations by including any development of land, the freehold in which is owned by the Development Board, within the classes of development which are prescribed by the 1976 regulations. Development of such classes is excepted from the definition of "relevant development" in Section 3 of the Act.
Immediate effect of the amending regulations will be as follows. The Community Land Act 1975, provides for the Land Authority for Wales to be notified by the local planning authority of planning applications wherever made, and this includes the area covered by the Development Board for Rural Wales, (initially Powys County, Ceredigion and Meirionnydd Districts). The purpose of such notification is to determine whether

763
the Land Authority wish to acquire the land to which the planning application relates. If they do so wish, they may, where the application is for planning permission for relevant development, operate a statutory procedure for notifying the landowner of their intention, suspending the planning permission and giving them time to pursue acquisition. The notification procedure, however, operates only for "relevant development" applications, within the meaning of those words in the Act.
The effect of the amendment now proposed is to take any development on any freehold land held by the Board outside the definition of "relevant development" and therefore outside the notification procedure which I have mentioned. Such land is already in the public sector, and it is considered that development should be allowed to go ahead (subject, of course, to planning permission) without intervention by the Land Authority under the notice procedure.
As to the second, equally technical Instrument, the Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Amendment No. 2 (Wales) Order 1977, that seeks to amend the earlier compulsory acquisition order of 1976 by including the Wales Development Board among the bodies enjoying the benefit of the special arrangements for assessing compensation where land passes from one public authority to another, or to a Minister. The bodies which at present take part in these arrangements are listed in Statutory Instrument 1218 and in the Explanatory Note. The purpose of the 1976 order was to prescribe the way in which the rules for assessing compensation should be modified when determining the price to be paid for land passing between any two of the bodies referred to in the Instrument, to allow for the fact that all such bodies are exempt from development land tax. The result of this amendment, therefore, will again be to enable the Development Board for Rural Wales to enjoy the advantage of that procedure. My Lords, while apologising for the technicality of what I have said, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Community Land (Excepted Development) Amend-
764
ment (Wales) Regulations 1977, laid before the House on 10th March, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for moving these two orders. Knowing how enthusiastic members of the Party opposite are about the Community Land Act, I was surprised at the absence of cheers when he had finished. But the noble and learned Lord will know that to those of us on this side of the House the Community Land Act is not a favourite piece of legislation. However, I think that in order to deal with it we shall have to take steps rather more radical than standing in the way of this particular measure. We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords I am grateful for that somewhat qualified approval of what I propose, which will be, I am sure, of very great benefit to the areas that I have mentioned—Powys, Ceredigion and Meirionnydd. It is a great pleasure to move this Motion if only to speak those holy words aloud.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (COMPENSATION) AMENDMENT No. 2 (WALES) ORDER 1977
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the draft Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Amendment No. 2 (Wales) Order 1977, laid before the House on 10th March, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NUCLEAR INDUSTRY (FINANCE) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
3.4 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended, pursuant to Resolution:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Viscount LONG: My Lords, during the Second Reading debate I mentioned that candidates' expenses would be paid in cash. I ought to correct myself by saying that, as laid down in the Bill itself, they will in fact be allowed expenses only up to a certain figure, and not cash down on the nail, as I thought I saw in the Bill. Secondly, I should like to thank the noble Lord and say how grateful I am to him for assisting me and your Lordships with all the information that he gave us during the Second Reading debate. Other than that, I do not think that we on this side of the House need hold up the Bill any longer.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for making that comment and observation because it has been, and is, often felt by some people that these are expenses paid to candidates out of public funds. This is not so. It is an amount which has been fixed for different types of election in which the candidates can spend up to that particular amount. This confusion, I know, does arise in the minds of some people.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

PASSENGER VEHICLES (EXPERIMENTAL AREAS) BILL [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Read 3a.
Clause 1 [Public service vehicle licensing: designation of experimental areas]:
The Earl of KIMBERLEY The Earl of KIMBERLEY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
("(2A) Any local authority not designated an area, or part of an area, under subsection (2) above, may be so designated by resolution of the local authority.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships' House I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 with Amendment No. 1, as they are all consequential on the first Amendment. When we had the Committee stage of this Bill several Amendments were moved and, after debate, were withdrawn. However, I feel that the Amendments I am moving this afternoon, which are not dissimilar to those which we discussed the other day, should be aired again. They relate to one fundamental idea, that it is wrong that central Government should have such a tight control over local government, particularly over local transport. This Amendment seeks to allow local authorities to opt into the scheme if they so wish.
I do not in any way wish to appear derogatory, but it seems that the Government's approach since 1974 has been somewhat unenthusiastic, perhaps lukewarm and even slow-moving to bring about a reform of our local transport system. I would be the first to agree that they have had many other things to cope with over the last three years, but what is the situation we have this afternoon? We have a Bill which is really only a stop-gap measure and which is really only an experiment. The reform of transport in rural areas may well seem way down the list of priorities. The other day the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, stated that when the Conservatives took office they would reform local transport. I do not doubt the noble Lord's sincerity or his intent—he is a very old friend of mine—but these reforms may not occur immediately, so for the moment we are back to where we started, to three years ago. We must also bear in mind that when the hand of the Party of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, is at the helm one day, as it may be, they will find that they have many reefs and troubled waters to sail through; and I feel that, however sincere the noble Lord's

767
thoughts and beliefs may be, once again local transport may find itself at the bottom of the list.
As I have said, it has taken this Government three years to produce this Bill, and I am afraid that it shows that their heart is not really in it. Therefore, I feel that all of us, wherever our political allegiance may lie, should think about this today and should try to improve the Bill with these modest Amendments. The Bill is not a meal in itself but, with a little sauce and seasoning, it could be made into an appetising starter. Should this Government or the next Government bring forward adequate legislation for local transport, well and good; but if they do not, for diverse reasons, this Bill will be, at least, a firm foundation stone on whch to build a more solid building. It is better that we make a start now and lay a foundation for reform by amending and improving this Bill than that we should wait for the hope that something may turn up in the future. If we amend this Bill this afternoon, we can afford to wait; but as it stands at the moment I do not think we can. I beg to move this Amendment which allows a local authority which has not been included in the scheme to participate in the scheme if it so wishes. It will allow the town hall to have the final say before Whitehall; in other words, elected representatives will have the choice and not the unelected civil servants. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I listened to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, with interest. He has really reiterated what we have already said in Committee. I have already said in Committee most of what I feel about this. Since the Committee stage, I have had letters from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, the Minister in charge of this Bill, and I have had letters from her Department dealing with this matter, for both of which I am grateful. I have the feeling that the Government are trying to improve the situation and, to that extent, as I have said before I support the Government in this measure. I said nasty things about it being a little mouse of a Bill nibbling at a mountain of cheese—not in those words; but they are the new version. It is improving the situation. The licensing system of this country is
768
moribund. The traffic commissioners are trying to do their best, but they are bound by legislation which is outdated.
Given these facts, the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, and his Party have put down Amendments broadening to an extremely wide degree this experiment which the Government have set up. I have a lot of sympathy with his views, in particular the four designated areas; and having seen the excellent Press release from the noble Baroness's Department about these four experimental areas, I must confess that it is impressive. Nevertheless, I still see the noble Earl's point. Other counties and areas might want to do it, too.
I have talked to the noble Baroness and she has been kind enough to explain the problems. I have talked to various representatives and friends on the various county authorities. There is nothing sacred about a county boundary. Many services needed by communities do not necessarily coincide with Parliamentary, county or local electorate boundaries. To that extent, these county boundaries in the experiments are somewhat of a nuisance. Nevertheless, having talked to the noble Baroness, I must confess that I have been somewhat impressed by the willingness of her Department not to stick necessarily to complete particular boundaries. Given this willingness, and given the fact that this is an experiment, I am willing to accede to this.
The only worry I have still is in relation to certain counties in England. One thinks immediately of Oxfordshire and Northumberland—and especially the latter, about which my noble friend Lord Ridley has written to me. There you have the sixth largest county in the country with a small population, most of which is concentrated in a very small area. I therefore make Northumberland a very obvious target for such experiments as these. I know from people who attended the various meetings that it was considered, and outvoted on balance, that it should not be one of the four areas. In a democratic system, given there should be so many areas, one must accept this.
Nevertheless, there are counties like Northumberland which might well like to set up experimental areas. I understand that the Minister will tell us that the Government are willing for this to be

769
done, provided that the cash flow part of it, too, is done by the county itself. It is the labour involvement, I understand, which is the expense in this experiment, working out the pros and cons of the various forms of helping the population that is to use a particular service,
So, while sympathising with the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, having heard from the county councils concerned that although they would like to be able to carry out these functions, county councils in particular are apt to feel that if they are given a right it may become a duty. And if it is a duty which, of necessity in this case, would involve their own outspending on cash—at a time when the central Government, quite rightly, are telling them that they must cut down—I think that under the noble Earl's Amendments we may be giving them more than they want. On balance, I do not think we should press these Amendments of the noble Earl.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I think, again on balance, that I find the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton convincing.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will do as the noble Earl did and speak to the group of Amendments in dealing mainly with Amendment No. 1. I felt in Committee that I had made some progress in clarifying the basic purposes of the Bill, but the noble Lord's Amendments which are, in the main, identical to the Amendments he put down in Committee, clearly indicate that I was perhaps too sanguine on that occasion.
As I thought the noble Earl had acknowledged in Committee—and as I certainly said several times—the Bill is not a blueprint for general changes in the licensing system. The Bill's purpose is rather to allow the value and effects of certain modifications to this system, mainly affecting private vehicles, to be carefully monitored and assessed under controlled conditions in specially selected areas. In this way, hard evidence (which is still far from plentiful in this field) can be accumulated as an aid in reviewing the terms of licensing law.
This Amendment is even less compatible with the limited, exploratory purpose of the
770
Bill than the similar Amendment put down by the noble Earl in Committee. In that case, there was at least a 12-month period from the first designation of an area by the Secretary of State before a county council could designate its own area. In the present Amendment there is no such period; under it the strictly experimental modifications to licensing could be available over a very wide area before there had been any time at all for an assessment to be made of their value or their effects on existing public transport.
Moreover, this revised form of Amendment does not come to terms with the mechanics of Clause 1. The concept embodied in Clause 1 is that an experimental area would be the whole, or a part, of the area of a county council or the corresponding authority in Scotland. The Amendment is drawn up, however, on the assumption that the minimum area to be designated is a county, and that a designation order could go wider. This is not so.
In withdrawing the similar Amendment in Committee, the noble Earl commented (at column 511 of Hansard of 1st March) that
"…possibly more experimental areas could be included in the future".
I would assure the noble Earl that this is still the case. As I said in Committee, we will be open to suggestions for additional experimental areas aimed at the purposes I have outlined. I would also reiterate that it is open to any local authority to set up transport experiments of its own within the present licensing system. The Amendment is almost certainly outside the Long Title of the Bill which refers only to "areas designated as experimental areas by the Secretary of State".
I fully appreciate that there are noble Lords who feel that the Government's step-by-step approach is too cautious: that what we should be considering now is a Bill for general amendment of the law, not a Bill for variations in limited areas for the purpose of experiment. That is a point of view I respect, and I appreciate the sense of urgency that lies behind it. But the present Bill is an experimental areas Bill, and whether we should have proceeded in this way or by wholesale change in the law, there is one course which I do not think can

771
possibly be justified; that is, to leave it to county councils to decide individually what the law in their county should be on such matters as neighbours giving each other lifts for payment. One can imagine the chaos and public indignation if this were permitted in one county and not in the next, particularly for people living near the county boundary whose nearest market-town was over the Border.
The noble Earl may feel that that was not his intention and I have misread what he intended in his Amendment. He may feel that he had intended only to permit further carefully-controlled experiments as a result of local initiative. The Bill at present permits such further experiments, as I have already mentioned, but the noble Earl's Amendment could in practice leave us wide open to the kind of difficulties I have described.
Noble Lords will wish to know the views of the various interests concerned in these experiments. It so happened quite by accident that I chaired last week's meeting of the Steering Committee for the rural transport experiments. This brought together the county councils and other local authorities, the two sides of the industries, and various voluntary movements. We had some discussion on the noble Earl's Amendments, and it was clear that neither the county councils nor any of the other interests supported these amendments. In view of this reaction from those to whom these powers would be offered, and the other interests concerned, and in view of what I have said, I trust that the noble Earl will feel he can withdraw this Amendment.
The noble Earl's Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 5 would be consequential upon this Amendment being accepted. Turning to Amendment No. 6, it is clearly necessary, if the fullest possible advantage is to be taken of the experimental programme under the Bill, that the Secretary of State, acting on the advice of the local Working Groups and of the National Steering Committee, should retain complete control over the extent and duration of the experimental areas. The subsection in question in this Amendment constitutes one of the key provisions in that control. If it should emerge during an experiment under the Bill that the designated area could with advantage be altered to take
772
in some locally significant feature like a hospital, or that the experiment, as originally formulated, cannot provide the kind of evidence desired or that it is unmistakably evincing some unwanted side effects, then the Secretary of State must have the power to take the necessary remedial action. When we come to this Amendment, I would ask your Lordships, if the noble Earl does not withdraw it, to reject it.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, in listening on this Amendment to the great eloquence of the noble Baroness, I have much more peace of mind with her statement that other areas could be used if they were asked for as experimental areas by local authorities. In view of what the noble Baroness, and the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, have said, I hope that this airing in your Lordships' Chamber may well pave the way for a greater reform of local rural transport. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.27 p.m.
Lord TRANMIRE Lord TRANMIRE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("exceeding two") and insert ("less than two years and not exceeding five").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, moved an Amendment to make the designation period a minimum of five years. The Bill as drafted gives no minimum period but puts the maximum period at two years with power to extend for further periods of two years. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in replying to that debate said at column 515 of Hansard on 1st March:
"…I think the provision of an initial experimental period of two years which can be extended if necessary accords far better with the flavour and sort of operation we are conducting than the Amendment…"
I am following the advice of the noble Baroness She presumed, it appeared, that there was a minimum. There is no minimum. I am suggesting that there should be a minimum of two years. I attach importance to this because I am delighted that Her Majesty's Government have gone ahead with this measure in the way that they have. I want it to be a success. I

773
do not believe that it can be a success unless there is some guarantee of a minimum or that the Government give some financial guarantee to all who are involved.
If I may illustrate this by referring to my own county of North Yorkshire—I was discussing the matter with them only yesterday—they are embarking on five experimental schemes: one, a flexible scheduled bus service where one rings up and diverts a bus if one has a telephone, which not everybody has; secondly, an extension of a feeder service provided by hired cars or taxis to existing scheduled services. Thirdly, a survey of the needs of the hospitals to see whether a hired car, a taxi or a private car service will serve the needs of visitors and patients. The other two schemes are shared car services.
As I understand the position, a guarantee will not matter for the "Phone-a-Bus". There is no risk there; it is merely a matter of whether it works, and that we shall have to see. On the feeder services, it will matter to a certain extent because a man will think, "If I am going to provide feeder services for the bus, it may be worth while getting another hire car or taxi for a period to make it work." But particularly with the shared car service, it is very important that there should either be a guarantee of a minimum of two years or that the Government say: "If you buy a minibus or get rid of your second car in order to make this scheme work, we will stand by you if we curtail it before the two years are finished." That is why I attach great importance to the minimum and rather less importance, I admit, to the maximum of five years. I rather fear that unless you have something like that there could be a failure of these experiments because people will not have sufficient inducement to co-operate.
In the rural areas from which I come there is great difficulty regarding the shared car service. A great many inhibitions have to be broken down, and therefore it is very important that the experiment should last for two years. If we were to say: "We will have two years, and you can make arrangements in your village to take people to the market town, with payment for the petrol and a little margin on top", then I think this will work. If we do not have two years, I do not think it will succeed and therefore it will not represent a fair experiment.
The whole purpose of this Bill is to see that there is a fair experiment. People must have sufficient assurance to induce them to go in for these shared car service schemes or to enable them to purchase the hire car or the taxi to provide the services. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will look at this with some degree of sympathy, because we want the scheme to work. If she says that the Government will guarantee that no local authority will lose a penny on it or that no private persons will lose a penny if they go in for these schemes, then my Amendment may be unnecessary. But I cannot see that that is consistent with the present economic situation. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should like briefly to endorse everything that my noble friend has said on this question. It will be appreciated, I think, that I have changed my viewpoint and have come round to trying to help the Government on this Bill in the hope that by this means we can put it on a sounder footing by designating a two-year to five-year period. That will give more security to all concerned. Because of the longer period which is allotted, they will know more clearly where they stand. I hope that on consideration the noble Baroness will be able to accept this good advice from my noble friend.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, wants this scheme to be a success, and I am grateful for the welcome he has given to it and also for the support for the five schemes which, as is now public knowledge, are to operate in his part of Yorkshire. However, we still maintain that the Amendment is both unnecessary and potentially damaging to the whole object of the Bill. In so far as it seeks to permit experiments to last for up to five years, as I pointed out in Committee, the Secretary of State has power under Clause 1(4) of the Bill to extend by order the period for which any designation is in force. The extension period may not itself be more than two years but there is provision for further two-year extensions. In so far as it introduces both a minimum period and a maximum, it puts a completely different slant on timing, making the whole process into something of larger terms—a thought which is unlikely

775
to appeal to a number of noble Lords who have spoken on the Bill in the earlier stages.
There is adequate provision already in the Bill to cope with any experiment where firm conclusions cannot be drawn within two years—or, more likely, where it is considered desirable to test whether new arrangements will survive after support under the experimental programme has been withdrawn, and initial local interest may have passed. Careful and detailed monitoring of the experiments now being designed by Working Groups and the national Steering Committee will ensure not only that positive results will be obtained as quickly as possible, but that any experiments which need an extended period can be brought to the notice of the Secretary of State well before the initial order is due to lapse. To provide for a minimum period would risk creating a more leisurely atmosphere altogether.
The noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, expressed concern in Committee about those operating the experiments suffering financial loss when they end. As I explained on that occasion, most of the vehicles coming within the scope of the Bill will be private ones. I think there is still considerable misunderstanding of what the Bill is all about. The only commercial vehicles involved will be taxis and hire cars; if they are included in the experiments they will in all probability be operating already in the experimental area. These experiments would therefore clearly need little, if any, capital outlay to get started. If additional vehicles should be necessary, however, we would be prepared to help with their purchase. There should be no question of anyone losing their livelihood—or suffering a large financial loss, as envisaged by the noble Lord—when the experiments come to an end.
I must stress yet again that the purpose of the experiments is to provide detailed evidence of the value and effect of the licensing modifications contained in the Bill, which can then be used in considering whether there should be general changes in the licensing law. We still contend that the Amendment is therefore both unnecessary and makes the Bill less workable than I am sure the noble Lord
776
would wish; and I urge your Lordships to reject it.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, in view of the assurance of the noble Baroness that, if necessary, the Government will supply the money for the purchase of the hire car, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Powers of local authorities in relation to experimental areas]:
3.39 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY The Earl of KIMBERLEY moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 11 to 15 inclusive with Amendment No. 7, and also Nos. 17 and 18, which are consequential upon Amendment No. 7. I have already explained my approach to this Bill in speaking to previous Amendments, but I feel it is worth pursuing my thoughts. It is with that in view that I beg to move the Amendments. Amendment No. 7 in particular seeks to delete some of the powers of the Secretary of State to revoke or over-ride decisions of the elected local authority. It seeks to realise the intention of the clause in the Local Government Act 1972, which states quite plainly that it is the duty of a local authority to deal with local transport.
This Bill would make it difficult for a local authority to do its duty, as defined. On numerous occasions there is reference to the Secretary of State's power to revoke, vary or grant. I would ask: where is that responsibility and duty which is referred to? I agree that local authorities are volunteers as regards this scheme and there are several who would like to participate. But let us for one moment look at the conditions that are laid down for joining the club, and take the example of South Yorkshire, which is rightly included in this scheme.
South Yorkshire has stood up to the directives of central Government, telling it to increase public transport fares. This example of a local authority ignoring

777
central Government and going its own way is not to be lightly dismissed. Here the duty to which I referred earlier has been firmly taken up by the local authority, and as a result central Government have decided to slash their transport support grant from £4 million to £241,000. In the face of this Whitehall aggression, South Yorkshire has bravely decided to put 2p on the rates rather than increase fares, which will mean that a South Yorkshire bus ticket for a journey of three miles will cost 8p, as opposed to 15p in Newcastle, 16p in Manchester and an astronomical 23p in Glasgow, for the same journey.
The local authority has done what it thought to be correct for its local transport, and for doing that has had the majority of its subsidy cut by the Government. I understand that the Secretary of State is thinking of having more central Governmental teeth for snapping at disobedient local authorities, and it looks as if South Yorkshire will feel those teeth first. I am a little worried as to exactly what further teeth could be added. In matters such as this, central Government today seem already to have fairly large fangs. I have quoted that as an example, because it is what may well happen in the case of other local authorities.
We in this country have one of the most rigorously controlled—if not the most rigorously controlled—public transport systems in Europe, and I have ascertained some information about one or two other European countries. In Germany, local transport is in the hands neither of federal government nor of individual State governments, but is run by local government; in France, it is the responsibility of local government; in Italy, it is the responsibility of local government; in Denmark, it is the responsibility of local government, and likewise in the Netherlands. In fact, we have one of the most centralised local transport systems in the EEC, which therefore makes it more inflexible from area to area.
I ask: why are we the odd man out? Why do we very often fall behind our European colleagues in developing new ideas and in tackling reforms? I hazard the guess, which may be wrong, that it is because for some extraordinary reason central Government, who demand a
778
finger in every pie, have a feeling of insecurity. So I appeal to the Government to let local authorities have their heads, and do away with the Whitehall rubber stamp of Damocles which is hanging over them. As regards financial responsibility, if central Government allocate money to local government through the rate support grant, and the additional grant systems, why cannot local government be allowed to spend as it sees fit? If it overspends, then it has to foot the bill and the electorate will ask why through the ballot box. If it underspends, then more power to its elbow.
I am a passionate believer in democracy, which is the tradition in this country. In the best tradition of that democracy, I commend this Amendment to your Lordships and to the Government in the hope that your Lordships will agree with me that central Government have too strong a grip on rural transport at the moment, and that this Bill could be considerably improved by this Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, in rising to speak to the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, I feel rather like Humpty-Dumpty. I do not know whether I am standing on my head or my small end. First, I understood him to say that South Yorkshire is part of these experimental schemes, but in no way at all is it part of them. South Yorkshire has nothing to do with them and, on my understanding of rural transport, I would not think it likely to be a candidate. It is a very heavily industralised area, and is not the kind of rural area which is likely to commend itself to your Lordships for this purpose.
Having established that the noble Earl, speaking for the Liberal Party, was on a non sequitur, or a non-starter in this case, I should also like to dissociate myself immediately from what he said at the beginning of his speech, which was the kind of gospel which would be much more akin to the views of the Minister or her Party, than to my own views. We on these Benches have been trying to stop unthought-about subsidies without end, on both the transport front and the housing front. We have been saying for

779
very many years that when people can pay they should pay, and we believe that help is better given in capital projects and things of that kind.
I cannot go along with what the noble Earl said about the South Yorkshire Council. I think that it has been criminally negligent in disregarding the Government's advice, economists' advice and the advice of most people in Yorkshire. It has caused itself a great deal of trouble and, to my mind, emptied its pockets unnecessarily. It has less money to spend on worthwhile projects. I said this only the other night when we were discussing the South Yorkshire Navigation, and I still believe that South Yorkshire was ill-advised. But we are not discussing South Yorkshire now, so let us leave that subject. I just wanted to establish the fact that I do not support the noble Earl's contention that open-ended subsidies towards the cost of bus tickets are a good thing. I think that when passengers can pay, they should pay. If necessary, there should be a subsidy towards capital development. But I repeat that South Yorkshire is not a genuinely rural area, such as I envisage.
Getting back to what I understood subsection (7) to be about, I should like to return to the question of Oxfordshire and Northumberland. Having made my original comments on the noble Earl's first set of Amendments, I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she is able to say anything about the conditions under which Oxfordshire and Northumberland will be able to participate in these experiments. What conditions will they have to fulfil, what costs will have to be met and what research will have to be done? I accept the general principle of what the noble Earl is trying to accomplish, but I should like to know what counties such as Oxfordshire and Northumberland will have to do. Finally, I felt that I must make my position clear as regards the noble Earl's other comments.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I should first like to support the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, that South Yorkshire is not one of the counties likely to be considered as an experimental area. South Yorkshire is one of the metropolitan counties. It is very built-up, and does not have as desperate a need
780
for rural transport as the North Yorkshire area where we have five extremely good schemes, which we hope will all be successful. As regards Oxfordshire, Northumberland and any other counties which might like to carry out experiments, I said earlier that there is nothing to prevent them from making any experiments that they want, within the existing traffic laws. My Department can offer them no money to help them to carry out these experiments. We have a limited budget with which to finance the four groups of experiments in the scheme which will be under the control of the local working parties and the National Steering Committee. Northumberland was one of the counties which was originally considered by the National Steering Committee, but it did not come democratically within the first four. I am not in a position to say whether or not Oxfordshire was also considered, but I know that Northumberland was and that for some reason it was turned down as being not quite such a good candidate for the schemes that they had in mind as the other four areas selected. The Department are quite happy to make available any technical advice that they can to any counties, but I must repeat that no money will be made available by the Government for any additional schemes which are outside those that are being sponsored under this experimental areas Bill.
When the noble Earl withdrew this same Amendment in Committee he acknowledged that it was an experimental, not a permanent scheme. The Bill has not changed one iota in the interim. This Amendment would still vitiate the purposes of the experiments which are being carried out under the Bill. As I said in Committee, this subsection is intended to ensure that experiments in designated areas involving the grant of authorisations are carried out in strictly controlled conditions. This will help us to attain the objective of collecting and assessing the maximum amount of evidence on the effect of the revised arrangements that can be made under the Bill. We are certainly not trying to dictate to the local authorities. Any experiments will be carried out in the fullest consultation with them. The local authority representatives sit on both the National Steering Committee and the Working Groups which are at present preparing the experiments.

781
I asked the representatives of the local authorities at the meeting of the National Steering Committee whether they had any views on extending the scheme to other counties. They agreed that there is not the wherewithal to extend the scheme further than we have gone at the moment and they were not prepared to push for any other counties to be included in these initial experimental areas. I would remind your Lordships of what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said in Committee. He said that the Secretary of State is,
"better positioned to co-ordinate and view the whole spectrum, which I think must be desirable."
The Bill deals with experiments which are going to provide us with the evidence that will assist in considering whether general changes should be made to the licensing system. This is quintessentially a field for national, not local government, and I urge your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I do not want any Members of your Lordships' House to think that I am against the Bill. I am not. I can only say that I hope that what I have said this afternoon will lead the Government in the near future to get a move on with the Bill. I hope also that the Bill may lead to bigger and better things. In view of the assurances given by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.53 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause:
Travel concessions.
".—(1) A local authority may make with any person whose use of a motor vehicle is covered by an authorisation under section 2 above the like arrangements for the grant of travel concessions by that person as the authority have power to make under section 138(3) of the Transport Act 1968 (travel concessions) with a person who operates a public service vehicle undertaking.
(2) Subsections (4) and (5) of the said section 138 shall, so far as applicable, apply in relation to arrangements under this section as they apply in relation to arrangements under subsection (3) of that section; and in this section "local authority" and "travel concession" have the same meaning as in the said section 138."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, put down an Amendment at Committee stage which sought to achieve the same objective as this one, and he was supported on that occasion by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory. I said at the time that I had doubts whether a specific provision was needed to arrange for concessionary fares experiments under the Bill, but I agreed to take the necessary action if it were. This Amendment is the result, because, on reflection, we accept that a specific power would be appropriate to cover concessionary travel arrangements in experiments under the Bill.
The Amendment has therefore been drafted accordingly, and I hope that the noble Lord will agree that we have met the point which he raised. However, I am sure that noble Lords will forgive me if I say once again that the Bill is not a blueprint for future general legislation. I made that point on a number of aspects of the Bill as introduced and I make it again on this Amendment. In particular, the Government are not committed on the question of the extension of travel concessions as part of any new arrangements that might be adopted following these experiments nor, of course, on the public expenditure implications. With that proviso, I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, it would be churlish of me to say anything but thank you to the noble Baroness the Minister for what she has done. May I also endorse what I have said already: that I do not regard this as a major Bill upon which to hang important hats on many pegs. I have always regarded the Bill as an experimental, interim measure, out of which something bigger will come. With those few words, again I should like to say thank you to the noble Baroness.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, may I join my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton in a courteous bow to the noble Baroness. When we raised the matter on Report she gave us a very courteous reply, as she always does. The noble Baroness promised to look at the point. She has done exactly what she said and has produced an Amendment which seems to meet the point entirely. I also

783
take note of the reservation that the noble Baroness made at the conclusion of her remarks.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Short title, interpretation and extent]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 18, after (""local authority"") insert (",except in section (Travel concessions) above,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the Amendment to introduce the new clause relating to the arrangements for travel concessions. Therefore I beg to move.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness could explain how this is a consequential Amendment. I may be a little drowsy this afternoon, but I cannot follow this point exactly. I am sure that what the noble Baroness has said is right, but perhaps she will be kind enough to explain it.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the effect of the Amendment is that the definition in the Bill as drafted does not include district councils within the definition of "local authority". The powers in Section 138 of the Transport Act 1968 relating to arrangements for concessionary travel can also be exercised by district councils in England and Wales. This is reflected in the wording of the previous Amendment, and the Amendment that we are now discussing adjusts the definition of "local authority" in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
In the Schedule [Authorisations under Section 2]:
3.58 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee proceedings I took the opportunity of complaining about the drafting of this sub-paragraph. It has not become any more lucid or felicitously phrased during the intervening days, nor
784
have I become any more convinced by the arguments in favour of the restrictions that it seeks to impose. It seems desirable to integrate these experiments, so far as possible, with existing transport. I do not understand why the noble Baroness should be so suspicious of the intentions of existing operators who might be covered by these restrictions and I hope that she will clarify the Bill in both style and content by abandoning them. I beg to move.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton in asking the noble Baroness to be kind enough to explain why it is still proposed to exclude this type of transport in this ownership. As I think I said at the Report stage, it seems to me that the important point is whether this type of transport will provide a more economical service, supplementing existing services. If so, and if the service is used, I cannot see why it is relevant who will make a profit out of it. It seems to me to be irrelevant to the aim and I still cannot quite understand the objection of the noble Baroness to the exclusion of this sub-paragraph.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. Sub-paragraph (a) is a replica of paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 to the Road Traffic Act 1960 which dealt with commercial vehicles carrying fewer than four people. This is an attempt to deal with private cars generally and the minibus, and I do not see how that paragraph carries very much weight in this new relationship. I can see why, in the old days under the 1960 Act, one did not want to have any connivance between the hire car operator and the bus company. That is the purpose in that Act of sub-paragraph (a). But I do not quite know who one is attempting to hit by putting it in here, suggesting that the private car owner has some clandestine arrangement with a scheduled bus service.
As I said at the Committee stage, the only thing I can think of is that in the very rural areas there are a number of minibuses which are operated for the public good in conjunction with the education committees. I should hate to do anything to restrict those minibuses, which usually are operated only at 9 o'clock in the morning and half past three in the

785
afternoon. But I should very much like them, in the middle of the day, to do some work by taking into the market town people who do not have cars. It is conceivable, but I think unlikely, that subparagraph (a) as drafted might hit those minibuses. Otherwise it has not got a target and I should have thought that if you were to leave sub-paragraph (a) out of the Schedule that would meet all that it needed to meet, because the point of paragraph 6 of the Fourth Schedule to the 1960 Act does not arise here, where we are dealing merely with general authorisations and not with special authorisations. I wish to support my noble friend.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, this Amendment was thoroughly discussed, and then withdrawn, in Committee, and I would refer noble Lords to the record of that debate. The limitation in this subparagraph applies only to the general authorisations, not—and I emphasise this—to the specific authorisations. So perhaps we may consider the particular purpose of the general authorisations under the Bill. They are intended essentially to allow lift-giving against payment on a regular basis where it is of an informal variety. As I said in Committee, private motorists can hardly be expected to go through the public service vehicle licensing system in order to get authority to enable contributions towards petrol costs to be accepted. Licensed operators, such as those people who use minibuses for getting children to school, on the other hand, should have little or no difficulty in making use of the normal public service vehicle licensing procedures to extend their services in this manner.
If it is a matter of operators making vehicles available, on hire, say, to private individuals—not, I should have thought, a very likely proceeding for the purposes covered by a general authorisation—then this can be done under other provisions in the Bill. It would be open to a licensed operator to apply for, or to be associated with, an application for a special authorisation. As I have already mentioned, this restriction does not in any way affect special authorisations. Nor does it in any way prevent individuals or voluntary groups from providing links to existing bus services with their own vehicles.
786
If the noble Lord's objection to this sub-paragraph is merely on drafting grounds—on grounds of aesthetics—I am quite prepared to ask Parliamentary Counsel to have another look at it from this point of view. We feel that the Amendment is misconceived and that it would unnecessarily widen the provisions of general authorisations; it would blur the distinction between the different types of experiment and hence would potentially reduce the value of the conclusions that may be drawn. I would urge the noble Lord not to press the Amendment but, as I have said, if noble Lords want me to look at the wording of it in order to make it a little more aesthetically acceptable, I will certainly ask Parliamentary Counsel to do that, and we will do something about it in another place at a later stage.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, speaking only for myself and not for my noble friend Lord Tranmire, with whom I have not been able to communicate since the noble Baroness sat down, I would accept the intention of the noble Baroness that the difference between the special authorisations and the general authorisations is sufficiently established. Personally, I should he grateful if she would ask her Parliamentary draftsmen to see whether—if I may use the words I used before—they can more felicitously word it. But I should like to hear what my noble friend Lord Tranmire feels about this before we formally withdraw the Amendment.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will look at the point I was making because I do not think her reply, which I think was prepared before I made my speech, really dealt with my point. As I see it, sub-paragraph (a) in this Bill is not necessarily dealing with a general authorisation. It would have been necessary of course if it had been dealing with a special authorisation, because there you are dealing with commercial vehicles and with this link-up there would be an evasion of the licensing law; but I respectfully suggest to the noble Baroness that it could not be so in connection with a private vehicle. Perhaps she will look at this point again as the Bill goes through another place and, if necessary, make the amendments, apart from tightening up the language, because certainly the language of

787
the 1960 Act is somewhat diffuse and not very clear. I am sure it could be tightened up a great deal, as my noble friend suggested; and on the major point I was making, I should like the noble Baroness to ascertain whether sub-paragraph (a) is really needed when we are dealing with a general authorisation.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I think my answer will still be, "Yes, it is", but I will certainly look at it again.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.7 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 39, at end insert—
("() Not less than twenty-one days before passing such a resolution the local authority shall give notice of its intention to consider a resolution under this paragraph in one or more local newspapers circulating in the experimental area to which, or to one or more parts of which, the authorisation applies or would apply as the case may be and before so resolving shall take into account any representations received from any such organisations or bodies as are referred to in section 1(5).")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my purpose in moving this Amendment on Third Reading is simply to give the noble Baroness the Minister an opportunity to put on record the intentions of her Department. I have already had words in private with her on this subject and substantially she accepted our arguments during the Committee proceedings. I believe she may have some information for us as to the intentions of her right honourable friend in another place. I beg to move.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, when the noble Baroness answers the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, I wonder whether she will have anything to say to me in regard to the question I asked at a previous stage; namely, because the local authorities should publicise this fact as much as possible, that these notices should be put in public transport prior to the necessary date?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and
788
Stourton, moved this Amendment at Committee stage, as he has said, I undertook that the views of the Steering Committee overseeing the current programme of the sponsored experiments would be sought on the principles underlying it. If they thought it desirable then the Government would consider putting down a suitable Amendment, since the one moved at that stage did not seem technically satisfactory. On that basis the Amendment was withdrawn by the noble Lord.
As I said, the Steering Committee met on Thursday last and the consumers were very well and vocally represented on that Steering Committee. They brought to our notice the various things that would have to be done in order to publicise what was going to happen. The consensus at that Committee meeting was that there should be arrangements for advance notice of, and the making of representations about, the intention of a local authority to grant a general authorisation. The Committee went further and suggested that similar arrangements should apply in relation to an intention to grant special as well as general authorisations. They did not consider whether the means suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, should be one of those used, but I am sure they will take advantage of every possible means of publicity.
At the Steering Committee time did not allow us to give proper consideration to the drafting of the appropriate Amendment for discussion today, but I am happy to give the noble Lord a firm undertaking that the Government will be introducing such an Amendment in another place as the Bill proceeds.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
Privilege Amendment made.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. There is not a great deal more that I wish to say. First, I would thank all your Lordships who have contributed to the passage of the Bill. We have had several

789
useful debates, useful in the sense not only that they have led, I believe, to a better general understanding of what the Bill is seeking to achieve, but also because they have served to illuminate aspects of its provisions, and indeed of the experiments which will be carried out under it, which have been causing concern to some of the interests involved. This has enabled me, I hope, to offer reassurance on many of these. I have been able to accept some of the changes proposed by noble Lords opposite by putting down the Government Amendment we have made today, or, where there was not sufficient time, by my firm undertaking that the Government will put down Amendments in another place. As to the other changes which I did not feel able to accept and which noble Lords withdrew, I think these helped us a great deal to bring out the essential nature and the limitations of the present Bill.
May I say one more thing. Arising from the meeting of the Steering Committee on Thursday, concern was expressed at several points that some financial loss might be suffered by commercial operators as a result of one or two of the experiments planned in the four study areas under the Bill's provisions. I gave an assurance to the Steering Committee then, which I now repeat, that there are adequate powers available to pay compensation and that compensation will be paid if such losses are shown to have occurred as a result of our granting authorisations within these four areas. I thank noble Lords for their support for the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Stedman.)
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the way that she has guided this small Bill through the House. Her task has not been easy; she has been faced with a House which has discussed these measures many times before, and from these Benches with perhaps a slight measure of impatience against her Government for not having moved more hastily in the way which we had been wanting. Rural transport, as we know, is in urgent need of revision. This Bill goes some way towards helping to free the licensing system, as I have said in various stages of the Bill. The way that she has helped
790
the passage of the Bill has been exemplary. I heard about the Steering Committee later that evening from her private secretary.
I heard from another source about one of the matters to which I think she is probably referring. In Devonshire two bus services were perhaps endangered. I repeat that I have not heard this from the noble Baroness or her private secretary; I have heard this from another source within the Steering Committee. I should like to make that absolutely clear. The unions, from their point of view quite rightly, raised the point that two bus services might have their prospects affected. But by heavens!, my Lords, this is what change is about. To bring in several smaller services is almost certain to injure some already existing services. It is because the existing services are not serving a wide enough public; they are perhaps too big for the public they are serving and are therefore uneconomic. That is what we are discussing. There will be no improvement without some existing service being slightly injured. At the end of the day we hope that we will have a more useful service, more fully used, although perhaps each particular service is not coping with as many people. As we know, the bus services are probably under-used at the moment. What we are doing in this Bill is suggesting more but smaller services.
Having said that, I should again like to thank the noble Baroness for her courtesy in putting up with my criticisms, which, as she knows, are Party political and not personal. I thank her, and also the Government, for the way in which they have been open to honest criticism and suggestion. I thank them for what they have done.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Baroness for the very courteous way that she has dealt with this small Bill. I hope that, as a result of some of the difficulties that we have raised, this Bill will be the first foundation stone to a reformed rural transport system. We thank her very much for her courtesy.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

NEW TOWNS (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.17 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short Bill. On 12th May 1976 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced in another place that the development of the new town at Stonehouse was not to proceed. This Bill is a consequence of that decision. The Bill is necessary because existing provisions in the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 for winding up a new town apply only where its development has been completed.
My Lords, there were three major reasons for the decision to cancel Stone-house. First, population growth estimates in the West Central Scotland Plan showed that a major motive for the development of a new town at Stonehouse—the need to relieve population pressure in Glasgow —had in large part been met by the other new towns in Scotland. Secondly, both the Plan and the Strathclyde Regional Report revised downwards the employment projections of previous forecasts and showed that there was enough housing and industrial land in West Central Scotland without Stonehouse. Thirdly, both central and local government, recognising that changed circumstances required new policies, have shifted the emphasis of their social and economic policies towards urban renewal in West Central Scotland.
When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland took his decision, development at Stonehouse was just beginning. Only 96 houses were under construction and work on the first industrial site at Canderside was at a very early stage. To have continued development would have entailed major expenditure on infrastructure, which, for the reasons I have given, was not considered to be justifiable.
Cancellation of the new town, however, does not halt plans for industrial development at Stonehouse. In his announcement on 12th May last, my right honourable friend invited the Scottish Development Agency to take over the main industrial site at Canderside for development. The Agency, in conjunction with Strathclyde Regional Council, have looked
792
very carefully into this proposal, and on 14th December last announced that they would purchase the site and hold it for use by a single major incoming industry at a later date. Nor does the cancellation of Stonehouse imply any lessening of the Government's support for the continued development of the five established new towns in Scotland; they have a substantial contribution to make to the Scottish economy in providing employment and relieving housing stress.
The Bill has three main provisions. It makes possible the dismantling of the legal and administrative structure of a Scottish new town within five years of its designation. It provides for the appointment of a development corporation or other statutory body to wind up the terminated new town, to sell off the property acquired for its development, and to meet the liabilities and claims for compensation arising from initial development. It also provides for the closure of the new town's accounts once the wind up of the new town has been completed, with any surplus being paid into the Consolidated Fund and any deficit being met out of monies provided by Parliament.
I shall now give a brief outline of the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 empowers the Secretary of State, after consulting any interested local authorities, to make within five years of the designation of a new town in Scotland an order discontinuing its development. At present it can apply only to Stonehouse as the other Scottish new towns are considerably older. The termination of the new town is achieved by revoking the Designation Order and by revoking or varying the Development Corporation Order which establishes the new town's managing body. The assets and liabilities of the defunct new town will be transferred to a winding-up body which may be a development corporation or other statutory body. In the case of Stonehouse, the East Kilbride Development Corporation, as it will become, will be the winding-up body. The order will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
Clause 2 specifies the duties and powers to be given to the winding-up body. The winding-up body will be required to manage and maintain the assets and meet the liabilities and obligations of the former development corporation and to conform

793
to any instructions the Secretary of State may give to sell property to particular bodies or individuals. This is to ensure that the industrial site at Canderside may be sold to the Scottish Development Agency and the 96 houses which the development corporation have built to Hamilton District Council. These assets will all be sold for the best terms which can be obtained—the normal disposal terms for development corporations.
In Stonehouse the assets to be disposed of—Canderside and the 96 houses apart—comprise mainly agricultural land and some private houses. The Bill provides that previous owners will be given the opportunity to repurchase their land or property on terms approved by the Secretary of State and the Treasury, before it is offered for sale to a third party. Only if they decline to repurchase, will their property be offered to Government Departments and public authorities, and thereafter to the public at large, on the best terms which can reasonably be obtained. This is the normal procedure for the disposal of surplus Government land. To enable the winding-up body to carry out its function, it will be given the powers of a development corporation, and the Secretary of State is empowered to specify the date on which the winding-up is to be completed.
Clause 3 provides for the payment of compensation to members and staff of a development corporation of a new town which is de-designated. No compensation will be paid to members of the East Kilbride and Stonehouse Development Corporation, however, as the corporation will continue in being as the East Kilbride Development Corporation, and the compensation regulations for staff, which will be subject to Negative Resolution procedure, will follow the standard practice for such circumstances.
Clause 4 empowers the winding-up body, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State, to meet certain claims for compensation. These are, first, claims from a local authority or statutory undertaker for expenditure incurred in carrying out work for the development of the new town which was rendered abortive. Secondly, persons may claim the reimbursement of the legal and other professional expenses incurred in negotiations with the develop-
794
ment corporation where these have been terminated.
Clause 5 requires the winding-up body to keep accounts and other records in respect of its activities, and provides for a final settlement when the winding-up is complete. The financial controls are the same as for a development corporation and the accounts will be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. Clause 6 makes consequential Amendments to the Licensing (Scotland) Acts of 1959 and 1976, so that the Licensing Planning Committee for a new town shall cease to exist where a new town is cancelled. Both the 1959 and the 1976 Acts are referred to as this Bill may be enacted before the relevant provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 come into effect. Clause 7 is the formal interpretation clause.
Since the announcement of the cancellation of Stonehouse on 12th May 1976, there has been much uncertainty over the planning status of the area. Only when the Bill is enacted will local interests be able to re-acquire their property, will regulations be made awarding compensation to staff, and will local authorities and others be able to claim compensation for abortive expenditure. It is to remove this uncertainty and to clarify the administration of planning and licensing in the area, that I commend this Bill to your Lordships as the necessary consequence of the decision last May to halt the development of Stonehouse New Town.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Kirkhill).
4.27 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for explaining clearly and concisely the purposes of the Bill. I recognise that he personally was not involved in this sad story until very recently, when he became Minister of State at the Scottish Office. It is a sad story, because it is most disappointing that we should have to look at this Bill at all.
It is a Bill to wind up the new town of Stonehouse in Lanarkshire, upon which over the past 10 years many in that area have placed their hopes. Briefly, I should like to remind your Lordships that it was in the later 1960s that a Labour Government first indicated that a new town in the Stonehouse area would be

795
desirable. We took that up when we came into office in 1970, and in 1971 the new town was designated. It was applauded on all sides. So far as I can remember, not a voice was raised against it. All were in favour, whether they were concerned with housing, employment or industry, and so were the people in Lanarkshire and, so far as I know, in the Glasgow area as a whole. If there was any opposition, it was invisible. At the time I was Secretary of State for Scotland and I remember it because the fact that there was no opposition was not an every day occurence. It is not often that a Government make a proposal and receive unanimous approval. It is certainly an experience which the Secretary of State for Scotland does not meet every day.
Further, the nearby East Kilbride Corporation was given the task of being the corporation for this new town. That was very appropriate because East Kilbride was the first and is the oldest new town in Scotland. It has been exceedingly successful and the work of the corporation is gradually being reduced. Here was new work for an exceedingly experienced team led by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Campsie, who was then the chairman and who has been recently succeeded by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who I am glad to see here today. The general manager, Mr. Young, also had great success in bringing industry to East Kilbride and in the general running of that new town.
The town of East Kilbride has had tremendous success in the selling of its houses. Thousands of the houses have been most successfully sold, many being built for sale. This helped the housing situation in the area and brought back money to the corporation and the Government. In September 1974, after a change of Government, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. William Ross, said that the Government would continue with the new town of Stonehouse. I am not being cynical when I point out that that was a month before the last General Election, but none the less it was. Therefore, we wonder why a counter-decision was taken and announced in May of last year.
The Minister of State in another place, Mr. Gregor Mackenzie, gave the same
796
reasons as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, gave today. Let us just consider them. It is stated that the employment projections fell short of previous forecasts. That I regard as an euphemism for the highest unemployment in Scotland since the war. I recognise that there is a situation of very high unemployment, but I still do not think that that is a reason for giving up this new town scheme. Then, another reason repeated today was a changed emphasis in Government policies to urban renewal. That is simply a way of saying that the money is no longer available. I accept that public expenditure has to be reduced, and no doubt in another place the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be expanding on this theme at this moment. But let us recognise what is being done. Why not call a spade a spade and simply say that the Government have decided to reduce public expenditure in this area. We know that the IMF has prescribed the need for a reduction on this scale, but it does follow directly this Government's policy of 1974 of letting inflation get out of hand, in order, some would say, to stay in office.
I must say, because I feel strongly about this, that when I and my colleagues were in Government in late 1973 and early 1974 our principal aim was containing inflation, and we made it our first priority to reduce it. This was not some kind of confrontation, as some have stated, but it was largely to protect and preserve schemes such as these—major schemes which we knew were vulnerable, and indeed might prove impossible, if inflation got out of control and was rampant. Of course, with the 26 per cent. inflation that was later reached, a scheme like this has to disappear. May I give another example, with which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will be familiar. In Scotland, the Kessock Bridge, a major project which would take the road North of Inverness to the North of Scotland, cutting out a ferry and 15 miles of road round, was another victim of runaway inflation. There was a reasonable estimate for that about four years ago; now it is several times more, and that scheme has been postponed. Now this new town is a similar victim.
I mentioned that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is with us, the present chairman of East Kilbride Corporation. It is still called the East Kilbride and Stonehouse Corporation. I am aware that the

797
Addison Rules probably prevent him from taking part in this debate, but I am sure that he must be disappointed, too, that this has had to happen. Certainly the right honourable Lady, Mrs. Judith Hart, made it absolutely clear, speaking in another place when she was on the Back-Benches two or three months ago, that she was completely in opposition to this Bill, and she is a Member for Lanarkshire. Since then she has rejoined the Government, which has meant that her opposition was muted at the final stage of the Bill. However, she was certainly on the record as being completely against what was proposed by the Government from the point of view of the people she represented in Lanarkshire. This is because many people knew that jobs were coming to Stonehouse; jobs that would go to Stonehouse but not elsewhere in Scotland. That is the important point. Stonehouse was able to offer by its geographical situation and other conditions, sites and proposals for industry which could not be replaced elsewhere in Scotland. We know of at least one major project which has gone South of the Border because Stone-house can no longer take it as a new town. Many people in Lanarkshire have had high hopes for at least 10 years, and they have now been dashed.
In another place, there has been discussion in detail about provisions in the Bill, which I shall not go into now and I do not think at the later stages that we need go over those details again. However, I should like to draw attention to one point, on which a great deal of time was spent in another place, because it is important from the point of view of the citizen; that is, that the Government did eventually put forward an Amendment which was accepted, to provide for proper arrangements to enable the former owners of land to have reasonable rights and terms for the repurchase of their land if they wished to buy it back.
It is especially disappointing for me, as I am sure you will understand, because I was Secretary of State for Scotland at the time of the designation of the new town, that this Bill should be before us. I was aware of the enthusiasm of the East Kilbride Corporation, and of the enthusiasm of all in that area who saw not only a new community which would help the very densely populated area of Glasgow
798
but also a way in which more employment, which was much needed, could be brought to Lanarkshire.
4.36 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I have one worry about this Bill. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I see that there may well be a need to stop or to dismantle a new town corporation even after work on creating a new town has started. However, the one thing that worries me—and I do not see anywhere in this Bill provision for dealing with this situation—is how, where work and plans have started to create something which is very much larger, where perhaps farms have been cut in half and partly built on, where housing has been put up, where factory sites have been created, it is practicable to plan to return this to something of a smaller size.
It seems to me that it is very difficult to take a project of a large size on which work has started, stop it, and then turn it into something which does not involve an increase. There is a planning problem here. There seems to be very little provision for passing on this planning problem to the surrounding local authorities, and a passing on of the powers and perhaps the finance necessary to round off developments which have been started in such a way, so that you do not simply leave an uninhabitable eyesore on the face of Scotland. This is a big query in my mind. I do not see it dealt with anywhere in this Bill, and I should like to hear what Her Majesty's Government have to say about the problem.
4.38 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has expressed his sadness at the Government decision to de-designate Stonehouse New Town. Of course I recognise very clearly that it was under his Secretaryship of State for Scotland that considerable initiatives in this direction were taken. But I would put it to the noble Lord that in the past five years there has been a material change in the whole of the circumstances of the West Central belt of Scotland. Although he has said that he thinks that the projection now of a population graph downwards is merely a euphemism, I have to say to the noble Lord that it is a fact.

799
Further I have to say to the noble Lord that the Government have taken account of the Strathclyde regional report, which has shown clearly that there is already in the West Central belt of Scotland sufficient industrial land available without continuing with the development of Stonehouse, however desirable such a development might be were funds almost wholly available for every desirable project. But the fact is that at the present moment Government expenditure is being carefully and closely monitored. In my opinion the new Government emphasis on regenerating the Glasgow East End project is the beginning of a new impulse in the West Central belt of Scotland. In that area we do not have mobility of labour; yet already we have schools and houses there, and the people there are becoming even more disadvantaged with each passing year.
The Secretary of State for Scotland is just about to give £1 million to that project. I do not think that is a cut-back of any kind in Scottish public expenditure. I suggest that it is re-zoning of some of the expenditure because the Secretary of State is taking a different emphasis. In my view, he is entitled to take that view in the circumstances of the day. I understand of course that Mrs. Judith Hart would have had an interest in making the representations she made; she represents the constituency and I think it was a vested interest that was made by her. For the noble Lord to mention Kessock as a further example of Government cutback of expenditure in Scotland was grossly unfair. The Kessock position, far from being postponed, is under very careful review at this time.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to have misunderstood what I said. I said it was a victim of 26 per cent. inflation. I agree that the Government have had to make reductions and cut-backs, but if we had not had inflation on that scale, the estimate for the Kessock Bridge would not have reached the height where the Secretary of State for Scotland had to reject it.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, it was the Administration of which the noble Lord was a part which in my opinion led
800
to the raging inflation of 1974. He will not agree, but that is my view. The figure which came in for Kessock, of almost £30 million, was a figure which no Secretary of State—I submit that this would have applied to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, had he been Secretary of State at the time—would accept, and I believe that events will prove the previous Secretary of State right in his hesitation in granting that particular contract. The one point I wish to emphasise—Lord Campbell made no mention of this—is that Canderside, which is the industrial estate, will come under the aegis of the Scottish Development Agency, so there will be many jobs in the Stone-house area; there will be job regeneration in the Stonehouse area despite the fact that Stonehouse New Town is to be de-designated.
As for the points which were put to me by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, I would want to give those consideration. I will have to go through the Bill very carefully and I will either reply to him in writing or we can have some conversation. If that is not enough for him, then of course the matter can be raised at a later stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.43 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill [51] as first printed for the Commons]
[No. 1]
Page 2, line 24, after 'authority' insert—
'(1) After subsection (1), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2) Where subsection (5) of section 32 of the Act of 1972 applies to an exercise of power by the regional planning authority under that section, the person appointed by the regional planning authority shall be a person approved by the Secretary of State."(2)'
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. This Government Amendment was made to give effect to a recommendation of the Scottish Committee of the Council on Tribunals. The Committee were concerned that where a regional planning authority have called in a planning application, and either the applicant or the district planning authority ask for an inquiry, the person appointed to preside at that inquiry should be seen to be independent, and in no way biased towards the regional planning authority. There is already an administrative arrangement which has this effect. SDD Circular 76/1975 advises regional planning authorities to appoint a Reporter from the Secretary of State's panel. But the Committee believe—and the Government on balance accept—that it will increase public confidence in the handling of applications by regional planning authorities if the requirement to appoint a "Secretary of State-approved" Reporter is spelled out in the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I understand that this is an improvement to the Bill which was suggested by the Scottish Committee of the Council on Tribunals, which follows up the principles which the Franks Committee several years ago proposed and which have been universally accepted, and I therefore commend the Amendment to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 2 and 3]
Page 3, leave out line 16 and insert 'the'
Page 3, leave out line 17, after 'continuing' insert 'of'
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. With the permission of the House, I will speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 6 to 9 inclusive.
I have moved consideration of these Amendments en bloc because they all relate to the drafting of Clause 4. The purpose of this clause is to strengthen the enforcement powers available to
802
planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. This will be achieved, first, by extending the scope of stop notices to include all breaches of planning control. Second, stop notices will be publicised by means of site notices, which will bring all those involved in unauthorised activities within the scope of the stop notice prohibition.
We are naturally concerned that the new provisions in the Bill should be effective and watertight. We received advice that the wording of Clause 4 as it left this House might not fully achieve what the Government had set out to do. Amendments were moved therefore in another place which I believe have greatly improved the drafting of the clause, and removed any possible loopholes which might have enabled people to escape the effect of stop notices. The apparent weakness in the wording of the clause arose over the relationship between stop notices and the new site notices. The old wording of subsection (4) stated that a stop notice should,
"have effect in relation to any person when it is served on him or when it is publicised in accordance with subsection (3) above".
In other words, by a site notice. The old subsection (1), on the other hand, stated that a stop notice would prohibit any person "on whom the stop notice is served" from continuing the unauthorised activities. The intention of subsection (4) was clearly that a site notice should extend the effect of the stop notice on people as if they had been served with a copy of the stop notice itself. We were advised, however, that subsection (1) would be overriding as it stood. In other words, as the clause was drafted, stop notices would affect only those people served with them individually. This group of Amendments was tabled to put this right.
First, Amendment No. 2 takes out the overriding provision in the old subsection (1), which related the stop notice prohibition specifically to notices served on people. The new subsection (1) will have general effect in stopping the unauthorised activities. Amendment No. 3 is a minor consequential drafting Amendment. Amendment No. 6 revises the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) and inserts a new subsection (5). This provides that a stop notice shall cease to have effect in

803
relation to any activity when the enforcement notice is varied by the Secretary of State on appeal so that it no longer relates to that activity.
Amendment No. 7 provides that site notices will now have effect by virtue of the new subsection (7), which replaces the second half of the old subsection (3). Since under subsection (1) as amended the effect of a stop notice is no longer restricted to those served with it personally, publicity by means of a site notice will extend the prohibition to all those involved in the unauthorised activity. Amendment No. 8 deletes the old subsection (4) as a consequence of Amendment No. 6. Finally, Amendment No. 9 is consequential on Amendment No. 2 which gave stop notices general effect; that is, their application is no longer restricted to people served with notices.
I have explained this group of Amendments in some detail. I could see no alternative to doing so and I hope that what I have said has helped to clarify what seems to me to be a very complex question of drafting.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, it seems to us that the new drafting makes the position clearer. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said, it is a complicated matter. It was good of him to explain it in the way he has, at some length, and I believe that we shall have to take his word for much of what the draftsman has advised. I suggest that we accept the new wording in the Amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 4 and 5]
Page 3, line 26, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'
Page 3, leave out lines 32 to 37.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. I should like also to link in Amendment No. 12 as I speak to these Amendments. These Amendments were moved by the Government at Report stage in another place after discussion in
804
Committee on an Opposition Amendment to delete Clause 4(2)(c). This paragraph introduced a 12 months' time limit from the commencement of an activity after which a stop notice could not be served, provided that the activity had been substantially continuous throughout that period. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State undertook at Committee stage to look again at this provision. The Government decided on balance that the 12 months' restriction should be removed, and Amendments were moved accordingly.
The limitation on the use of stop notices was originally included in the Bill because it was felt that it would be unfair for a planning authority to use a drastic power of this kind suddenly to prohibit a longstanding and continuous activity which it was previously prepared to tolerate. Against this, it was argued that planning authorities must be trusted to act responsibly in deciding what enforcement action to take in a particular case.
Members of the Opposition in another place raised the question of the problem of intensification of an activity. What happens if an activity has begun in a small way and is then intensified to the point where the planning authority decides that enforcement action is necessary? In principle, the Bill provides for this by enabling the planning authority to apply a stop notice to part of any activity alleged in the enforcement notice to be in breach of planning control. However, the Government appreciate that there is considerable scope here for argument about what the level of an activity was on any particular date, and that there might thus be difficulties in applying a stop notice in these circumstances.
In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made the point in Committee that it might sometimes be difficult to prove whether or not a particular use had been carried on for more than a year. There is also the difficulty of someone who successfully conceals his unauthorised activity from the planning authority for 12 months and thereby escapes a stop notice. Though such cases might rarely give rise to serious consequences, this is an additional point which the Government have considered.
All in all, while we acknowledge that there may be an element of rough justice about

805
this, the Government believe that we will have a simpler and more useful Statute as a result of removing the 12 months' limitation.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I recognise that the Government have met criticism from the Conservative Opposition in both Houses in coming forward with these Amendments. I must, on Amendment No. 4, refer to the fact that it was my noble friend Lord Selkirk who made this suggestion when the Bill was before your Lordships' House. As regards Amendment No. 5, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said, the Conservative Opposition in another place went on raising points which I had started in your Lordships' House and the Government made the Amendment in order to meet those points. Again, I would commend the Amendments to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 6 to 9]
Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
'(3) A stop notice shall specify the date when it is to come into effect, such date not being less than three nor more than 28 days from the date when it is first served (on whatever person) in accordance with the provisions of subsection (6) below.
(4) A stop notice shall cease to have effect—

(a) when it is withdrawn under the provisions of subsection (10) below;

(b) when the enforcement notice to which it relates is withdrawn or quashed; or

(c) when the period for compliance with that enforcement notice specified under section 84(7)(c) of this Act has expired; whichever is the earlier.

(5) Where the enforcement notice to which a stop notice relates is varied so that it no longer relates to any activity prohibited by the stop notice, the stop notice shall cease to have effect in relation to that activity.'
Page 3, line 42, leave out from 'notice' to end of line 48 and insert—
'(7) The planning authority may publicise a stop notice by displaying on the land a notice (to be referred to as a "site notice") which shall state—

(a) the requirements of the stop notice;

(b) that the stop notice has been served on a particular person or persons; and

(c) the consequences under subsection (8) below of contravention of the stop notice.'

Page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
Page 4, line 27, leave out 'in relation to him' and insert 'and which has been served on him or has been publicised in accordance with the provisions of subsection (7) above,'.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 en bloc. These were discussed earlier with Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 10]
Page 5, leave out lines 9 to 26.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. This subsection was written into the 1969 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act when stop notices were first introduced. It was thought then that a contractor who had entered into a contract with a developer before the end of 1969 to carry out operations (for instance, mineral working) on land, and who suffered loss or damage as a result of the requirement to comply with a stop notice, should normally be entitled to compensation from the developer.
It is very unlikely that there are any existing contracts to which this provision would apply. It is just conceivable that some long term contract for mineral extraction could still fall within the terms of the subsection and, for this reason, the Government were at first inclined to retain the provision, at least for the time being. However, an Opposition Amendment was moved in Committee in another place to delete the subsection on the grounds that it would be inappropriate to re-enact in 1977 a provision which related only to contracts made before 1970. The Government accepted this argument and, therefore, agreed to the Opposition Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, it seemed that, after eight years, it ought not to be necessary to re-enact this

807
provision which refers to a period before the end of 1969, but I assume that the Government have made all the inquiries that they consider appropriate to ensure that this would not cause any unfairness or hardship to anyone who might still be affected by some contract entered into before the end of 1969. On that basis, I suggest that we approve this Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 11]
Clause 5, page 5, line 41, at end insert—
'(b) in subsection (3), for "operations" in both places where that word occurs substitute the word "activity",
(c) in subsection (5) leave out from "or of" to end'
4.59 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. This is simply a drafting Amendment to bring Section 166 of the 1972 Act into line with the new stop notice provisions in Clause 4.
Moved That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as this is the last Amendment—for we have already discussed Amendment No. 12—I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, whether he can tell us about the equivalent Bill applying to England and Wales. I gave him notice of this some days ago because it is one of the most important matters arising from the Bill. We are making changes in the town and country planning procedures for Scotland and in recent years there has been an aim by both Parties that have been in Government to try to promote uniformity in the planning procedures North and South of the Border. Therefore, we inquired what was happening in England and Wales, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, told us that the Government were about to give their support to a Private Member's Bill in another place. That became the Bill introduced by my honourable friend Mr. Dudley Smith, and it had its Second Reading on 28th January. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us briefly how he sees progress on that Bill. From the point of view of developers
808
and those engaged in housing and many other subjects affected by planning, it is of some importance that, if possible, the procedures North and South of the Border should be similar if not precisely the same; otherwise it leads to all kinds of difficulties.
The Government have made it clear that the intention is to try to make the change more or less at the same time in Scotland and in England and Wales, but if that is to be done it depends on progress with Mr. Dudley Smith's Bill, which I am glad to say obtained its Second Reading because he was one of the fortunate Members in the Private Members' Ballot. It also depends on how that Bill fares and the support that the Government are prepared to give it in its later stages in another place.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the Government are continuing their support of Mr. Dudley Smith's Bill in another place. I should point out that the Scottish Bill and the English Bill have differences; they are not exactly the same. Of course in part this stems from the fact that in Scotland, at least in some aspects of our Governmental activity, we are, we think, occasionally one step ahead of those South of the Border. Perhaps that is a personal view, but I think it is one that could be sustained. I think that the only significant difference between the two Bills at the moment, apart from the fact that the Scottish Bill is rather wider in its impact, is that in Scotland we have abandoned the 12 months' limit, whereas in the English Bill this is retained. We decided that we would accept the point which the Opposition had put in that regard so far as the Scottish Bill was concerned. With regard to the English Bill, I understand that the Department of the Environment and others have listened to serious representations from the CBI and have taken a rather different decision. But surely that lies within the reasonable purview of the Ministers concerned, and we think that we are moving in the correct direction on the Scottish Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to say that this is not so much a question of the legislation being exactly

809
the same; as I tried to make clear, Scots law is different from law in England and Wales, and one does not expect it to be the same. But when a major change of principle is being adopted on one side of the Border, it is highly inconvenient if it is not to apply on the other side. So far as Scotland is concerned, industry could be adversely affected if it found itself dealing with what was to it quite strange procedure if that was not being carried out South of the Border as well, and universally in the United Kingdom. I was glad to hear what the noble Lord said. I made this inquiry to find out whether there were any snags arising which would stop the equivalent legislation—not exactly the same legislation —South of the Border.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I can only confirm that thus far in regard to the Scottish Bill we have attempted to be reasonably flexible.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMM0NS AMENDMENT
[No. 12]
Page 6, leave out lines 35 to 37.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. I move this Amendment formally as we have already discussed it.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RETURNING OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.3 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved the following Amendment:
Page 2, line 21, leave out from ("operation") to end of line 23 and insert ("on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to substitute for the three-month period provided for in Clause 4 of the Bill, a provision enabling the operative date to be fixed by order made by the Secretary of State. The three-month period for which the Bill as introduced provides, was intended to afford the new returning officers and the supporting local authority staffs adequate time to plan for the changeover of responsibilities. That remains the intention, and it is very unlikely that the Secretary of State will find it necessary under the proposed order-making power to fix an earlier operative date. Circumstances could, however, arise, for example, in the event of a by-election, or perhaps a speeded up version of last week's events in the other place, where it would clearly be desirable to invoke the order-making power. The changeover of responsibility for which the Bill provides has been under discussion now for some considerable time, and it is only reasonable and fair to all the parties affected that there should at this stage be no uncertainty as to where the statutory responsibility would lie should the eventuality of a by-election obtain. The sheriffs and I are sure that the local authority staffs concerned would welcome clarification of the situation in this way. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: This Bill aims to produce a new system for running elections in Scotland. The staffs who used to run the polling stations and the whole system, including the returning officer, operated under the sheriff and they were the sheriff court staffs. The Bill proposes a new system and we discussed that at Second Reading. The Second Reading debate took place on 14th March, and of course I cannot help being amused by this Amendment coming forward at this stage because we understood that there was not to be a Committee stage. We did not have any Amendments, and no other noble Lord

811
put down an Amendment, but now the Government have put down an Amendment at short notice.
I think this arose from something I said on Second Reading, as reported at column 1408 of the Official Report of 14th March. I asked what would happen if there were to be a General Election in the next few weeks or months? That was just over two weeks ago. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said that everything would be all right. But under the Bill as it stands, without this Amendment, the new system does not enter into force until three months after the Bill is enacted. Therefore, I cannot help but think that in the intervening two weeks, when there has been the prospect of an immediate General Election, and that has come and gone—even though the noble Lord, just over two weeks ago, did not realise that—it has been brought home, in a way that I do not think could have been bettered, that it was necessary to introduce some flexibility into the Bill.
Lord KIRKHILL: To strike a personal note only, I should say that I am a hawk in these matters, not a dove.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has done nothing other than give very good advice to his colleagues in the Govern-merit. But since he was reassuring us on 14th March, when I raised this point, I think that he must have looked into it with more than academic interest during the past two weeks.
I think that it would be wise to provide this discretion to the Secretary of State, rather than have a date which is rigidly three months after the enactment of the Bill. Therefore I regard the Amendment as an improvement, and that would be obvious I think from the remarks that I made on 14th March. But can the Minister tell us whether the new arrangements could be brought in immediately? For instance, let us suppose that the Liberal Party decided not to support the Government on something important in a month's time—and, after all, they voted against the Government on Defence yesterday—and there were to be a General Election in April or May. In those circumstances, given that the Bill is, I understand, to go through all its remaining
812
stages in the next 24 hours or so, and probably receive Royal Assent later this week, would it be possible for the new system to be brought into effect in April or May? I know that under this arrangement the Secretary of State will be able to take the decision, which is much better than the situation under the Bill as it now stands. But many of us would be interested to know whether it would be physically possible to introduce a new system within the next two months.
Furthermore, should there be a by-election in Scotland within the next two or three months, would it be possible for the change to take place in that time? I am talking about the practicability, knowing that the Secretary of State can take the decision himself whether to use the old or the new system. I think we should like to know whether the Minister can give us an assessment of how long it will take for the new arrangements to be available for a by-election or a General Election, given the fact that the Bill is likely to be enacted this week with this Amendment, which I of course support.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Before the noble Lord sits down, in view of the spirit of confrontation in which he has addressed your Lordships' Committee perhaps I may remind him that, of course, the Liberal Party was not consulted on the Defence matters, voted on yesterday in another place. It is perhaps not quite inappropriate to point that out in view of the words of the noble Lord. But if, on a matter on which there is a serious confrontation taking place at this stage, I can help either noble Lord in any way, perhaps they will let me know.
Lord HUGHES: I do not know whether or not the noble Lord who has just sat down is speaking in the capacity of a Shadow Minister—
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I was speaking purely in my private capacity.
Lord HUGHES: I am not rising to concern myself with the possibilities of a General Election, but to speak to something of which I have given notice to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill. I intended doing this on Third Reading, but the remarks just made by the noble Lord,

813
Lord Campbell of Croy, about bringing these changes into operation at an early date make it appropriate that I should perhaps say what I have to say at this point.
The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the fact that, under Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act,
"…exchequer payments to returning officers are regulated on a common basis throughout Great Britain".
This implies that when the new arrangements come into effect the sort of payments which have been made in the past to the sheriff clerk and his staff will be made to the new returning officers, who will be the chief executives of local authorities. I am quite certain that both the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and my noble friend Lord Kirkhill are aware of the dismay with which the ratepayers in Scotland have greeted the intimation recently made that, provided the local authorities agree to do so, the chief executives of local authorities are to collect payments of perhaps £600 or £700, or even £800, for performing the duties of returning officers, which on paper, at least, used to be carried out by Lord Provosts and Provosts of burghs. My noble friend Lord Kirkhill himself did this in Aberdeen, as I did in Dundee, and we received no payment for it at all; but in fact we were returning officers only nominally, and the work was done in the departments of the town clerks and of the county clerks. But it is equally the case that the work was not done by the town clerk or by the county clerk, and it is quite iniquitous that the town clerk and an official or officials designated as deputy returning clerks should receive these sums of money when in fact the work is done as part of the ordinary work of the clerk's department; and I am quite certain that it could be regarded as part of the ordinary work of the chief executives of the new authorities.
It used to be that in some authorities, perhaps in all authorities, there was a fund known as the county clerk's fee fund and the town clerk's fee fund, and any payments which these officers received in that capacity were put at the disposal of the local authorities. I would certainly hope that my noble friend Lord Kirkhill would encourage local authorities to ensure that any payments which are made to their
814
staff as a consequence of this measure go into the funds of the local authorities, and do not go into the pockets of the individual officers. I should like to add that at this time, when ratepayers generally are so hard pressed, it would be regarded as an act of grace on the part of the Government if my noble friend were to use his influence with local authorities to withhold payments of these sums to their individual officers because under the new dispensation of local authorities they are not doing anything different from what they have done for many years in the past. There has been much criticism, a great deal of it unjustified, of the reform of local government, but something which is entirely justified is the outcry from ratepayers about these totally unjustified payments to officials who, in the most cases, are receiving substantially more money for the jobs which they are now carrying out and, in some cases, are receiving more money for doing less work than they formerly did.
Lord KIRKHILL: I can certainly give the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, an assurance that, as to the possibility of there being a by-election in the next few weeks—it will not, of course, be a General Election; I have some assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, about that meantime, and I am delighted to welcome him on board, as it were—if there be one then the new arrangements can be put into effect. So far as the point raised by my noble friend Lord Hughes is concerned, he will know, having occupied the position I now hold, that I have no statutory power in this regard as it relates to the local authorities concerned.
Lord HUGHES: Influence.
Lord KIRKHILL: But I have some influence, and he still has a residue of great influence. I would think that the remarks he has made in your Lordships' Committee this afternoon might well be noted in certain places in Scotland.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended pursuant to Resolution:

815
Report received; Bill read 3a, with the Amendment; and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PATENTS BILL [H.L.]
5.18 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause 111 agreed to.
Clause 112 [Rules]:
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 347:
Page 81, line 40, after ("comptroller") insert ("or of a tribunal")
The noble Lord said: I have spoken already at length and with passion about the desirability of having a tribunal for dealing with disputes. I have spoken to this Amendment, which is not moved.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 348A:
Page 82, line 29, at beginning insert—
("without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, requiring and regulating the translation of documents in connection with an application for a patent or a European patent or an international application for a patent and the filing and authentication of any such translations;
(hh) requiring the keeping of a register of patent agents and")
The noble and learned Lord said: Before we embark upon the multifarious number of Amendments which still face us, I think I should express my regret to noble Lords that so many Amendments have had to be put down at this stage. Our task was to try to get the Bill on the stocks, so to speak, as soon as possible, so that we could be parties to the European arrangements, as founder members, as
816
soon as possible. I am afraid that that meant rushing especially the preparation of the Schedule, and that accounts for some later thinking and rethinking, which has in turn necessitated the labour which faces the Committee, which I think may in the event prove to be not quite so burdensome or so lenghty as at first sight it appears.
I renew my apologies. We are now dealing with Amendment No. 348A and it might be convenient to deal also with Amendment No. 349. Amendment No. 348A fills two gaps in the Bill. First, it provides a clear rule-making power dealing with the translations which may be necessary under the Bill; and, secondly, it allows rules to be made requiring the keeping of a register of patent agents. Amendment No. 349 is a drafting Amendment to clarify the meaning and does no more than that. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: On behalf of my noble friend and myself, we fully understand the position Ministers have been in under this Bill and are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said before moving the Amendment. As these two Government Amendments cover, and to a considerable extent meet, our Amendment No. 348 we have no objection to them and shall be supporting them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 349:
Page 82, line 30, leave out ("it") and insert ("the register of patent agents").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 112, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: This clause is of very serious administrative importance because it gives the Secretary of State powers to make such rules as are expedient for regulating the business of the Patent Office and also to make rules which give direction or control of the Comptroller General of Patents. If I may, I shall briefly submit to the Government that in so far as the rules drafted under this clause refer to the powers of the Comptroller General of Patents, the powers should be given to the Comptroller General of Patents under Section 37,

817
particularly, of the Patents Act. Where the Comptroller General has the power to make awards to employee inventors, he should also, under the rules, have power to introduce some kind of conciliation procedure.
It is quite frequently the case in patent matters that disputes arise; but they can be settled provided the parties can come along and see some person who is sympathetic with a view to try to resolve the difficulties. It seems to me that it would be in conformity with some of the practice on the Continent where concilation procedures are in use for the purpose of trying to resolve disputes between an employee inventor and his employer. My submission is that the Government might in due course consider whether the powers of the comptroller could be so extended as to introduce some kind of conciliation procedure before the case comes to a formal hearing.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful for the suggestion that Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran has made. I shall look at the point. I am certainly in favour of encouraging the concept of conciliation. Whether there is any necessity to give the comptroller a rule-making power to deal with it, I should like to consider. Perhaps we shall return to it at a later stage.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I apologise for not giving him notice about it beforehand.
Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 113 [Rules, regulations and orders; supplementary.]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 349A:
Page 83, line 8, after ("conferred") insert ("on the Secretary of State").
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be convenient also to deal with Amendment No. 349C in this connection and, possibly, if noble Lords opposite are happy about it, with Amendment 350. Amendments Nos. 349A and 349C are mainly drafting Amendments. The first makes it clear that subsection (1) of Clause 113 is concerned solely with powers conferred on the Secretary of State and has nothing to do with orders which may be
818
made by the court or the comptroller. Clearly, Clause 113 is not intended to bite on an order made by the comptroller under, for example, Clause 7(1). The purpose of these Amendments is very much the same as that underlying Amendment No. 350 put down by noble Lords opposite. I am grateful to them for drawing attention to the defect in Clause 113; although perhaps their Amendment does not deal with the defect so far as subsection (1) is concerned. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, noble Lords will feel able to accept the Amendments which I propose, which are largely drafting, and perhaps will withdraw their own. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for taking the three Amendments together. We are also grateful for his very full explanation of why Amendment No. 349C is superior to our Amendment in that the Government Amendment seems to go further and remedies several defects that certainly have been apparent to the (dare I say it?) advisers to the noble and learned Lord, but which were not apparent at that earlier stage to our very capable advisers. We understand that the Amendment to which the noble and learned Lord has spoken meets and provides satisfactorily for our Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): if Amendment No. 349C is agreed to, then Amendment No. 350 cannot be moved.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 349C:
Page 83, line 10, leave out from ("Council") to ("shall") in line 13 and insert ("and any statutory instrument containing an order, rules or regulations under this Act other than an order required to be laid before Parliament in draft or an order under section 120(4) below").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 114. [Extent of Invention]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 350A:
Page 83, line 17, after ("invention") insert ("for a patent for which an application has been made or for which a patent has been granted").
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be convenient to discuss also Amendment No. 350B in this connection. Clause 114 at present only defines "invention" and the extent of protection afforded in relation to granted patents. Under Clauses 54 and 67, however, it is necessary to determine what invention an application relates to and whether an act can be said to infringe that application. The Amendments therefore make it clear that the invention for which an application has been made and the extent of protection conferred are to be determined in the same way as for a granted patent. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 351:
Page 83, line 18, leave out ("that specified") and insert ("the matter defined").
The noble Lord said: This is a brief Amendment. If the Committee were to turn back in the Bill to look at Clause 11(5)—which we dealt with, it seems, light years ago, but certainly on the first day of the Committee—we should find that Clause 11(5) provides that in any application,
"The claim or claims shall…define the matter for which the applicant seeks protection;…"
To look forward again to the clause in the Bill that we are now dealing with, this Amendment seeks to repeat exactly the wording used in Clause 11(5). We believe that the wording in that particular clause of the Bill is apposite and particularly accurate and we hope that it fits into this clause. For that reason, I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand it from what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has said, it is intended by this Amendment to align the wording of Clause 114 with that used in Clause 11(5)(a). But I venture to think the two clauses are directed to different propositions. The effect of the Amendment would be to equate the invention with the matter defined in the claim and so preventing the possibility of a claim relating to more than one invention and making something of a nonsense of Clause 11(5)(d). It is true that the claim must define the matter for which the applicant seeks
820
protection, but that matter may relate to more than one invention in accordance with Clause 11(5)(d). Clause 114, in specifying that an invention shall be taken to be that specified in a claim, does not preclude the possibility of a claim specifying other inventions. In equating the invention with the matter defined in the claim, the Amendment would preclude that possibility. It is difficult ground but, in the light of that, the proposed simplification which the Amendment had in mind would I fear make confusion worse confounded.
Lord LYELL: We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He has sought to make this less difficult ground. He has indeed sought to throw a bridge out over this boggy ground. Alas! I have not followed him too far along that bridge (mainly, I suspect, through fear) but I will read what the noble and learned Lord has said. I hope that before the next stage we shall be able to take further consultations, both with the noble and learned Lord and elsewhere. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 350B:
Page 83, line 19, leave out from ("application") to second ("as") in line 20 and insert ("or patent, as the case may be").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to this Amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 350A. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 353:
Page 83, line 24, at end insert—
("(3) In determing the extent of the protection conferred by a patent, attention shall be paid to the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 of the European Patent Convention included as an integral part of that convention.").
The noble Lord said: It is to be hoped that the decisions of our courts are going to influence Continental courts in adopting their views of Article 69 of the European Patent Convention regarding the scope of protection. I think that I am right in saying that when in 1963 it was necessary

821
to define the extent of protection, the definition which was decided on was that protection shall be decided by the terms of the claim. Article 69 of the EPC provided for this accordingly, and this was very satisfactory from the point of view of this country because in the United Kingdom this has always been the understanding of how protection shall be defined.
In the discussions leading up to the signing of the EPC it became clear that some other countries, particularly the French and Germans, interpreted this definition in a different way from our definition. In particular, the French in translating terms used the French noun le teneur which means either terms or the tenor or gist of a conversation. So it was decided, I am told, that there must be a Protocol to Article 69 which in essence says that the extent of the protection conferred by European patents should be interpreted as defining a position:
"…which combines a fair protection for the patentee with a reasonable degree of certainty for third parties".
So reference to the Protocol to Article 69 of the EPC I would have thought should be included in Clause 114. Otherwise, judgments given in our courts will be criticised for not giving enough weight to the agreed manner of interpretation of Article 69. This is important in order that the judgment of our courts shall carry influence with other courts in the various convention countries. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Clause 114 of the Bill corresponds to Article 69 of the European Patent Convention. As the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has pointed out, the European Patent Convention is to be interpreted in accordance with the Protocol on the interpretation of Article 69. I understand that the object of the Amendment is to make it clear that the same principles as are contained in the Protocol are applied in determining the extent of protection conferred by the Bill. I venture to think that the Bill already has this effect by virtue of Clause 118(5).
I fully appreciate the concern of the noble Lord that the extent of protection conferred by the Bill should not differ from that conferred by the European Patent Convention and that therefore
822
Clause 114 should be interpreted in like manner to Article 69 of the Convention. Any fears that this is not accomplished by the Bill are groundless. Clause 114 corresponds to Article 69; I do not think there is any difference between us on that. It is purely a question of interpretation. In this connection, I must draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 118(5), to which I have already referred, which specifically refers to certain provisions of the Bill which are drafted so as to ensure so far as we can, conformity with the equivalent provisions of the Conventions and Treaty to which I have referred. Clause 114 is specifically included among the provisions in Clause 118(5). In construing Clause 114 therefore Clause 118(5), by referring to the corresponding provisions of the EPC, directs attention to Article 69 of the EPC, and in so doing also directs attention to the Protocol which is an integral part of the Convention and which governs Article 69. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the anxieties that have been properly raised may be allayed, and I hope that we have covered the point already, in effect, in Clause 118(5).
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: It seems to me very helpful to the Community as a whole if decisions of our courts made by patent judges of great eminence could be taken into the general jurisprudence and consideration of European Courts. Prima facie, I would have thought what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has submitted would be helpful in that direction. In suggesting that this Amendment should be withdrawn, I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord has said. He has referred to Clause 118(5). I have had the greatest difficulty in understanding this very long clause and its purpose. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord has had regard to the words at line 10 of Clause 18(5), where it says that the provisions of the Act,
"…are so framed as to have, as nearly as practicable, the same effects in the United Kingdom as the corresponding provisions of the European Patent Convention."
It is the words, "as nearly as practicable" which caused me great anxiety, whereas the wording of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, draws attention to the Convention and

823
suggests methods of interpretation without the qualification of the words, "as nearly as practicable".
The LORD CHANCELLOR: At a later stage we will come to an Amendment dealing with those much discussed words, "as nearly as practicable" which always provide some difficulties. "As nearly as we can possibly get" is a rough translation which will do for the moment. We will look into that later. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, with his normally acute mind, finds himself troubled by Clause 118(5). I will look at it again. It is very important that these things should be clear, but I believe that the protocol point is fully covered by the reference in Clause 118(5) and that we have got "as nearly as practicable" to ensuring what the noble Lord had in mind in moving his Amendment.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: May I intervene, as a mere layman who has been looking at this all the way through from the point of view of the protection of the small entrepreneur and small inventor who is lost in a sea of international jurisprudence. If lawyers do not know where they are, God help the poor layman in the Common Market who is struggling to get protection! I was delighted to hear my noble and learned friend, with his usual Welsh eloquence, say that he would look into the definition "as nearly as practicable". I could give ten interpretations of that now; and, being a mere layman, I am completely lost in this sea of litigious dissension. I am grateful that there has been a promise that if possible this will be simplified. I have looked at these various clauses, and I hope that we shall be able to take care of the poor, small inventor who wants to find his way to protection and truth through this international language used by the lawyers.
Lord LYELL: I think that every word the noble Lord has said in fact reflects the feeling of many Members of your Lordships' House and many others in the Committee. Many of us find it extremely hard, and we are very much guided by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. We agree that when the Bill states, "as far as practicable", it is possible to take that phrase and give it at least two definitions. I notice that the noble Lord,
824
Lord Davies of Leek, can supply ten, and we look forward to hearing the other eight on a later occasion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The difficulty we are in concerns the verbal ingenuity of my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek. It does not surprise me at all that he can find 10 alternative definitions; but if he reads Clause 118(5) with that calm which perhaps he does not always bring to matters concerning the European Economic Community—because he does not always display that cold intellectual detachment on anything which relates to this field—I think he may find himself helped. However, I must not tease him about that.
I really do not think it is very difficult, but we will have a look at the words "as nearly as practicable". They are broad words, and we are setting out to make our law have the same effect, as far as we can, as the corresponding provisions of European Conventions. That is really as far as we can hope to go, bearing in mind differences of language and other similar matters. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, subject to returning to the phrase as nearly as practicable", the noble Lord will feel disposed to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the consideration he has obviously given to this Amendment. However, I am a little worried over the fact that the noble and learned Lord referred me to Clause 118(5), for the reason which has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. Clause 118(5) says that various clauses including Clause 114 are,—
"so framed as to have, as nearly as practicable, the same effects in the United Kingdom as the corresponding provisions of the European Patent Convention…".
It is true that we shall be returning to this when we reach Amendment No. 365. I do not know how the courts will determine the effect of that provision, but presumably it could allow a slightly different interpretation of the protocol to Article 69 from the views which are held by other Continental countries. If that is the case, then the decisions taken by our courts, based on the interpretation of Article 69, will be decisions which will not carry so much weight with Continental courts—or, at least, so I would hazard.

825
Another thing which worries me, and which the noble and learned Lord was kind enough to make clear in his opening remarks on this Amendment—and I do not think this has been picked up so far—is that Clause 114 and Article 69 correspond. Of course, the noble and learned Lord is, as always, absolutely right about that but, if one looks at Clause 118(5) it is provided that various clauses in this Bill shall be:
"so framed as to have as nearly as practicable the same effects in the United Kingdom as the corresponding provisions of the European Patent Convention, the Community Patent Convention and the Patent Co-operation Treaty …".
What worries me is that the proviso to Article 69 is surely not a corresponding provision to Clause 114: that is precisely what it is not. Clause 114 provides that protection shall be decided by the terms of the claim, and that is what Article 69 of the EPC decided. The two are absolutely on all fours, but because, as I sought to explain in moving the Amendment, different countries have interpreted Article 69 in different ways, the proviso to Article 69 had to be worked out in the 1960s and agreed upon by the signatories to the European Patent Convention.
I would ask the noble and learned Lord to be so kind as to consider before the next stage of the Bill, quite apart from the difference of opinion we may have regarding the words "as nearly as practicable", whether the words in the next line, "the corresponding provisions", can possibly mean that Clause 114 of this Bill corresponds to a protocol to Article 69, which is mentioned nowhere in the Bill. Perhaps I ought to leave the matter there. Clearly my own view is worth nothing at all on this, compared with those which have been put forward by the noble and learned Lord and others. If the noble and learned Lord would be so kind as to look at that point in addition to the "as nearly as practicable" point I shall feel that the Amendment has been worth moving.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Lord underestimates the value of his contributions to our discussions on these and other matters, if I may say so. I will look at the point, of course. As the protocol is an integral part of the Convention, I am still disposed to the view that the situation is covered by
826
Clause 118(5), but certainly I will look at this again.
Lord BELSTEAD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 114, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 115 agreed to.
Clause 116 [Existing patents and applications]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 353A:
Page 84, line 4, at end insert ("to").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a minor drafting change and it does not affect the meaning of Clause 116. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will agree that if the Committee approves of it, it makes superfluous Amendment No. 354, which is to the same effect. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: I would certainly concur with the noble and learned Lord, and I am happy to support him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.50 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 354A:
Page 84, line 6, leave out ("made") and insert("filed").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 354A, 354B and 354C are drafting Amendments. The first reflects the wording of the 1949 Act; Amendment No. 354B corrects a printing error, while Amendment No. 354C paves the way for the reference in subsection (4) to the priority effect of an application made under the 1949 Act. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: Once again, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord and we believe that this Amendment clarifies the position.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 354B:
Page 84, line 7, leave out second ("a").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): If Amendment No. 354C is agreed to, Amendment No. 355 cannot be moved.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 354C:
Page 84, line 15, leave out ("that Schedule") and insert ("the following provisions of this Act").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN moved Amendment No. 356:
Page 84, line 16, at end insert—
("(4A) Any patent to which subsection (2) above relates and whose term had not expired on or before the appointed day shall have effect as if the term mentioned therein was twenty years, subject to the following conditions—

(a) any licence existing at the day on which this subsection comes into operation which has been granted for the term of the patent shall be treated as having been granted for the term as so extended if the licensee so desires;

(b) if the patent would apart from this section have expired on or before the day ending the period of 12 months after this subsection comes into operation, the patent shall during the period of the extension be deemed to be subject to the provisions of section 43 above as if an entry had been made in the register to the effect that licences under the patent are to be available as of right.

(4B) Where before the day on which subsection (4A) above comes into operation a person made in good faith effective and serious preparations to do an act which would constitute infringement of a patent by virtue only of the extension under subsection (4A) above, and it appears to the comptroller having regard to all the circumstances that it would be just to order the grant of a licence to that person, the comptroller shall have power to order the grant to that person of a licence under the patent on such terms as he thinks fit.
(4C) The provisions of subsections (4A) and (4B) above shall not apply to any patent whose term was extended under the provisions of section 23 or 24 of the 1949 Act to a term of twenty years or more.")
The noble Lord said: We now come to a series of Amendments which deal with the term of patents. Your Lordships will recall that this Bill extends the life of all patents to 20 years. Under the Patents Act 1949, which is still in force, the term of a patent is 16 years, subject to the payment of fees. But there are two sections which enable a patentee to obtain an extension of 10 years, if the exploitation of his patent has been interfered with
828
because of war difficulties, and if the court considers that the invention of the patent is of outstanding merit. It seems to me that anomalies will arise if only patents granted after the passing of this Bill will be extended to 20 years, and the object of these Amendments is that all patents granted and in force at the time when the Bill is passed should have their term extended to 20 years, instead of the normal 16 years, subject to certain safeguards for other firms which are in the industry with which the patent is concerned.
Your Lordships will see that if a patent is granted today, under the old Act it will have a life of only 16 years, although there is a paragraph in one of the Schedules which states that in special circumstances, if it is a meritorious invention, there can be a further extension of four years. That kind of procedure might cause certain anomalies, and therefore it seems that a simpler procedure would be, subject to certain safeguards, to extend to 20 years the term of all the patents that are in force when this Bill is passed.
In connection with Amendment No. 356, may I also refer to consequential Amendments Nos. 366, 371, 372, 375, 381, 382 and 383? Amendment No. 356 states that any patent,
"whose term had not expired on or before the appointed day shall have effect as if the term mentioned therein was twenty years".
Paragraph (b) of the Amendment states that if the patent that had been granted under the 1949 Act would have expired before the period of 20 years, then there should be a licence available as of right to anybody who has been using that invention during an interim period of one year and,
"the patent shall during the period of the extension be deemed to be subject to the provisions of"
Section 43 of this Bill, which enables somebody to come along and say, "I have been using this invention. It will be quite intolerable if this extension interferes with my business, so I can have a licence as of right for this period".
Subsection (4B) of this Amendment gives protection to the person who may have been watching patents that have been on the register of patents under the 1949 Act, thinking that when the patent expires he will be able to go into that kind of business. It is a rather long subsection, which states that if,

829
"a person made in good faith effective and serious preparations to do an act which would constitute infringement of a patent by virtue only of the extension under subsection (4A) above, and it appears to the comptroller having regard to all the circumstances that it would be just to order the grant of a licence to that person, the comptroller shall have power to order the grant to that person of a licence under the patent on such terms as he thinks fit."
As I have said, that is a safeguard for industrialists who consider going into a certain kind of business, and have made plans, before any extension has been given. Subsection (4C) of this Amendment is a minor matter. It states, in effect, that no patent shall have a life of more than 20 years. There is a clause in the Bill which gives power for the extension of a patent by four years, but that would not apply if the life of the patent had already been extended to 20 years.
Amendments Nos. 366, 371 and 372 are merely consequential, but perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 382, which is entitled Extension of Term of Patents. This is a rather long clause, but its whole object is merely to safeguard the position of a patentee who has made, or will make, an application for an extension of the term of his patent under the 1949 Act, which gives the court, at its discretion, powers to extend the term for 10 years. It safeguards the position of a person who makes such an application under the present Act, and before the present Bill has been passed, and enables the court to give an extension of the term of the patent to not more than 20 years. This is really a consequential Amendment, to safeguard the interests of those patentees who have been operating under the present Patents Act. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not wish to truncate the debate, least of all to prevent the valuable contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, but there have been important developments in regard to this matter about which I think noble Lords might like to know. They may, indeed, have the effect of shortening the debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has indicated, the Bill as drafted provides that the term of patents granted under the 1949 Act shall remain at 16 years. That policy was based on consultations held after the publication
830
of the Banks Report, which recommended that in future the term of patents should be 20 years. However, in response to the urgings of some sectors of industry, particularly the chemical industry, very recently the Government have again referred the term of "old" patents to the Standing Advisory Committee on Patents, upon which, as noble Lords will know, industry, commerce and those who are professionally involved are all represented. As a result of that new round of consultation, during which I am happy to say that a fresh consensus emerged, it is intended that old patents, which have less than five years of their life to run, shall continue to have a term of 16 years, but that all other old patents shall have a term of 20 years, subject to safeguards for licensees and others who might be adversely affected by the increase in the term of patents which would normally have been expected to expire at the end of their sixteenth year.
It will be apparent that this new policy, to which the Government propose to give effect by amendments to the Schedules to the Bill which will be tabled on Report, closely resembles the proposals contained in the Amendments set down by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, except that I believe that their Amendment would give a 20-year term to all old patents. However, since the Government's policy on this point and on some details of the provisions for safeguarding the position of licensees and others is based on consultation with the industries that are directly and closely affected, and is further endorsed by the Standing Advisory Committee, I hope that noble Lords may feel that the proposed policy is acceptable and, indeed, is to be preferred.
If that generous view of the matter is taken by those who have raised the question, it will mean that, if noble Lords are so disposed, a number of Amendments might be withdrawn in the light of the assurance that I have given. As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has said, that assurance embraces Amendments Nos. 366, 371, 372, 375, 381, 382 and 383. It embraces also the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, have put down in Amendments Nos. 373, 374, 376 and 377. Naturally, I shall be very willing to hear

831
what noble Lords have to say. I apologise for intervening, but I thought that it might concentrate the debate if I indicated the Government's intentions, supported as they are by industry itself and by the Standing Advisory Committee.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is he able to explain what is the magic of the five-year period? It is patents that have another five years to run which will be extended. It seems to me prima facie that that period of five years does not have regard to the practical matters which industrialists, particularly in the chemical field, have to face.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: It is thought that if patents have a term of less than five years to run it is not unreasonable to adhere to the 16-year rule. That is the only explanation I can give.
Lord NORTHFIELD: Before my noble and learned friend finally sits down, in considering this point and reaching the offer he is making to the Committee, may I ask him whether a comparison with practice in Europe has been taken into account? It is very important that under the Community Patent Convention we should all be working on the same lines so that rights in one country can be asserted against rights in other countries. Therefore, is it not important to get that point right before finally we agree to what the noble and learned Lord is now proposing?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Under the 1949 Act, patentees with less than five years to run on their patent would still be able, for special reasons, to obtain an extension if their case justified it. It would not mean that automatically they would be barred.
The Earl of HALSBURY: In supporting the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I very much commend what he had in mind originally. I had something like it in mind, but I thought that his drafting was so superior to mine that, rather than pursue my own points, I added my name to his Amendment. I am very gratified to hear what the noble and learned Lord has said and that the Government have advance their thinking
832
in the direction of doing justice to inventors. However, I am deeply disturbed at this magic five-year period which is going to divide inventors into first and second-class citizens. Those who got a patent on Monday or earlier have a 16 years' life, while those who got it on Tuesday or later have a 20 years' life. I believe that this Parliamentary democracy of ours is on a collision course with destiny, and that when the day comes when we have to defend it the fewer disgruntled people there are the better. I cannot see that what I might call the terminal five-year inventor can be other than disgruntled. I am an inventor—or was an inventor at one time. I should feel that Parliament was doing injustice between one citizen and another by dividing them in this way into first and second-class citizens.
Although it would be quite inappropriate to divide the Committee at this point on the issue, because we are hearing about it for the first time now, it is one about which I feel very strongly. I should like to take such action as would be compatible, at least, with raising the matter again on Report or at a later stage, when we have had time to think about it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will think very carefully about whether or not we ought to divide these people into first and second-class citizens. This is the kind of issue upon which Governments suffer from characteristic faults. They are timid when they ought to be decisive and rash when they ought to be cautious. I am sure that this five-year terminal concept is just super-caution when decisiveness is called for. I do not believe that any harm whatever would come from putting all inventors on the same footing. I must leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, to say the last word on the subject, but I think that I shall be with him on whatever action he chooses to take.
Lord CAWLEY: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, there are, of course, first and second class licensees, too. The five-year rule in this case would be of great importance to licensees, because those who are at present licensees would not know what their position is. They might have bargained that the licence would come to an end and that they would cease paying royalties.

833
They might have taken almost any industrial action to safeguard themselves. The fact that the patent under which they have a licence has been extended completely fortituously might embarrass them very seriously. Therefore one must think of the licensees as well as the patentees.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My point was based upon that concept. There is the inventor and the licensee. Both are equally important in operating any good which may come from this. If this new Bill, when it becomes an Act, does not remove from the inventor who has special reasons for getting it the 10-year extension which has already been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, it may meet the point at a stage which is a reasonable compromise for both sides. However, if the effect of the Bill is to remove the 10-year extension, the 1949 Act period, then clearly it would be unfair to the licensee.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Having listened carefully, with very little knowledge, to what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has said, when the noble and learned Lord was speaking and was making the first, second and third classes, he said that he had consulted all the people who ought to be consulted—at least that is what I understood him to say. Did the people whom he consulted agree to all the points that are now being made, despite the criticisms that have come from very experienced people?
Lord NORTHFIELD: My noble and learned friend has been asked some questions and no doubt he will be replying, but I should like to put to him one further point. Has account been taken of the fact that in 1919 when the terms of patents were extended from 14 to 16 years it was applied to all patents at that time? In other words, there was no attempt at that time to have first-and second-class, some extended and some not extended. I wonder why a few are now being excepted in the proposal in the way outlined by the noble and learned Lord, when in 1919 there was a clear across-the-board extension?
6.12 p.m.
Lord LYELL: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, in that
834
regard. He has a particular point there, and I believe it links with the Amendment we are discussing. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has pointed out that there are safeguards in this Amendment to protect any person who might be contemplating taking any action in the light of a 16-year patent, but I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord will accept that we find it difficult to equate the safeguard described by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, with what is perhaps intended to be the safeguard of the five year life—and the more than five year life—of the current 16-year patents. We wonder whether the division into young and not so young patents is the safeguard that the noble and learned Lord intends it to be.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: No doubt these are problems of complexity and difficulty, but I should like to begin by assuring the noble Baroness, Lady Ward, that we have indeed consulted with the industries directly affected, and especially the chemical industry, and also we have had the matter referred back to the Standing Advisory Committee. That Committee represents all the industrial interests affected and all the expertise in this field. What has emerged is, I suppose, to a slight extent a compromise. But what have emerged are the proposals which I have put to your Lordships. I think the clue to the five year-rule proposal—if I may so define it—is that it is thought that if this provision were put in there would be the least disturbance to the arrangements contemplated.
With regard to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, of course licensees are particularly concerned, but they would not be embarrassed by this. Indeed I should have thought they would be freed. Coming to some of the questions that I was asked, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, raised a question about extensions for special reasons. The power of extension will remain, but I am bound to say that it will be reduced from a 10-year period to a four-year period in the light of the general benefit that will be gained from the new policy by the "not so old" patents, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, so attractively described them. I would not call them "young" patents but certainly not "old" ones.

835
My noble friend Lord Northfield asked me a question in regard to the European patent rules. My understanding is that it will be for each country to lay down its own rules, but the European rule will be a 20-year period. So what really remains at issue between us at the moment is the five-year problem. I will certainly look at this again and it may well be that all of us are prepared to look at it in the light of the new compromise—if that is the right way to describe it—which I have submitted to your Lordships. As I have said, it is not so much an emanation of a governmental mind; there is nothing political about this. It really is the best solution to the problem and the best advance with the best experts in the field whom we have consulted—until of course we heard the expertise in this debate. That is the advice we have received. Therefore, I will undertake to look at what has been said, and perhaps in view of its importance we may return to this matter again at the Report stage.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I should like to emphasise one point arising out of the reply made by the noble and learned Lord. I think I am voicing the opinion of the people who have been "lobbying" me on this point: I cannot see the merit or perhaps the fairness of reducing the 10-year period for extension to four years, if before this Bill was conceived the general feeling was that, if it could be justified that a 10-year period of extension was right, it would be provided.
There is no suggestion that it would be 10 years, the amount that could be given could be even less. If the maximum allowed is reduced from 10 years to four years, then the noble and learned Lord will be removing part of the rights that were previously possessed by a minority of inventors. I should have thought that, from the point of view of creating the sort of atmosphere that would allow his very sensible submission that what he is suggesting comes from the people who understand this matter and who are to be affected by it, it would remove the one or two—and there may not be more than one or two—who would feel that they had something taken away from them.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I should like to declare a slight interest in the pharma-
836
ceutical industry and to point out that many people will be aware that the Government at least have made an effort to clarify this very difficult problem. Consequently, I agree entirely that we should look into this a little deeper and perhaps obtain greater clarification when we reach the next stage of the Bill. I am grateful for the efforts made by the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues to obtain some clarification of this position.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly look into the point just made by my noble friend and also that made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. Obviously what we want in this matter is a consensus on the part of all those affected. That is what this whole operation is about and we will look at it again to see whether we can make some adjustment to achieve a consensus which, I may say, already exists within the Standing Advisory Committee. If we can extend it to embrace your Lordships as well, we shall be all the happier. It may be possible, but at the moment I do not know.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his expression of sympathy with the Amendment. He has said that negotiations have been going on and that the expert committee has advised what he refers to as the five-year plan. But I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is quite up to date with the further negotiations that are going on? He referred to the chemical industry: I have in my hand at the moment a letter written by the Imperial Chemical Industries Limited dated 22nd February, addressed to the Secretary of State in the other place, the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Edmund Dell, which refers to my proposal and also to the five-year proposal of the expert committee.
There is a suggestion by the representatives of the deputation from this large sector of the chemical industry that perhaps, in all the circumstances, a two-year plan would be more appropriate than a five-year plan. Also, I have been advised that the pharmaceutical industry still considers that the Amendments I have put forward would be the proper ones to safeguard their interest, not only in this country but internationally, by extending all the patents to 20 years,

837
subject to the safeguards which I have adumbrated. But, in view of the sympathy expressed by the noble and learned Lord and the fact that the matter is to be looked into, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
The Earl of HALSBURY: In associating myself with the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for leave to withdraw the Amendment, I would ask the noble and learned Lord to consider one factor among all the others he has promised to consider. The concept of an inventor without a licensee is a viable concept but you could not have licensees without inventors. Inventors are the creative factor in this situation, and it is they whose arrangements ought not to be interfered with, rather than licensees. If the noble and learned Lord will just remember that one, I will be very happy to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.20 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 356A:
Page 84, line 20, after ("but") insert (",notwithstanding anything in section 5(3) above,").
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be convenient also to consider with this Amendment, if noble Lords opposite agree, Amendment No. 357. Clause 116(4) provides that an application under the new Act may claim priority from an application accompanied by a provisional specification filed under the 1949 Act but in respect of which a complete specification has not been filed before the appointed day. But since there is nothing in the 1949 Act corresponding to Clause 5(3) of the Bill, which nullified the priority effect of an earlier application, if there has been filed an even earlier application disclosing the same invention, it is necessary to provide that in the case of a new Act application relying for priority on a 1949 Act provisional specification priority shall not be subject to the nullifying effect of Clause 5(3) of the Bill. This is what Amendment No. 356A does.
If any noble Lord did not understand all that I have just read out, I fully, whole heartedly and entirely sympathise with him, but perhaps noble Lords will be good enough to look at what I have sug-
838
gested from my notes. Amendment No. 357, which was tabled by noble Lords opposite, would have achieved the same result in a slightly different way, and I am grateful to them for drawing our attention to the point. I hope that after they have had an opportunity of studying that which I have unashamedly read out they may feel reasonably content. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: I saw the noble and learned Lord looking straight at me as he pointed out those who might not have understood what he was saying.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: If I had had a mirror I would have reflected my own face.
Lord LYELL: I remember the tale of the mirror which was asked, and indeed replied, who was fairest—or should I say cleverest—of them all. But certainly the noble and learned Lord, if he was looking in my direction, hit the target first time, because I found it just a little difficult to follow what he was driving at. However, immediately I was gratified by the fact that he said he was grateful that we had tabled Amendment No. 357 and he understood that our Amendment No. 357 had been met by Amendment No. 356A. I believe that, certainly if the noble and learned Lord says that at this stage, and therefore I would not wish to proceed further with Amendment No. 357 when we come to it. There is a point that I hope we will be able to cover under Amendment No. 356B. Nevertheless, I am very grateful for the amount of effort and brain-power the noble and learned Lord has put into explaining Amendment No. 356A, and indeed we shall look at his words with great attention.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Derwent): I must inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 356B is agreed to I will not be able to call Amendment No. 357.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 356B:
Page 84, line 22, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 23 and insert ("if the date of filing the abandoned application falls within the period of fifteen months immediately preceding the filing of the later application").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment clarifies the status of provisional applications made under the 1949 Act and in being on the appointed day. They cease to exist on that day because they are only provisional applications, but they may, of course, be used to found the priority of new Act applications. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: We are once again grateful to the noble and learned Lord. It seems that our efforts in Amendment 357 are indeed met by the purpose of this Amendment, No. 356B. My noble colleague Lord Belstead and I had some questions to ask about the abandoned application. The brief explanation that the noble and learned Lord has given has certainly satisfied us for the moment, and I think probably for the longer term. However, we shall consult and look at the noble and learned Lord's words with attention once again, and we thank him for his explanation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 357C:
Page 84, line 24, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) Schedule 3 to this Act shall have effect for repealing certain provisions of the 1949 Act.")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a purely paving Amendment for Amendment No. 381B, which proposes deletion of the existing Schedule 3 and insertion of an entirely new Schedule dealing with repeals of provisions of the 1949 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 357A:
Page 84, line 28, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) In Schedules 1 to 4 to this Act "existing patents and applications" means any patents and applications mentioned in subsection (2) above and expressions used in the 1949 Act and those Schedules have the same meanings in those Schedules as in Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment paves the way for Government Amendments to the Schedules (which relate to the effect of the Bill on 1949 Act patents and applications) referring
840
to existing patents and applications. The Amendment also makes clear that where an expression is used in the Schedules and also in the 1949 Act it shall have the meaning given to it in the Act. In other words, in relation to 1949 Act patents and applications the 1949 Act meanings shall apply and not the meanings of the Bill, in so far as they may differ from those of the 1949 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 116, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: May I intervene briefly to deal with one matter which is convenient to be dealt with on the Question, Whether Clause 116 shall stand part. Since the clause that we have been discussing is concerned with the future of patents granted under the 1949 Act, I think I should rectify an error which I made during the debate on Second Reading. Your Lordships may remember that the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, asked me whether there would be a subsequent Bill to consolidate the 1949 Act and this Bill, and I then replied without hesitation that there would be such consolidation. I was relying, in making that observation, on a statement in the Law Commission's Eleventh Annual Report to the effect that a consolidation Bill was in the course of preparation. I now understand that although a consolidation Bill was at one time considered, that proposal was subsequently dropped, and it is not now the intention to proceed with one. I therefore apologise for unintentionally and innocently misleading the House on this matter.
Perhaps I should explain why there has been a change of mind on this. It was always the intention to keep alive at least, the provisions of the 1949 Act about the processing of applications and many related provisions, and it had originally been thought that it would be useful to consolidate the surviving provisions. But, in fact, fewer of the 1949 provisions will survive than was at first envisaged. Those that do survive have been little amended, and although the Bill may amend them further the Amendments are not likely to be extensive. Practitioners already know the surviving provisions very well—the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, no doubt can recite every one in his sleep. However, I do not think that consolida-

841
tion would help them in their labours. Indeed, changing the numbering of sections, which would be inevitable on consolidation, would, I think, cause confusion. It has therefore been thought better to leave the unrepealed portions of the 1949 Act as they are and to wait for them to die a natural death on the expiry of all the patents granted under that Act. On reflection, that seems to be a sensible course to adopt, but I again apologise to the House for having misled it on Second Reading.
Lord CAWLEY: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. On second thoughts, I think that he is right and that my idea of consolidation would not quite work.
Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 117 agreed to.
Clause 118 [Interpretation.]:
6.31 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 357B:
Page 84, line 37, leave out ("as published") and insert ("on the first occasion on which it has a date of filing").
The noble and learned Lord said: The Bill as drafted makes designation of the United Kingdom at publication the crucial date, both in relation to European and international applications. In fact, an application is to have some effects—for example, it can form the basis for a claim to priority—even if the designation of the United Kingdom is withdrawn between filing and publication. Under the Conventions it is not possible to add designations subsequently. Accordingly, it is more correct for the Bill to make designation at filing the basic test. If the United Kingdom designation is later withdrawn the application will cease to have certain effects. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord IRONSIDE Lord IRONSIDE moved Amendment No. 358:
Page 85, line 6, at end insert—
(""computer program" means one or more recorded symbols or signals representing a sequence of instructions which is capable of causing a computer to perform a useful function;").
The noble Lord said: I believe this definition of a computer program to be a necessary part of the Bill. It is not a nitpicking Amendment because there is a genuine need for this definition. I have studied the Amendment to Clause 1(2) which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and I have closely studied Hansard to see what the noble Lord said, as I was not in my seat at the time. It is quite clear that he touched upon the points that I wish to make in moving this Amendment, and his Amendment to Clause 1 goes some way at least towards recognising the problem. However, assuming that one understands the term, "computer program", I do not think that, by nesting up one line the phrase "a program for a computer", the effect of this subsection on this wording is materially altered or, for that matter, altered in the way in which the noble Lord obviously felt it should be altered.
The exceptions in Clause 1 are not listed in any way that expresses the intentions of the European Patent Convention. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, made it clear to the Committee that the Bill incorporates only what is necessary for the purpose of an Act of Parliament to accede to the Convention. We all understand and accept that. The noble Lord's Amendment undoubtedly meets the criticism made on Second Reading, particularly the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, that the phraseology should more closely follow that of the European Patent Convention. However, I do not think that that is sufficient.
I have consulted International Computers Limited, the International Telephone and Telegraph Company Limited and the British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers' Association Limited of which GEC for instance is a member, on this matter. They all believe that the intentions of the European Patent Convention must be clearly expressed in the Bill in order to distinguish between intellectual activity covering flowcharts, programs written in high-level programming languages, coded instructions and so forth, all of which is symbolic, and engineering activity which is producing adaptive and programmed hardware which is represented by logic circuits, wiring, pathways in a

843
semi-conductor and so on, which is not symbolic. In the words of the European Patent Convention, the latter is "susceptible of industrial application". The Bill uses the words "capable of" in Clause 1(1) which is, as far as I can see, a materially different way of putting the matter.
The present position in, for example, the United States, is that a decision in the courts has granted patents for two inventions the novel features of which were embodied purely in the software aspect of a piece of hardware. The International Association for the Protection of Industrial Property has come out in favour of patents for software, and the climate of opinion has somewhat changed in this respect since the Banks Committee reported. The basic reason for this is that computers now incorporate hardware which introduce a sense of learning and adaption which is unrelated to symbolic instruction. That is clearly brought out as being a very important matter in the four-year programme for the development of informatics in the European Community.
I should like to quote a short statement from this four-year programme. The Commission state:
"The mini or microcomputer moreover is becoming indistinguishable from many other kinds of so-called 'intelligent' terminals-devices for input and output incorporating some kind of specialised or general processing and memory power.… The explosive development of a great variety of intelligent devices owes much to the development of electronic component technology."
That is a very important fact. Later on in the same document the Commission goes on to show and consider what a computer program in fact is. This Amendment simply defines the computer program as expressed in the European Patent Convention and does not alter the effects of Clause 1(2). It would enable electronic circuit designers, on whom this country so greatly depends, to seek adequate protection for their inventions involving adaptive devices. Nor does it destroy the hopes of a programmer for some other form of intellectual right.
A memorandum sent to the comptroller of the United Kingdom Patent Office by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry in January 1972 referred to the proposed exclusion of computer programs
844
from patentability in the draft of the European Patent Convention. It pointed out that there was no generally accepted definition of the term and that use of such a broad term might lead to exclusion of otherwise patentable subject matter simply because some form of programming was a component part of the subject matter.
The World Intellectual Property Organisation, which is a United Nations organisation, published draft model provisions for a national law on the protection of computer software on 28th January 1977. This includes a definition of a computer program. The draft is based on the work of a so-called advisory group of non-governmental experts. This group includes representatives of computer manufacturers, users, patent and copyright lawyers and academics with Government representatives as participating observers. There were many views as to the most suitable definition, but there were no suggestions at any time that the expression "computer program" was so well understood that no definition was necessary.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord is susceptible to my arguments. I hope that the whole House will agree that he is very capable but I do not think that anyone for one moment would consider that he is generally susceptible. I hope that he is at least susceptible to my arguments. I hope that the wording of my definition is also acceptable. If it is not, I hope that the noble and learned Lord can look at this matter again and perhaps introduce at a later stage a suitable Amendment, in which case I should certainly be happy to withdraw my own Amendment. I beg to move.
6.40 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am certainly sympathetic to the intention of this Amendment which embarks on a field about which I cannot pretend to any capability at all; namely, this difficult field of electronics in which the noble Lord obviously has considerable expertise. As I understand it, the purpose of the Amendment is to prevent the term "computer program" in Clause 1(2)(f) of the Bill being interpreted so widely as to include certain electronic devices and others which ought to be patentable. As I understand it, that is the purpose of the Amendment, and the point was raised by the noble Lord on Second Reading.

845
The noble Lord readily conceded that we tried in the Amendment that was put down to Clause 1(2) to go some of the way to meet what he had in mind. The Amendment that was put down, to which your Lordships agreed, has the effect of causing the subsection to follow the European Patent Convention in including "computer program" in a list which reads:
"… a scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business".
It would seem from that grouping that the term must be construed as covering items of the same nature as the other items in that list.
The proposal of the noble Lord departs from the Convention in attempting an exhaustive definition of the term, "computer program". As I understand it, that would take a course quite different from that which the other participants in the Convention think desirable or necessary. I confess that at the moment I feel that what has already been done is about as far as we can go. Various matters have been raised by the noble Lord in the discussion this evening, and experiences and statements from other highly eminent sources have been cited. All I willingly undertake to do is to look at what has been said and look at this again. If we could have kept in line with the European Patent Convention language, and that protected the kinds of interests and initiatives that the noble Lord has in mind, I should have been happy with that course. However, I am willing to look at it again in the light of what the noble Lord has said.
Lord IRONSIDE: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. So far as I can see in the clause, the list of exclusions is merely a string of items in no particular order because this is the way the Bill has been prepared, and it has not been prepared in exactly the same way as the European Patent Convention. However, I should like to thank him for agreeing to look at this matter again. The most important point here is that, in the computer industry in Europe, everybody is trying to strengthen the technological base against the United States' efforts in the computer industry. Therefore, anything that can possibly be done to help the patentees of electronic circuits will be welcome in this Bill and
846
would give them the degree of protection that they would need. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question, knowing very little about this subject? My first meeting with this kind of idea was with music. There was a similar device nearly 80 years ago on the old pianola. Does the noble Lord envisage a period where we can programme a computer to get a tune out of the old fashioned pianola much better than we did? The roll on a pianola could be patented 40, 50 or 60 years ago. When the Lord Chancellor mentioned music, I hoped that music would be included in this, because it is within the bounds of possibility for a computer to be programmed to produce first-class sonatas, and everything else.
Lord IRONSIDE: In answer to the noble Lord, the pianola was programmed by what was virtually a punched card, so far as I remember. Of course programmes can now be written to play electronic music, and that kind of thing. I do not think that I should like to predict the future very far, except to say that artistically speaking it may well be possible at some time in the future to write a book, or compose music, in such a way that it is immediately accepted by a computer and, as you might say, transmuted into art, music, or whatever it is. However, I should not like to predict the future.
The Earl of HALSBURY: In associating myself with the withdrawal of this Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, may I ask the noble and learned Lord to ask his advisers in this matter to bear in mind that when you dial a telephone number you are generating a signal which is obeyed by the telephone exchange in exactly the same way that a computer obeys its instructions, except that it does not carry out arithmetical operations in the signal generated but merely regards it as an instruction to connect one subscriber to another subscriber. The whole of this is done with the mechanical action of your finger and the switchgear in the telephone exchange. What the noble Lord and I seek to exclude from the operation of this Bill is purely mechanical and electrical engineering hardware, and

847
leave "computer program" to stand as the symbolic recorded signal which is characteristic of computer inputs.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful for that information, which has helped to clarify matters in my mind a good deal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.47 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 358B:
Page 86, line 9, after ("of") insert ("or applicant for").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this Amendment, it may be convenient to speak to Amendments Nos. 358C and 358D. These are purely drafting Amendments to make it clear that the definition of an "exclusive licence" applies equally to such licences granted by applicants in respect of applications as to those granted by proprietors in respect of patents. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 358C:
Page 86, line 11, after ("proprietor") insert ("or applicant").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 358D:
Page 86, line 12, leave out ("patented invention") and insert ("invention to which the patent or application relates").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.50 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 359:
Page 87, line 5, leave out (""prescribed" and").
The noble Lord said: This, we hope, deals with a simple matter and we look forward to guidance from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. As the Committee will see, we simply wish to remove the words "prescribed and". If noble Lords will turn to Clause 112 they will find that the rules which are mentioned in Clause 118 are defined, but my noble friends and I cannot
848
find any definition of the prescribing which is supposed to be defined in this provision and we therefore seek clarification from the noble and learned Lord, if any is available.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: It is true that Clause 112 does not contain a specific definition of "prescribed", and so at first sight it might be thought that the Amendment is helpful. However, it will be seen that Clause 112(2) contains numerous references to "prescribing" and "prescribed"; in paragraphs (a), (e),(f)and particularly (j), which empowers the rules to prescribe anything authorised or required "to be prescribed by the Act." The definition is therefore required to pick up all those diverse references. I do not think it does any harm; let it stay in.
Lord LYELL: Once again the noble and learned Lord has made a particularly heart-rending plea. I had the impression of a fairly lengthy small dog chasing its own tail, but I hasten to add that I would not compare the noble and learned Lord with such a small beast. I, too, had noticed the use of this expression in the provisions to which he referred, and I am sure that he and others of his profession are used to defining such words every day and even through most of the night; I believe the noble and learned Lord referred to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, defining such matters in his sleep. However, laymen like myself have doubts about such matters, and that is why the Amendment was tabled. In view of the noble and learned Lord's plea, I willingly withdraw it at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.53 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 360:
Page 87, line 10, after ("and") insert ("without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing").
The noble Lord said: This is only slightly more complicated than the last Amendment with which we were dealing, and the Committee will see the words which we seek to insert into Clause 118, words which are included in the interpretation of "publishing" in Section 101 of the 1949 Act, which is governing patent law at the moment. May we be told why these words have been omitted from this Bill?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess that the purpose of the Amendment was not clear to me, but in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has said I will certainly consider his observations and, on that undertaking, perhaps he will not press the Amendment.
Lord LYELL: Certainly, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 362:
Page 87, line 31, at end insert—
("(2A) References in this Act to an application for a patent, as filed, are references to such an application in the state it was on the date of filing.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment clarifies a point on which the Bill could be thought to be ambiguous, in that under Clause 12 an application may be accorded a date of filing before it complies with all the conditions of an application under Clause 11. Further, under Clause 12(3) and (4) an application may be treated as having a date of filing earlier or later than the actual date on which it was filed. The Amendment is required because various provisions of the Bill, notably Clause 70(1)(d) on revocation, and the new clause which has been inserted after Clause 72, impose as a test the matter disclosed in the application as filed. It is necessary to define what this expression means and the intention of the Amendment is to make sure that it links up with Clause 12, the date of filing applications.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.55 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 362A:
Page 88, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("76") and insert ("1(1) to (4), 2 to 4, 11(3), (5) and (6), 58, 67, 70(1),").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment adds Clause 70(1] to, and removes Clause 1(5) from, the list of provisions in Clause 118(5) which are to have the same effect as the corresponding provisions of the European and Community Patent Conventions and the Patent Co-operation Treaty. It is clearly right that the provisions contained in Clause 70(1) should be included in that list. They set out the grounds on which
850
United Kingdom patents, including European patents designating the United Kingdom, may be revoked. These must correspond with the provisions of Article 138 of the European Patent Convention, which specifies the grounds upon which European patents may be revoked. That Article makes it plain that the grounds specified in it are the only grounds upon which revocation is to be permitted.
Amendment No. 363 set down by the noble Lords opposite also seeks to add to the list, among other provisions, that contained in Clause 70(1), so it seems that we are in agreement so far. It is equally clear that Clause 1(5), which is concerned with the powers of the Secretary of State has nothing to do with the Conventions and should not, therefore, be included. I therefore hope that this deletion is equally acceptable to noble Lords opposite and that the Amendment can be accepted.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Derwent): I have to inform the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment No. 363.
Lord BELSTEAD: As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has explained, the effect of the Amendment is that the clauses included in Clause 118 are as nearly as practicable to have the same effects in the United Kingdom as the corresponding provisions of the EPC, the CPC and the PCT, and it is true that the Government and my noble friends and I have been trying to do the same thing in the sense that we felt that the existing provisions as set out in Clause 118 were not quite comprehensive enough. As the noble and learned Lord said, we there part company. I would not in any way wish to critise what he said about the merits of his Amendment, which is No. 362A, but I would draw to the attention of the Committee the merits of our Amendment, No. 363.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord was misled by referring to Clause 1(5) which our Amendment, he felt, would write into the Bill. In fact, that would not be the effect of our Amendment; our Amendment is designed to include Clause 5, not subsection (5) of Clause 1. If reference to Clause 5 is to be omitted here, presumably

851
then the Bill will be saying that rules about priority under the Bill will be different from the rules about priority in Europe, and that seems extraordinary considering the absolutely crucial importance of the effect of priority.
That is one major difference of opinion, but there is another minor one. We have inserted reference to Clause 11(7), which has been omitted from the Government Amendment. That refers to abstracts and all I would ask—if that is the reason why the effect of Clause 11(7) is to be different from the European Convention—is why that is to be the case. Both the Government and my noble friends and I have included references to Clause 70 and we are particularly pleased to see that; we always understood that Clause 70 was deliberately drafted to conform with Article 138 of the EPC and certainly the Government Amendment meets us in that way. There are, therefore, just those two differences of opinion and we should be grateful if it were possible for the noble and learned Lord to deal with them.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is quite right. When I spoke of Clause 1(5), that was clearly a mistake. Clause 5 is the relevant reference in Amendment No. 363. The difficulty we see about Clause 5 is that, in our opinion, the provisions of Clause 5 achieve the same result as the Convention provisions on priority but, since the structure of our provisions is different from the Convention structure, it would be inappropriate to talk of the two sets of provisions "corresponding". Our provision looks backward from the date of filing the application in suit to the earlier application from which priority is claimed. The European provisions in Articles 87 to 89 of the EPC are prospective; that is, they look forward in the sense that they grant a right exercisable in the 12 months after filing the first application in which to file a subsequent application in respect of the same invention claiming priority from the date of the first. Furthermore, in any event, it is Clause 2 which gives effect to the concept of priority date and that clause is included in the list of provisions in Clause 118(5) which are stated to correspond to the provisions of the Conventions. So, in our view, the Bill already achieves the result which this Amendment seeks.
852
As to Clause 11(7), that subsection contains procedural provisions enabling the comptroller to reframe the abstract, so it would be inappropriate to declare that these provisions have the same effect as does Article 85 of the EPC. It is true that the Bill, as printed, did not fully implement Article 85 in relation to European patents and we are grateful to noble Lords for bringing this point to our attention. Amendment No. 294K to Clause 74, which we dealt with aeons ago and which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, referred to, dealt with it. Those are the reasons for the differences between us. I do not pretend that they are simple matters; but we certainly gave consideration to this and came to the view that what we have set out in our Amendment probably meets the need of the situation better.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the explanation that he has given. I believe I understood him when he explained that because the provisions of Clause 5 are, in a sense, retrospective, whereas the provisions of the corresponding Articles dealing with priority in the European Patent Convention are prospective—they talk about 12 months ahead—these two sets of provisions cannot be said to be corresponding.
As the noble and learned Lord was speaking, my mind went back to an earlier Amendment—Amendment No. 353—when I taxed the noble and learned Lord with being able to argue that something is corresponding when it does not even appear in the Bill. That was the Protocol to Article 69 which the Government are busily suggesting to the Committee through the skilful words of the noble and learned Lord corresponds to Articles in European Conventions when it does not even appear in the Bill. I feel that the argument that the noble and learned Lord has used this evening on the present Amendment strengthens the case for putting in something to do with the Protocol to Article 69 of the EPC. However, that is another matter. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining why Clause 5 is left out of the Government's Amendment and particularly for drawing my attention to Clause 2 to which I made no reference at all, a matter for which I must apologise.

853
The noble and learned Lord quite rightly pointed out that it is Clause 2 which gives effect to the provision of priority date. I should like to read what the noble and learned Lord has said and also his explanation of the reason for the exclusion of Clause 11(7) from the Government Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.5 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 364:
Page 88, line 10, leave out ("are") and insert ("have been").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 365. It would seem desirable that the clauses mentioned in line 9 of page 88 should have exactly the same effect as the corresponding provisions of the EPC, the CPC, and the PCT, even if the wording is not exactly the same effects, if not the same wording, ment's previous Amendment which has just been agreed adds some more clauses to the list but, for reasons which were given when we were discussing that Amendment, I feel that there is reason to believe that the total list now should have the same effects if not the same wording as the relevant provisions in the European Conventions and Treaties. I am therefore moving this probing Amendment to find out the real meaning.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: May I ask to which Amendment the noble Lord is speaking?
Lord BELSTEAD: I have moved Amendment No. 364 and I am speaking also to Amendment No. 365. In speaking also to the latter Amendment, the case which I am making is that, though it may be that the words should not be exactly the same in the clauses which are set out in line 9 as the corresponding provisions in the European Conventions and Treaties, I think that there should be the same effect. If that is not the case, perhaps the Government can tell us a little more as to why they feel that this should not be so. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Amendment No. 364 raises an interesting little point. Strangely enough, it is customary
854
for Acts of Parliament to speak as from the present. It may be true that the Bill was framed in draft before your Lordships' House ordered it to be printed or considered it, but, happily, it is Parliament which makes the law and not the draftsman, whom I bless practically every day of my Ministerial life! It would be quite wrong to depart from that principle. Accordingly, it is right for the Bill to say that in passing the Bill it "is" framed in a certain manner and "is" to be interpreted in a certain fashion. I hope that noble Lords will accept that piece of theology in relation to drafting.
On Amendment No. 365, we come to the interesting wording, "as nearly as practicable", which clearly has not many amateurs, as the French say, in the Committee. This Amendment would make the clause declare that certain provisions of the Bill are to have identical effect to those of the Conventions. But the words which the Amendment seeks to delete are taken straight from the Resolution on the Adjustment of National Patent Law annexed to the Community Patent Convention. "Practical" is a term of art, so used in that Resolution. It is a strong word. It does not mean "more or less" or "roughly". It means, as I ventured to say earlier, "as closely as can possibly be achieved" consistent with the fact that drafting styles differ between the United Kingdom and Europe. The fact that the corresponding provisions of the Conventions necessarily contain different cross-references and refer, for example, to the "contracting States" as a whole when we are concerned only with the United Kingdom is a good illustration of our difficulty.
Perhaps I could take an example to show why absolute conformity cannot be achieved. The Committee might care to look at Clause 58 as an illustration. That corresponds to Articles 29 to 31 of the Community Patent Convention, but it refers in certain cases to acts done within the United Kingdom, whereas quite clearly the Convention refers to acts done within the Contracting States. If the words "as nearly as practicable" were deleted, it would mean that in our legislation we would have to put "contracting States" instead of "the United Kingdom." We are already having certain difficulties with our dear neighbours across the Channel, with France, and I am quite sure

855
that they would not be at all enthusiastic for us legislating as to infringement in France; but that is just an illustration of the kind of difficulty we are in. In my view, the words strengthen the clause and will direct the court to the substance of the matter and allow it to ignore incidentals. Accordingly, I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation and his reply to both Amendments. As to the first one, I accept absolutely what the noble and learned Lord has said. It seems particularly apposite this evening that the present tense should be used. Indeed, the Parliamentary draftsman seems permanently to be with us. I do not make any apology for speaking to Amendment No. 365, to which I was also referring, because this is in fact the first time that there has been a chance to get from the Government Front Bench a substantive reply as to exactly what the words are supposed to mean, and it will be interesting for people to read what the noble and learned Lord has said as to the interpretation of the words. I beg leave to withdraw the first Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 118, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 119 agreed to.
Clause 120 [Short title, extent, commencement and repeals]:
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): I should point out that if Amendment No. 365C is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 365A.
7.13 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 365C:
Page 88, line 40, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) For the purposes of this Act the territorial waters of the United Kingdom shall be treated as part of the United Kingdom.
(3A) This Act applies to acts done in an area designated by order under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, in connection with the exploration of the sea bed or subsoil or exploitation of their natural resources, as it applies to acts done in the United Kingdom.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 120(3) requires an Order in Council
856
to apply the provisions of the Bill to United Kingdom territorial waters and, for certain purposes, to an area designated by order under Section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964. The 1949 Act has been considered to apply to United Kingdom territorial waters and, so far as an area designated under the Continental Shelf Act is concerned, a Community patent will have effect in such an area, by virtue of Article 97(8) of the Community Patent Convention. For these reasons it is desirable that the Bill should apply directly in the two cases concerned without the necessity for an Order in Council. The Amendment effects this change. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 365G:
Page 89, line 3, after ("Act") insert ("(except sections 73(5), (6) and (8), 74(5) and (7) and this subsection)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment takes the place of Amendment No. 365B, a Government Amendment which has been withdrawn. In explanation of Amendment No. 365G I should say that Clause 120(4) gives the Secretary of State power to make commencement orders. This subsection does not therefore itself require a commencement order, but enters into force on Royal Assent.
The Amendment also refers to certain subsections of Clauses 73 and 74. These clauses have been considerably amended earlier in the Committee stage, but the subsections now referred to are those which relate to the translation of European patents and applications. These are provisions which it may never be necessary to invoke, and for this reason the power to bring them into operation is left to rules. As a consequence, the rule-making power, which is contained in Clause 73(8) and Clause 74(7), will itself come into operation on Royal Assent. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 365D:
Page 89, line 7, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of Schedule 4 to this Act,").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment makes it clear that the

857
enactments repealed by Schedule 5 nevertheless remain in operation so far as is necessary for the purely transitional provisions of Schedule 4. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 120, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Application of 1949 Act]:
7.17 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 365E:
Page 90, line 6, leave out from ("applications") to end of line 8.
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be convenient to consider with Amendment No. 365E, Amendments Nos. 365F and 370C. Amendments Nos. 365E and 370C are purely drafting Amendments. Amendment No. 365F is intended to correct the minor inaccuracies which exist in paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I should point out that if Amendment No. 365F is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 366 and 367.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 365F:
Page 90, line 9, leave out from ("sections") to end of line and insert ("1 to 10, 11(1) and (2), 12, 13, 15 to 17, 19 to 26, 28 to 33, 50 to 53, 55, 56, 69, 76, 80, 87(2), 92(1), 96,").
Lord CAWLEY: This Amendment partially subsumes my Amendment No. 382R in which I seek to repeal Section 56 of the 1949 Act. Section 56 has been brought in by this Amendment where it was not present before. I think that I ought to say something about this section because it is thought by practitioners in the law of patents to have been a misconceived section, and therefore it seems unnecessary that it should have any further relevance. The section reads as follows, so far as relevant:
"Where a dispute arises between an employer and a person who is or was at the material time his employee"—
The LORD CHANCELLOR: From what is the noble Lord reading?
Lord CAWLEY: From Section 56 of the 1949 Act. If the noble and learned Lord looks at my Amendment No. 382R he will see that it deals with this. The section continues:
"… as to the rights of the parties in respect of an invention made by the employee either alone or jointly with other employees or in respect of any patent granted or to be granted in respect thereof, the comptroller may, upon application made to him in the prescribed manner by either of the parties, and after giving to each of them an opportunity to be heard, determine the matter in dispute …"
et cetera. I do not think that there is any argument about subsection (1). Subsection (2) states:
"In proceedings before the court between an employer and a person who is or was at the material time his employee, or upon an application made to the comptroller under subsection (1) of this section, the court or comptroller may, unless satisfied that one or other of the parties is entitled, to the exclusion of the other, to the benefit of an invention made by the employee, by order provide for the apportionment between them of the benefit of the invention, and of any patent granted or to be granted in respect thereof, in such manner as the court or comptroller considers just"
This section was considered by your Lordships' House, sitting judicially, in Patchett v. Sterling Engineering Company, 72 Reports of Patent Cases, page 51. There, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simmonds, referring to Section 56(2), said:
"That jurisdiction only arises if the court is not satisfied that one or other of the parties is entitled, to the exclusion of the other, to the benefit of an invention. The word 'entitled' refers to legal right".
Under Clause 36 of the Bill there seems to be no doubt that either the employee or the employer owns the whole legal rights of a patent which is made by the employee, so there is no question of apportioning the legal rights in a patent. I should have said, following the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simmonds, in Patchett v. Sterling Engineering Company, that that was the situation under the 1949 Act, and that really, at any rate if subsection (2) is left in force in relation, as now, to the 1949 Act patents and to the patents in force, it is merely misleading and certainly ought to be repealed and not applied to any patent that exists now.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very willing to look at the point which the noble Lord has made in regard to

859
Section 56 of the 1949 Act, and perhaps we can return to that specific point at a later stage. I am most happy to do so.
Lord CAWLEY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 370C:
Page 90, line 10, at end insert—
("(3) Sub-paragraph (1) above shall have effect subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, paragraph 2(2)(b) of Schedule 3 below and the provisions of Schedule 4 below.").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 370D:
Page 90, line 11, leave out paragraph 2.
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment paves the way for an Amendment to Schedule 4 which, if accepted, deals fully with the question of appeals from the comptroller under the continuing provisions of the 1949 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I have to point out that if Amendment No. 370E is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 370A and 370B.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 370E:
Page 90, line 31, leave out paragraphs 4 to 6.
The noble and learned Lord said: With Amendment No. 370E it may be convenient to speak to Amendment No. 379B as well. These two Amendments will result in the deletion from Schedule 1 of paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 10. Paragraph 4 would have repealed Section 9 of the 1949 Act, but as a result of Amendment No. 365F Section 9 will continue to apply to existing patents and applications. Paragraphs 5, 6 and 10 would have repealed Sections 11(3) and 14 of the 1949 Act and part of Section 32(1). It is still intended to repeal these provisions, and Amendment No. 381B will transfer the repeals to Schedule 3, which deals with repeals of provisions of the 1949 Act. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: The noble and learned Lord mentioned paragraph 10. We shall
860
be coming to this in Amendment No. 379A, which unfortunately follows Amendment No. 379B in the Marshalled List. That may be of some assistance to the noble and learned Lord. We have one or two queries on Amendment No. 379A, and if the noble and learned Lord is speaking to that—he cannot move it yet, of course—we can probably deal with it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think I have spoken to No. 379A yet.
Lord LYELL: Amendment No. 379B is the Amendment that the noble and learned Lord mentioned, I think. I do not know whether he has spoken to this. He mentioned paragraph 10 and Section 32 of the 1949 Act.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is quite right.
Lord LYELL: We had one or two points that we wanted to raise on that, but I think we would be happy enough to accept the explanation which the noble and learned Lord has given at this stage, so that we would not raise anything further.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I should point out that if Amendment No. 379B is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 379A.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 379B:
Page 91, line 11, leave out paragraph 10.
The noble and learned Lord said: I think this Amendment was considered with Amendment No. 370E.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.28 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 380:
Page 91, line 21, after ("Act:"") insert ("and in subsection (3) the proviso shall cease to have effect")
The noble Lord said: This is where we are in some minor difficulty ourselves. The Committee will see that we seek to insert some words which are set out on the Marshalled List. This Amendment arises from the 1949 Act. The noble and learned Lord will find that in Section 33(3) of that

861
Act it is provided that the comptroller shall not revoke a patent unless he finds the circumstances are such that he would have refused to grant the patent originally—and that, I think, occurs under Section 14 of the existing Patents Act. After our consideration of the Bill in its present form, this proviso no longer makes sense because it seems to us that this proviso will be in conflict with the rest of paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Bill which we are now considering. I think it is line 15 on page 91. Paragraph 11 is going to allow the comptroller to revoke a patent on the grounds set out in Section 32. These grounds are available only to the court as Section 32 is written at the moment. However, Section 14 of the 1949 Act gives only a few of the grounds set out in Section 32. If the noble and learned Lord is able to see the length of Section 32—we have a volume with us here—
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I will take the noble Lord's word for it.
Lord LYELL: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The length of Section 32(1) is considerable, and contains variegated grounds. However, Section 14 gives only a few of these grounds. It seems to us, therefore, that in one breath the comptroller is being given revocation powers under Section 32(1) of the 1949 Act but the reference to Section 14 will be taking some of those powers away. The effect of the Amendment that we are putting forward is, we hope, to remove the reference to Section 14 of the 1949 Act which is contained in the proviso to Section 33(3) of that Act. I hope that I have struck a blow against complexity in the direction of the noble and learned Lord. I have tried to make it simple. It is not as simple as I would wish. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: We are discussing Amendment No. 380 at this moment.
Lord LYELL: That is what I am speaking to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I wanted to reassure what I am pleased to call my mind at this late hour: that it is being applied to the Amendment to which the noble Lord has spoken so clearly. He has raised a point of a good deal of
862
interest. I am grateful to him for drawing my attention to it. It may be a question of drafting—whether the words he proposes meet the point. I am happy to accept this Amendment in principle. If he does not press it, but agrees to let it lie fallow, so to speak, so that we can look to see whether the drafting is the best we can contrive, I should be grateful.
Lord LYELL: The noble and learned Lord does himself an injustice. Nothing lies fallow with the noble Lord. I understand that his advisers will go straight through this Amendment. I mentioned at least three other sections of the 1949 Act. Given the noble and learned Lord's kindness and willingness to consider it, I hope that we have got it right and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Application of this Act to 1949 Act patents and applications.]:
7.32 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 380B:
Page 91, line 28, leave out ("1949 ACT") and insert ("EXISTING")
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 380C in connection with this. These are purely drafting Amendments to clarify the text. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 380C:
Page 91, line 33, leave out ("to the transitional provisions in") and insert ("the provisions of")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: If Amendment No. 380D is agreed to, then Amendment No. 380A cannot be called.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 380D:
Page 91, line 35, leave out from ("sections") to ("118") in line 36 and insert ("19, 20, 26 to 33, 41 to 69, 80, 90, 92, 93, 95 to 104, 106, 108 to 112")
The noble and learned Lord said: Schedule 2, paragraph 1(2) sets out the

863
clauses of the Bill which are to apply to existing applications and patents. In the main, these are clauses which have counterparts in the 1949 Act. Thus it is not necessary, where Schedule 1 retains an existing section, to apply the counterpart in Schedule 2 to existing applications and patents. The Amendment therefore reflects the Amendments made to Schedule 1, paragraph 1(2). Clauses 7,34 and 35 are deleted from Schedule 2 since Sections 55 and 56 of the 1949 Act are retained in Schedule 1 for existing applications and patents. Similarly, Clauses 105 and 118 correspond to Sections 76 and 101 in the amended Schedule 1 and reference to them is no longer necessary.
Section 18, relating to secrecy, has been removed by Amendment No. 365F from Schedule 1, paragraph 1(2), and the corresponding Clause 20 in the Bill has been added to the Schedule 2 list so that directions given after the appointed day in respect of existing applications will be made under Clause 20. Schedule 4, paragraph 4, continues existing directions already given under Section 18 in respect of existing applications. Finally, Clause 80 has been included since the provisions of the Community Patent Convention which affect national patents must apply equally to existing patents as well as to patents granted under the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 380E:
Page 92, line 2, leave out ("patent") and insert ("product")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment to correct an error in the text. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 380F:
Page 92, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("(and") in line 6 and insert ("references to a published application for a patent under this Act, and to publication of such an application, include respectively references to a complete specification which has been published under the 1949 Act and to publication of such a specification")
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to fill a
864
lacuna in paragraph 2(e). As drafted that paragraph equates published applications under the 1949 Act to published applications under the Bill. It is also necessary to equate publication of specifications, as such, under the 1949 Act to publication of specifications under the Bill. The Amendment effects this addition. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: If Amendment No. 380G is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 381 and 381A.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 380G:
Page 92, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 28.
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment deletes paragraphs 2(h), 3 and 4 from Schedule 2. Deletion of paragraphs 2(h) and 3 is necessary since Clauses 22 and 91(1), to which those paragraphs relate, are not applied to existing patents and applications by virtue of Schedule 2 paragraph 1(2). The deletion of paragraph 4 is purely a paving Amendment to Amendment No. 381B to Schedule 3 which incorporates the provisions of paragraph 4. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor Amendments.]:
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: If this Amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 382A.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 381B:
Page 92, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 35 and insert—
("REPEALS OF PROVISIONS OF 1949 ACT]
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of Schedule 4 below, the provisions of the 1949 Act referred to in sub-paragraph (2) below (which are superseded by virtue of paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 above) shall cease to have effect.
(2) The provisions are sections 11(3), 18, 27, 34 to 40, 43 to 49, 54, 57 to 68, 70, 73 to 75, 77 to 79, 81 to 86, 87(1) and (3), 85 to 90, 91(1), 93 to 95, 97 to 100 and 102(2) and Schedule 1.
2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of Schedule 4 below, the provisions of the 1949 Act referred

865
to in sub-paragraph (2) below (which have no counterpart in the new law of patents established by this Act in relation to future patents and applications) shall also cease to have effect.
(2) The provisions are—

(a) section 14 (opposition to grant of patent);

(b) in section 32 (revocation of patent by court), in sub-section (1) paragraphs (g), (j) and (l), in paragraph (h) the words from "or does not" to the end and in paragraph (i) the words from "or that" to the end, and subsections (2) and (3);

(c) section 41 (inventions relating to food or medicine, etc.);

(d) section 42 (comptroller's power to revoke patent after expiry of two years from grant of compulsory licence);

(e) section 71 (extension of time for certain convention applications);

(f) section 72 (protection of inventions communicated under international agreements);

(g) section 91(2) (false use of words "Patent Office" and offence).")

The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment in effect introduces a new Schedule into the Bill in which all repeals of the provisions of the 1949 Act are collected and contained, in substitution of the existing Schedule 3 which deals only with minor Amendments. No overall change of substance is, however, effected. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: I see that the effect of paragraph 2(2)(b) is that Section 32 of the 1949 Act is to be considerably altered. The Amendment reads:
"Subject to the provisions of Schedule 4 below, the provisions of the 1949 Act referred to in subparagraph (2) below…shall also cease to have effect."
The ways in which Section 32 is to cease to have effect are set out. I make no complaint about that. Then I look ahead at Amendment 382T. This is the beginning of an immensly long, newly-worded last part of Schedule 4 which the Government are intending to write into the Bill. The first provision of that Amendment reads as follows:
"5.—(1) Where before the appointed day a petition has been presented under section 32 of the 1949 Act for the revocation of a patent, and issue has been joined on the petition before that day, the petition shall be continued and disposed of under the old law"
The only point I wish to raise with the noble and learned Lord is that I trust that that means under the old law, and not as amended by Government Amendment
866
No. 381B. If Section 32 actions for revocation of patents shall be continued and disposed of after the appointed day under the old law, and the old law on the appointed day is to be amended, as it is being amended by Government Amendment No. 381B, I think that the situation would have been chaotic, and I cannot believe that that is the intention.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: May I look at that point and write to the noble Lord? Obviously, it is essential that we should not have the chaos to which he refers.
Lord BELSTEAD: I wonder whether, at the risk of delaying the Committee, I may say this. The reason I refer to the chaotic situation is that presumably if a party goes to a patent agent and says "I am worried that I may be going to infringe a patent", the patent agent or other professional adviser—a solicitor perhaps—might very well say, "You do not need to worry about infringement because, under Section 32 of the 1949 Act, I can advise you definitely that the patent which you are worried about is not going to stand up; it will be invalid." My worry quite simply is that, if on the appointed day Section 32 is to be amended, as it is being amended by Government Amendment No. 381B, but a revocation action for invalidity is going on at that time and suddenly the rules are changed then that professional advice which has been given to a potential infringer may lead that potential infringer into a chaotic situation. That is my worry.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out this problem. The noble Lord asked a question about the old law in the new provisions in Amendment No. 382T. Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 specifies:
"In this Schedule 'the old law' means the 1949 Act, any rules made under it and any relevant rule of law as it was or they were immediately before the appointed day."
I will gladly look at the point which has been made by the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Transitional provisions]:
7.43 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 382B:
Page 94, line 7, at end insert—
("(7) Where an act, if performed before the appointed day, would not amount to an infringement, the performance of a like act after that day shall not (despite anything in this paragraph) amount to infringement.").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this small Amendment is to provide that, if there is an act which is performed before the appointed day and this would not have infringed a patent which had already been granted under the 1949 Act, then we would hope that a similar act shall not be an infringement of an old patent after the appointed day. We have to note that paragraph (6) would be the corollary of this Amendment, because under paragraph (6) where an act is begun before the appointed day, and it continues afterwards, then such an act, if it would not amount to an infringement before the appointed day, shall not be an infringement after that day, even if it continues to be performed. We think the Government consider paragraph (6) to be fair and we hope that paragraph (7), as provided in this Amendment, would also be fair and reasonable in the circumstances. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I appreciate the thinking behind this Amendment and I can well understand that from a theoretical point of view there is a good deal to be said for it. But on the crucial issues with which patent proceedings are principally concerned—namely, revocation and infringement—we have thought that it was necessary to maintain as much simplicity as was practicable, to coin a much maligned phase, and that the effects of the existence of two different kinds of patent should be minimised. We have sought to do so, but we feel that this Amendment might defeat that purpose. I am afraid that I cannot commend it.
Lord LYELL: We accept that the noble and learned Lord is always seeking after clarity. We hoped this clarified the Bill somewhat. Given that the noble and learned Lord has expressed his opinion firmly, kindly but gently, we seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 382S:
Page 94, line 12, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

("(a) if issue has been joined on the notice before the appointed day, the opposition, any appeal from the comptroller's decision on it and any further appeal shall be prosecuted under the old law, but as if references in the 1949 Act and rules made under it to the Appeal Tribunal were references to the Patents Court;

(b) in any other case, the notice shall be taken to have abated immediately before the appointed day").

(2) Sub-paragraph (1)(a) above shall have effect subject to paragraph 10(2) below.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment relates to paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 which deals with the transitional provisions required in respect of cases where notice of opposition to the grant of a patent has been given under Section 14 of the 1949 Act before the appointed day. Transitional provisions are always very difficult to provide for in legislation.
In the cases specified in paragraph 3(a) appeals against any decision on the notice given by the comptroller before the appointed day will continue to be dealt with under the old law. Paragraph 3(b) provides that, if the comptroller has not given such a decision before that day the notice will be taken to be an application under Section 33 of the 1949 Act (as amended by the Bill) for the revocation of patent on any ground under that section which, in the comptroller's opinion, corresponds to the ground on which the notice was given, or if there is no such ground, the notice will be taken to have lapsed immediately before the appointed day. The substituted proceedings will then continue under the new law introduced by the Bill.
In some cases it might be to the advantage of the applicant for the notice to be dealt with under sub-paragraph (b), because the Section 33 grounds for revocation, as amended by the Bill, do not include some of the grounds upon which Section 14 of the old Act allowed the grant of a patent to be opposed. Consequently, this Amendment is introduced with a view to reducing to a minimum the opportunity which any party might have of using delaying tactics in order to prevent the proceedings reaching the stage of decision before the appointed day. Instead of

869
drawing the line at the moment of decision, the Amendment would draw it at that point in time when issue is joined between the parties; that is, at the first moment when there is a formal dispute between them. The point at which issue is joined on a notice of opposition under Section 14 of the 1949 Act is defined in a new paragraph 15(a) which I will be seeking to add to Schedule 4 as part of Amendment No. 382T which follows. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: If Amendment No. 382T is agree to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 382C to 382M inclusive.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 382T:
Page 94, line 44, leave out paragraphs 5 to 7 and insert—
("5.—(1) Where before the appointed day a petition has been presented under section 32 of the 1949 Act for the revocation of a patent, and issue has been joined on the petition before that day, the petition shall be continued and disposed of under the old law.
(2) Where such a petition has been so presented but issue has not been so joined, then—

(a) if the ground of the petition continues to be contained in that section as amended by Schedule 3 above, it shall be taken to be a petition on that ground;

(b) in any other case, the petition shall be taken to have abated immediately before that day.

(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above shall apply to a counter-claim made for the revocation of a patent in proceedings for its infringement as they apply to a petition presented for the revocation of a patent.
6.—(1) Where before the appointed day an application has been made under section 33 of the 1949 Act for the revocation of a patent (the original application), the following provisions shall apply:—

(a) if issue has been joined on the application before the appointed day, the application, any appeal from the comptroller's decision on it and any further appeal shall be prosecuted under the old law, but as if references in the 1949 Act and rules made under it to the Appeal Tribunal were references to the Patents Court;

(b) if issue has not been so joined, the original application shall be taken to be an application under section 33 of the 1949 Act for the revocation of the patent on whichever of the grounds referred to in section 32(1) of that Act corresponds (in the comptroller's opinion) to the ground on which the original application was made, or, if there is
870
no ground which so corresponds, shall be taken to have abated immediately before the appointed day.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1)(e) above shall have effect subject to paragraph 9(3) below.
7.—(1) This paragraph applies where an application has been made before the appointed day under section 42 of the 1949 Act for the revocation of a patent.
(2) Where the comptroller has made no order before that day for the revocation of the patent under that section, the application shall be taken to have abated immediately before that day.
(3) Where the comptroller has made such an order before that day, then, without prejudice to section 38 of the Interpretation Act 1889, section 42 shall continue to apply to the patent concerned on and after that day as if this Act had not been enacted.
Licences of right and compulsory licences
8.—(1) Sections 35 to 41 and 43 to 45 of the 1949 Act shall continue to apply on and after the appointed day—

(a) to any endorsement or order made or licence granted under sections 35 to 41 which is in force immediately before that day; and

(b) to any application made before that day under sections 35 to 41.

(2) Any appeal from a decision or order of the comptroller instituted under sections 35 to 41 or 43 to 45 on or after the appointed day (and any further appeal) shall be prosecuted under the old law, but as if references in the 1949 Act and rules made under it to the Appeal Tribunal were references to the Patents Court.
Appeals from comptroller under continuing provisions of 1949 Act
9.—(1) In this paragraph "the continuing 1949 Act provisions" means the provisions of the 1949 Act which continue to apply on and after the appointed day as mentioned in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 above.
(2) This paragraph applies where—

(a) the comptroller gives a decision or direction (whether before or on or after the appointed day) under any of the continuing 1949 Act provisions, and

(b) an appeal lies under those provisions from the decision or direction;

but this paragraph applies subject to the foregoing provisions of this Schedule.
(3) Where such an appeal has been instituted before the Appeal Tribunal before the appointed day, and the hearing of the appeal has begun but has not been completed before that day, the appeal (and any further appeal) shall be continued and disposed of under the old law.
(4) Where such an appeal has been so instituted, but the hearing of it has not begun before the appointed day, it shall be transferred by virtue of this sub-paragraph to the Patents Court on that day and the appeal (and any further appeal) shall be prosecuted under the old law, but as if references in the 1949 Act and rules made under it to the Appeal Tribunal were references to the Patents Court.

871
(5) Any such appeal instituted on or after the appointed day shall lie to the Patents Court or, where the proceedings appealed against were held in Scotland, the Court of Session; and accordingly, the reference to the Appeal Tribunal in section 31(2) of the 1949 Act shall be taken to include a reference to the Patents Court or (as the case may be) the Court of Session.
(6) Section 91(3) of this Act shall apply to any decision of the Patents Court on an appeal instituted on or after the appointed day from a decision or direction of the comptroller under any of the continuing 1949 Act provisions as it applies to a decision of that Court referred to in that subsection, except that for references to the sections mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection there shall be substituted references to sections 33, 55 and 56 of the 1949 Act.
Appeals from comptroller under repealed provisions of 1949 Act
10.—(1) This paragraph applies where an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal has been instituted before the appointed day under any provision of the 1949 Act repealed by this Act.
(2) Where the hearing of such an appeal has begun but has not been completed before that day, the appeal (and any further appeal) shall be continued and disposed of under the old law.
(3) Where the hearing of such an appeal has not begun before that day, it shall be transferred by virtue of this sub-paragraph to the Patents Court on that day and the appeal (and any further appeal) shall be prosecuted under the old law, but as if as references in the 1949 Act and rules made under it to the Appeal Tribunal were references to the Patents Court.
Appeals from Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
11. Section 87(1) of the 1949 Act shall continue to apply on and after the appointed day to any decision of the Appeal Tribunal given before that day, and any appeal by virtue of this paragraph (and any further appeal) shall be prosecuted under the old law.
Rules
12. The power to make rules under section 112 of this Act shall include power to make rules for any purpose mentioned in section 94 of the 1949 Act.
Supplementary
13. Section 91(2) of this Act shall apply to—

(a) any appeal to the Patents Court by virtue of paragraph 3(1)(a), 6(1)(a), 8(2) or 9(5) above, and

(b) any appeal which is transferred to that Court by virtue of paragraph 9(4) or 10(3) above,

as it applies to an appeal under that section; and section 90 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of any such appeal instead of section 85 of the 1949 Act.
14. In this Schedule "the old law" means the 1949 Act, any rules made under it and any
872
relevant rule of law as it was or they were immediately before the appointed day.
15. For the purposes of this Schedule—

(a) issue is joined on a notice of opposition to the grant of a patent under section 14 of the 1949 Act when the applicant for the patent files a counter-statement fully setting out the grounds on which the opposition is contested;

(b) issue is joined on a petition for the revocation of a patent under section 32 of that Act when the respondent to the petition serves an answer on the petitioner in accordance with rules of court;

(c) issue is joined on an application for the revocation of a patent under section 33 of that Act when the patentee files a counter-statement fully setting out the grounds on which the application is contested.")

The noble and learned Lord said: We have already had our attention drawn to this massive Amendment to Schedule 4 and the new paragraphs which this Amendment seeks to insert and deal more completely with the various problems which will arise on the transition from the old code to the new where actions of various kinds are pending. I am afraid that the provisions are perhaps somewhat difficult to follow and for those who may have to interpret these matters later it may be desirable for me to deal with the matter in a little detail. I apologise to the Committee for doing so, but I think it must be done.
The new paragraph 5 deals with petitions for revocation, whether by themselves or by way of counter-claims in infringement actions, to the court under Section 32 of the Patents Act 1949. Where issue has been joined, everything continues as before. Where issue has not been joined, the paragraph provides, in effect, that only those grounds of revocation which have a counterpart in the new code should be available to the petitioner. It may seem that by making the cut-off date the date when the respondent, that is, the patentee, serves an answer on the petitioner—we look to paragraph 15(b) of the Schedule as proposed to be amended by this Amendment—we are giving the patentee a chance to delay things until after the appointed day, and so avoid having to face an attack on certain grounds. However, of the various possible dates which we considered, this one seemed to us the least arbitrary. Order 103, Rule 18 of the Rules of the Supreme Court gives a respondent 21 days to serve his answer. Although that

873
period is extendable, I think we can rely on the fact that extensions will not be allowed except for good cause.
The next paragraph, paragraph 6, deals with applications of the comptroller for revocation under Section 33 of the 1949 Act. In this case the problems are different, in that under paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 the grounds for revocation open to the comptroller are widened so that they are now to be the same as those open to the court under Section 32, as amended. At the same time, there are certain grounds under Section 33—they are set out in Section 14—which do not have a counterpart in Section 32 as proposed to be amended. After reflection, we decided that the same cut-off date as we have proposed in relation to petitions to the court for revocation would produce the least unfairness in this case, also. To cater for grounds which have no counterpart it was, however, necessary to include the provision which your Lordships will see in paragraph 6(1)(b) of the Amendment.
Paragraph 7 deals with revocation under Section 42 of the 1949 Act. This section provides that where an order for a compulsory licence has been made, in certain circumstances after two years any person interested can apply for revocation on what might be called "compulsory licence grounds". The provision has been little used and, since revocation on these grounds will not be permitted under the new code, it seems to us that the fairest thing would be to make the cut-off date the conclusion of the proceedings, and to say that after that no application under Section 42 is possible. In practice, we think the chances of anyone being caught, so to speak, in mid-action, are extremely slim.
Paragraph 8 provides that where actions have begun under the compulsory licence provisions, apart from Section 42, they are in effect to continue under the old code. In practice, that provision is largely a technicality, since the old and new codes are almost identical. Paragraphs 9 and 10 effectively re-route appeals from the comptroller to the new Patents Court. There is, however, no point in disturbing appeals to the Patents Appeal Tribunal, where these have already begun to be heard, and those appeals will continue unaffected. I should add that in
874
appropriate cases the appeal will be not to the Patents Court but to the Court of Session. The same principles apply.
Paragraph 11 similarly preserves the existing position, so far as further appeals to the tribunal are concerned. Paragraph 12 is a technical provision designed to ensure that, if necessary, the rule-making power in the Bill can be used to make rules about anything about which rules could have been made in the 1949 Act. Paragraph 13 is also a technical provision, designed to avoid the result which might otherwise have occurred; in certain circumstances the Patents Court would have to be treated as a divisional court when hearing appeals re-routed to it under the Schedule. Paragraphs 14 and 15 define terms used in the Schedule, and I have already dealt with their substance in discussing earlier paragraphs. I apologise for the length of my reading, but it was inescapable. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: The Lord Chairman reminded us that, if this Amendment is agreed to, the following 10 Amendments cannot be moved. I should just like to thank the Government because—I hope I am right—even given the lucidity of the noble and learned Lord, it is not all that easy to decipher the exact meaning of all the provisions of this Amendment. But I think that our first three Amendments, which are not going to be moved—that is. Amendments Nos. 382C, 382D and 382E—have been met by paragraph 5(3) of the new Amendment. All the rest of our Amendments have been met by paragraph 5(1) of the new Amendment. I believe that is the case, and with that in mind I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I support this Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I can assure the noble Lord that he is right. This was really one of the matters covered in the Amendment.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: May I briefly associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in thanking the noble and learned Lord for the explanation he has given of these four pages of Amendments, in relation to revocation, infringement and other matters. I cannot, even at this late hour, resist the temptation to

875
say once again that I feel so many of the difficulties which may be presented to small firms and individual inventors could he solved if some of these matters of infringement and revocation could be dealt with by a tribunal, so that it would not be necessary to invoke all the clauses of this Act, of the old Act and of the orders, of course, which will no doubt arise.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: May I thank the noble Lord for producing his King Charles's head!
Lord CAWLEY: May I make one small observation. According to Section 32(4), the grounds of revocation may be used as a defence. It looks to me as though, under this Amendment, paragraph 5(1) merely deals with a petition presented under Section 32. If somebody merely defends himself, and I have known that to occur, we shall have to apply the new grounds and not rely on Section 32.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I will look again at the point and communicate with the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Enactments repealed]:
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I should point out that if this Amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 382U.
7.51 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 382N:
Page 96, column 3, leave out lines 4 to 7.
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I might be permitted to speak to our Amendment No. 382N and also to Amendment No. 382U. I shall be very brief. We agree very much with the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and doubtless we shall hear an explanation of it, either from the noble Lord or from the noble and learned Lord. It seems that Amendment No. 382U meets our Amendment; but one small question arises, in that our Amendment would omit the first line of Amendment
876
No. 382U, referring to Section 11 (3) That is the only point on which the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord does not tie up with our wishes, as set out in Amendment No. 382N. We should like to hear what the noble and learned Lord is able to tell us on that. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having also discussed Amendment No. 382U, which deals with most of the matters contained in Amendment No. 382N. The only difference between us is the retention of Section 11(3) in the list of repeals. That has to be kept in the list, because it has been repealed by paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 3, having been superseded by Clause 104, as amended by Amendments Nos. 343 and 344.
Lord BELSTEAD: How could we have missed it!
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am amazed that we have, as we have followed every detail with such memorable clarity. As regards Amendment No. 382U, there appears to be a printer's error in the first line. It should, of course, read:
"Page 96, in column 3, leave out lines 4 to 24".
Otherwise, Amendment No. 382U substitutes a new list of sections of the 1949 Act which are being repealed by Clause 120(5) of the Bill for that in column 3 of Schedule 5 to the Bill as printed, and specifies the extent of their repeal. The changes are consequent upon Amendments made to the Bill in this Committee.
Lord LYELL: I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: If Amendment No. 382U is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 383, 382P 382R and 382Q.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 382U:
Page 96, in column 3, leave out lines 4 to 24 and insert—
("Section 11(3).
Section 14.
Section 18.
In section 24(7) the words from "but" to the end.
Section 27.
In section 32, in subsection (1) paragraphs (g), (j) and (l), in paragraph (h) the words from "or does not" to the end and in paragraph (i) the words from "or that" to the end, and subsections (2) and (3).
Sections 34 to 49.
Section 54.
Sections 57 to 68.
Sections 70 to 75.
Sections 77 to 79.
Sections 81 to 86.
Section 87(1) and (3).
Sections 88 to 91.
Sections 93 to 95.")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord CAWLEY Lord CAWLEY moved Amendment No. 384:
Line 3, leave out from ("law") to first ("to") in line 4 and insert ("applicable to existing letters patent for inventions and applications therefor;")
The noble Lord said: I think that the Bill ought to have started by saying:
"From the commencement of this Act the Crown shall cease to grant letters patent for inventions, and there shall be a new right called a patent."
That would have told us quite clearly what was the new law of patents. This Amendment is to deal with this point, to some extent, and to put a little accuracy into the Title. The word "patent", under the old law, is therefore changed to,
"…existing letters patent for inventions and applications therefor".
I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment appears to be of a drafting nature designed to introduce a reference to existing "letters patent". They will, of course, disappear under the new law. That does not seem to us to be necessary. The present reference to,
"the law of patents applicable to existing patents and applications for patents"
878
is consistent in terms with, and contrasts with, the earlier reference to,
"a new law of patents applicable to future patents and applications for patents".
I do not know whether that application reassures the noble Lord, but for what it is worth I present it for reassurance. We think that, as it stands, the Title is satisfactory.
Lord BELSTEAD: Before my noble friend withdraws the Amendment, may I just say this. The noble and learned Lord was good enough, at the beginning of our proceedings this evening, to apologise for the weight of Government Amendments. It was nothing that he needed to apologise about. He has had to cope single-handed this evening, and it has been a long evening for him. I really rise to congratulate the Government on moving 999 Amendments to this Bill which have, in effect, completely rewritten it. A little more seriously, I think that there has been some strain, certainly on this side of the Committee, because of the weight of the Amendments, and I am sure that a smoke signal will go out from the noble and learned Lord's Office that perhaps it would not be wise to repeat this kind of exercise too often on future Government legislation.
I speak for my noble friend Lord Lyell and myself when I say that we would have foundered completely had it not been for the forbearance of people who understand the law, like the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, not to mention my noble friend Lord Cawley. We have been particularly helped by being allowed some technical briefing, which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, very kindly allowed us to have. Quite honestly, I do not think I could have coped with the Bill without it. Also, we have been given some very wise advice by people outside the Chamber, who have admirably discharged Bagehot's constitutional duty of the Sovereign, to be consulted, to encourage and to warn. That is more than enough from me. I should like to congratulate the Government on the felicity with which, with practice, they have moved their Amendments, and to express the hope that, so far as our Amendments were concerned, perhaps sometimes the sentiment was mutual.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the most gracious observations which he has made. Indeed, I should like to thank the noble quartet, if they do not mind being so described, Lord Lyell, Lord Belstead, Lord Cawley, and, last but not least, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, whom I forgive for having resurrected King Charles's head from time to time, to our great delectation.
This has been a very difficult phase in the consideration of this highly technical but very important Bill for the future of our industry and commerce. All I should like to say is that so much of the discussion has been technical and there is still more to come in the Report stage. So that, if we can give some assistance in at least making available the technical information which we have in regard to Amendments which may arise, perhaps we can discuss together to see whether we can save some of the burning of the midnight oil by those who do not necessarily have the resources which, while one is in Government, one gets. I have laboured in the Opposition vineyard for many years in another place, knowing how difficult dealing with these technical matters is.
But I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part, including the eloquent contributions from my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek, from time to time. Before I conclude, may I also express our thanks to the Chair for the magnificent way in which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and his predecessors have guided us in what has not been an easy task. I thank your Lordships very much.
LORD CAWLEY: In withdrawing my Amendment, may I say that nobody reads the Long Title of a Bill, anyhow. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I just want to say, "Thank you". Even the ranks of Tuscany could scarce bear not to cheer at the efforts of the noble Lords, Lord Belstead, Lord Cawley and Lord Lyell. I should also like to say "Thank you" for the magnificent work that has been put in by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, silo has made a valuable contribution.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP BILL
Examiners' Certificate that no further Standing Order is applicable: Ordered to lie on the Table.
NEATH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
GENERAL RATE (PUBLIC UTILITIES) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
SOCIAL SECURITY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.