HL Deb 03 February 1986 vol 470 cc920-32

4.39 p.m.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill before the House will, I feel, be non-controversial. Indeed, I would expect it to be generally welcomed since its purpose is to enable the Patent Office to improve the services it provides to the public. It will facilitate the computerisation of the registers kept by the Patent Office and will make certain amendments to existing legislation in order to prepare the way for the introduction of registration of marks for services. It is essentially an amending Bill, and this explains why although running to only four clauses it has 11 pages of schedules. These set out the amendments to existing legislation. For example, five pages are taken up by Schedule 1, which contains new sections to replace the provisions dealing with the registers in the Trade Marks Act 1938, Registered Designs Act 1949 and the Patents Act 1977.

The subject of computerisation comes first in the Bill. Following a scrutiny of the operations of the Patent Office undertaken by a team under Sir Derek Rayner (now the noble Lord, Lord Rayner) in 1980, the report recommended that greater use be made of computers for keeping office records. As far as most of those records are concerned, it is of course entirely a matter for the Patent Office how they are kept; they are the normal records kept by any large organisation and no specific legal authority is needed for the office to purchase computers and to use these for its record-keeping. The registers are, however, in a different category. The comptroller is obliged by the respective Acts to keep at the Patent Office separate registers for patents, for designs and for trade marks, and the Acts also give the public the right to inspect the registers and to obtain copies of entries in the registers, and provide that such copies when certified by the comptroller shall be admitted in legal proceedings.

If the Patent Office is to reap the full benefits of computerisation it must be freed of any obligation to keep paper registers. The office will almost certainly wish to keep some existing paper registers, but in the case of a computerised register the information held on an electronic storage medium, such as disc or tape, would constitute the statutory register. The intention is that anyone wishing to inspect the register would be able to call up the relevant part on the screen of a computer terminal at the Patent Office. Anyone wanting a copy would be able to get a printout from the computer, and the Patent Office would certify such a printout so that it would be used in legal proceedings.

A change in the law is necessary because it is not clear that these intentions are at present covered by the provisions relating to inspection, the supply of copies and the admissibility in evidence of copies in the Trade Marks Act 1938 and the Registered Designs Act 1949, which of course date from pre-computer times. Those who drafted the Patents Act 1977 were able to foresee the problem, and that Act refers, for example, to a document reproducing in legible form an entry made in the register otherwise than in legible form". However, even that Act requires amendment since, like the Designs and Trade Marks Acts, it requires the register to be kept at the Patent Office. The Patent Office wishes to be free of this requirement, since it may be more convenient for the actual computer and the disc or tapes constituting the register to be kept at a remote site connected to terminals and printers in the Patent Office. All this is brought about in the Bill before your Lordships this afternoon by Clause 1 and Schedule 1.

These amendments would provide that, when the registers are kept in non-documentary form, the right to inspect the registers is a right to inspect the material on the registers. Similarly, the right to a copy or an entry is the right to a copy in a form in which it can be taken away and which is visible and legible, and such a copy, duly certified shall be admissible in evidence. The requirement for the registers to be kept at the Patent Office and the requirement that the registers be kept under the control of the comptroller is replaced by an obligation on the comptroller to maintain the registers. This latter provision would cause the comptroller to remain legally responsible for assembling the data to be recorded, but the staff performing the task would not necessarily be under his control but may instead be bound to him by a contractual relationship.

I come now to the other main subject of the Bill, service marks. At present it is only possible to register a trade mark which is to be used in relation to goods. For some time now, business and the trade mark interests have pressed for a change in the law to allow the registration of marks used in relation to services, such as banking, dry cleaning or car servicing. Your Lordships may recall that a Bill for this purpose was introduced in this House by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, but the Bill was lost when the 1983 general election intervened. Registrations for service marks will be brought about by the Trade Marks (Amendment) Act 1984, which was introduced in the other place after the election. That Act is not yet in force, but the Government at the time indicated that they aimed to implement the Act on 1st October 1985.

As I said, the 1984 Act started life as a Private Member's Bill and its effect was restricted to amending the Trade Marks Act 1938 to afford registration for service marks. It did not make consequential amendments to other legislation. This Bill therefore rectifies this by making the amendments to existing legislation which are set out in Schedule 2. These provisions are to come into force on the same day as the 1984 Act; that is, on 1st October this year.

Although the Long Title of the 1984 Act states that it is an Act to amend the law to afford registration for service marks, the expression itself is not used in the body of the Act. Since this is the expression which will in practice be used to refer to such marks, it is felt important that it should be the expression used in the law instituting their registration. Accordingly, subsection (1) of Clause 2 amends the 1984 Act to introduce the term "service mark" and defines it in language culled from the 1984 Act without substantive change.

Subsection (2) of Clause 2 deals with the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which specifies that the Northern Ireland Assembly does not have unrestricted power to legislate on, among other things, trade marks. It is intended to ensure that service marks are treated in the same way.

Subsection (3) of Clause 2 is intended to have a similar effect with respect to a wide variety of legislation specified in Schedule 2. Much of this is legislation which is not concerned with trade marks but with, for example, such matters as taxes, or the jurisdiction of the courts, but which contains provisions which refer to trade marks. The present measure would cause service marks to be treated under these provisions in the same way as trade marks. In addition, Schedule 2 amends the Trade Marks Act 1938 and the 1984 Act, in particular in relation to priority rights for trade marks and service marks.

It may be helpful to your Lordships if I briefly explain what is meant in this context by "priority rights". When, following an application to the Patent Office, a trade mark is put on the register, the registration is normally deemed to take effect from the date of the application. In some cases this date may assume considerable importance, since the registration may be invalid if the mark had been used in the United Kingdom by another party before that date. The applicant may, however, be able to obtain an earlier registration date, and this is referred to as claiming priority rights. This can be done if the applicant had made an application within the preceding six months for registration of the same trade mark in one of the countries specified in an Order in Council. In that case it is the date of the earlier foreign application which is deemed to be the date of registration of that trade mark in the United Kingdom. This has been the legal position for trade marks—that is, marks for goods—for many years, and fulfils an obligation under the Paris Convention to which the United Kingdom is a party, as are most countries in the world.

The obligation under the Paris Convention to accord priority rights does not extend to service marks. Some countries which already provide for registration of service marks do however operate a similar priority system on a reciprocal basis—that is, they allow priority to be claimed from an application made in a country which in turn accords their applicants priority rights. We have decided to adopt a similar system, and accordingly the Bill amends the 1938 and 1984 Acts to allow a country to be designated by order, either in fulfilment of a bilateral agreement or if the Government are satisfied that the country makes provision for priority rights for service marks on a comparable basis.

Clause 3 and Schedule 3 effect consequential repeals, and Clause 4 contains the extent and commencement provisions. I have just two points to make about these. First, the Isle of Man has agreed that the Bill should be extended to them. Agreement has not yet been reached on the precise form of the extension. Discussions are continuing between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Home Office and when a form of extension is agreed an amendment to the Bill will be moved. Secondly, the commencement provision is drafted so that the Patent Office can receive applications for service mark registration before the day on which the Act comes into force, these being treated eventually as though filed on that day.

This is essentially a technical Bill. I am afraid that it is not a very exciting Bill. Nevertheless it is a valuable measure, since it enables the Patent Office both to improve the efficiency of its present activities by using modern technology to keep the registers and to commence the registrations of service marks by allowing the implementation of the 1984 Act, which was passed by Parliament for that purpose. I am reminded by my noble friend that earlier I referred to the commencement of the Trade Marks (Amendment) Act 1984 by saying it was to be implemented on 1st October 1985. I do apologise: I should of course have said 1986. With that rather brief explanation, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

4.53 p.m.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for having given a brief explanation as to the purposes that lie behind the Bill, and as regards those purposes we on this side of the House have no dissent. I am bound to say straight away that, as to its detailed application to the several interests to whom it directly applies, I would far sooner rely upon the views of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, whose expertise in this field is within the knowledge of the House. Before arriving at a final conclusion I reserve the right to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and then perhaps have another think in the light of what he may say.

We in this House like to take steps to ensure that whatever legislation comes before us goes out in a form which is at any rate intelligible, is consistent, is easy of interpretation by the courts and of course is understood clearly by those whom the Bill is designed to affect—ignorance of the law is reputed to be no excuse. I am bound to say therefore that the Bill as it now stands disappoints me a little. In my own professional life I have been accustomed to threading my way through the tortuous fields of income tax Acts and Finance Acts ever since the year 1918, and through some of the complexities of company law, to mention only a few. I am bound to say that in endeavouring to pick my way through this Bill and the Acts which it is designed to amend, I found the process most tortuous in order to arrive at the final results of the Bill in a practical form.

I say this for a number of reasons. Most of the people likely to be affected by Bills of this kind are small business people. There is of course an application to the larger firms in the United Kingdom, and in particular to their employees, but I think it will be generally agreed that the effects of this Bill will be relevant very largely to the small business, to the small businessman, to the start-up man and so on. I have therefore to ask the noble Lord whether there has been any consultation with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, who is concerned with simplifying matters for small businesses. When the noble Lord was discussing the White Paper produced originally by the Department of Trade and Industry, he affected to be much in favour of simplification. Some of us have since wondered when this regard for simplicity was going to take a practical form. I mention only the whole question of VAT regulations, which appear to have become more complex since the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, enunciated his simplification campaign. I therefore ask the noble Lord the direct question as to what degree of co-ordination and co-operation there has been on this highly complex Bill with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, and that particular part of the Department of Employment that is reputed to be led by him. That is the first question.

The second question arises on the way in which we should proceed to make it more intelligible. In the light of the tortuous path that the Bill forces us to tread, can the noble Lord give an indication—he must have been aware of the nature of the Bill he was bringing along, short though it may be—whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to bring forward any kind of consolidation Bill simplifying all the issues involved? The third question related to the passage of the Bill through its remaining stages in this House. I ask the noble Lord—I am well aware that he cannot give me the answer because he will have to have consultations—whether it would be better, or indeed whether it would be possible, to have the Committee stage referred to a Select Committee of the House rather than have it taken on the Floor of the House. In a Select Committee it is possible to have technical experts in to knead together the more technical aspects of matters and reduce them to terms that are easily understandable.

Having said that, I turn to the Bill itself. I have very little to say upon its content, other than to express mild mystification as to some of the terms that have been used. Clause 1 of the Bill refers to Schedule 1, which relates to computerisation". Your Lordships are well aware of the degree of judicial ignorance that is very often and quite properly adopted by those who have the honour to sit on the Bench in various courts. Where judicial ignorance of a term is expressed, that does not mean that the member of the Bench concerned has not formed a conclusion as to what the term really means, but that it is required to be more closely defined. For example, in evidence before a court the words "pop star" may be used, to which the judicial response might be, "What is a pop star?".

In the same way, I observe that the word "computerisation" is nowhere defined in the Bill itself. I do not know whether there is a judicial definition of computerisation. I agree that in general terms the meaning is easily understandable: that is, in purely general and conventional terms, However, I note that when it comes to Schedule 1, where computerisation is by inference referred to, the words used are different. For example, in paragraph 1, which relates to an amendment to the Trade Marks Act 1938, sub paragraph 3 states: The register need not be kept in documentary form". I take it that what is really meant by that is that the register can be kept on a computer. That expression is repeated at various parts of Schedule 1, where instead of referring to the register being kept on computer, the schedule states that the register need not be kept in documentary form. The term is repeated several times throughout the whole of Schedule 1.

Thus we have a reference in Clause 1 of the Bill to computerisation but then, in the schedule to the Bill to which Clause 2 specfically refers, there appears the negative expression that is intended to convey that the register may be kept on a computer. The words used are: The register need not be kept in documentary form". Why does the schedule not say that the register can be kept on a computer? The use of two different terms to describe the same provision weakens both. If computerisation is strong enough then why not use that term? But if the words "other than in documentary form" are strong enough, then why not use those words in Clause 1 itself?

It may be more than a question of semantics. In these days of progress, the imagination may boggle. The words "other than in documentary form" may in years to come cover other operations than those embraced by the term computerisation. Who is to know?

Again to deal with some of the detail, I observe that in that part of Schedule 1 relating to the Patents Act 1977, paragraph 3 reproduces a new section to replace Section 32 of the Act. However, I note that in Schedule 3, where it comes to dealing with repeals consequential upon Schedule 1, Section 35 of the Patents Act 1977 is repealed. I have looked through Section 35 of the Patents Act 1977 and I am a little hazy. The noble Lord can probably answer my query quite simply. I ask him whether the repeal of Section 35 of the Patents Act 1977 is covered by paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 on page 7 of the Bill in addition to Section 32, which it specifically replaces. I have not had the time to trace out whether or not that is so. If the noble Lord says that it is so, then I shall unhesitatingly accept his affirmation without any further check on my part.

The Bill goes on to deal with the computerisation of extremely important records. I should like to have the Government's assurance that they are fully certain in their own minds that computerisation can be accomplished with physical safety for the records. Modern science has progressed significantly since the early days of computers. Many noble Lords will have had some ordinary practical experience in commerce, banking and in other fields where initial computerisation has been described as the time of the troubles. because they have not been introduced without a considerable number of teething troubles. There is always a necessity, as those who have been responsible for the computerisation of banking records will confirm, for there to be back-up disks for everything that is put on the register, and for proper physical means to be established for the complete security of those records—security against everything including the dropping of a nuclear bomb, when the relevance of the patent register will speedily disappear.

I should like to be assured also that the Government are now completely satisfied about the internal security of the computer records and about the schemes of organisation that they have for checks and security checks to inhibit unauthorised entry into the computer system. I need only refer once again to the fact that there have been problems in commerce and in banking where there has been unauthorised access to computer records—and indeed involving the alteration and falsification of consumer records by those who have been able to obtain access and by those who have sufficient scientific and computer skills to be able to corrupt such records. I am certain that I shall be reassured, but it will be good to have it on the record that the Government have investigated that aspect of the matter and that they are fully satisfied that all security safeguards in regard to those most important records will be put firmly in place.

Finally, I remind the noble Lord that in his opening speech he did not clearly state—of if he did, I apologise for having misunderstood him—that there would be some endeavour to computerise the existing records that already exist in documentary form; in other words, whether it will be the case that all the records will be progressively transferred to computer, or whether it is intended to retain a dual system for the time being.

If it is the case that the existing documentary records are to be put on computer, then I must point out that it will be a very long and costly process. Computers are never any better than the information that is put onto them. If it is the intention to computerise the existing records, then I must say to the noble Lord that the cost estimates that he may have in mind, and the costs to the public that he may have in mind, are likely to be significantly in excess of any figure that he presently anticipates. For the moment also there would be a difficulty. I feel sure that the noble Lord and those who have experience in this field will agree, that to run the two systems at once will present a certain degree of complexity.

I am sorry to have detained your Lordships for so long at this stage of the Bill but I felt it my duty to draw your Lordships' attention to some of my misgivings. That being said, I affirm that we on this side of the House support the purposes that lie behind the Bill and, subject to all the precautions that can be taken, wish it a successful passage to another place.

5.10 p.m.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, may I join the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in thanking the noble Lord the Minister for taking the House so carefully through this Bill and referring to the Bill as essentially a technical one. However, tonight the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is more modest than I have heard him for a long time. I thank him very much for his kind words about myself, but the keen way in which he has analysed the Bill—he has raised many points—has saved me a great deal of trouble in my speech this evening.

May I at once express my deep surprise at the complexity of these arrangements. I agree, of course, with the general objectives of the Bill, which are to computerise—if I may use that word—the register. It also deals with service marks, following the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, some months ago, which he successfully steered through this House having inspired the other place to do something very similar. The House is indebted to him for the energy that he showed in pursuing this important matter of getting a statutory record of service marks.

Service marks, for instance, are very important to small businesses. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said, the patent system—or the intellectual property system as it is now called, rather pompously, to include trade marks, copyright, designs and know-how—affects small businesses greatly. The jurisprudence of intellectual property has long been too obscure and expensive. We hear a lot about the help given to small businesses. I have in my hand the Small Business Digest of the National Westminster Bank. It is subtitled A permanent guide for small businesses and their advisers. May I presume to congratulate the National Westminster Bank on a very important and useful document for small businesses?

However, in this document there is a section which has been written by the secretary of the Institute of Patentees and Inventors, of which I have the honour of being president. This document which is supposed to be so good for small businesses shows how difficult it is for small businesses to obtain patent protection. On page 10, the document states that, the cost of establishing a United Kingdom patent with professional assistance generally ranges between £1,500-£2,000 and if world-wide patents are sought"— of course, many firms have to file patent applications if they wish to compete abroad and assist our exports— the figure can quickly escalate to £50,000 or more. In addition you should appreciate that any legal action to prevent infringement can be both daunting and costly although there are insurance schemes available to provide some protection. In the earlier part of that section dealing with the patenting process the author states: It should also be mentioned that a Government Green Paper published recently gave warning of changes to this System in the near future. Many of us were hoping that the new patents Bill that was to be produced by the Government would contain some useful help for small businesses in dealing with intellectual property.

Your Lordships may have heard me mention on many occasions what a jungle exists in the system for intellectual property on an international basis. There is the classic phrase of a famous judge who referred to the intellectual property Acts, the trademark Acts and the patent Acts as being full of fuliginous obscurity. Several High Court judges have often told me that they know a particular case is going to be a patent case, where the lawyers and the counsel will stay for a long time, from the dozens of books brought in to the court to explain matters. Again, therefore I express surprise that the simple objectives of computerisation and the introduction of essential matters relating to service marks should be so complex.

In my hand I have the current copy of The Director, issued by the Institute of Directors, of which I am also a member. For the first time in my experience there is a full page advertisement for the Patent Office. It is, of course, Industry Year and therefore I suppose the Patent Office would like to have the public's attention drawn to its activities. The advertisement illustrates a very large safety pin and is headed: When new ideas are born they need protection. It goes on to say how important the Patent Office and, therefore, the patent system are, inter alia, for helping small companies seeking to develop new products and processes to stand on their own feet. We had hoped, of course, that a Bill of this kind, introduced in this Session, would contain some help to reduce costs and to make less obscure the intellectual property laws of this country.

I have one question for the Minister. I note that in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum it states: The provisions relating to the registers will enable a reduction to be made of about 25 posts in the public service. Therefore, will the saving in costs arising from that reduction of 25 posts, which must be about £500,000, be directed towards reducing the fees charged and helping small businesses attain their patents? One of the interesting developments at present is that, in view of the difficulties arising from intellectual property matters, they are being forsaken by so many industrialists who are finding ways to avoid, in certain industries, the necessity of seeking patent protection.

The other matter that I wish to raise is a request to the Minister to consider the possibility of simplifying the scope of these schedules. For example, in Schedule 1 most of page 4 is already in the Trademarks Act 1938. Why, therefore, was it necessary to repeat almost a full page from the old Act in order to say, in effect, that the register need not be kept in documentary form? Surely that page could be simplified before Report stage.

Similar criticism arises in regard to the sections dealing with the Registered Designs Act on pages 5 and 6 and the Patents Act on pages 7 and 8, which contain large repetitions of what is in the Acts at the present time. Surely as a matter of drafting it would be very helpful, particularly to the small business people, if the minimum number of amendments were put in this Bill for the purposes of the two main objectives that we have in mind.

Again, when one turns to Schedule 2, dealing with service marks, I can only repeat the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, about the extraordinary way that Part I of that schedule has been drafted. I should have thought that it was possible to avoid what the noble Lord referred to as the tortuous route that has to be explored in order to understand the effect of service marks on the law of this country as it relates to trade marks.

I listened with great care to the explanation by the noble Lord the Minister of Part III of the schedule, which refers to the registration of trade marks following overseas applications. Here, again, I think the Bill has covered an important lacuna in the old Trade Marks Act 1938, and, subject to some small amendments which are Committee stage amendments. I do not propose to make any observations on it.

In conclusion, therefore, I, too, should like to ask whether the Government have any intention of introducing in the near future a Bill relating to intellectual property, which will be of some help to small businesses.

5.23 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for not having been in my place when my noble friend the Minister addressed the House. I only wish to make a few very short observations.

First, this Bill, in part, is the inevitable consequential result of your Lordships' own initiative in passing a Bill to introduce the registration of service marks, which, albeit in another form, attracted the attention of another place. But whatever form the Bill took, a good deal of statutory carpentry was required to fit the implementation of it into the framework of our statute law.

On the question of drafting, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I wonder whether it is really justified to criticise the drafting of the first schedule on the grounds of repetition. There are two views on this. I know not which is right, but one view is that of the noble Lord, and the other view is that it is of greater convenience if the repetition can be contained in one document. Either course has its advantages. For my part, I would support the form in which the Government have produced this draft.

As regards Schedule 2 again on careful analysis the suggestion of tortuous drafting may not be entirely justified. I refer to Clause 2, Clause 3(2), of course Schedule 2, and Part II of Schedule 3, for these are required, with those requisite amendments, in the very complex structure of existing law in so many and various fields, to accommodate the concept of the registration of service marks. This is a very difficult task wherein the industry of the draftsmen and the work of the backroom boys both in the ministry and in the Patent Office are most highly to be complimented.

Of course there is a case, an overwhelming case, for a general consolidation of intellectual property systems, to which both noble Lords have referred, but short of this general consolidation the Government have produced what seems to me to be a wholly satisfactory result. I confess that I have been involved in discussions—not with the ministry, but certainly with the Patent Office and professional associations—and I know how difficult it was to bring the concept of the Bill into a form in which it could be implemented. I do not see how it could have been other than complex. One only has to look at the series of enactments which appear in the second schedule to see how many different types of statute were involved in the implementation of what, on the face of it, appeared to be a relatively simple concept. As I have said, I do not see how the result could have been other than complex in the situation in which we are placed, for the situation is complex.

All in all, this is a result which is workable, certainly at the hands of those who have to implement it professionally. I have great sympathy for small businesses and the small businessman, but in this sphere the advice is of a highly professional specialist order and it is of necessity complex. I would suggest to your Lordships that to those who have to tender the advice the result that the Government have produced in this Bill is wholly reasonable and intelligible.

5.27 p.m.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. Since my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has not addressed any questions to me, perhaps I may first respond to him and thank him very much for his support and for the explanations that he has given to the course of action the Government have taken. As this was largely at his instigation in 1983, as I said earlier, I did not suppose that my noble friend would greatly object to what has now come out.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, always applies a diligent duty to any Bill that comes before your Lordships' House, and though he has raised a number of questions I feel quite sure that your Lordships would like me to respond to all of them so that we do not have perhaps too protracted a Committee stage.

The noble Lord asked about co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment. Although there is always close liaison among departments of state, on this occasion there was no consultation specifically on the Bill with the office of my noble friend Lord Young. Simplification of patent law would require a major Bill, and this is essentially a tidying-up measure. If it is complex, it is because of the legislation that it amends. It certainly does not purport to be a substantive revision of patent law, which I fear will have to wait for a little while. The noble Lord asked whether it was the Government's intention to consolidate the various Acts. We do not have plans for consolidation at this time, but the possibility is always kept in mind.

The noble Lord also asked about the Bill's passage through the House and whether there would be a Committee upstairs or on the Floor of the House. As he said, that is not for me but for the usual channels. I shall draw the attention of my noble friend the Chief Whip to his comments.

The noble Lord mentioned the term "computerisation" which appears on the face of the Bill. The reference is purely descriptive and explanatory and has no legislative effect. A single word is used for brevity and simplicity. The alternative is to refer to the registers not being in a documentary form. That has the legislative effect that we are looking for and must be as accurate as possible. The use of the word "computer" is avoided in those references so that the form in which the register is kept is not constrained by a particular technology. Indeed, in speaking of computers and computer technology the noble Lord himself said that the mind boggles at what may emerge.The important thing is not so much that the registers may be kept on a computer but that they need no longer be kept on paper.

The noble Lord questioned whether Section 35 of the Patents Act 1977 is covered by new Section 32 as set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill. The answer is, yes. If he looks at new subsections (9), (10) and (11) he will find that answer.

The noble Lord asked for an assurance about physical safety. There is always the risk of such a register being damaged by fire or something else. In the case of an electronic register there is another danger: electronic degradation. The Patent Office will guard against that by keeping a back-up copy of the register at a remote and different site. Should the main copy be degraded, the back-up would become the register and a further back-up copy would be made.

With regard to unauthorised access, ways to prevent that are being studied. But unauthorised inspection does not pose quite the same problem as the examples to which the noble Lord referred since the material is public. Anybody can go through the front door and pay a fee to see it, so there should not be much difficulty there. Lastly, the noble Lord asked whether there would be a tandem system while the existing records are being transferred. "Yes and no" is the answer. The Patent Office will keep on the shelf, so to speak, certain of the written registers and records, but others will be transferred, so to that extent there will be a tandem system. It is for the Patent Office to determine which is the best way to move forward. The Bill gives it even further opportunity to do that.

The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, raised a number of points. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I defer to his knowledge and experience. I was glad to have his general support. He asked about costs and quoted from an article in, I think, the National Westminster Bank journal in which a figure of something like £1,500 was given. He will know that the official fee for obtaining a patent from the Patent Office is less than £200. A large element of the costs—and perhaps the difference between my figure and his—is made up of professional fees and other expenses over which neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Patent Office has jurisdiction. But the fees are set to cover costs, and any reduction in costs will therefore be reflected in the level of fees. And that I think answers the point about the 20 posts. I put it that way rather than confirming that there will be a reduction in fees, but as costs go up any reduction in cost tends to minimise any increase in fees.

The noble Lord raised a question about the drafting of the clauses dealing with service marks. I can do no more than draw his attention to the comments of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. Reference was made to the restatement of the provisions of the older enactments set out in Schedule 1. If those sections had not been restated, a mass of separate amendments would have had to be made. I suspect that the bulk of those would have been much greater than the restatement, and the complexity would then have been a good deal worse.

The noble Lord mentioned the difficulties for small businesses and individuals in using the patent system. Noble Lords will recall that there is a White Paper in preparation on intellectual property, including the implementation of the recently announced decision to separate the Patent Office. That will be published later this year, and I hope that that will contain some of the answers. However, I see no immediate prospect of a major Bill to simplify patent law.

The noble Lord asked about the series of press advertisements. We believe that these are largely in response to some suggestions contained in the Green Paper, Intellectual Property and Innovation. It is probably for the Patent Office, knowing that this Bill was to come before Parliament, to adopt generally a higher profile with regard to the services and the facilities that it offers to inventors and to others seeking patents and registration marks. Those are, I believe, all the answers to the questions that have been raised this afternoon.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, the noble Lord referred to a White Paper that was to come out shortly and that will, if I understand what he said correctly, divide up the Patent Office in some way. I am not clear what that meant. I became more confused when the noble Lord said that the advertisement placed in The Director was for the purpose of raising the profile of the Patent Office. Does that mean modifications, in some way or other, to the patent system that would reduce the cost to inventors of getting a patent through not having to seek professional assistance? It is professional assistance that is costly because of the complexity of the laws.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, my reference to the White Paper was that there is to be a White Paper on intellectual property which will also include suggestions with regard to the recently announced decision to free the Patent Office from the constraints of the traditional Civil Service framework. While not pre-empting what is in the White Paper, it will explain the creation, or re-creation, of the Patent Office as a body more responsive to the needs of its customers.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will know that, as a statutory non-departmental body, the Patent Office will be able to be much more flexible and innovative in its approach and will be able to introduce new services when there is a clear market demand for them. That was the reference to the Patent Office in the White Paper. As to fees, the noble Lord has made his point, and I believe that I have made mine. The noble Lord stated that there might be one or two matters that he would wish to raise during the Committee stage. If my officials and I can help any noble Lord in the meantime, your Lordships know that this would be my wish. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.