Sitting of 15 March 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  (Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.)
  Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Students (Discretionary Awards)
    Mr. Bryan Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied that the level of discretionary awards being made to students for 1977–78 by local authorities is consistent with her policy to give priority to the education of students of 16 to 19 years of age.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science and Paymaster General (Mrs. Shirley Williams): Local education authorities are free to make their own decisions on the level of expenditure on discretionary awards and I have no information yet about their policies for the 1977–78 academic year. But I shall be exploring with the local authority associations ways and means of monitoring the position on discretionary awards.
    Mr. Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for that constructive reply. Is she aware that there is growing evidence of anxiety in many quarters that the level
    190
    of discretionary awards next year will be lower than many would wish? Is there not therefore a case for her Department to look at ways in which a more specific grant could be given to local authorities in order to ensure that this aspect of policy retains the priority that she has accorded it?
    Mrs. Williams: The most recent figures that I have are for 1975–76. They indicate that there was an increase of about 27 per cent. in expenditure in that year on about 50,000 discretionary awards. We do not have any later figures, and this is the purpose of a meeting with the local authority association on 23rd March. Like my hon. Friend, I am concerned by some indications that discretionary awards are being quite sharply reduced this year and were also reduced last year. I think that we should await the facts before making any further comments.
    Mr. Hannam: Is the Secretary of State aware that because of the difficulties they experience in secondary education many handicapped and disabled students are not able to go forward into higher education, where they have mandatory awards? Will she therefore look carefully at the situation whereby local authorities may not be making enough use of the discretionary award schemes for handicapped students, and will she consider making them mandatory?
    Mrs. Williams: I shall certainly look into that matter. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that in some cases one of the reasons is that provision is not made for handicapped young people in the design of buildings. We recently sent out a circular specifically asking local authorities to bear this in mind when, for example, they are designing extensions to further education colleges and similar institutions.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), does my right hon. Friend agree that whereas access is important, the point made by the hon. Gentleman is vital, namely, that disabled students would often qualify for mandatory grants but because of illnesses that occur, with disability, they are not able to take them up, and consequently they suffer if they come under the umbrella of discretionary grants? Will my right hon.

    191
    Friend please persuade local authorities to treat discretionary grants for disabled pupils and students as mandatory?
    Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend's first point may provide an easier approach to the question. He probably has in mind the fact that where students are entitled to a mandatory award, as almost all are at the higher educational level on the first occasion, if they have to give them up for reasons of illness, they find that they are barred from a further mandatory award. I shall certainly look into that point. But on the wider question of discretionary awards, I refer back to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies). We need to know rather more facts about the matter.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Apart from the narrower but human problems raised earlier, is it not a fact that, contrary to some people's ideas, these discretionary awards cover very important courses, such as aspects of the medical profession and business studies, which are all directly relevant to the country's recovery and that therefore the widespread anxiety about their undue reduction is well founded?
    Mrs. Williams: I share the hon. Gentleman's worries about this. He will be aware, however, that to make all discretionary awards mandatory would involve a substantial addition to public expenditure. The most that I can promise the House is to look into the matter to see whether there are particular categories that we might reconsider.

    Under-Fives
    Mr. Terry Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has any plans to give guidance to local education authorities with a view to reaching recognised standards of education for the rising-fives.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): It is for local education authorities to decide how to use their statutory powers to provide education for children below compulsory school age, subject of course to central Government guidance on the use of resources.
    Mr. Walker: Is it not time we had a policy on the rising-fives? My own county of Avon has just decided that the rising-fives should not have education, which means that some children, because of the accident of their birthday, have a shorter time at infant school. This has a devastating effect on the whole of their school life.
    Miss Jackson: The admission of rising-fives has been a problem for some time. Unfortunately, we have had to advise authorities that they should not admit rising-fives to schools unless the call on resources is minimal. Although there is a great deal of pressure to admit younger children to infant schools, there is also a suggestion by various authorities—by which I mean individuals and not local education authorities—that not every child is ready for admission to an infant class before the age of five.
    Mr. Forman: Does the hon. Lady think that any contribution to the strengthening of pre-school provisions could be made by encouraging local education authorities to take over overall responsibility not only for nursery education but for child minders, playgroups and other aspects that now fall under the Department of Health and Social Security umbrella? Has the Department turned its mind to that?
    Miss Jackson: Indeed it has. It issued a joint circular with the DHSS some time ago on the matter. We are continuing discussions with that Department to see what further co-operation we may be able to have.
    Miss Joan Lestor: Has my hon. Friend any concern about the fact that local authorities have been advised not to admit rising-fives except under certain circumstances and that pre-school facilities are being savaged throughout the country, particularly by Tory authorities? Is she concerned about the effect that this will have on pre-school children, who, if they are not yet ready for full school, as my hon. Friend said, are certainly ready for some form of pre-school education and opportunity?
    Miss Jackson: Indeed I am concerned, as I think no one can fail to be, but I must remind my hon. Friend that over 50 per cent. of five-year-olds are receiving some kind of education in nursery classes,

    193
    nursery schools or infant classes. I regret that this is one of the areas in which we cannot do more at present.
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received about the provision of education for those under 5 years.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: My right hon. Friend has recently discussed this question with the British Association for Early Childhood Education and the Council for Educational Advance and officials of my Department will be meeting the Voluntary Organisation's Liaison Committee for Under Fives this week. My right hon. Friend has also received letters from hon. Members and others making various points about educational provision for the under-fives.
    Mr. Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that there is considerable variation in the amount of nursery education that is provided from local authority to local authority? Is she aware that the provision of nursery education in Gloucestershire is one of the poorest in the whole country? If education at this age is important, as I believe my hon. Friend accepts, is it possible for her to do something to introduce some standard of equality throughout the country to ensure the proper provision of nursery education?
    Miss Jackson: As my hon. Friend is all too well aware, Gloucestershire has the unhappy distinction of being the only county without a nursery school, having closed the only one that it previously had. That was something that we all bitterly regretted. It is true that there is uneven provision throughout the country. That is partly because of the provision that has been made for areas of special social need. There is no doubt that we should all like to see far wider provision of a far better standard.
    As my hon. Friend knows, we are in difficulty in this matter in that although we may seek to make provision available we have no power to control what local authorities do in their areas. This is a problem that is exercising us.
    Mr. Hardy: Does my hon. Friend agree that in some areas there could be very
    194
    much better and closer contact between local education authorities and the voluntary organisations and individuals involved in the care and education of the under-fives? Will she consider issuing firm advice to promote such contact and ensure not only that limited resources are effectively used but that personal enthusiasm is encouraged?
    Miss Jackson: We are extremely aware of the need for co-operation between local authorities. As my hon. Friend knows, there has already been one circular on the matter. We are considering urgently what further steps we might take to promote such local co-operation.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I fully accept the tremendous importance of education at an early age, and at under 5 in particular, but will the hon. Lady indicate whether the Government would be prepared to encourage parents, where provision could be made, to make a contribution towards the cost of those who undergo education before five years?
    Miss Jackson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the existence of pre-school play groups, which work partly on the basis of parental contribution. However, we believe that provision made by local authorities in the form of nursery education should be free, especially in areas where there is particular social need.

    School Meals
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a statement about the policy of the Government towards charges for school meals, in the light of the projections for expenditure in the public expenditure White Paper.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: The Government's policy on charging is set out on page 72 of Volume II of the White Paper.
    Mr. Gow: Does the hon. Lady recall that in the White Paper of February 1976 it was stated that the charge for school meals would go up from 15p to 20p in September of last year? Bearing in mind that that did not happen—the Government broke their own undertaking—may the House assume that this time the Government mean what they say and

    195
    that the charge for school meals will be 25p this autumn?
    Miss Jackson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the negotiations on the last round of the social contract included a request that instead of the school meal going up to 20p in September 1976 the increase should be postponed until September this year, when the cost is expected to go up to 25p. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am not a prophet, but that is what is intended.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my hon. Friend accept that many working people with large families are very concerned about increases in the cost of school meals and of bus transport to school and that they feel much more deeply about such increases resulting indirectly from Government policy than about those applied by the private sector? Will she ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to use her considerable power within the Cabinet to get the decision reversed, even at this stage?
    Miss Jackson: We are concerned to avoid imposing more increases than are absolutely necessary, but I must remind my hon. Friend that the subsidy on school meals has risen substantially, and unfortunately we have not felt able to continue it at that level any longer. That is why, sadly, the price is intended to be raised in September.

    Evelyn Library
    Mr. Cormackasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions she has held and what representations she has received about the future of the Evelyn Library.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: While the Government have received representations from Christ Church, Oxford, the Friends of the National Libraries, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) and three members of the public, they have received none whatsoever from the trustees. My noble Friend is considering, in consultation with the British Library, whether there is any way in which the collection can be kept together.
    Mr. Cormack: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply, particularly her last few words. Does she agree that this is a collection of pre-eminent importance and
    196
    that everything possible should be done to keep it in the country? Will she take a personal interest in doing just that?
    Mrs. Williams: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have already taken a personal interest. The problem is whether the trustees also appreciate the importance of keeping the collection together. There is, at least in law, no way in which the Government can compel them to put the collection forward for public purchase or purchase in any other way.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the right hon Lady realise that her Department is gaining a reputation for philistine indifference to the future of our national heritage, what with Mentmore, first, and the Evelyn collection, second? Will she wake her noble colleague the Minister responsible for the arts, now almost invisible, out of his slumbers and get him to call a conference between representatives of the family, representatives of the British Library's Board and Treasury officials, so that something can be done by the Government to keep this unique library intact for the benefit of the nation?
    Mrs. Williams: My best response to the hon. Gentleman is to say that one can take a horse to water but one cannot make it drink. That is the precise situation with regard to the Evelyn Collection.

    Child Literacy
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she intends to set up a committee to advise her on child literacy.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: No, Sir. I am not convinced that such a committee would serve any useful purpose. The findings and recommendations of the Bullock Report "A Language for Life" remain highly relevant. In addition, we are looking closely at the question of basic skills, including that of literacy, during the present debate on education.
    Mr. Goodhart: Is the hon. Lady aware that between 1973 and 1976 real expenditure on books in primary schools fell by 10 per cent. and that this year some major authorities are planning to cut back their expenditure on books in primary schools by as much as 15 per cent? How will that help literacy?
    Miss Jackson: Like the hon. Gentleman, I regret that some local authorities are being forced to take these steps as part of their response to restraints on public expenditure. I should be glad if in welcoming public expenditure cuts, as they do, Opposition Members would also welcome their consequences, of which this is one.
    Mr. Watkinson: When she is considering the question of child literacy, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the problems of the dyslexic child, and also bear in mind that such children benefit from specialised teaching? Will she do all she can to encourage specialised teaching methods and training for people in this field?
    Miss Jackson: This is a subject in which I have taken a degree of interest. I am not sure whether any particularly specialised method is appropriate but certainly a degree of attention is needed for dyslexic children, as for children with other reading difficulties, specific or otherwise. To that extent, I recognise my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will the hon. Lady please reconsider her last answer? Does she appreciate that very special methods are needed for dyslexic children and that very often those children are incapable of obtaining full benefit from the education system, because those special methods are not made available to them owing to lack of grants from local education authorities?
    Miss Jackson: I have discussed the matter at some length with people who are experienced and expert in the field and have had particular success with children with such problems. It is my understanding that there is no particular method. As with every other kind of teaching of reading to children with problems, there is a variety of methods, some of which are suitable for one child but not for another with, in theory, precisely the same problem. I do not accept that there is a simple problem with a simple set of solutions. I am certainly aware of the difficulties.

    University Grants Committee
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has
    198
    any plans to meet the University Grants Committee.
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has any plans to meet the University Grants Committee.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I have no immediate plans to meet the committee.
    Mr. Rooker: When my right hon. Friend next meets the committee will she ask it to press on the authorities of Birmingham University the need to honour the national holiday agreement, arrived at in 1974 after an arbitration agreement, and so end what has become the longest dispute in this country, lasting more than six months?
    Mrs. Williams: I understand that what is in dispute is the interpretation of the agreement and not the matter of pay policy. I do not think that it would be right for me to take either side.
    Mr. Hoyle: Has not the union concerned, ASTMS, put forward two proposals which, with reasonable management, could meet with some response? One proposal is that the union should accept the holiday agreement given to it by Warwick and, secondly, that meetings should be held under the chairmanship of an independent person experienced in labour relations. Do not both proposals appear to be reasonable?
    Mrs. Williams: I understand that it has been suggested by the union that ACAS should be brought in. I very much hope that the two sides will re-examine the matter.
    Mr. Beith: Does the fact that the right hon. Lady has no immediate plans to meet the UGC mean that she regards that body as a very satisfactory way of organising university finance, avoiding any direct involvement by Government Departments? Does it not provide a better model for the financing of polytechnics than her own continued enthusiasm for the binary system?
    Mrs. Williams: The reason I replied as I did was that I met representatives of the UGC as recently as last November, and I have met its chairman on several occasions since that time. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should not draw misleading conclusions.
    Mr. Grylls: Has the right hon. Lady discussed with the UGC the subject of Shoreditch College, in my constituency, and the possibility of that college crossing the binary line and joining with the universities?
    Mrs. Williams: No, Sir; it would not be appropriate for me to do so because Shoreditch College is the responsibility of ILEA. It is for that authority to put forward proposals relating to Shoreditch College before any other step can be taken or considered. We are still awaiting their proposals.

    Sixth Form Colleges
    Mr. Gryllsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement about the future of sixth form colleges.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: Thirty-two local education authorities have now established sixth form colleges as part of their schemes for secondary reorganisation I welcome this, especially at a time of declining secondary school rolls. Sixth form colleges allow a wide range of courses to be provided on an economical basis for all those who wish to continue their education beyond 16.
    Mr. Grylls: Will the Minister say why there is this anomaly in the regulations applying to post-16 education in schools and sixth form colleges and those who go to further education colleges after 16? Why are such matters as the provision of fares not allowed in colleges of further education? Will the Minister consider publishing common regulations applying to both sectors—school education and college education—after 16? That would be fairer, and helpful.
    Miss Jackson: We are aware of the problems arising from the fact that tertiary colleges and sixth form colleges operate under different regulations. That is the way in which the matter has evolved. We are considering the position.
    Dr. Boyson: Will the Minister assure the House that before the Government bring any pressure to bear in terms of any further advance in the number of sixth form colleges and tertiary colleges there will be a full public examination of academic results compared with other
    200
    areas and other forms of organisation and also comparing the results in terms of the teaching profession in relation to children of the age of 16?
    Miss Jackson: It would be wise to examine the results at sixth form colleges, and such an exercise could produce only a favourable reaction. I question whether we should look at academic results only, since the whole point of sixth form colleges is to provide academic and non-academic courses. It would be a pity to look at only one side.

    Policy Conferences
    Mr. Peter Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied that the views of parents are being adequately reflected in the great debate on education.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: Representatives of parents have been invited to all the regional conferences on education which are now taking place. At the conferences held so far parents have made a significant contribution to the discussion. In addition, my right hon. Friend has received a substantial number of written comments from parents and from organisations representing their interests.
    Mr. Bottomley: Will the Minister say whether the views put forward by parents at conferences are similar to the views expressed by parents when writing to the Department of Education expressing dissatisfaction with the schools allocated in secondary school transfers? If those views are not being put forward, what action does the Department take to ensure that dissident views are heard?
    Miss Jackson: I find the hon. Gentleman's question hard to answer. On the whole, parents who write to us about regional conferences discuss general questions of education rather than the placement of a particular child. We are aware that many problems arise in the choice of school, but there is no single factor that can be applied to each case. There is a tremendous range of problems, which differ from one family to another and from one child to another.
    Mr. Joseph Dean: Since this Question deals with the great debate, will my hon. Friend comment on the article in the Daily Express last Saturday headed "Return to the 11-plus" in which that

    201
    newspaper, reporting on a conference in Peterborough at which the Minister spoke the day before, inferred from certain statements she made that some form of examination, even if not in 11-plus form, was to be reintroduced?
    Miss Jackson: It was a classic example of an accurate quotation of one's words but the wrong conclusions being drawn from them. The Daily Express appeared to suggest that we were in favour of the reintroduction of the 11-plus examination as it existed. That is totally inaccurate. We are not opposed, nor can anybody be opposed, to a proper system of diagnostic assessment at any age, in the sense that it allows for any problems found to be remedied. That is a very different matter from the 11-plus. That was a system of classifying children for the rest of their school education.
    Mr. Forman: How many of the people invited to regional conferences came specifically in their capacity as parents? Is the Minister satisfied that enough parents attended these conferences?
    Miss Jackson: Parents' representatives have numbered 68 out of a total of 863 who have attended the conferences. 17 parents have spoken at the conferences, out of a total of 160 speakers. That is not a bad balance. We have tried to maintain a reasonable balance between the various interests and have specifically called people in the various groups. We particularly asked parents to contribute to the discussions.
    Mr. Litterick: In some respects cannot the attitude adopted by parents be positively harmful—to wit, that young people seeking entrance to further and higher education are wholly dependent on the whims of their parents since those parents must sign income declaration forms? I have in my constituency one young talented student who is now being excluded from Birmingham School of Music simply because of the attitude of his parents, which is a totally negative one, since by not signing the declaration they are denying him higher education.
    Miss Jackson: I am concerned by what my hon. Friend says. It is most unusual. I shall be grateful it he will write to me giving the details of that case.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Minister recognise that although we are glad that
    202
    she is holding this series of conferences—as a prelude to our own, which will take place after Easter—we would welcome even more a clear statement of Government policy on the proposals in our parent' charter for parental governors of schools in the maintained sector, for the publication of prospectuses, and for other measures that we have put forward to increase parental influence in our schools?
    Miss Jackson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that matter, because it gives me the opportunity to make the position clear. The implication from what has been said is that the Conservative Party was not being invited to the conferences. We very much regret the fact that although Conservative representatives were invited none has put in an appearance.
    The hon. Gentleman asked why we had not commented on the Conservative's parents' charter. It is already possible for parents to serve as managers and governors, and in many areas parents undertake such service. We are awaiting the report of the Taylor Committee before deciding whether this should be made a universal practice.
    On the subject of prospectuses, the hon. Gentleman will know that in the proceedings on the Education Bill my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said that she was still considering advice, and that process is still taking place.

    Teacher Training
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps she intends to take to see that there is adequate in-service training for teachers.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Government's expenditure plans include provision for the gradual expansion of in-service training from 1977–78. The proposals for the future of the teacher training system that I announced on 24th January envisage that about 10,000 of the 45,000 places proposed for 1981 will be devoted to in-service education and training.
    Mr. Miller: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. In view of the cuts imposed on local education authorities,

    203
    does she agree that there is a need to give greater attention to weekend and evening forms of in-service training rather than sending teachers away for whole terms, or years? In particular, will she bear in mind the value of the work done by the North Worcestershire College in that respect?
    Mrs. Williams: We are looking closely at school-based training and in-service training based at teacher centres, for example. It is by no means the case that all in-service teacher training takes place in the colleges, although some of it does. It will be a matter for the local education authority to decide whether to continue in-service training at the North Worcestershire College, but we would welcome that course being taken.
    Mr. William Shelton: How many deputations has the right hon. Lady received from hon. Members of this place or Members of another place regarding closures of teacher training colleges? Has she received a letter from me about the proposed closure of the Philippa Fawcett College, in my constituency?
    Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend the Minister of State has seen a good many delegations. I could not give the precise number without notice, but it must be more than 20. My hon. Friend has so far accepted a deputation from a local authority that wants to see him, whether or not accompanied by its Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the cuts in education, sad as they are, are much smaller than those that the Conservative Party would engage in if in power? Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that they will have an adverse effect on the many teacher centres used for in-service training throughout the country? Will she keep an eye on these matters and ensure that Draconian cuts are not made that mean the abolition of in-service training in these schools?
    Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend will know that in the rate support grant settlement for next year we went to great trouble to set aside £7 million to make a start on in-service training. I have to say that, sadly, not all local education authorities are following our advice,
    204
    although most teacher centres are being continued. That is why I have suggested that this might be an appropriate area for some degree of specific grant to ensure that in-service training, upon which I and the teacher organisations place the greatest possible priority, shall be guaranteed over the next few years.
    Mr. Crouch: As part of her special initiative to improve education, does the right hon. Lady not consider that she should take an initiative with the universities and seek their advice on in-service training? Is she aware that many universities want to give advice on in-service training, especially in mathematics, as it is their great concern that the teaching of that subject in primary and secondary schools is below the standard now required? Does the right hon. Lady agree that this matter should not be left to the local authorities, and that she should take the initiative and talk to the universities?
    Mrs. Williams: I have already discussed in-service training with the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Training of Teachers, which contains representatives from the universities. I am bound to say that one important element in in-service training is the basic professional understanding of how to deal with a class, how to teach reading, and how to get across basic skills in mathematics. In some ways the university input is not in that sphere.

    National Art Collections
    Mr. Hannamasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further representations she has received concerning the circulation of national collections in the future.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: Since my right hon. Friend's statement in reply to my right hon. Friend, the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) on 10th February 1977, representations have been received from about 20 hon. Members, seven local authorities or their organisations, one area museum council and two national organisations.
    Mr. Hannam: Does the hon. Lady accept that the closure of the V and A Regional Services Department goes totally against the V and A's original charter, which was established to take our art

    205
    treasures from London into the provinces? Why were there no consultations with the Museums Association? Will the result of this decision not be the breaking up of many valuable art collections that were donated by individuals in trust for this purpose?
    Miss Jackson: No, I do not think that that will be so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not realise that about 90 per cent. of the circulating material will be available and we hope to have a new scheme enabling us to borrow from all national collections. Although this Department is being closed we do not feel that this will be the end of local museums receiving help. The hon. Gentleman will know that my noble Friend Lord Donaldson plans to hold a conference with the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, at which it will be possible for these issues to be raised and further discussed.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend outline the alternatives that would allow art collections to go round the country? The closure of this Department could be a most regrettable step, as in many cases local authorities have relied totally upon it. It would be very bad for young people in the provinces not to be able to have the benefit of seeing these collections.
    Miss Jackson: That would be true if it were the case. Perhaps my hon. Friend does not realise that although we are proposing to make changes we are not proposing to abolish the scheme altogether. We hope that some of the changes will improve the situation. I have already told the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) that 90 per cent. of the circulating material will continue to be on offer. The previous scheme referred only to the Victoria and Albert, whereas this scheme will refer to all national collections. A matter that we think will be of particular assistance is the proposal for a Government indemnity for the insurance of objects being borrowed. That will have the effect of making local authorities much more willing to borrow, as well as making it easier for them to continue to borrow on an extensive scale.

    Higher and Further Education (Incentives)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Education and
    206
    Science what study she has made of the use of incentives to students in higher and further education aimed at attracting students to nationally desirable areas of study.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: In general, the mandatory awards system is intended to enable students to complete their course of study, whatever the subject. But I announced on 3rd February a change in the mandatory awards arrangements whereby payments of up to £500 per annum may be made by employers, or by way of scholarships, without a reduction in the student's grant. This will be in addition to the normal disregard of income, which is at present £185 per annum. I am also considering the possibility of a national scholarship scheme for students taking selected engineering courses.
    Mr. Roberts: I greatly welcome the action that my right hon. Friend has taken. I am sure that she will be as aware as I am that many people who are involved in this area and who in the past have been reluctant to support such incentives are becoming increasingly concerned about the lack of support for some college courses that are regarded as important in the national interest, and they believe that something must be done to reorient students.
    Mrs. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I would only add to what I have said that I think that the status of certain professions, such as engineering, is also very important and that it is useful for society itself to reflect the special value that we place upon those going into industry, particularly productive industry, on either side.
    Mr. Marten: Taking the problem back to a rather earlier age, what is being done to make careers guidance available at an earlier age to pupils at school?
    Mrs. Williams: We are looking carefully at the careers guidance position. We have suggested to schools in the course of our document that careers guidance should start as young as 13. In many schools it starts too late. There are now signs of a marked move towards science and engineering in the schools and in applications to universities and colleges.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of my right hon. Friend's reported concern about the

    207
    teaching of foreign languages, will she consider, in making special awards, the granting of higher education awards to pupils who wish to take difficult languages suitable for the export drive, such as Arabic, Persian and Portuguese?
    Mrs. Williams: I shall consider that, but what we are primarily trying to do at present is to discuss with the bodies concerned the possibility of combining languages with technology and engineering courses, which at present is very rare. I think that there is far too much emphasis on the view that a person studies either languages or technology but never both together.
    Dr. Boyson: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the limited number studying mathematics, science and modern languages in university from 1971 to 1975, which was static, was determined largely by the numbers reading those subjects in the fifth and sixth forms of schools? What does she suggest can be done to encourage at that earlier stage not only the careers guidance to which my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) referred but good teaching in fifth and sixth forms, so that the students are prepared for these subjects at university?
    Mrs. Williams: There is an absolutely crucial step, which I think should have been taken even earlier with regard to the problem of resolving the shortage of teachers in mathematics and science, which for many years have been shortage subjects. We are inviting 11 colleges to mount special courses for teachers in the shortage subject of mathematics. We have already invited 11 colleges to mount special courses for teachers in the shortage subjects of technology and craft. I agree that a student cannot study maths and science unless he is taught by someone with an affection for the subject and who knows how to teach it.

    Adult Illiteracy
    Mr. Viggersasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the campaign to reduce adult illiteracy.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: The campaign to reduce adult illiteracy is a unique collaborative movement involving local education authorities, voluntary bodies, the BBC, and the Government. In the
    208
    two years since the Adult Literacy Resource Agency was set up to provide assistance with Government funds, a firm foundation of local provision has been established, some 50,000 volunteer tutors have come forward, and the number of students has grown to over 100,000. The agency is currently collecting material for a further report.
    Mr.Viggers: Is the Minister aware that the number of 100,000 shows a considerable success for the scheme, but it needs to be measured against the number of 2 million who need to be regarded as illiterate for practical purposes? Will she bear this in mind when talking to her colleagues about the appropriate language to use in Government forms, many of which must be incapable of being understood by many of those for whom they are intended?
    Miss Jackson: Yes, that is a very good point. We are certainly aware of the immensity of the problem of adult illiteracy, which does so little to bear out the comments made by some of the hon. Member's hon. Friends about the virtues of our past education system.
    Mr. Noble: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to another area of adult illiteracy, namely, problems of the English language, particularly those faced by immigrants in industrial areas? This is principally a problem for the Home Office, but does my hon. Friend acknowledge that some education authorities have refused to provide the 25 per cent. grant under the urban aid programme? Will she assure the House that her Department will consult Home Office Ministers so that money will be forthcoming to establish language training sectors for immigrant workers?
    Miss Jackson: We are looking into this problem. My hon. Friend will be aware that the BBC is currently considering dealing with this aspect in a programme similar to that dealing with the subject of adult illiteracy.
    Mr. William Shelton: If the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are, as they say, rightly concerned about illiteracy, is it not disgraceful that the Government have not yet found time to debate the Bullock Report on Illiteracy? Will she have a word with her

    209
    right hon. Friend the Leader of the House with a view to remedying this?
    Miss Jackson: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he has a word with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about finding time for a debate on a Supply Day.

  MORTGAGE INTEREST (TAX RELIEF)
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mannasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the administration of mortgage interest tax relief.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): Yes, Sir.
  Mr. McCrindle rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. McCrindle.
  Hon. Members: Oh!
  Mr. Douglas-Mann rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) did not rise initially. I shall call him later, if he wishes. I looked in his direction but he did not rise after the Prime Minister had said "Yes, Sir." The hon. Gentleman merely smiled. We are now wasting time. I have called the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle).
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: I was, perhaps, too anxious to congratulate my right hon. Friend on what has obviously been a most successful visit—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Gentleman later, if he wishes. I told him that I have called the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar.
  Mr. McCrindle: Does the Prime Minister agree with the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party that the maximum mortgage upon which tax relief should be allowed should be reduced from £25,000? Is this because the price of houses has decreased or because the influence of the Left has risen?
  The Prime Minister: The NEC has put forward a series of very interesting proposals, which were drawn to my attention this morning and which I shall study with great care. As for the limit on the value of houses—£25,000—I understand that for the past two years since the limit was fixed the price of houses in that range has not varied very much, and therefore the figure is pretty well stationary.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does the Prime Minister agree that there are many owner-occupiers at present receive far too little help? I have in mind particularly those buying for the first time, those who have bought within the past five years, and retired people who cannot afford to keep up their mortgages. On the other hand, there are others who bought their houses a good many years ago and whose housing costs now represent a very small proportion of their income and who, therefore, are receiving too much help?
  Will my right hon. Friend also pay attention to the NEDC Report, the contents of which were leaked by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), which drew attention to the extent to which savings are diverted from productive investment to investment in housing? Does my right hon. Friend consider that there would be social and economic benefit if he were to ask the two Ministers concerned to review this matter with a view to ensuring that there was at least some redistribution within the owner-occupier sphere?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raised a number of very important points, including the position of those who are first-time buyers as well as others who have to move their place of residence because of their work. The trouble with our mortgage interest relief system is that, like Topsy, it has "just growed." I think that there is a very good case for reviewing it, as the Housing Finance Review is now doing, and we shall present our conclusions to the House in due course—[Interruption.] I agree that it is taking rather longer than I had hoped, but this is a very complex topic and we must balance equity and fairness in studying these matters. I would sooner not rush it, as the system has grown up over such a long period.

  211
  I observed some of the newspaper remarks about the NEDO report. It may well be that my hon. Friend is right in saying that investment in housing has increased faster than investment in manufacturing. I do not think that that necessarily means that we should cut down investment in housing so much as increase investment in manufacturing.
  Mr. Cormack: Will the Prime Minister discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the very special problem facing the clergy and other low-paid people who must live in tied houses and who at the moment are denied mortgage interest relief on their retirement homes? This is a very deserving class of people.
  The Prime Minister: I understand that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury discussed this matter with the House last year, during the Finance Bill debates, and that he said that he would consider the matter again in the light of the interdepartmental review of the tax treatment of representative occupiers. At this stage in the financial year it is not right that I should anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget.
  Mr. Allaun: Is it not fairer that we should devote to owner-occupiers and council house tenants at the lower end of the scale some of the subsidies that now go to the richest house purchasers, some of whom are receiving over £40 a week in housing subsidy? Will my right hon. Friend devote some of the savings that I hope he will secure in that way to restore the cuts in house building and improvement?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot add to what has been said in earlier exchanges relating to the last part of my hon. Friend's question. The extent of mortgage interest tax relief and the levels at which that relief should be given are matters that should be left to the Housing Finance Review. I do not wish to anticipate the proposals.

  BIRMINGHAM
  Mr. Litterickasked the Prime Minister if he plans to visit Birmingham in the near future.
  Q3. Mr. Rookerasked the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Birmingham.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Litterick: Will my right hon. Friend accept my assurance that his answer will be widely regretted in Birmingham, particularly by the laboratory technicians who are now involved in a dispute with the management of Birmingham University—a dispute that is entirely due to the obdurate refusal of the management to implement a national agreement? Will the Prime Minister consult the Lord Privy Seal about inviting the Queen, in her capacity as visitor to the university, to institute an inquiry into the administration of the university, which is being negligently mismanaged?
  The Prime Minister: This is a strange situation, where a dispute over five or six days' annual leave has provoked a strike that has now lasted for five months. I do not intend to apportion responsibility in this dispute any more than I would in any other industrial dispute, but with all the resources that have been made available in one form and another it should be possible to find a mechanism to resolve the dispute without involving Her Majesty.
  Mr. Rooker: If my right hon. Friend visits Birmingham, will he see the vice-chancellor of the university and tell him that it is incompatible with enlightened management in the twentieth century to use violence against official pickets, including young females, to cause injury and to use blackleg labour to break an official strike? Will my right hon. Friend consider instituting a full and deep-searching public inquiry into the running of Birmingham University?
  The Prime Minister: I do not want to give an answer now about a deep-seated inquiry into the running of the university. Apart from this dispute I have no evidence of anything being wrong, although I have not studied in depth the running of this institute of learning.
  If there are allegations of criminal action by the police, Section 64 of the Police Act 1964 should be used. My hon. Friend should put Questions to the Secretary of State for Employment if there are allegations of the improper breaking of picket lines.
  Mr. Eyre: I recognise that the Prime Minister has other heavy obligations, but will he arrange to visit Birmingham as early as possible next week and to hold a public meeting at the Saltley gas works? Will he invite Birmingham housewives to consult him about the fantastic rise in prices and the appalling fall in living standards with inflation running at 21 per cent.? Will he explain to them why the Government have no faith in the Price Commission and why they have, by diktat, imposed an extra tax on gas users?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot undertake to go to Birmingham next week, but I shall not hesitate to explain to housewives that our economic policy must be regarded as a whole. I shall explain that as a result of action by the Government confidence in sterling has been restored, the balance of payments is going in the right direction, and industrial production in the last quarter has moved up by 1½ per cent.—although I shall not fall into the habit of the Opposition and multiply that by four in order to obtain an annual figure. I shall also tell housewives that the minimum lending rate for borrowing is now well below what it was when we came into office. I shall explain all these matters and indicate to the housewives of Birmingham and everywhere else that the Government's economic policy stands as a whole and will bring us through to success.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister now answer my hon. Friend's question? Why, while the Prime Minister rightly stresses that it is important not to breach phase 2 of the Pay Code, is he nevertheless prepared for the Government to breach the Price Code by raising the price of gas, as they intend to do?
  The Prime Minister: This matter was discussed in the House yesterday and no doubt it will be discussed again. There is no breach in this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced this in December last year and the Opposition did not take it up. There has been neither a breach nor any covert action. Unlike the situation that existed when the Opposition were in power, when the gas industry was allowed to drift into subsidy, when prices were kept down artificially and the nationalised industries ran into debt, this is a case in which the nationalised gas industry, like others, has
  214
  been rescued from the Opposition and is able to pay its way. The money will be used for the benefit of gas consumers.
  Mrs. Thatcher: If the Price Code has not been breached, why is the increase not allowable under it?
  The Prime Minister: The increase is not allowable under the Price Code within the rules that are laid down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Humbug."] Opposition Members are the last people who should shout "Humbug". We have brought the matter to the House and we shall ask the House for its confirmation of what we are doing. If the House refuses that confirmation it will destroy a part of the economic package as a whole. It is easy for the Opposition to pick out an individual item, but the policy is part of a whole. It is succeeding and will continue to do so.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 15th March 1977.
  Mr. Gowasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 15th March 1977.
  The Prime Minister: This morning I took the chair at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
  Mr. Morrison: In the light of the unfortunate fall in the volume in visible exports last month, does the Prime Minister agree that much of the credit for last month's surpluses should go to the City of London? Will he take time off to draw that to the attention of his hon. Friends below the Gangway and suggest to them that they should stop sniping at the City as they did last week, because by so doing they are sapping the morale of one of our best exporters?
  The Prime Minister: The fall-off in the volume of exports last month was to some extent due to the position in the car industry. [Interruption.] The trade unions have done a remarkable job in this very serious matter. The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering

  215
  Unions has issued a statement today. It is something that has never happened in our industrial history. It has agreed with British Leyland that if, when the workshops are reopened on Monday, the toolmakers do not get back to work they will have discharged themselves. That is unprecedented. Mr. Scanlon and other trade union leaders deserve the full support of the Opposition and everyone else.
  As for the Government's attitude, we of course support the joint statement that has been made by British Leyland and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. I am bound to point out, in this very serious situation, that what has happened so far means that the Government will have to review the future of British Leyland in the light of the way in which the situation develops. Whatever happens now, a review of British Leyland's plans will be needed. How drastic it will be will depend upon the speed which the men return to work.
  Mr. Gow: Does the Prime Minister recall that in the Chancellor's letter to the Managing Director of the IMF, of 15th December last, he stated that the twin pillars of the Government's strategy were the social contract and the industrial strategy? When, later today, the Prime Minister is preparing his party political broadcasts in advance of the by-election at Stechford, will he take the opportunity of explaining why, it is that those two pillars are pillars of straw?
  Mr. Bryan Davies: As my right hon. Friend's engagements for the remainder of the day seem fairly mundane, would he care to switch his list with mine and take the opportunity, this evening, of meeting the Lord Mayor of London near the Tower and perhaps conveying to that gentleman the advantages of holding one's office on the basis of direct election by the people rather than on the basis of a property qualification and a very restricted franchise?
  The Prime Minister: I understand that the question of direct elections is a vexed one and that principles can be applied differently in different places. However, certainly in the City of London I understand that elections are not regarded as being necessarily less valuable because
  216
  they are not wholly direct, or because they cover a large number of people. I have read my hon. Friend's recent speech. I thought that it was a very good one. However, the City of London contributes a very great deal financially to other London boroughs over the financial year.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Prime Minister accept that among the services provided to the Government by the trade unions was the selling of the social contract to their members? The appalling rise in food prices has shown that the implied assurances that prices would be kept down have entirely failed. Therefore, there is not the slightest justification for asking the unions to accept a further phase of the pay freeze.
  The Prime Minister: This is a very hard case to answer. While it is in the nation's interests that once again we should have another wage round and a wage settlement—the Opposition will take their own view—the truth is that sterling declined in value last autumn and, as a result, and because of the drought last year, food prices and the prices of commodities have risen very much. We are now beginning to see the end of that. As I said to the House previously, this will, I think, work its way through by mid-year, according to our forecasts. After that, because of the recovery in sterling and because of the measures that the Chancellor took, we expect the rate of inflation to diminish rapidly and substantially. If that is so, if we can get another wage round it will be well worth people's while to stick to that rather than have a free-for-all and see inflation go roaring away once again.
  We have a real chance in the next 12 months, and I intend to fight as hard as I can—whether it be the Opposition or anyone else—in order to try to get this country through.

UNITED STATES AND CANADA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on my visit to the United States and Canada, on which I was accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

217
Affairs. I apologise for the length of the statement.
This was my first opportunity of hearing at first hand the views of President Carter and the new Administration, a team which carries the heavy responsibility of guaranteeing the overall security of the Western democracies and of supervising and guiding the world's most powerful economy. It is very much a national interest to strike up a close and effective working relationship.
As my visit occurred during the British presidency of the European Community, I was able to explain to President Carter the attitudes of the Nine to some of the issues we discussed and the preoccupations of the Community.
The President has set in hand new initiatives on a number of different fronts and it was stimulating to observe a positive approach to some long-standing international problems and a willingness to take a new look at the long-term objectives and how they should be achieved. We had no difficulty in identifying the major problems facing the Western world, and we shared, to a very considerable degree, a common approach towards the way in which they should be tackled.
The President spoke warmly of the special relationship between America and Britain, and it is my intention that the Government should work closely with his Administration. We must also contribute to the maximum collaboration between the United States and the European Community, and President Carter made clear that he shares this purpose and desires to see the strengthening of the Community. The President also attached great importance to full consultation and co-operation with America's allies in the North Atlantic Alliance, and I warmly welcomed this. During my talks with Prime Minister Trudeau, who has himself recently visited Washington, I was glad to learn that he agreed generally with this judgment.
In both Washington and Ottawa the emphasis of the discussions was on economic problems, including our aims and prospects for the Downing Street Summit Conference to be held in May. I have every reason to believe that it is the intention of both President Carter and Prime Minister Trudeau that the
218
preparations for this conference, which have already begun, should be carried forward in a constructive manner, and that we should be ready to adopt a positive approach to the major issues when we meet with the other leaders of the leading Western industrialised countries.
We discussed the pressing problems—of unemployment, inflation and economic recession. I cannot claim that we discovered any panacea for these problems. But the important point is that there is an identity in our assessment. We recognised that it would take a considerable time to reduce the present high levels of world unemployment and agreed on the high priority we should give in this situation to the problem of unemployment among school leavers and among young people generally. We agreed on the need to tackle the problems caused by large and persisting imbalances in the world's external payments system. I suggested that these imbalances, particularly as they affect less developed countries, call for an expansion of the official facilities for financing balance of payments deficits. This is an area in which I look for major advances in the period ahead. President Carter and Prime Minister Trudeau both agreed that this problem should be examined as a matter of urgency.
We discussed whether the prospects for the multilateral trade negotiations would be set back by the present world recession. We agreed that general protectionism could serve only to delay the world's emergence from the present economic recession.
I advanced the view that if the United States, as the largest trading nation, was unable to resist pressures for protectionism at home, this would not only slow down progress in the negotiations but would encourage others to follow.
We discussed the problems of relations between industrialised and developing countries, which are being intensively examined in various international bodies. President Carter and I were agreed on the importance of adopting an understanding and constructive approach to the aspirations and needs of developing countries, which are reflected in the issues to be discussed at the ministerial meeting of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation in May. I was able to inform him of the discussions in

219
the Community on the preparation of a common position for the negotiations. In Ottawa, too, I was able to have useful discussions on these issues in the light of the special Canadian interest resulting from their position as co-chairman of the CIEC. In both capitals there is an encouraging desire to ensure a successful outcome of the ministerial meeting.
President Carter and I discussed at length the subject of human rights, on which, as the House knows, the President feels deeply and has expressed his views in a forthright manner. It was clear that President Carter had given very careful thought to his approach to this matter, and he welcomed the speech made recently by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. In the area of East-West relations we agreed on the importance of adopting a non-polemical approach to the Belgrade Conference and I was assured that the President is anxious to work closely with the Nine and with all their NATO partners with a view to a serious dialogue with the East at Belgrade. Europe need have no doubt that the new Administration shares a desire for improved detente between East and West, whilst maintaining adequate security.
We discussed the problems of nuclear non-proliferation and arms control, to which President Carter attaches high priority. Both of us subscribe to the same objectives. These are complicated issues but vitally important for the future security of the world. President Carter is well aware of the difficulties—political, technical and sometimes commercial—which lie before us in the search for solutions. But we were in complete agreement that renewed efforts must be made to resolve them.
We also discussed the situation in various parts of the world in which we have a mutual interest in helping to create or maintain stability. On the future of Cyprus, we welcomed the resumption of intercommunal talks at the meeting which is to take place shortly in Vienna. On the Middle East, President Carter informed me fully of the United States' latest ideas on the matter and I emphasised the importance of keeping closely in touch with each other over developments in this area.
220
In addition to the general talk I had with President Carter about Southern Africa as a whole, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary had detailed talks on Rhodesia and Namibia with Mr. Vance. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary informed them that he will visit Southern Africa during the Easter recess to have first-hand discussions with those most directly concerned.
President Carter confirmed that he is prepared to give his full support to our efforts to find a basis for a settlement, and that he will continue the co-operation with us which was begun under the previous Administration.
I took the opportunity of emphasising to the President our concern that Concorde should be allowed to land in New York. The President has indicated that he is in favour of a trial period. Judging from some of the statements which were made while I was there, it seems that American opinion may be moving slightly in our favour.
I end this report by saying that I am confident that President Carter will give a positive lead to the West in areas where American leadership is necessary and welcome and that the Administration's new ideas and initiatives are tempered by realism, and that I am confident that the President recognises the importance of fostering and strengthening his ties with America's allies by regular contacts and consultation. I look forward to welcoming him and Prime Minister Trudeau as well as the other leaders to the Downing Street conference in May.
Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that we warmly welcome his visit to the United States and that we particularly welcome his use of the phrase,
"special relationship between America and Britain"?
I understand that President Carter also used that phrase while the right hon. Gentleman was there.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a long statement, but I shall confine myself to three points. First, on the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, did the President renew the proposal that America would be prepared to spend more on the Alliance if her partners were willing to spend more, too? Is the Prime Minister aware that, while we know that he supports the Alliance, we find some

221
difference between what he says and his actions in the defence budget which seems to be cut constantly, whenever there is an opportunity?
Secondly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman a little more about Rhodesia? We understand from the statement that the Foreign Secretary will be visiting Southern Africa. Will he be going there with specific proposals? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House were disappointed that the Kissinger proposals did not come to fruition and that we are particularly anxious for proposals to be found that are acceptable to the people of Rhodesia?
Thirdly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the phrase about protectionism that he used on page 3 of his statement? It would seem that he had discussions with the President on this matter and, from what he said, that there was some fear of increased protection. Did the Prime Minister discuss the reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers with the President, because in America these barriers are sometimes higher than in the rest of the industrialised world?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for what she has said. The major part of our discussion on arms was on arms control and the prospect of reducing arms expenditure rather than increasing it. There is a general feeling that the burden on the Soviet Union, as well as on Britain and other countries, is becoming too great. Therefore, the President's approach is, I believe, based on the fact that if possible we should endeavour to reduce arms expenditure. The President might want a shift in the form of expenditure, but that would be a matter for later detail. At any rate, it is on these lines that we should begin discussions.
Our stand on Rhodesia is well known, and the Foreign Secretary will be looking for any development that can arise out of that stand. He will be looking for ways in which he can make a break through. We, too, regret that the Kissinger proposals did not come to a successful conclusion but, alas—to use the right hon. Lady's phrase—so far they have not been acceptable to the people as a whole and we have to concentrate on this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which people?"] The people of Rhodesia as a whole. That was what
222
I understood the right hon. Lady referred to. The basic principle is that of majority rule, and Mr. Smith has indicated that he is ready for majority rule within two years. If he intends to keep to that, it is possible to come to agreement, and that is the principle that the Foreign Secretary will be exploring while he is there.
As for increased protectionism, what I had in mind here is that a number of less developed countries are in great difficulties over their balance of payments. Whether the commercial banks will be able to continue to lend to them is a matter of dispute. If not, there is no way in which these countries can balance their books—unless they can get to the super tranches of the IMF—without some degree of protectionism. That was what I meant when I said that new instruments or the development of existing instruments may be necessary.
As for protectionism by the United States, we did not go into details, but I did mention one or two industries, such as specialty steels, where we would regret an extension of American protectionism.
Mr. David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome his statement and congratulate him on the close personal accord that he obviously established with the new Administration?
Will the Prime Minister give a clear undertaking that he will not regard the eventual judgment by the New York authorities on landing rights for Concorde as a yardstick of British-American relationships, because those relationships are too important for that?
Will the Prime Minister give us his views, based on the talks that he had, about industrial and economic problems? What was the Prime Minister's reaction to the close and often critical questioning that he received at the hands of American Press and television, and did it reinforce his view of the appalling picture that this country has presented abroad in recent years?
The Prime Minister: While I pressed the matter of Concorde strongly and will continue to do so, I did try to put it against the background of our broader relationships, and it is right that we should continue to do that. But that in no way lessens our strong view that we

223
have treaty rights with the United States and that we do not expect them to be overridden.
As for the appalling picture presented by American television, it is appalling but it is not a true picture. It is a headline picture, and it is one that is sometimes culled by American correspondents living in West End bars who never see anything of what is going on in the rest of the country. I was interviewed by one of these correspondents and I formed an opinion of him.
I am bound to say that in other, more informed, circles there was a different and more informed opinion about the way in which this country has gone through a period in which it has lost its Empire. Admittedly we have an industrial system that needs regenerating—that is agreed on both sides of the House—but there is a real understanding of the way in which the British people are facing the issues. I hope that anyone who goes to America—from either side of the House—will do his best to redress that appalling picture.
Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Did the Prime Minister have an opportunity of raising with the President—particularly in view of his positive attitude to NATO—the problems about AWACs, particularly in view of our own special problems in respect of Nimrod and the special requirements for British purposes that it might meet?
The Prime Minister: I discussed this, but I prefer not to go into details this afternoon.
Mr. Amery: On protectionism, does the Prime Minister agree that the objections that are being raised to Concorde have the flavour of what might be called indirect protection of a kind with which we have been familiar on many occasions in the past? Did the Prime Minister—as I hope—press this point on the President?
On Rhodesia, is the Prime Minister aware that guidance that has been given to the Press indicates that the Foreign Secretary will be going on a familiarisation visit and that he will not be visiting Rhodesia? Since the whole problem centres around Rhodesia, would it not be a good thing if the cast met the Prince of Denmark?
The Prime Minister: I am not certain what underlies the attitude of the New York Port Authority towards Concorde, but we must take into account that there are genuine environmental fears. Some of them are misguided, but the environmentalists seem to be making the running.
It would not be fitting at this stage for a British Minister to visit Rhodesia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because it is still a colony of this country and it is in rebellion. If Mr. Smith wished to make arrangements to see my right hon. Friend, I am sure a meeting could be arranged.
Mr. Dalyell: Did my right hon. Friend discuss either in Washington or, more probably, in Ottawa the question of uranium supplies, which is bothering us and a number of our partners in the EEC?
The Prime Minister: We discussed this matter under the general heading of non-proliferation. It is a technical question which we need to examine with great care. A whole review of our policy With the United States is needed and we shall undertake it now. A number of important matters arise from it.
Mr. Townsend: Will the Prime Minister follow President Carter's example and speak out strongly and effectively against the threats to human rights in the Soviet Union, as anywhere else, or does he still feel prevented from doing so by the search for détente and agreement on strategic arms control?
The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I understand that question. I have made speeches on this subject and they are all on the record. President Carter understands that there is no need to make one's point a dozen times. Everyone knows where I, my right hon. Friends and this Administration stand. The hon. Gentleman may not know that, but he is slow in catching up with almost anything. On our approach to the Soviet Union, we have to adjust our tactics to what will get the best results for the people for whom we are concerned. That is our basic attitude, bearing in mind our concern for human rights and freedom.
Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will not go unnoticed in this country that his positive defence of

225
the Government's policies was in contrast to the statements of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, in another foreign country yesterday, which will assist misunderstandings of our policies by the Press in America and other countries?
Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity of discussing with President Carter human rights in Chile—a country which America can influence a great deal because of its rôle in relation to Chile in the past? Are the Americans likely to apply pressure to get democracy re-established in Chile at the earliest opportunity?
The Prime Minister: In speeches overseas, I always take the view of Sir Winston Churchill who said that he attacked the Government relentlessly at home but defended it abroad. However, other times, other attitudes. It is all a matter of taste.
My hon. Friend asked about Chile. There was a more general discussion on the American attitude towards the Caribbean and South America. The extensive overlying American influence in that area is, in some ways, a matter of concern to the President. Although that influence cannot be removed, I think that he wishes to see it exerted beneficially. I do not want to go further than that at present.
Mr. Pattie: May I press the Prime Minister to say something about the AWACs and Nimrod project even though we accept that there are confidential aspects to it? Does he think that it would be a good idea if this country became more of an industrial satellite of the United States and lost our high-technology skills?
The Prime Minister: I have strong views on this subject, but as negotiations are going on, I do not want to endanger them by jumping the gun. I can, however, answer the hon. Gentleman's question in principle. I have no desire to see this country become an industrial satellite of the United States. Especially in regard to our maritime protection, we should, as far as possible, although by all means in partnership with our allies, be able to look after ourselves.
Dr. Bray: Did my right hon. Friend find any movement by the United States
226
on the UNCTAD proposals for a common fund?
The Prime Minister: It is a little difficult to define movement. For some months, especially before the election in America, United States policy was not utterly clear because of the imminence of the election. The new Administration have now pretty well reached a conclusion on their attitude and we should find it possible, as a result of their work, to reach a common conclusion between the EEC Nine and the United States.
Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I welcome what he is reported to have said in the United States in support of the President's stand on human rights? Is he aware that in the five statements that he listed in a recent Written Answer as illustrating his attitude on this matter, he failed to make any criticism of the violation of human rights in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe? Is he aware that if what he is reported to have said in the United States indicates that he is following President Carter's more robust stand, it will be welcomed on this side of the House?
The Prime Minister: We should try, even though we may not always succeed, to apply our standards and principles universally. I hope that in his pursuit of me on this subject, the hon. Gentleman will begin to extend the same condemnation to those areas of the world that have so far escaped his eagle eye.
Mr. Whitehead: I understand that while my right hon. Friend was in Ottawa there was some discussion with Premier Trudeau about the possibility of President Amin of Uganda coming to this country and that my right hon. Friend said that subsequent events, should that occur, would be a circus. What contingency plans did he discuss with Premier Trudeau should the clown actually get into the circus?
The Prime Minister: I think that we should try to keep President Amin a little off balance. I do not know that we should state our position so clearly that he will know what our response will be. I should prefer that he should wonder a little about what the position will be when he arrives. I can assure my hon. Friend that the possibility of

227
a visit by President Amin has not gone unnoticed.
Mr. Crouch: Did the question of this being a year of opportunity for a settlement in the Middle East come up in the Prime Minister's discussions with President Carter? Did the hon. Gentleman advance the idea that Britain, in conjunction with other EEC members, could offer much greater strength and initiative in helping to solve that problem?
The Prime Minister: This possibility was raised. The President indicated clearly that he was opening a debate in his reference to the possibility of legal frontiers that were different from defensible frontiers. He did not touch upon the future of the Palestinians on the West Bank. That is a different question to be considered later. The American Administration desire that, if possible, there should be an overall settlement, though I said that I did not think that much could happen before the Israeli elections and that any efforts would have to be concentrated in the second half of the year.
As far as our rôle and that of the EEC is concerned, there are different attitudes in the Middle East. President Sadat has always said to me that he would welcome a British presence, but I am not sure that it would be so welcome in other areas. We shall have to leave that matter until we are nearer a settlement—if we get to that stage this year. We would, of course, discharge our responsibility as a member of the UN Security Council if called upon to do so.
It is clear that the major influence in the Middle East, because of armaments supplies, finance and other matters, must rest with the United States, and Europe should not therefore attempt to pre-empt the United States but rather work in support of it.
Mr. Newens: In his discussions, did my right hon. Friend indicate that he supported President Carter's attitude on human rights, not merely in regard to East-West relations but also to the Third World in general? Did he have the opportunity to discuss military aid and arms supplies to Argentina and Brazil in the light of recent statements.
The Prime Minister: I answered a question a little while ago in general terms about South America and the Caribbean. There is little that I can add to what I then said. I am sure that President Carter, who is clear about these matters, would want to see the general principle that he has enunciated on human rights and individual freedom applied throughout the world irrespective of whether the régime be of the Right or of the Left. We discussed that particular matter.
I also made clear, as I have always done in this House and have sometimes been laughed at for my pains, that it is sometimes a little difficult to carry one's principles exactly into practice. I shall do my best to live up to them, but I shall not always succeed.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In the discussions on trade, which no doubt formed a very important part of the Prime Minister's discussions with President Carter and Prime Minister Trudeau, was there any common ground that it was wrong to undermine the position of a strategic industry in various Western countries in relation to the developing world? I refer particularly to textiles. Was there any common ground on the policy that the Governments of Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom would take in the renegotiation of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement and also the Tokyo Round?
The Prime Minister: We did not discuss the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, although it is of great importance. But the negotiations, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have already started. I know that there is great concern in Ottawa as well as in the United States about this matter. I must warn the House that, as far as I know at the moment, the United States would prefer to see the Multi-Fibre Arrangement renegotiated without amendment. Therefore, we did not discuss it in detail, but there will obviously be great difficulties. We would like to see certain changes made in it this year.
Mr. Spriggs: Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity of raising the question of unemployment among men and women aged between 45 and 55? If not, why not? What steps are the Government prepared to take to deal with this important problem?
The Prime Minister: I agree that this problem is as important as other problems that we discussed, but I cannot claim that we discussed this particular matter. I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that there were certain limitations on our time. We did bend our attention to the overall problem of unemployment, particularly of young people. I shall take account of what my hon. Friend said in our preparations for later discussions.
Mr. Grylls: If what the Prime Minister said in Washington is true—that the standard of living of the British people has been deliberately reduced by the Labour Government over the last 18 months—will he confirm whether that was in the Labour Party's 1974 manifesto?
The Prime Minister: The Labour Party's manifesto said that we would earn our living and make sure that the balance of payments was put right after the disgraceful way in which it had been left by the Conservative Government. That meant that certain steps had to be taken, including reducing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Borrowing."]—including borrowing and reducing the money supply, which again was one of the worst features of the last Government. That has resulted—I was not able to explain it on American television in detail—in a reduction in the standard of life in Britain. I do not apologise for that. It is an essential condition for getting ourselves right and getting Britain out of the mess in which it has been for so long. We have been misrepresented by the hon. Gentleman and others and we shall be misunderstood. Nevertheless, we must fight our way through this problem. It is as much in the hon. Gentleman's interests as in anyone else's that we should do so.
Mr. Greville Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most Labour Members and, I should think, most people in the country appreciate the attitude that he and the Foreign Secretary have taken on human rights both in the Soviet Union and elsewhere and that we resent the attacks which have come from the Opposition on this matter? But that said, will he apply the same principles to Uganda as to elsewhere? Will he and did he express to the American President and the Canadian Prime Minister the indignation
230
of the British people at the breaches of human rights in Uganda and the possibility of the President of that country being allowed into Britain?
The Prime Minister: This matter came up in the course of discussions in Ottawa in particular, not so much in the United States, although the United States has had some controversy with President Amin. There was a great deal of interest shown in Ottawa. I am on record on Canadian television as making clear the position of the whole House and the great indignation that is felt in all parts of this country at what is happening in Uganda. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that there is no doubt in the minds of Canadians about that matter. Indeed, the Canadian Foreign Minister, Mr. Jamieson, went on television immediately afterwards and repeated what I had said.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not unreasonable now to say that I shall call only two more questions from each side of the House.
Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of the particular interest of the new American Administration's friendly relations with Japan, did President Carter make any comments on the growing trade problems between the European Community and that country?
The Prime Minister: We did not discuss that matter in detail, because we shall have an opportunity of doing so in May. Mr. Fukuda, the Japanese Prime Minister, will be going to Washington within a relatively short time. It was always in the back of our minds that the great productivity capacity of Japan involves a serious threat to some industries in other parts of the world.
Mr. Anthony Grant: When the Prime Minister, quite rightly, raised the dangers of protectionism with President Carter, did he assure the President that this country would be setting a good example in this respect? Did he assure him in particular that it was no part of the Government's policy to impose import controls?
The Prime Minister: No. I did not assure President Carter on either of those matters, because it would not have been strictly accurate to do so. I put it rather

231
the other way. I said that if the United States, which was under pressure, gave way to protectionism, I did not see how any other country, especially a country such as ours, could have a real answer to it, although we would all be going down the wrong road if we did it. I think that the result of the multilateral trade negotiations will to a great extent depend on how far we can ensure that there is a rapid rate of growth in the industrial world.
I think that this Government's position on protectionism is well known. We are ready to introduce protectionist practices where an industry which would otherwise be viable is being crushed out as a result of the recession. I think that is the case, for example, in one or two illustrations which I imagine hon. Members on both sides can think of. It would be foolish to deny ourselves that weapon, especially in relation to some of our industries.
Mr. Molloy: Will the Prime Minister not treat too lightly the remarkable achievements of his visit to America and Canada, because he has done much to repair the damage which has unjustly been inflicted on Britain in speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition? It was about time that the record was put right, and my right hon. Friend has done it remarkably well.
When President Carter comes to Britain, will my right hon. Friend assure him that the anti-black minority in this House is confined to a tiny segment of the Tory Party and that the overwhelming majority of Members deplore all forms of apartheid and colour bar?
The Prime Minister: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for what he said. I do not think that there will be any difference between the attitude of the American Administration and ourselves on apartheid. I hope that our attitude is universally shared in this House.
On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is a very worrying fact that the real position of this country is so distorted abroad. We have got into a trend now in which everything which is wrong is headlined and everything which is good is put down at the bottom of the page. In the old days we could
232
afford the self-denigration factor. We cannot afford it any longer. We are fighting for our lives. Therefore, I think that it is beholden on all of us to try to give a fair representation of this country's position.
Mr. Wiggin: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement that the future of Rhodesia should be decided by the people of that country. But is it not a contradiction in terms that the Foreign Secretary should go to Southern Africa and consult everybody but those same people? Did the Prime Minister discuss with President Carter the substantial olive branch which Mr. Smith extended in response to the Kissinger proposals and which should and must immediately be recognised by this Government?
The Prime Minister: I realise that there is a move for it but I do not think that it is necessarily something that my right hon. Friend should do at present on his visit, although it is for him to take a decision on it. There may be later opportunities for meetings. I would not rule that out at all. There are some indications of movement by Mr. Smith, but he will have to move pretty fast if he is to live up to the declared intention to introduce majority rule within a period of two years, and the more signs we can see of that—although Mr. Smith has his difficulties, which I understand—the better prospects there will be of coming to a peaceful solution. Otherwise, the guerrilla war will intensify.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: Unless there is objection, I shall put the three motions relating to Statutory Instruments together.
Ordered,
That the draft County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Diplomatic Immunities (Conferences) (Papua New Guinea and Western Samoa) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) (Amendment) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 361) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]

HOUSING (SHORTHOLD TENANCIES)
4.11 p.m.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for the letting of residential properties on fixed terms; and for purposes connected therewith.
I am seeking the leave of the House to reintroduce the Bill which I introduced last Session, to give effect to the concept of shorthold tenancies.
I should like to begin by making it clear that I am not seeking to end security of tenure for any sitting tenant, nor for the majority of new tenancies, but to provide a reasonable legal framework under which people with premises suitable for letting for periods of a year or more, and people looking for houses or flats for a similar period, can reach an agreement that is fair and comprehensible to both parties and can be properly supervised by the appropriate authority. I am not seeking simply to revive the old leasehold concept, but to introduce something new, which will include a series of safeguards for the tenant which I hope will be sufficient to end any possibility of exploitation or abuse. I can give the House a list of these safeguards, and I would certainly be prepared to add to them in the light of constructive suggestions by hon. Members which would improve the Bill.
First, I would insist that a shorthold tenancy must only be created at the fair rent. The subject of fair rents is under discussion as a result of the Government's recent discussion paper; but I am not seeking in any way to enter that controversy. Like its predecessor, this Bill would only permit shorthold tenancies at the fair rent.
I would also insist that the premises must be at least equal to the standard set for discretionary improvement grants. That of course is a better standard than the minimum laid down by the Public Health Acts, and I recognise that it would have the effect of limiting the range of types of property for which shorthold leases could be created; but I think that we need to be certain that we are not going to bring on to the market premises
234
which are not really habitable or of a minimum desirable standard.
I would provide that the sitting short-holder should have the first claim on any extension of the tenancy if the owner decided to offer the premises for letting again when the period of the shorthold came to an end. I would insist that the rent officer should be satisfied that both parties were aware of their rights before they signed. I should also like to provide that the rent officer should publish a list of premises which had been inspected and were considered suitable for shorthold letting: the list should certainly be open to public inspection. I would not object if the rent officer had the right to enter premises during the course of a tenancy in order to ensure that the property was being maintained at a reasonable standard.
I should like to make provision to cover the taking of deposits to make sure that there would be no possibility of exploitation there, or in regard to rent in advance; and also to provide for minimum notice periods. I consider that the shorthold contract should also provide a clear division of responsibility in regard to maintenance and repairs.
Many hon. Members in all quarters of the House and many experts outside have told me that they see merit in a reform on the' lines of my Bill, but I am certainly prepared to improve it or to change it. What I am seeking to do is to give hon. Members the opportunity to discuss the idea in detail and, I hope, in an uncontroversial atmosphere.
I would be happy to add further protection for the shorthold tenant. For instance, I know that it would be in line with the thinking of the Department if one were actually to define the cases in which the owner could resume possession. I have not sought to do so in the Bill, because to my mind such a provision could tend to limit its range of application too much; but I would not hestitate to seek a compromise along these lines and I hope that the Department will be so good as to let me have specific recommendations that might be included in the Bill.
I would also be prepared to consider the possibility that the scheme might be applied only in certain areas where the problems of vacant properties and homelessness live glaringly side by side. This

235
is a particluar problem of Kensington and other parts of inner London, but I think that it applies in other inner urban areas in the country as well and that my Bill could have a useful general application.
I think that it is not denied that we now have a surplus of houses even in the housing stress areas, yet we have an increasing problem of homelessness and the very vexatious problem of squatting. I believe that squatting is often carried out by people who would be willing to enter into a proper form of lease and who could afford to pay at least the fair rent if they had the opportunity to do so.
But landlords are undoubtedly afraid of letting property which would be suitable to provide homes for periods of months or years, or, indeed, for many years. I believe that they would not be so afraid if they could have the confidence that when the time came that they needed to resume possession there would not be too much difficulty in their doing so.
The House has a duty to study this problem in the interests of common sense and also of humanity. I reject the view of hon. Members who feel that, rather than make any infringement at all on the principle of security of tenure, it would be better for people seeking accommodation to remain where they now are. I believe that it would be wrong for the House to take a stand on that ideal, when further research might show that a limited area of reform could bring great benefits.
I cannot calculate whether there might be hundreds of thousands of premises
236
which would be brought on to the market as a result of the passing of a Bill on these lines, or whether it would be only tens of thousands. But even if it were only tens of thousands, it would be right for the House to make progress in that direction. I recognise that there are difficulties, and they will have to be overcome by meticulous study of the facts. Chairman Mao once said that to investigate a problem was to solve it. I think that this is a problem which the House can and ought to solve.
I trust, therefore, that the House will allow me to reintroduce my Bill, and thereby give hon. Members who are interested in housing problems the opportunity to go into the idea more fully. I hope also that the Bill may proceed at least to the Committee stage before this Session ends.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. Peter Brooke, Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. Reginald Eyre, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. David Knox, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. Michael Shersby and Mr. Cyril D. Townsend.

HOUSING (SHORTHOLD TENANCIES)
  HOUSING (SHORTHOLD TENANCIES)
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision for the letting of residential properties on fixed terms; and for purposes connected therewith. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second Time upon Friday 22nd April and to be printed. [Bill 87.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
    Schedule 2

      SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
      Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 82, leave out lines 18 to 30.
      4.20 p.m.
      The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
      Mr. Norman Lamont: I do not wish to be very much longer than the Minister of State, but in expressing a general welcome for the amendments that he has proposed we wish to make quite clear that our attitude to this legislation has in no way changed. In no way do we think that the Bill will do anything to help the shipbuilding industry to face the problems of contraction. Neither will the Bill contribute anything to solving the problems of the aircraft industry. The aircraft industry is one of our most successful industries, and the Bill will do it nothing but harm.
      Having said that, we have to examine our attitude to the Government's concessions in the light of the Parliament Act hanging over the Bill. It seems that the choice open to us is between further delay in seeing all the companies included in the Bill nationalised, including the 12 ship-repairing companies, or, alternatively, the quick passage of the Bill minus the 12 ship-repairing companies encompassed in the Lords amendments.
      It is a sad choice with which to be faced, but I think that the likelihood of the Bill's becoming law through the Parliament Act means that we must accept the Lords Amendments. The Government have not removed all ship-repairing activities with their
      238
      amendments. I regret that they have not made it 13 companies instead of 12. We regret that the Government were unable to see their way to excluding Vosper Thorny-croft's ship-repairing business.
      Mr. Speaker: This is a very opportune moment for me to tell the House that we are able to discuss—as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) was about to discuss—only the companies included in the amendments. Regrets, fears and anxieties about any companies that are not included in the amendments would be completely out of order.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely there is a question of equity between those who are left out of the Bill and those who are not. Would not any consideration of the amendments require us to consider equity?
      Mr. Speaker: I fear not. All that the House is called upon to do today is to agree or disagree with the Lords amendments. It is only the Lords amendments, not what ought to be in them, that we have to discuss.
      Mr. Lamont: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are aware, the consequence of the amendments will be that people who intended to petition against the legislation will no longer be able to do so. The amendments therefore have certain consequences for certain interests, in that some people will no longer be able to make the case that they expected to be able to make. Is it not possible to refer in any way to those people who feel that their rights will have been affected by the amendments?
      Mr. Speaker: I fear not. I have to rule firmly on this. We must keep to the contents of the Lords amendments. We cannot widen the discussion.
      Mr. Stan Thorne: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I assume that it is in order to address ourselves to the implications of removing the ship-repairing industry from the Bill, in accordance with the Lords amendments. Surely that would be in order.
      Mr. Speaker: What is in order is to discuss the contents of the Lords amendments. Nothing else is in order. We have

      239
      had our wider discussions on the broader issues, and so has another place.
      Mr. Lamont: Of course we accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and it is clear what we cannot discuss. We have made clear from the beginning that we think that ship repairing is and always was an industry particularly unsuited to nationalisation. It is an industry dependent on speed in doing its work and on service. Many of the companies that were to be nationalised had only a small number of employees, sometimes fewer than 100.
      We welcome the fact that the Government have at last shown reasonableness and a little accommodation. If only we could have had these qualities earlier, the Government could have had their Bill earlier. We have now spent a very large part of Parliament's time on this legislation. The Bill was first introduced in 1974 and has spanned no fewer than three Sessions of Parliament.
      Despite the concessions offered by the Opposition, the Government decided to press on with the Bill, to their own disadvantage and to the disadvantage of everybody else. They have been more concerned not to lose face than with the consequences for industry. That is why few measures have ever got into such a mess as this Bill.
      The Government have blamed the Lords for the delay, yet sometimes it appeared that the Government themselves were not so unwilling to see a delay. At other times we wondered what was the reason for the rush, because the Government have not been able to decide where the headquarters of the new nationalised shipbuilding industry ought to be. If they cannot decide that, we wonder what right they have to complain about the delay.
      The delay has not been the fault of the House of Lords, which is one institution which has emerged from the story with considerable credit. Had it not been for the House of Lords, there would have been no opportunity for the Examiners to determine that the Bill was a hybrid Bill, which the Government had denied. This was not just a diverting parliamentary ploy, as the Secretary of State for Industry once called it. It was an important matter of principle and practice. It was quite wrong that the Government should have tried to use their slim
      240
      majority to set aside procedures that have been long established to protect the liberties of individuals.
      We do not like the proposals in the Bill. We do not like nationalisation. Nevertheless, we wish to make clear that we wish the two corporations success and we hope that the Government's dealings with them will be dominated by a little less dogma than their handling of this Bill.
      Mr. Thorne: I understand from Mr. Speaker's ruling that we are addressing ourselves to Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the first of which refers to taking out of the Bill the list of ship-repairing companies. As a consequence, ship repairing is removed from the Bill. I am one of those who prefer to see that happen rather than to see any further delay in the public ownership of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. On that ground, I and many of my colleagues accept the situation with which we are faced. The sooner the job is done, the better.
      I wish to make two or three points which, I hope will be in order on the basis of Mr. Speaker's ruling. They arise from the deletion of the ship-repairing companies which will therefore not be nationalised. If any of these ship-repairing companies run into difficulties in future, they might apply to the Department of Industry for financial support for their undertakings. As a consequence, public funds will be made available to them. I hope that it will be possible for the Secretary of State for Industry to indicate that in that event we should reconsider our whole approach to providing public funds, particularly to firms that have indicated their opposition to public ownership. If these companies are to receive any public funds, ways should be found to provide public accountability in respect of those funds. Clearly, the best way of doing that is what was envisaged when the Bill was drawn up, namely, public ownership.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) said something about what would happen to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries after the Bill was passed. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognises that a major building operation is required in both industries, and that there

      241
      are major employment problems, particularly for the aircraft industry. Many of my constituents are workers in that industry, and it will be necessary, immediately following the establishment of the two corporations, for discussions to be held with the trade union movement to determine what urgent steps should be taken to prevent a likely contraction of the work force.
      I am sure that my right hon. Friend can give that sort of undertaking if it is appropriate and in order—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I have been considering the line being developed by the hon. Gentleman. It is not in order to pursue that line during discussion of the three Lords amendments.
      Mr. Thorne: In view of that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall draw my remarks to a close merely by welcoming the fact that at last the aircraft and shipbuilding industries will be taken into public ownership.
      Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Two things need to be said at this final stage in the passage of the Bill. The first is that the Lords have done exactly what they said they would do and not what the Government accuse them of doing. The Lords said that they passed the amendments to remove ship repairing so as to take out the hybridity in the Bill. The Government denied that and accused the House of Lords of delaying the legislation. Had the House of Lords wanted to do more than remove the hybridity, it would have been at liberty to remove the ship-repairing activities of companies included under the shipbuilding provisions, but it did not.
      The second point concerns an event which passed unnoticed in the Press at the time, though it should not have done so, because it is the reason we have these amendments before us today. We had similar amendments before us on Tuesday 7th December. They failed to pass by two votes on that occasion because three Liberal Members—the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston)—failed to vote with their colleagues for those amendments that day. Had those amendments been carried, the Bill would have left
      242
      this House for the House of Lords with the hybrid element removed. The Lords would not then have had to—
      Mr. Thorne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the ruling from the Chair, is the matter now being raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) in order?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: As far as I have heard the hon. Member, he has been in order, and I am sure that he will stay in order.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am explaining why it is desirable in my view that we should agree with the House of Lords in these amendments, which is the Question before the House.
      The amendments are necessary because of the decision that the House took on Tuesday 7th December when three Liberal Members failed to vote with their colleagues and with the Conservatives, the SNP, the Welsh nationalists and the, for once appropriately called, United Ulster Unionists. In fact, the entire Opposition and some Members of the Government supported the amendments.
      Because of that decision the House of Lords had to spend 27 days in hearings and devote to the Bill a lot of legislative time, a process which otherwise would not have been necessary. That being the case, we can now repair the omission by those three Liberal Members by adopting these amendments, which I therefore commend to the House.
      Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I intervene only briefly, but since this group of amendments affects many of my constituents directly, it is only right for me to seek certain assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister of State before we agree to the Lords amendments.
      I am referring, of course, to the exclusion of the ship-repairing companies, many of which are in my constituency. A large number of my constituents—the largest single group of workers in my constituency—work for those companies. May I have an assurance that three companies which employ my constituents—Brigham and Cowan Ltd., the Mercantile Dry Dock Co. Ltd., and the

      243
      Middle Docks and Engineering Company Ltd., all of which form part of North-East Coast Ship Repairers Limited and which are already in public ownership—will be taken into the new public holding company?
      Mr. Kaufman indicated assent.
      Mr. Blenkinsop: May we therefore have an assurance that there will be no delay in these companies developing projects that are eagerly anticipated by the men in those yards who are anxious to make their full contribution to this activity?
      Another ship-repair company is mentioned in this list. It is Swan Hunter Ship Repairers Tyne Limited, which has a yard in my constituency. That firm is of course related to the Swan Hunter shipbuilding company and I am not clear whether the repair company will be taken into the holding company.
      Finally, I wish to make clear that my constituents regret that it has been necessary to accept the amendment, as they had hoped that the Bill would go forward in its original version.
      Mr. Kaufman: May I assist my hon. Friend? The three subsidiaries of North-East Coast Ship Repairers will be transferred to the corporation. Swan Hunter Ship Repairers Tyne Limited will be excluded by the amendments. If that company, however, wishes to discuss with the Department of Industry the acquisition by British Shipbuilders of Swan Hunter Ship Repairers Tyne Limited on suitable terms, we shall be glad to discuss it with the company as we are already discussing the matter with three other companies that are excluded from the list and that have approached us with a view to being acquired.
      Mr. Peter Viggers: I support the Lords in their amendments. The fact that the resultant Bill is a shabby compromise lacking any principle is no fault of the Opposition. There is nothing further that one can say without going beyond the rules of order.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

  OFFICIAL REPORT (PRINTING)
  4.40 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move,
  That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their First Report.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I should intimate that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment which has been submitted.
  Mr. Foot: I begin by apologising to the House for not having been able to be present when the motion which is now on the Order Paper was previously debated. I have, however, carefully read the debate that occurred on that occasion and have taken into account what was said. I hope that hon. Members, especially those who have put their names to the amendment, will have found my hon. Friends' answer published in Hansard on 9th March useful in helping them understand why the Services Committee has asked the House to endorse its recommendation.
  I think that this, and the Answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), answers the criticism in the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The existing parliamentary Press is, in the Government's—
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: As some of us have, unfortunately, not had the opportunity of looking at those Answers closely, can my right hon. Friend say what the Answers are because they will determine our attitude to this matter?
  Mr. Foot: I hope to cover that point in my remarks. I fully understand what my hon. Friend says. Part of them dealt with the question of consultation. There was some criticism that some Officers of the House had not been fully consulted. I think it will be found that consultation did take place. There were also sonic questions relating to cost. I shall touch further on these aspects of the matter in my brief remarks. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), and other hon. Members, will agree that the matter has been properly dealt with.

  245
  The existing parliamentary Press is, in the Government's view, obsolescent and unable to cope with the increasing demands that Parliament makes upon it. As the House knows, the Government decided that the machinery must be replaced as soon as possible, probably within about two years. This debate is therefore different from the earlier one on experimental changes in our printing arrangements designed to achieve savings and a better service to hon. Members. It may assist the House if I said a brief word about those experiments now because it might help hon. Members to come to a view on the motion now before us.
  The 9 p.m. cut-off time for the marshalling of printed amendments, which was discussed on the previous occasion, seems to have met with general success and the printers have certainly found it a great help. The change in the format for added names to Early-Day Motions has, however, not been welcomed with such open arms and criticism has been such that I propose to ask the Services Committee to re-examine the experiment as soon as possible. Taking into account the representations from the House, my view is that the House will probably wish to abandon the experiment. At any rate, it was introduced as an experiment and hon. Members have had an opportunity of putting their views.
  Some hon. Members may wish to refer to the matter again during the debate, although it is not the direct question under debate. The debate on today's motion starts from a different standpoint. There has to be a change in machinery in any case and it is for the House to take this opportunity to move to a standard sized paper. Initially, it is proposed to use it for Hansard reports of debates on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committees. Standardising to A4 would give the most advantages. It would mean that the number of pages printed would be reduced by over 25 per cent. thereby saving production time and giving a more efficient service. Standardisation would mean that fewer printing machines would be needed, and they would be cheaper and easier to instal and run. Her Majesty's Stationery Office has estimated that there would be a capital saving of about £182,000 if machines were geared to A4, not to mention substantial savings in running costs.
  246
  I notice that some hon. Members size of the saving during the last debate but I must say that it would be unwise for the House to criticise savings in public money of whatever I do not think that £182,000 is insignificant.
  Mr. Nigel Lawson: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman that I was unable to be in my place when he began his speech. Does he not agree that the true net saving from A4 is considerably less than £182,000? If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about savings per annum in manpower, then the savings are certainly remarkably high according to the Written Answer that I received on Monday. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it appears that it would take three times as much manpower to standardise to A5 as to standardise to A4? The normal printed Hansard size falls between A4 and A5 but is much nearer A5. These figures seem to be remarkable and need checking up.
  Mr. Foot: I cannot check the figures on the spot, but I have them in front of me. Certainly those are the figures that have been produced by my hon. Friend's Department, and they are the figures on which we have been working. It was on that basis that we have recommended that this would be the saving that would be achieved. If there is any further information to be devised about A5 compared with A4, and the £256,000 savings compared with the £87,000 in manpower costs per annum, I shall certainly look at the matter since the hon. Gentleman has raised it. But these are the figures as we have them. I therefore think it is correct to say that there is no reason why we should doubt the claim about the general saving to which I have referred.
  The A4 size has the highest savings on both counts according to the reckonings we have made. Nor do I accept one of the points made by some hon. Members in the debate that the A4 size is more inconvenient and clumsy. It would mean much slimmer volumes. I personally find that the present daily volume is not so easy to open and read.
  The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) maintained that he could read the present size in bed but would find A4 difficult. All I can say is that I can

  247
  read The Spectator quite happily in bed. I would not recommend it on all occasions, but in some respects I find it easier to read than reading the present Hansard.
  Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend must be aware that many of us would agree with the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) that the present size is a most useful size. It can be carried around in one's pocket and it can be extracted very easily when one wants it. A larger Hansard of the kind envisaged would be much more cumbersome.
  We may save money to the Government but what about all the bookshelves that will need to be changed? We should have to change Members' bookshelves and those in the Libraries. There will be extra cost all round in other directions. There will be costs in this House if bookshelves have to be altered and so on. We shall find that the savings will have to be weighed against a much higher cost all round for other people.
  Mr. Foot: Obviously, these are some of the questions which have been in the minds of hon. Members and were raised in the previous debate. On the question of convenience, I think that the new size is more convenient than the older one, but, as I said before, it is a matter of taste. How easy it is to get the present Hansard into one's pocket depends on the size of one's pocket and I do not believe that it is so easy after all. I believe that the new form will be found in many respects more convenient. That is one reason why we advocate it and why the Committee advocated it.
  Moreover, the Committee went into many of these difficulties. We do not accept that one would have to change the size of shelves to store the Hansards or that that would be a countervailing charge which would reduce the advantage of the Services Committee's proposal.
  I, too, think that we should take into account some other aspect of the matter. We should think for a moment about those—our secretaries, civil servants and librarians—who face the unenviable job of taking endless copies from Hansard. Apart from the fact that they would be greatly helped by a slimmer volume, most photocopiers and reproducing paper are
  248
  now in A4 size. It is true that some bookshelves may need adjustment, but most shelving is adjustable anyway.
  I have made inquiries and I understand that the Officers of the House involved—the Clerk, the Librarian, the Editor of Hansard and the Deliverer of the Vote—were all consulted. I am told that although any change in size would inevitably involve some adjustment of shelving, they have no objections to a change in form should it be desirable for other reasons.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: I cannot imagine that the right hon. Gentleman, for all his generosity, has a pocket quite as large as the proposed new size. He is quite right in what he says about adjustable shelving from the point of view of height, and most libraries will take Hansard, keeping the modern ones on display and storing the others. But to put copies of Hansard of the new size on shelves will mean tremendous alterations in an enormous number of public libraries, if not in this House.
  Mr. Foot: I did not say that the new size would be more convenient to put in one's pocket. I said that whether the present Hansard was convenient depended on the size of the pocket. There is some difficulty in putting the present Hansard in one's pocket. The new one is a larger size, but it can be folded more easily and has advantages in the way in which it can be opened. So there are countervailing advantages in the new form.
  All these factors were taken into account by the Committee which examined the matter and made the recommendation to the Services Committee, and were included among the reasons why the Services Committee accepted them.
  As for the alteration in the size of shelves, it is true that other libraries than our own could be affected by the change. However, I think that we would all acknowledge that the hon. Member who dealt with this matter in the interests of the House was right to take into account what was said by the Librarian of the House. However, the House itself is entitled to make the judgment of what is best for its own use in years to come. While some adjustment may be needed,

  249
  it would not be necessary to make anything like the major changes that some people have suggested.
  Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman not distinguish more clearly between the two separate issues involved here? The first is whether the size of all parliamentary papers should be standardised on the same size of equipment. There are savings flowing from that, which no hon. Member has challenged. But the second issue is the question of on which size they should be standardised. On that, there is considerable feeling on both sides of the House that the new proposal is wrong. From the Written Answer to which I alluded earlier, the right hon. Gentleman will see that if everything were standardised on the present size of Hansard and there was no change, the capital saving would amount to £360,000 and the manpower saving to £87,000 per annum, on the Minister's own figures. Would the right hon. Gentleman not be content with that as a compromise, rather than flying in the face of articulated opinion on both sides of the House?
  Mr. Foot: I fully accept that the representations of the hon. Member and of my hon. Friends have to be taken into account. That is why the matter is submitted to the House and there is to be a free vote whether we should proceed with these proposals. The various alternatives were carefully considered by the Sub-Committee which dealt with this problem and then by the Services Committee. It is on that basis that this course has been recommended to the House.
  Returning to the comparison of sizes, although each page of the new size would carry more words, the lay-out would be redesigned for ease of reference. There need be no worry on that score. A specimen was attached to the Select Committee's Report and I personally found the suggested arrangements clear and helpful.
  As I said, this is a matter on which the House must make up its own mind, but I would ask hon. Members to support the Select Committee's recommendations and allow Her Majesty's Stationery Office to replace its obsolescent equipment with machinery which will not only let it take full advantage of modern
  250
  machinery and technology, to everyone's benefit, but will also make available a cheaper and more efficient service.
  In my opinion—I believe that it is also the overwhelming view of hon. Members who have had the advantage of all the services we get from HMSO—the Stationery Office is one of the most efficient bodies in the world for assisting a Parliament. We should do everything in our power to ensure that that standard of service to hon. Members is sustained in years to come.
  It is on that basis that we have looked to the future to decide how we may best make use of the new arrangements which are available to make the choices that we have to make for the future. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), who does great service to the House and spends many hours in devoted service to ensuring the best operation of the House, chaired the Sub-Committee which made the recommendation to the Services Committee. The latter believed that that recommendation deserved full backing, for the reasons which the hon. Gentleman outlined.
  There is no question of something being foisted on us by the Stationery Office. The matter has been considered by hon. Members who were charged with the task of considering what recommendations should he made to the House.
  Mr. Heffer: They have made some bad decisions in the past.
  Mr. Foot: They may have made some mistaken decisions in the past but I believe that in the main the services of the Stationery Office to this House are of a high standard and that this motion will ensure that that service is sustained in future and that we shall make the best use of the facilities which will be available. I hope that on that basis the House will be prepared to accept the motion.
  4.59 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Hawkins: I sat on the Committee which considered this matter. I began with the firm conclusion that changing the shape and size of Hansard would be wrong. However, I was completely convinced on the evidence given that it was essential to go over to the new size. One of the main reasons which convinced me was not only the new machinery, which will

  251
  undoubtedly cheapen the process of printing. Several times in the past, papers have been delayed by strikes and so on. The men in that department are under constant pressure because of obsolete machinery and because of their conditions. I was convinced that by altering the size, and accepting the other recommendations, we should give them a far better chance of turning out a good job.
  I support the Leader of the House in saying how much work my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) has done, and paying tribute to the meticulous care which he has taken in going into this difficult problem. Although I have been a Member for only 12 years, I realise that we do not like altering the size or shape of something which we have become used to. I, too, have bound volumes of Hansard and I should have to adapt my shelves for the new volumes. But for the sake of generations to come in this House, it is essential that we adopt the recommendation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I repeat for the benefit of the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment.
  5.1 p.m.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I beg to move, to leave out from House to the end of Question and to add instead thereof:
  "declines to agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their First Report since no Report concerning the proposed changes of printing arrangements for Parliament has been made available to this House; and calls upon the Services Committee to provide more comprehensive information, including evidence taken from the Officers of the House before presenting a further Report".
  I am sure that it is only because my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) did not expect the earlier business to collapse so soon that he is not here. I am sorry about that, because I am sure that he feels even more strongly on this than some of the rest of us do and would speak more forcibly on the subject. But I have some points to make about it.
  The proposal comes from the Services Committee. That body has given us the car park, and the canopy over the Member's entrance, which cost about £28,000—or perhaps it was £18,000; it
  252
  was certainly a preposterous sum of money. It is the body which has erected the two notices down on the Interview Floor—quite cheap at the price, a couple of hundred pounds, for a few bits of chipboard made into hexagonal boxes. It is the body which has authorised the payment of slightly more than £1,000 for redecoration of what used to be one of the television rooms upstairs. That room has become a sort of mixture of the private room of the Chairman of the Accommodation Sub-Committee and a room for use by the Accommodation Sub-Committee itself, masquerading under the notice "House of Commons Records Room", when it is nothing of the kind.
  Therefore, a recommendation from the Services Committee as a whole, or from the Accommodation Sub-Committee of the Services Committee, does not carry very great weight with me, particularly regarding the saving or spending of money. The Services Committee has a rotten record on the spending of money, and we should not pay it much regard.
  This recommendation is one of two which came out of the same stable. The other one, which has already been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Lord President, touched upon procedural points as well as Services Committee points. Yet the Services Committee did not see fit to ensure that one of our two procedural committees, at least, was consulted on the matter before bringing it before the House. This matter does not touch upon the responsibilities of the procedural committees very much. Nevertheless, I think that it would have been right for the Sessional Committee on Procedure to be given an opportunity to comment upon it.
  I think that the examples of the new format which we have been given are quite attractive, not because of the size of the page but because the typography seems to be clearer than it is at present. I do not know whether different type faces or spaces have been used, but it seems quite attractive and it is clearer than our present format. I am not prepared to say that, given a chance, this format would not be entirely acceptable to the House in time. But I do not feel that a case has been made out for the change.
  Will this size be used for statutes of the Realm? Does anyone know the answer

  253
  to that question? Is it suggested that statutes should be printed upon this size of paper?
  Mr. Lawson: It is clear that that is indeed the intention. The whole point is to standardise all parliamentary papers—statutes, Standing Committees, Select Committees, Hansard, the Vote, everything. That is where the figure for the economies comes from, including, as the hon. Gentleman says, statutes of the Realm.
  Mr. Cunningham: It would be interesting to have an authoritative answer on that. I do not want to be disrespectful to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), but the Chairman of the Sub-Committee and the Chairman of the Services Committee are present. Is it proposed that statutes should be printed on this size of paper?
  Mr. Robert Cooke: The House is being asked to approve a report which relates only to Hansard. It is true that possible savings in printing other parliamentary papers on the size mentioned in the report relating to Hansard are being considered, but there is no question of the House being asked to decide anything beyond Hansard this afternoon. Should there be any proposal to proceed any further on other papers, the House would be asked to approve or disapprove that.
  Mr. Cunningham: That sounds a cock-eyed way to proceed. We are supposed to be doing this for the purpose of standardisation and saving money. Yet we are told "You must look at this one and later we shall come to you for a decision about the others". I do not see how statutes can be printed on this size of paper. If they were printed across the page, the lines would be too long. I doubt very much whether the House would wish to see statutes printed on two columns of the page. That ought to have been sorted out.
  If we are to take a real look at the matter, we must look at it altogether. I should not have thought that the House would wish to see statutes printed on this size of paper. This all suggests to me that the matter has not been gone into sufficiently, and it should be taken back and looked at properly by the Services Committee and the Sessional Committee
  254
  on Procedure. I think that there is enough of a procedural content in this matter for it to be taken back.
  5.8 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I apologise to the Leader of the House for not being here when he introduced the debate. We started it so soon that I anticipate that it implies that we might have a thin Hansard on this occasion. I do not share in the strictures of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) on the Services Committee, although I feel that we could have a slightly more economical entrance. I enjoy sheltering under it when it rains. I think that perhaps the Committee could make quicker progress to provide accommodation which could begin to be regarded as reasonable to do the work which we are called upon to do.
  I, too, have some doubts about the merits of this recommendation. I declare what is not really an interest, but I suppose it is relevant and it is on the register of interests. I am a director of a printing company which uses the kind of technology that it is suggested we ought to use. The firm carries out work for Her Majesty's Stationery Office. But I am not suggesting that we should obtain the contract for printing Hansard. The important point is the need to change the method of printing Hansard to use modern technology and modern machinery. It seems particularly appropriate to use a web off-set printing press for this sort of job.
  I wonder whether the alternatives we are being asked to consider are the full range. For instance, the web machinery is suitable for printing A5 as well as A4. But A5 is somewhat smaller than the present size of Hansard. We could consider printing on A5, using only a single column instead of the double one with which we are familiar. That might prove easier to read and considerably more economical in paper. I am sure that a Hansard that was slightly smaller rather than larger than the present one would be much easier to use. That is at least one of the alternatives we should consider before we commit ourselves.
  Another alternative is to commission a special web press. Bearing in mind the volume of paper for the production of which we are responsible, I believe that

  255
  that would be an economical possibility. It would give us the opportunity of printing almost any size of Hansard we wished.
  Equally, a variety of sizes could be produced. In the same way as one can use a press to produce A4 and A5 papers, one could use a special press to produce a range of sizes. As I understand it—and I should stress that I am no expert on printing—the greater part of the savings which we are being asked to make possible can be derived from the use of more modern machinery. A certain amount of saving obviously flows from economies in the use of paper, and I suggest that the biggest economy there could probably come from having a single column width instead of two columns. There would be a saving in margins, because at present there is an extra margin down the middle of every page, and we should remove the greater problem of justifying such short lines, involving complications which are not normal in book publishing.
  For those reasons, I am inclined to support the amendment that the matter be further considered. I do so somewhat hesitatingly, because I agree that we want to make progress, and it is clearly unacceptable to go on printing Hansard on such obsolescent machinery, incurring much higher costs than there would be if we switched to new machinery. But I wonder whether it is possible to consider some of the other alternatives before we are committed. Perhaps we may have them presented to us so that everyone may see the various formats available before we reach a decision. I shall be interested to hear what the Chairman of the Committee has to say about that suggestion.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who is very good in procedural matters, for moving the amendment so ably. The House is indebted to him. Owing to the unusual speed with which this business came upon us, I, too, did not hear what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said. It was no doubt brief and, as always, to the point.
  256
  The amendment does not say that we disagree with the recommendation or that ultimately we shall not have the A4 size for a new Hansard. It says that more information should be available, and it is therefore entirely in line with what the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) has said. The information in the Select Committee Report, which was first discussed in unusual circumstances on 18th January, is very brief. Although it may appear at first sight that the question of the size of Hansard is a piffling administrative matter, it is very important. Hanging on our decision is the whole question of the re-equipment of the press and the format in which not only Hansard but ultimately the other parliamentary papers are produced.
  For anybody who takes a high view of Parliament, as I know my right hon. Friend does, the nature, production, distribution and format of parliamentary papers is very important, not only for the House but for the public as a whole. It is clear that when radio comes into this Chamber the demand for certain parliamentary papers will increase. That may be healthy for democracy, although I should add that I voted against radio coming into the Chamber.
  We have heard some technical points from the lion. Member for Hove. If there is to be a new plant, new opportunities may arise for the transmission of magnetic tapes to other places in the country or throughout the world, where copies can be made. Some of us recently saw some exhibitions of micro-film in the House. It is possible to put a whole volume on one film and send it through the post. No doubt there will be opportunities for indexing and other matters related to the printing of Hansard. If there are to be changes in the method of printing Hansard, the Services Committee might have given the House more information about all those matters, which would clearly follow if we approved its recommendations. Although we are ostensibly discussing the possible A4 size for Hansard, there is more to the matter if we pass the recommendation.
  We are also discussing by implication the size of other parliamentary papers. We may need some rationalisation. Three sizes may not be convenient for the press, but, as the hon. Member for Hove said,

  257
  there is the alternative of A5. If we cannot have the existing size, it may be that half the A4 size—namely, A5—is more convenient. We need more information about that. We must consider the convenience of other users. Hon. Members have shown that they would prefer the present size, but there are others who use Hansard. We must consider the people who deliver it, the Post Office itself, and those in various places who read it.
  The House should not spend too long on this matter, although it is one of some importance, so I come to my final point, which concerns the way in which my right hon. Friend, the Government and the Services Committee have approached the House. If they had presented the full facts, if they had come forward with a full report together with the views of Officers of the House and the memorandum from the Stationery Office, the recommendations might well have gone through, but they did not choose to do so.
  Moreover, when the House was asked to approve the recommendation on 18th January there was no speech by the mover of the motion. There was an attempt to get it through on the nod. I hope that my right hon. Friend will at least admit that that was unfortunate. I hope that he will think again and agree that the matter brings into court a whole variety of considerations which may or may not have been considered by the Services Committee. We do not know. I hope that he will accept the amendment or say that if it is withdrawn he will see whether the Services Committee will reconsider the matter.
  We know that the Services Committee had to take account not only of the mechanical side but of the human side of printing, which is very important. We all understand the human organisations involved in the printing industry. We have had a heavy reminder in the past fortnight.
  On hearing the opinions of the House, the Services Committee might like to have another look at the question. So often many of us in public life are told by officials and others who come before us that we must take certain action, that we must save money and that the action must be taken now or all the savings will
  258
  be lost. When anybody gives me that sort of advice I become a little cynical and ask to look at it twice. I hope that the House will look at the matter twice. If my right hon. Friend cannot accept our moderate amendment, which does not throw out the idea but says that we want more information, I hope that he will at least withdraw his motion, so that the Services Committee—which serves the needs of the House and in general has the confidence of the House—may produce more information and we may have another look at the matter.
  5.19 p.m.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), who has done an enormous amount of work on the Services Committee in regard to not only this matter but other matters. The House is grateful to him.
  But on this point I am equally grateful to those responsible for the amendment, because it allows the House to enlarge slightly on the original business. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). We are discussing, first, the question of the efficiency of the Hansard service, how we can best provide a good service, with a Hansard that is easily readable and acceptable to the House. It involves the use of modern techniques and up-to-date machinery.
  The point involving a single column of Hansard on each page is worth considering. It is extremely difficult for many people to take in half a column and it would facilitate the reading exercise if Hansard were to read right across the page. The simple removal of the middle margin would probably result in a great saving in paper. For reference purposes the use of one column per page of Hansard would have enormous advantages.
  Unfortunately, the remit of the Services Committee did not allow it to consider the fact that this change in Hansard may be the precursor of a change in other parliamentary documents. There is a case for the standardisation of all parliamentary documents from the point of view of economy as well as in terms of storage and for other reasons. This would probably result in considerable savings.

  259
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West said that on this occasion we were dealing only with the question of deciding the size of Hansard, although he gave an indication that other matters would come before the House later. It was unfortunate that at an earlier stage my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House desired this matter to go forward without debate. There was an exchange in which I joined—[Interruption.] Although we discussed the matter, there were few people present, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will know. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Conversations should not be held at the far end of the Chamber. Will the hon. Gentleman please address the Chair?
  Dr. Glyn: It is extremely difficult to concentrate when hon. Members interrupt from a reclining position.
  I wish to mention the subject of shelving of volumes of Hansard. I believe that the new format will cause considerable problems in that regard. However, if all these documents are standardised, a great deal of the difficulty would disappear. In that case the Library could have common shelving for all documents.
  It is a pity that the Select Committee was not given an opportunity to decide the size of all parliamentary documents, including documents issued by the EEC. Overall economies might be achieved in that way and standardisation of all documents would benefit the House as a whole.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: The Services Committee appears to suffer from a mania of constantly seeking to get its proposals through on the nod as quickly as possible. In the absence of many hon. Members, the Services Committee tried to adopt the same tactic when we were discussing the car park proposals. It was only through the vigilance of one or two hon. Members that that proposal did not go through on the nod. In the end, we managed to squeeze a few minutes of debate on the subject. The House then went on to embark on the car park, which some of us still regard as a disaster.
  We now have the First Report before us. It is laid down in the report that
  260
  this matter should come before the House. That is all right so far as it goes. But when the matter first came before the House on the subject of the printing of Hansard, there was no time to discuss the matter there and then. We then tabled a number of amendments to the original proposals put forward by the Services Committee.
  A Second Report was issued by the Services Committee—a report which has not yet come before the House—relating to the car park in Broad Sanctuary. In the time that elapsed between the two meetings of the Select Committee on those subjects, another meeting was held and minutes were published, but no report has yet been presented to the House. Goodness knows, when that report will be presented—if at all. All the Committee has committed itself to do is to advise Mr. Speaker
  "of all Resolutions come to this day".
  I recently asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether the erection of a fountain in New Palace Yard to mark the Silver Jubilee was to be sanctioned by the House. My right hon. Friend is always truthful in these matters and said that that proposal had not been submitted formally to the House. Yet the minutes to which I have referred mention certain expenditure earmarked by the Department of the Environment for that very purpose. That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is no way to carry on business to produce minutes and not to append to them a report. We have had no undertaking that such a report will ever come before the House. The fountain will go up in New Palace Yard, on top of the fountain that already does not work—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the fountain is not playing today. It is strictly out of order for him to discuss that matter.
  Mr. Lipton: It is true that the fountain is not playing today. All that has happened so far is that in the last two or three days five or six men have been standing around the hole looking into it. We should like a report from the Select Committee about what is going on.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Select Committee may or may not decide

  261
  to make a report on that matter, but it is not under discussion this afternoon.
  Mr. Lipton: But I am referring to the way in which the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) conducts its business.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the First Report of the Select Committee, which the hon. Gentleman has in his hands.
  Mr. Lipton: I am suggesting that the report which we are discussing involving the printing of Hansard almost went through on the nod. I am also suggesting that it was only the vigilance of one or two of my hon. Friends in tabling amendments that enabled this discussion to take place at all. That is typical of the way in which the Services Committee works. I wish to support the amendments. I sympathise with the Leader of the House who is always on a sticky wicket when dealing with anything to do with the Services Committee.
  Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is very generous to me, but he should not address any criticism about timing of debates in this House to the Services Committee and even less criticism to the Chairman of the Committee whose report we are now discussing. If there is any criticism to be levelled, it should be directed at me as the bull's eye, without any of the shots hitting anybody else.
  Mr. Lipton: In that case I shall fire one or two shots in the direction of my right hon. Friend. Having delivered a final shot to my right hon. Friend I conclude with a final shot to the Services Committee and the way in which it does its business.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Jim Craigen: This is not the most important or momentous matter before Parliament. However, it is a rather interesting exercise in examining the way in which we make investment decisions. I hope to elicit a little more information from my right hon. Friend the Lord President about when a saving becomes an economy.
  It has been put to us that the new equipment is necessary because the existing equipment in the Parliamentary Press is obsolete, although I have not seen any
  262
  reports to indicate in any detail how obsolete it is. It is a well known ploy of bureaucrats to give others choices. That is done when they do not want to be asked the third question—namely, whether something is really necessary. They take the approach of saying "On the one hand you can do this and on the other hand you can do that", which coaxes others into taking a decision that may not be needed.
  Mr. Foot: Some of these points were made by my hon. Friend in the earlier debate. I accept that they are important matters. However, in recent years there has been a great increase in the demand for parliamentary papers to accommodate the House. That is one of the factors that had to be considered. We then had to examine a breakdown of the supply of papers to the House. There have been criticisms on that account and the Committee took those matters into account. It took evidence and received information to ascertain how we could overcome some of the difficulties. The report is partly responsible for dealing with those very matters.
  Mr. Craigen: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, it was a rather odd affair on 18th January when we debated these matters. I remember that at times my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department could hardly get a word in edgeways. Such was the state of affairs at one o'clock or two o'clock in the morning. Certain questions were not answered in the detail that might have been desirable.
  Matters that were raised during the previous debate were the amount of extra expense that would be involved for libraries both in this place and elsewhere and the additional cost of binding. During the debate on 18th January my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that he would consider the extent to which some of the work in the Parliamentary Press could be farmed out to HMSO works in Edinburgh. If there is to be the expected 25 per cent. increase in the amount of parliamentary papers and Government papers that are published during the next decade, perhaps my right hon. Friend the Lord President will say what examination has been made of the

  263
  extent to which additional work might be undertaken by HMSO works in Edinburgh.
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I intervene now. Given the number of Members present in the Chamber I thought that there might be a greater barrage of suggestions or criticisms.
  I make it clear at the outset that this is a matter for the House to decide. The Select Committee, on the evidence that it was given, has reported to the House.
  Throughout all the time that I have been a member of the Services Committee it has always resisted change for the sake of change. Certainly that sort of change is sometimes urged upon us, or that is how we see it.
  I believe that the House was not especially pleased when we came before it a little while ago with some proposals for changing the format of certain printed papers that are used by the House. However, the way in which Members have responded to handing in their amendments for earlier marshalling has worked quite well. There is no doubt that the experiment in respect of the setting out of Early-Day Motions has not been a success. It might have been more acceptable to the House if Members had found it convenient to reorganise the way in which they deal with the titles of motions. However, they have not seen fit to proceed in that way. As the Select Committee is a servant of the House I should not want the House to think for one moment that an inconvenient experiment will be proceeded with any longer than is necessary.
  Following the Lord President's remarks I confirm that at our next meeting, which is on Tuesday, a proposition will be before the Committee recommending that the Early-Day Motion experiment be abandoned forthwith. It is regrettable that some Members should have been inconvenienced. The experiment was designed to save money. It would have saved a certain amount of money, but it is not convenient and, therefore, we shall abandon it.
  The present proposition is before the House because the Stationery Office tells
  264
  us that mounting costs and strain at the presses on obsolete machinery could approach breakdown point. We were told that it was imperative that tenders should go out for new machinery. That is why the report was introduced to the House when it was and why it was hoped that the House would agree to the provisions within the report.
  The Lord President has manfully shouldered any blame that there may be for the action of the Government's business managers and the handling of the report on a previous occasion. I assure the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) that the Services Committee does not attempt to get through its business on the nod. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that has never been the position. If there were more opportunity for open discussion on matters on which we should like the agreement of the House nobody would be more pleased than the Services Committee. All too often these domestic matters get crowded into some obscure part of the parliamentary day, if not into Written Answers on a Friday. We all agree that time should be available to discuss these important matters.
  The House may think that it is cockeyed to ask for a decision on Hansard without deciding about the other papers, but we are informed that two completely new presses are proposed, one for Hansard, which the Stationery Office would like to get on with now, and another for the other papers in three years or four years.
  I draw the attention of the House to the final and heavily printed paragraph in the report which states that the Stationery Office is charged
  "to inform Your Committee of the savings so achieved"
  that refers to the Hansard proposal—
  "in order that they may be able to demonstrate to the House that the new printing arrangements will also benefit public funds before they approve the next stage of HMSO's re-equipment programme."
  There is no question of going on to another stage till we have had proved to us beyond any reasonable doubt that the Hansard printing has resulted in a real saving of expenditure and greater efficiency.
  Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend has said that there was to be one press for

  265
  the Hansard printing and another press, or presses, for other printing. As it is normal to run these expensive and sophisticated pieces of machinery on two shifts, and very often on three, what would the Hansard press be doing when it was not printing Hansard?
  Mr. Cooke: If it were not having a rest, I should imagine that it would be usefully employed, but a good deal of Hansard printing goes on when the House is not actually talking and providing yards of copy to fill the pages. At any rate, I make it clear that there is no question of proceeding to stage 2—if it can be called that—till we have had experience of stage 1, and that is there for all to see in the report.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury)—I am glad that he intervened—asked, why not go to A5, which is half the size of A4? My hon. Friend is a genius, because he thought of exactly the same solution as I did when confronted with the problem. Thinking that Members would not like the larger page I said "Why not fold it in half and have A5—half of A4?"
  We were told that A5, as I think the House will realise, would use more paper. It may sound silly when I say this, but there would be more margins per acreage of type with A4, the smaller page. If I may use a simple, childish example, a page the size of this Chamber would be almost all type, and hardly any of it margin.
  Mr. Sainsbury: Would not my hon. Friend agree that one would depend upon the width of the margins and whether one printed in two columns or in one column?
  Mr. Cooke: My hon. Friend is very quick off the mark. I was coming to that point. We thought that it might be possible to have the type right across the page instead of in two columns, as at present, but came to the conclusion that that would not be particularly readable. This may be a matter of opinion.
  Another suggestion was to employ a special type of press as opposed to A4, because A4 is a standard size for which there are standard machines and standard practices. If one went for a special press, one might tend to import special problems. I need take the House no
  266
  further along that line. There are standard practices for standard machines and we were advised that there was great advantage in that.
  Mr. George Cunningham: What is that?
  Mr. Cooke: This operation—
  Mr. Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?
  Mr. Cooke: If the hon. Gentleman speaks from a standing position, yes.
  Mr. Cunningham: I am asking what it means. This operation will be for a unique job—the printing of parliamentary papers—and the people who perform that work are on the whole employed on a long-term basis on that work. If there is a point there, surely it should have been put into the report.
  Mr. Cooke: I am coming to that. I will not repeat what I have just said. I will simply emphasise that standard machines have their standard printing practices, manning scales, and so on. There is some advantage in that, rather than trying to work out a system for a one-off job. I do not think that there is any point in labouring that. The hon. Gentleman may have a different point of view about it.
  It is certainly true that the present presses, which are obsolete, and, indeed, some of the practices which have grown up around them, make for immense stresses and strains, sometimes mechanical breakdowns, sometimes stoppages of other kinds. I will not elaborate on those now. They are well known.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) made the point that the Select Committee Report was not perhaps as forthcoming as he would wish, as did the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). Indeed, the reason the hon. Member was not in his place at the beginning of the debate and why I arrived only just as the Lord President rose at the Dispatch Box was that the hon. Gentleman and I were closeted upstairs in a room which was mentioned earlier in the debate trying to explore each other's minds for the benefit of the House on this tricky and difficult matter. I hope that the Written Answer of 9th March

  267
  gives a good deal more information than we had before.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said. The House is grateful for the further information that it has received. As we are gradually getting more and more information with each debate that is held and each Question that is answered, does he not think that if the Services Committee were enabled to have another look at the question it might provide a detailed report which would save parliamentary time discussing the types of matter which really should not be discussed across the Floor of the House?
  Mr. Cooke: The hon. Gentleman will realise that but for an accident of the parliamentary timetable we should never be having this debate at this particular moment. If the House decides to approve the amendment today we shall indeed be charged with the responsibility of taking a further look at the matter. Perhaps we can come to that point in its proper place.
  Immediately after the intervention of the hon. Member for Newham, South I have a note of the intervention of the hon. Member for Brixton—I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. It is Lambeth, Central. It used to be Brixton when he and I were young. I will not follow him in great detail into his complaints, save to say that were all the advice of the Services Committee the subject of a report to the House and debate in the House the House might get very bored with the proceedings.
  The hon. Gentleman will recall that we have always done our best to assist him, and that when on one occasion we acted, perhaps somewhat over-spontaneously, to a suggestion of his that we move a piece of equipment in this building for his advantage—we did so because we thought that the request was eminently reasonable and because he looked eminently reasonable when he made the request—we ran into one hell of a row with about 20 other Members. So we land ourselves in trouble by trying to assist a particular Member or group of Members.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will devote to our minutes the careful scrutiny
  268
  he usually devotes to these matters. Although he may not approve of some expenditure, which flowed from a minute that he quoted, he will find before long that very substantial savings are to be made in the domestic expenditure of the House, though this may have the effect of considerably inconveniencing some Members, perhaps even the hon. Gentleman himself. However, we are always conscious of the need to be as economic as possible, when we have the advice of 634 Members of the House and we, in turn, have to advise Mr. Speaker. We are an advisory Committee.
  Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman answer one short query? Why is it that the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) on 25th January and 1st February have been published but no report has been submitted to the House for its sanction?
  Mr. Cooke: I thought that I had answered that during the course of my remarks which preceded the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Not everything that we do is subject to a formal report to the House. Nor, indeed, could it be. However, the minutes are designed to be as informative as possible within the bounds of parliamentary procedure. The point will be taken. If we have not been as informative as we should be within the rules, which are not designed by our Select Committee, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will try to be more forthcoming in future.
  I must try to deal briefly now with some of the charges that hon. Members have made to the effect that those who serve us in the House and outside it are most unhappy about the proposed change in relation particularly to the size of the printed page. The Librarian confirms that he has no objection to the proposed change.
  I might reflect en passant that practically every shelf in the House of Commons Library is adjustable. Some hon. Members may have fixed shelves for bound volumes of Hansard but I can assure the House that there are enough bound volumes of the present size still to come—because we are behind in our production—to fill up most of the vacant spaces on their shelves. Hon. Members should not feel too put out about that.

  269
  They can anticipate the change in size by having their next bookcases made to fit it.
  The Table Office has confirmed that it has no objections. The Deliverer of the Vote has also said that he accepts it but adds that some of the shelves may have to be adjusted. However, I have examined the Vote Office and the shelves will take A4 documents. The Editor of Hansard also confirms his view.
  Perhaps some individual members of staff who have not studied the report in detail have expressed views to hon. Members, but we have confirmation in writing from heads of departments.
  The House will now want to come to a decision on the matter.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what will happen to the strikebreaking machinery that we installed downstairs at great expense for producing Orders of the Day when we do not receive them? Does the proposal allow the use of that machinery?
  Mr. Cooke: I do not agree with my hon. Friend's description of the machines. I am happy to inform my hon. Friend that the copying machines print on A4 paper and that that will be convenient should breakdowns occur in the future. There will be an economy, because the present size leaves waste paper round the edges.
  I think that I have answered all the points that have not already been dealt with by the Lord President. Hon. Members must realise that the present bound volumes of Hansard are incredibly clumsy. They are too thick to hold if one has to handle more than two or three at a time. They are unmanageable. If we use the new size the volumes would not be so thick and would be more attractive and manageable. The issue is one upon which the House must make its judgment.
  I knew at the outset of the debate, when an immodest number of compliments were directed at me, that they would soon be replaced by a few mud pies from hon. Members, including my hon. Friends. The Select Committee does its best to be as forthcoming as procedures allow. Procedures can be something of a straitjacket on occasions, but we try to bend them as much as possible.
  270
  We have initiated periodic morning sittings in the Committee Room, to which any hon. Member can come and make suggestions. The next of these will be on Thursday week. It will appear on the all-party Whip. I hope that the 633 other hon. Members of the House will bear that in mind, and either send suggestions in writing or appear before the Committee personally.
  5.54 p.m.
  Mr. David Crouch: I wish to take part in the debate particularly to apologise to the Lord President because, on 18th January, when we last discussed the matter, I complained in strong terms that he was not present to guide us. He had a good reason for not being present. Now that he is less busy he is able to be with us. I am sorry that I have only just arrived in the Chamber but there are other things happening upstairs and I was in a Committee. I was staggered to see on the annunciator that we were nearly at the end of the day. I wonder what is happening to Parliament these days.
  The Lord President is a man not only of words spoken but of words written. He is a man of books. I hope that I am not betraying a confidence but he once said to me in a taxi that he was a slow reader of books of about the size of the present Hansard. I do not know whether he will be a quicker reader when it is possible for him to pick up a book the size of the London telephone directory, which is now proposed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) said that the proposed form will not be so thick when bound. I am glad to hear that because a book of the size proposed would be, if it were as thick, even harder to hold.
  In our previous debate I told the House of my reading habits of Hansard and I said that I read it in bed. It is difficult to read a book of the proposed new size in bed.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It helps one get to sleep.
  Mr. Crouch: I read Hansard to get to sleep and sometimes I get to sleep more quickly than at other times.
  Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely): It depends on the size of the bed.
  Mr. Crouch: That is a typical Liberal remark. I do not wish to make jokes about this matter.
  A man such as the Lord President, who is a man of books as well as of words, must surely be able to advise the House whether the new large size is the best size to read or whether the present size is best. After all, we are discussing Parliament's most important reading matter. The Lord President has written books that we queue up to buy. He has writen about former leaders of his party and other political issues. Those books were not published in the proposed new size. Presumably that is because publishers are convinced that a smaller size is more practical. I am therefore surprised that we should venture towards the size of the London telephone directory instead of agreeing the size that every publisher in the country regards as suitable for both fiction and non-fiction. As Hansard covers both those forms of literature, we should stick to the most convenient size to read.
  One of the most successful publications in the world is Reader's Digest, which is slightly smaller than Hansard. I do not read that publication. It could be said that I neither read nor digest it. That is not a new joke but a regurgitated joke. It is a convenient size whereas the proposed new size will prove to be inconvenient.
  I shall not go into the matter of the size of library shelves but it is a problem that I hope the Government will consider.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What about letter boxes?
  Mr. Crouch: I have argued about letter boxes before and I withdraw my complaint. I complained about letter boxes because at the time we were having many late night sittings. I argued that hon. Members go home at night tired and in the morning when the postman delivers their breakfast-time Hansard, they are forced out of bed before they want to rise. I said that that is tiring for hon. Members. I now believe that that argument is wrong because it is possible for Hansard to be left on the doorstep to be collected whenever convenient. That is not the most important point.
  272
  The most important point must be concentrated on the format of the book itself. Is it a suitable size? I have given further thought to this matter, and I still maintain that it is not a suitable size. We are working towards something for the convenience not of the House, not of Members, and not of readers of Hansard and students of parliamentry proceedings outside the House, but of the producers, the printers. That is not the proper priority that we should be giving to this matter. It should be whether the proceedings of Parliament may be read conveniently, quickly and easily.
  It is one of the wonders of Parliament that we receive our proceedings, recorded so accurately, at 10 o'clock in the morning of the day after our proceedings. That is something on which I always comment to my constituents, who never cease to be amazed about lots of things that go on here, and that above all. Particularly do I comment on this to foreign visitors whom I bring here. I am very proud of the fact.
  Incidentally, thanks to the Lord President, we have recently seen a great improvement in the printing of parliamentary papers for some Select Committees—particularly the Public Accounts Committee—which are now arriving on my desk within a week of the proceedings taking place. There has been a great improvement in recent months. All these things are excellent. However, it is a mistake for us to move towards changing to a format that will not suit Members of Parliament and other students of parliamentary business.
  6.1 p.m.
  Mr. Foot: If the House will permit me, I should like to reply very briefly to the debate.
  I should like to comment first on the remarks of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I assure him that since 18th January there has hardly been any subject that has dominated my mind more than his bedtime reading. I have applied my mind to this matter from that point of view, so I hope that I shall be able to relieve his anxieties in these matters.
  I genuinely believe—I know that these are matters of taste—that the format of the new Hansard which would be available under these proposals would be an

  273
  improvement on that which we have today. I am not criticising the Hansard that we have today. I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the miracle of printing production, which has supplied hon. Members with Hansard in a better way, I believe, than almost any other Parliament in the world is served.
  A great deal of that credit goes to the printers. I have always been very interested in the subject because I have lived my life almost with printer's ink in my veins. I am very interested in the whole matter. However, I honestly believe that the new product is better than the old, from the point of view of not only those who will produce it but those who will consume it. I even believe that it will be easier to handle in bed.
  In that regard, in handling the present Hansard one often finds that the last word in a lot of columns is difficult to read, which is calculated to play hell with the best literary styles. There are some difficulties in reading the present Hansard. The new product will in some respects be easier to read.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) commented on the printing and the type. Some decisions have still to be made about the printing and the size of type. However, I believe that the House will find that the new product will be better from the point of view of reading than the old, although obviously there are questions of taste.
  The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) asked whether we could not have a wider column and whether that would be better. Here again, anyone who has studied the matter and has experience in these matters—the newspapers have obviously applied their minds to this subject—will know that a wider column is much more difficult to read. In my opinion, the best made up newspapers are those that have studied the matter and have somewhat narrower columns so that the eye can rest on them more easily. A column as wide as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman would be found to be very hard on people's eyes. I believe that our proposal, so far from being one that is found inconvenient, as well as being cheaper will be more convenient as a whole.
  Dr. Glyn: We were discussing economies, and if one takes out the middle margin that achieves an economy. One column of the proposed new Hansard is equal in width to nearly two columns of the existing Hansard.
  Mr. Foot: The proposal is made partly on grounds of economy, but I am replying partly to the hon. Member for Canterbury. If the economies had involved a diminution of the convenience of the House, we should not do this. But I do not believe that they do. In many respects, they involve an improvement for the House.
  Certainly the proposal involves—this is the origin of the whole matter in a sense—an improvement in the process of ensuring that in the future we shall have what we have been so proud of in the past—a proper supply of parliamentary papers. What has happened over recent years is that that supply has been interfered with on a number of occasions, partly because the amount of papers that have to be printed has become so much greater and, therefore, the burden on the machines and printers has become much greater. Therefore, we have had to look for ways of using new technology to supply the House with what it wants and to maintain, and possibly to advance, the standards that we have had in the past. That is where the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) has helped us so much in examining the possibilities and coming to the House with this proposal.
  Mr. Spearing: The whole House is not against advance technically in this respect. What we are hesitant about is the size of the new Hansard. My right hon. Friend has told the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) that a wider column is more difficult to read and that is why we should not have that. But is it not a fact that the new arrangements that my right hon. Friend says would be an improvement have columns that are wider than the present column, which has served this House very well without complaint since 1806? Why does my right hon. Friend want to change it?
  Mr. Foot: That is a different question. It is a slightly wider column, but what the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead was proposing was a column that went right across the page. I was

  275
  contesting that. I do not believe that that would be convenient. Indeed, it would be much more tiring and difficult in the end. However, the slightly wider colmun involved in this proposal does not involve any criticism of the same kind. As has been indicated in the previous discussions, the actual typography will be improved under the proposal.
  My hon. Friend has criticised the timing of the previous debate. The criticism does not rest with the Services Committee. There may be legitimate criticisms to be made of that Committee on other grounds, but the idea that it has been seeking to press its proposals at some time that is not convenient to the House is wrong. The decisions as to when these matters are put down are made in the main by myself and those in charge of the Government's business. The Opposition can criticise these matters if they wish, and others may raise them. However, on many occasions we have to secure the debating of these matters at times that are late in the day. That is due to the general business of the House. The fact that we have had this debate at a somewhat different time today may be of assistance in dealing with some future business of the Services Committee.
  We shall take account of the representations made by the House, but I hope that the House will now be willing to proceed to accept the report, because it would not be sensible for us to drag on these discussions, as my hon. Friends have suggested in the amendment.
  Some of the points raised in the amendment are quite legitimately raised. I do not say that in any patronising sense. Indeed, one of the things that are of absolutely essential importance to the proper functioning of the House is that all Committees are answerable to the House and that all of them can secure support for what they propose only if they can get it through this Chamber itself. No one is more insistent on that doctrine than I.
  Therefore, I do not complain about my hon. Friends raising the matter or putting
  down an amendment and asking that we should debate the question. However, some of the issues raised by my hon. Friends—indeed, most of the matters that they have raised—have been answered by the hon. Member for Bristol, West or in what I said earlier. All the Officers of the House who had observations to make on the matter were properly consulted and gave their views. Some of them were neutral about the question. Others might favour it. But it is for the House of Commons to decide what it should do. It is not a matter for any Government vote or on which objectionable people such as Patronage Secretaries are allowed to poke in their noses, or anything of that sort. It is entirely a matter for the House.
  I believe that this is a reasonable proposal and that, thanks largely to the hon. Member for Bristol, West, the question has been studied with great care. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will be ready not to press their amendment, which has enabled us to debate some of these matters, and that we can proceed to adopt this report, which will mean that in the years to come—the proposal does not come into operation immediately—we shall supply a better service for the House. We shall sustain the good parts of the service that we have. We have a chance of improving the service but if we do not do what is proposed now there will be a real danger of deterioration in the service and the House would be responsible for that. I hope that on these grounds the House will be prepared to accept the Select Committee's Report.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There seems to be some mystery as to where the Tellers have disappeared. Therefore, I call the Division off and I shall put the Question again in a moment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 83.

  Division No. 87.]

  AYES

  [6.10 p.m.

  Alison, Michael

  Banks, Robert

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Anderson, Donald

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Arnold, Tom

  Beith, A. J.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Atkinson, Norman

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Gray, Hamish

  Neubert, Michael

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Newens, Stanley

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Grist, Ian

  Ogden, Eric

  Brooke, Peter

  Grylls, Michael

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hall, Sir John

  Park, George

  Buchan, Norman

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Parry, Robert

  Buck, Antony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Pendry, Tom

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Penhaligon, David

  Canavan, Dennis

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Reid, George

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hicks, Robert

  Rhodes James, R.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Holland, Philip

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Hooley, Frank

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Hordern, Peter

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Clegg, Walter

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Cope, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Cowans, Harry

  James, David

  Selby, Harry

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Crouch, David

  Jessel, Toby

  Silverman, Julius

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Cryer, Bob

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Lambie, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  Deakins, Eric

  Lamond, James

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dempsey, James

  Lamont, Norman

  Sproat, Iain

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Stallard, A. W.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lawson, Nigel

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Durant, Tony

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Edge, Geoff

  Litterick, Tom

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  English, Michael

  Luce, Richard

  Thompson, George

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  McCusker, H.

  Viggers, Peter

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Wakeham, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  MacGregor, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ward, Michael

  Flannery, Martin

  Madden, Max

  Warren, Kenneth

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mellalieu, J. P. W.

  Watt, Hamish

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Marten, Neil

  Weetch, Ken

  Forrester, John

  Mather, Carol

  Whitlock, William

  Freud, Clement

  Mawby, Ray

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wool, Robert

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Mills, Peter

  Younger, Hon George

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Moate, Roger

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Molloy, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gourlay, Harry

  Molyneaux, James

  Mr. Marcus Lipton and

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Mudd, David

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Archer, Peter

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Harper, Joseph

  Newton, Tony

  Ashton, Joe

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Noble, Mike

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Parker, John

  Bishop, E. S.

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Perry, Ernest

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hunter, Adam

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

  John, Brynmor

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Coleman, Donald

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Kinnock, Neil

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Sillars, James

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Sims, Roger

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Small, William

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  McElhone, Frank

  Snape, Peter

  Doig, Peter

  MacKenzie, Gregor

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Dormand, J. D.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Stott, Roger

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Eadie, Alex

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Tinn, James

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  George, Bruce

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  278

  279

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Woodall, Alec

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Mr. Ioan Evans and

  Williams, At Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Mr. Ted Graham.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House declines to agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services)
  280
  in their First Report since no Report concerning the proposed changes of printing arrangements for Parliament has been made available to this House; and calls upon the Services Committee to provide more comprehensive information, including evidence taken from the Officers of the House before presenting a further Report.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (SAFETY AT WORK)
  6.26 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/960/76 and the Government's memorandum dated 10th March on Safety Information at the Workplace.
  We are anxious to give the House an opportunity to express a view on this issue well in advance of any decision being taken within the Community. The purpose of the draft directive is to introduce a uniform system of safety signs in work places to help to protect workers and the public.
  This country and other member States of the EEC have a multiplicity of different signs to prohibit various actions, to warn of dangers, to explain what is mandatory and to give general information. Many different signs can lead to misunderstandings, and considerable training is needed so that signs are understood. This is particularly relevant on the European mainland with the number of migrant workers there and is by no means irrelevant to us in that respect.
  It is thought necessary to harmonise signs, and the proposals set out a way of doing this by laying down the basic principles for shapes and colours—if employers wish to display a sign, it must comply with the scheme—by devising symbols to depict commonly found situations—the symbols are fitted into the coloured shapes of the scheme and reproduced as an annex to the directive—and by requiring signs displayed to control internal works transport to be the same as those used for controlling road traffic.
  The Select Committee drew attention to the fact that there is no requirement in the draft directive that signs must be provided in certain circumstances and no clear indication of where they should be placed. We feel that this is an advantage because it would be difficult for the Commission to foresee circumstances applicable in all member States for the posting of safety signs, and it gives the necessary flexibility. For example, in this country we can make and, indeed, have made regulations in connection with the provision
  282
  of suitable notices warning people that they are in the vicinity of a radiation area where we feel that such signs are essential. I have a great deal of faith in the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Health and Safety Commission, and we can expect a few years' flexibility here.
  On the other points made by the Select Committee, I agree about the importance of a transition period to allow workers to familiarise themselves with the new signs and about the need for instruction in safety measures, though this point is made fairly strongly in the annex to the draft directive.
  We also agree on the need for a longer implementation period. We cannot estimate the exact cost. However, we agree with the Select Committee that a longer implementation period will be worth while. It would not only spread the cost of installing new signs but subsume some of the replacement costs arising from the natural wastage of signs. There is no requirement in the draft directive that signs must be provided in any particular circumstances, so implementation can be selective.
  I turn now to our general view. The proposals in the draft directive are broadly in line with the Government's wish to ensure that the workplace is safe and without risk to health. Signs can play a valuable part in this respect, and measures to make signs more readily understood are helpful. I stress that the posting of signs should not be seen as a substitute for other effective protective measures, such as the provision of adequate information, instruction, training and supervision.
  A British Standards Institution technical committee, after consulting the various interests concerned, has agreed the text of a British standard on safety signs and colours, and it has recently been published. That is broadly consistent with the Commission's proposals. Both the Health and Safety Commission and the BSI are firmly committed to improvements in standards, particularly those influencing the health and safety of people at the workplace. With that in mind the HSC feels that harmonisation in this way is desirable, bearing in mind that safety signs are basically the means of giving immediate communication of particular hazards.

  283
  As to the form of the instrument, while accepting that the principle of harmonisation of safety signs is good, it is necessary to decide whether we are in agreement with the means proposed for doing it. The Health and Safety Commission, which includes members representing employers and trade unions, in consultation with the CBI and the TUC has given the proposals a lot of consideration and come to the conclusion that there are considerable difficulties in achieving harmonisation by directive. Chief among the difficulties is that a number of different systems have developed in this country. Harmonisation will take time and add to costs. The HSC and the Government think that a more flexible form of instrument would allow different situations to be dealt with on their merits within the general framework of the proposals. That is the approach that we are pursuing.
  I turn now to some of the specific objections to the proposals. First, Appendix II, page 4, of the directive shows signs for emergency exits. These are in conflict with signs proposed by a technical committee of the International Organisation for Standardisation as well as BSI proposals on fire signs. They are not contained in the most recent ISO document on safety signs. It was thought that further consideration should be given by an international committee specifically dealing with fire signs. One sign shows what is generally called the "running man". Although the sign is meant to be symbolic, we think that some workers might take it too literally. It could cause confusion and even lead to panic in certain situations. Therefore, we are unhappy about that suggestion.
  There has been criticism that the proposals are not coincidental with labels used on dangerous substances and road signs. There is some truth in that. But it is not generally thought that these differences are of great importance as each system has been designed to apply to different circumstances. The safety signs scheme has tried to follow the shape, colour, and so on of road 'signs, since it was felt that the two schemes most nearly related. It has not always been possible to achieve similarity with labelling proposals.
  The National Coal Board was opposed to the application of the directive to
  284
  coal mining. It was and is mainly concerned that consistent and carefully worked-out systems of safety signs agreed between management and unions would be disrupted for no real purpose at considerable cost.
  There is obvious difficulty in supporting the exemption of any single major industry, because similar arguments can be applied to other industries in which there are particular hazards. That kind of consideration strengthens the argument for harmonisation by a non-binding instrument or by more flexible means. We are conscious of that situation. But other considerations are involved. We shall need to take account of Community views as a whole. That is particularly important as we hold the Presidency. We are in a minority on this particular issue, so we must take note of that, too.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The memorandum states that the subject of mines and steelworks has been sent to the Mines Safety and Health Commission and the Committee for Safety in the Steel Industry and that
  "The views of the two bodies are awaited."
  Is my hon. Friend saying that this matter will not be discussed at the Council of Ministers until those views have been received? If the directive is brought into force, will the Government still have a reserve, or do they intend to make the National Coal Board change its signs yet again?
  Mr. Grant: I was coming to that. There is no question of the Council of Ministers considering this matter before we have that opinion. I give my hon. Friend that unequivocal assurance. I shall come back to that subject.
  I turn to the progress of the draft directive. The instrument was originally communicated by the EEC to the Council in April 1976. It has been discussed by officials in the Community, where we have expressed general sympathy with the aims, but I shall go over our reservations again. We have sought agreement, first, on a more flexible instrument of a non-binding character—perhaps a recommendation—secondly, on a longer implementation time than the 18 months envisaged by the Commission; and, thirdly, on the deletion of the emergency exit signs—the "running man". We have had some support for our views on

  285
  the second and third items—the implementation time and the "running man"—but we are alone in opposing the directive.
  The draft directive should have been considered at the last meeting of the Social Affairs Council, to which I went in December, but it was withdrawn from the agenda. The Commission agreed to a request from the Consultative Committee to the Coal and Steel Community that opinion should first be obtained from the Mines Safety and Health Commission. The Consultative Committee was responding to pressure from the National Coal Board, and obviously we were only to ready to support the withdrawal of that item from the agenda in that context.
  When the NCB became aware of our isolation on the directive, it sought support through the Consultative Committee. The Mines Safety and Health Commission has not yet given its opinion, but the indications—I cannot say more than this—are that it may recommend the exclusion of the mining industry. If it does, that problem will be resolved.
  As to future action, discussion of the draft instrument in the Social Questions Working Group is likely to be resumed this month, possibly with a view to securing a decision from the Council in June. Therefore, any further briefing of our representatives in Brussels should take careful note of any comments which the House may make tonight.
  I should like to clear up one element of misunderstanding. Some of my hon. Friends may have thought that the Government were recommending acceptance of the directive. We certainly are not at this stage. I think that I have clearly outlined our doubts and reservations. On that basis, the House may accept that our current negotiating position is realistic.
  Mr. Neil Marten: Will the Minister say how far he is going to take the reservations and resist opposition to the reservations which he has just listed?
  Mr. Grant: I do not want to go beyond what I have said. It would be wrong for me to come to the House in a "take note" debate with the object of listening to the views of hon. Members, and yet, in advance of those views, set
  286
  out our negotiating position beyond that which I have already outlined. In fact the Government do not have a fixed position on this matter. We shall take note of what hon. Members say and we shall listen to the views of others involved, such as the Health and Safety Commission, the National Coal Board, the trade unions and others.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I should inform the House that the amendment is not selected.
  6.41 p.m.
  Mr. Neil Marten: I am not anti-safety signs at all, but I dislike nannying by the EEC when these things could be done in another way or better done. I cannot help feeling that this draft instrument is designed much more for the benefit of our Continental partners, which have a great number of migrant workers coming in from Turkey and other places, and that it is not really very applicable to this country.
  Surely if we are to do this and do it properly, we ought to do it on a much wider basis than merely the EEC. This is the sort of thing that worries me about such Community legislation. All of this ought to be practised throughout the whole of Western Europe or throughout the whole of the OECD. We should be doing this through the International Organisation of Standards, which crosses a much wider grouping of countries than merely the EEC.
  One of the reasons for this move is given in the document itself as being that if we do not have these signs, that will constitute an obstacle to the functioning of the Common Market. That is a quite absurd reason for this directive. To do without it would certainly not be an obstacle to trade or the functioning of trade in the Common Market.
  Is there any evidence that immigrants in this country are being in any way injured in accidents because they do not understand our signs? I am sure that that is one of the matters that the Department must have gone into before agreeing to this form of harmonisation.
  Is such harmonisation really necessary in this country? Our immigrant workers are largely from the Asian countries, and I have with me a list of immigrants

  287
  accepted for settlement here from the Common Market between January and September 1975, the latest figures available. The numbers are very small, indeed—Belgium 48, Denmark 63, France 273, Germany 293, Italy 388, Luxembourg one and the Netherlands 180. The number of Commonwealth citizens admitted in the same period was about 38,000. Are we therefore not being asked to deal with this problem for a very small minority when in fact we should be dealing with it for a much wider group?
  I do not very much like Article 6, which states how the proposition is to be dealt with in the relevant committee. It says:
  "The Committee shall give its Opinion on that draft within a time limit set by the Chairman having regard to the urgency of the matter. Opinions shall be delivered by a majority of votes, the votes of the Member States being weighted as provided in Article 148(2) of the Treaty."
  The article goes on:
  "Where the measures envisaged are in accordance with the Opinion of the Committee, the Commission shall adopt them."
  There is no reference at that point to the Council of Ministers, but it goes on to say that in the Council of Ministers the matter will be settled by qualified majority. We should watch this. If something offensive arises in this directive we might not be able to put a block on it as we might wish.
  I agree that we want a longer implementation period. Surely there should also have been scope in some way in the document—which does not really go into this aspect—for the retraining of people to understand these new signs in the factories.
  But my main anxiety concerns the cost of all this to British industry. I did not hear the Minister give an estimate of what it would be, but I think that it would be fairly substantial when allied to the retraining which would have to be done, and the cost would have to be borne by the firms. I wonder, therefore, whether all this is necessary for Britain. It may be necessary in Germany, with all its migrant workers, but is it really necessary for us? Have we not got along without this sort of thing perfectly well?
  288
  I am totally in favour of many safety signs, and the National Coal Board, for example, already has better safety signs than the EEC is now proposing. This country has done a very good job with its safety signs, and I do not see why the EEC should interfere with something that we are already doing so well.
  6.48 p.m.
  Mr. Alec Woodall: I am perturbed that we should only now be discussing a directive dated 7th April 1976 and to read in Article 7 that member countries are obliged to implement it within a period of 18 months.
  The signs applying to the coal industry have been mentioned. The National Coal Board has just expended £500,000 on introducing new signs in our collieries. The whole subject has been thrashed out in the normal process of consultation with the trade unions, but I understand that this obligatory directive has not been the subject of consultation by any of the Ministers in Europe, not even with the European Coal and Steel Community, and that is appalling. The coal industry by its nature is the most accident-prone—
  Mr. John Grant: And the most safety-conscious.
  Mr. Woodall:—and the most safety-conscious, as my hon. Friend says. Yet here we have a directive which, without consultation, is being thrust upon member States to be implemented within 18 months. I hope that my hon. Friend will make it known to our representatives in Europe that we deplore this kind of thing. Not all of us were in favour of going into the Common Market, and directives of this kind make us rather more bitter about it.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will pursue the matter most vigorously in Europe and that he will make a special case that the National Coal Board, being very safety-conscious and with a large labour force, has just spent £500,000 on introducing new signs. That fact should be taken into account and stressed as strongly as possible to Ministers in Europe. It is appalling that we should have a directive of this nature thrust upon us without any consultation. My hon. Friend should take note of the comments made by the NCB and the National Union of Mineworkers on this matter.
  6.49 p.m.
  Mr. Roger Moate: I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall). Having read the explanatory memorandum, and having heard the remarks about the safety provisions of the National Coal Board, I find it extraordinary that proposals should be brought forward that would cause further major changes and expenditure without adequate consultation. The Minister made sympathetic noises about the position of the NCB, but I hope that he will do rather more than that.
  I hope that the Government will take a firm line on matters of this kind. My principal concern about this proposal is that it seems totally unnecessary in industry. It does not seem particularly helpful for health and safety at work generally, and one wonders why Parliament's time is being taken up with proposals of this kind. One does not feel that propositions of this kind will make any worthwhile contribution to health and safety at work.
  I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) that we are all concerned to ensure that there are the highest standards of safety in work places. If we felt that this proposal was filling a gap, I suspect that the whole House would welcome it enthusiastically, but I do not believe that a case has been made out that such a gap exists. It has not been long since the Health and Safety at Work Act was implemented.
  These are matters which concern the House greatly. We feel that British industry is as concerned as anyone to ensure that we have adequate signs at places of work. However, to superimpose this EEC proposal on our national legislation seems not only superfluous and time-wasting for the House, but it could be disruptive and confusing for British industry. It could also be very expensive.
  The Minister did not tell us the likely cost of implementing the proposal over a period of years. Will he give an estimate of the likely cost to British industry? Presumably the cost would be built up over a number of years, and presumably some estimate of the cost will have been made. It would be helpful if the hon.
  290
  Gentleman could tell us what the estimate is. The cost is not an isolated one. It has to be added to the many other costs falling on industry in implementing legislation of this kind.
  I shall touch briefly on the proposals themselves. Perhaps I am alone in this, but I am very skeptical about the desire for harmonisation of signs so that they are theoretically comprehensible to people of all languages. When I look at these signs they become totally incomprehensible to me. I should have thought that the word "Exit" was as meaningful and as helpful to someone wanting to leave a building as a sign without any words which displayed a running man heading for an open door. It might mean "emergency exit" to some people, but someone else could interpret it as a man answering the call of nature and running fast to the toilet. That is what the running man looks like to me.
  Another suggested sign for "emergency exit" is a large coffin-like picture with an arrow pointing straight into the ground. Again, the words "emergency exit" are relatively comprehensible to the majority of workers in British factories, and I should have thought that it was more helpful to them than just to have a sign of this kind without any words.
  There are many other signs which may have meaning to others but which I would not find helpful. One sign shows a picture of a boot, which means that safety boots must be worn. I should have thought that the words "Safety boots must be worn" would be meaningful to most people. If we are to use standardised signs, it should be a requirement that the wording should be put alongside the sign to explain what it means. Unless one has grown accustomed to these signs over a period of years, they are not instantly meaningful in an emergency.
  I suspect that there is a strong case for resisting many of the proposals purely on the grounds of common sense. I do not feel that they are particularly helpful. These points have been taken on board by the Government, who have made many constructive objections to the proposals and have outlined them very clearly in the explanatory memorandum.
  What concerns me is that, although the Government have said that they dislike

  291
  these proposals, they are taking a rather mild attitude to them. The Government say that they have not yet been able to persuade their fellow members of the Community, implying that eventually they will go along with the proposals, with one or two minor exceptions.
  Why do the Government feel that they have to agree to these proposals? Is it because we hold the Presidency? That is one of the weakest arguments one could use.
  Mr. John Grant: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what I said. I said that the Presidency was one of the factors that we have to take into account, along with many other factors which support the hon. Gentleman's case.
  Mr. Moate: I am sorry if I misquoted the hon. Gentleman. The Minister has assisted me in clarifying my points by saying that it is a factor that we have to take into account.
  I suggest that the fact that Britain is temporarily occupying the President's chair has no relevance at all to the policies that the Government should adopt.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: If the fact that we hold the Presidency is an argument for accepting anything that the Commission puts forward, had we not better resign the Presidency straight away?
  Mr. Moate: It could be argued that that would strengthen our negotiating position considerably. I suggest that the argument about the Presidency has gone too far. In two or three months' time we shall presumably vacate the Chair. It would hardly be a persuasive argument, when asked why we accepted a particular piece of legislation to say that we did so because we happened to be holding the Presidency at the time. The Presidency should not affect in the slightest what legislation we accept.
  Mr. Spearing: When the President happens to be a member of the United Kingdom Government, another member of the Government articulates our case. I see that my hon. Friend the Minister is nodding his head. The point about being in the Chair is not a factor to be taken into account if we have a junior member of the Government in the Council to make our case.
  Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman has made a strong point. The remark about the Presidency was made en passant by the Minister. I do not think that it is an argument which should seriously be advanced, since in a month or two we shall leave the chair. Being in the chair is a routine occupation. The office circulates among the members of the Community, and I cannot understand why such a fuss is made about it, from the Prime Minister downwards.
  I refer again to the explanatory memorandum and the question of signs. The memorandum quite properly points out that the proposed safety signs are of a different colour from our road signs. Logically, if we accept standardised signs, the safety signs should be similar to the road signs. This is yet another nonsense which should be resisted completely.
  The explanatory memorandum states:
  "Firstly the colour combination used on the proposed safety warning signs differs from that already used for road signs. The industrial sign colours now proposed by the Commission are based on the safety colour code which is a fundamental concept of the Commission's draft."
  The memorandum continues:
  "Secondly, all the proposed industrial prohibitory signs include a red cancellation bar"
  and states that this is contrary to the road sign provisions.
  The only logical thing to do would be to revise all our road signs to conform with the safety signs, but the cost of doing so would be massive and out of the question.
  I hope that the Government will take heart and strength from what is said in the Chamber today in support of their objections to these proposals. Perhaps the Government will then go on with renewed vigour to ensure that no directive is introduced along the lines at present proposed.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I declare my interest in the sense that I am an NUM-sponsored Member. It is fair to say that we have received representations from the union head office about this matter.
  I understood the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) to say that we are wasting the time of the House in debating these matters. I suspect that is not quite

  293
  what he meant. I am delighted that we are debating this subject. It gives us a chance to get across somehow to the 40 or 50 per cent. of the population who are opposed to the whole concept of the Common Market the fact that there is someone in this building who is prepared to fight to the last breath—not about getting better directives or about restructuring or about improving the situation, but about getting out of the Common Market.
  That is what we are about and therefore when these matters are brought to light we must expose them and subject them to the constant drip of propaganda. In that way we can alert the people concerned—in this case primarily the coal miners and those in the coal mining communities. Therefore we must welcome the opportunity to get across the message that the bureaucrats in the Common Market, accountable almost to no one, are taking decisions, often without consultation, which affect the coal and steel industries on both the management and trade union sides.
  Mr. Lawrence Daly has mentioned in a letter to us that there has been no consultation on this matter. The NUM is deeply upset about the way in which it is being treated. It goes to the Common Market—I do not agree that it should be there, but it goes—notwithstanding that it is not consulted on matters of this kind. It is therefore fanciful to assume that even if one has representatives on the spot in the Common Market they will get to know what is happening.
  Decisions are being taken in areas where the union representatives and any other representatives—even directly elected representatives if ever we were stupid enough to take that step—never get the chance of joining in the decision-making. Therefore, I make the strongest possible protest on behalf of the mining group in this House. I do not always agree with everything that the NUM says on matters affecting wages and other subjects. However, in this case the union is making a protest not from my point of view, which is of complete hostility to the Common Market and its whole concept, but from the more tolerant point of view of those who accepted the decision and in some cases in the union were fervent supporters of joining the EEC.
  294
  I notice that the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) is jeering. He was a fervent supporter of the Common Market. Like many other Conservatives, however, he is now frustrated at the way in which it is developing, and, like them, he is not sure what to do about it. They would like to adopt the position adopted by the hon. Members for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and for Faversham, who can claim to Tory audiences what the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West would like to be able to claim. There is a lot of dissension inside the Tory Party, just as there is within the ranks of the Labour movement.
  When we in this House speak against the Common Market, we are speaking not to the one or two people in the House, but to the nation outside, which is utterly divided on this matter. That is why it is important to raise our voices at every possible opportunity—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the debate has something to do with coal and steel, about which the hon. Gentleman should be addressing us.
  Mr. Skinner: In dealing with any subject that emanates from over the water we must speak against the background of how those decisions are made there and of how we feel about the whole concept of the Common Market. It is futile for us to try to speak about this issue in the narrow terms posed by this directive. That cannot be done. There is a nation outside which is frustrated about the Common Market and we, as its representatives in the House, when faced with a challenge, however small and insignificant, must relate it to the fundamental question of Britain's entry into the EEC and, more important still, the desire of some Britons to get out. That desire is expressed by my voice and the voices of a few other hon. Members.
  Those in the miners' union who advocated membership of the EEC are now beginning to see that, like many other groups, they are being treated without courtesy or decency by the Community's administrators and bureaucrats. That is conveyed clearly by the directive. Bureaucrats have never even bothered to ask about these matters. If they had telephoned Hobart House or 222 Euston Road they would have learned from Lawrence Daly or Joe Gormley that half

  295
  a million pounds was already being spent on new signs in the pits in this country.
  Perhaps those people across the water did telephone and check. If they did, the situation is even worse. That would suggest that they were not even complying with the rules laid down about public expenditure by the IMF, the constituent Governments of which in the Common Market loaned us a few million quid apiece back in December in order that we could continue to purchase their goods. That is what it was all about.
  My guess, however, is that there was no consultation and that the bureaucrats went ahead willy-nilly. Their reason for doing so is clear: they have to appear to be doing something. If we arrange to have direct elections, the people who are directly elected will feel the same. They will think that they have to do even more to harmonise everything they can lay their hands on. Directives of this sort, therefore, arise not from a desire to produce new industrial safety signs but from the desire of the bureaucrats to show that they are earning their money—and pretty good money it is, too. I do not know the exact amounts, but the Continental standard of payments would leave us breathless.
  My hon. Friend the Minister must tell us whether he is prepared to stand up for the coal mining industry in this country or to accede to the stupid requests of the Common Market. He must say whether he is prepared to point out that the IMF conditions laid down in December prevent us from taking part in this costly and unnecessary exercise. When I make requests for new schools in Bolsover, I am told that the money is not available. When it comes to the Common Market, however, the money can be found for anything. That is not to say that we get more out than we put in.
  One of my friends in Bolsover suggested to me recently that propaganda about how much money was coming out of the Common Market was being spread for the benefit of the British people. But he said that it was rather like the story of the starving man and the dog. The man cut the dog's tail off, stewed it and consumed the gravy and all the bits of meat that were on it. Then he gave the dog his bone back. That is what is happening with payments to and from the
  296
  Common Market. The loans and grants are minute compared with the sacrifices that we are having to make. In addition we get documents such as this, which my hon. Friend the Minister is trying to foist on the House and the miners' union.
  I thought that there would have been some sort of consultation not only with the miners' union but with the miners' group in the House. But no one has been to the miners' group and talked about this draft directive. The Government have blithely come along and slipped it in thinking that no one would be present because no Whip is being applied to the debate. There is a Whip on for me. It is high time that the Department of Employment fully understood what its job is. It is to come here and be consistent. If there is no money for the Health and Safety Commission, or if it has to be abandoned or adjourned for a period because of the money involved, it is not right to come along and spend taxpayers' money on proposals of which we have no need.
  For all those reasons I urge my hon. Friend to take this draft directive back, to send someone across on a ship and, if that someone is so fanatical about Europe, to tell him to stay there with this draft directive. This is only one of the first shots in the battle that will take place if the Government dare to introduce direct elections. I am ready for a fight and there are many people outside the House who will fortify me to carry on the fight. There will be hon. Members as well who will continue to fight. The Common Market has been a disaster from beginning to end and the British nation, now faced with massive food price increases and control of wages, is just beginning to understand it.
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Grylls: After that speech from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) I think that the Minister might well need some armour plating. It was strange to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about fighting to the death. Anyone would think that the hon. Gentleman was talking about a repressive measure which grinds his constituents into the ground. Anyone who wandered into the Chamber during the hon. Gentleman's speech could be forgiven for mistaking it as that.

  297
  I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Bolsover did not come along and say how much he favoured the proposal. Most of the hon. Gentleman's points about the European Community were not actually relevant to the point that we are discussing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) made a perfectly fair point when he said that he did not like nannying of people or everyone being told what he should do. He went on to say that we do not have many immigrant workers in this country. It is probably true that we have fewer than countries like Germany and others in the EEC. But, our having joined the EEC, where there is a free movement of labour, this is likely to happen. It could even happen the other way. Our people could go and work in Europe. Constituents of the hon. Member for Bolsover, faced with the present high rate of unemployment, might decide to go and work in Europe. They would want protection as much as anyone else.
  One must consider this matter in the context of the Community as a whole. We may at present have fewer immigrant workers working in Britain, but in the years ahead that may not be the case.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) felt that the draft directive was unnecessary and that no one wanted it. He went on to state that the House was wasting its time. My hon. Friend was perhaps being unfair to the Leader of the House, because he must appreciate that the Leader of the House is in great difficulty at the moment with regard to arranging debates. My hon. Friend's remark was, therefore, a rather unkind sideswipe. Time has to be filled and I welcome the fact that it has been filled by discussing this particular draft directive. Whatever the views, it is perfectly right for these points to be made and for proper discussion to take place in the maximum amount of time. I therefore welcome the fact that we are having this debate.
  Mr. Moate: We are all anxious to help the Lord President with his particular problem of filling the parliamentary timetable with debates. My point was simply that if proposals like this are to come forward, we are anxious that they
  298
  should be debated in the Chamber. But is it not a waste of national time and energy to have proposals of this kind in the first place?
  Mr. Grylls: That is a slightly different point. I hope to deal with it shortly.
  I wish to make a further comment to the hon. Member for Bolsover. He gave the impression that no one in the trade union movement actually wanted the draft directive. I have a copy of a letter signed by Lionel Murray, the General Secretary of the TUC, which says that he welcomes it and thinks that it is a very good thing. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will say that he failed to consult the NUM. That is something I cannot rectify. It is something which must be rectified in the debate. But since the TUC speaks for a proportion of organised labour, it is right that the hon. Gentleman should know that in a letter dated 10th December the General Secretary, Mr. Lionel Murray, gave a general welcome to it. To be absolutely accurate, Len Murray's letter said in the last paragraph that he did not like the running man proposal. I do not like it and I do not think that the Minister likes the running man exit sign.
  Mr. Skinner: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman fails to understand—or perhaps he does—the whole idea of the Common Market and the way in which it operates. The very fact that the letter is signed by Len Murray is indicative of the way in which it operates, namely, on the basis of the very top heads of the trade union movement. In other words, what is good for Len Murray and perhaps a few others on the TUC is good for the whole of the working class. That is how the Common Market operates. That is why it is in the mess that it is. That is why some of us want to fight, not for Len Murray, who signed the letter on behalf of 11 million people—it could even have been Lawrence Daly or Joe Gormley who signed it—but for all the people inside and outside the trade union movement, so that they may have a chance of understanding from those whom they elected—they did not elect Lionel Murray—what the issue is. That is one of the reasons why we resent the whole structure and paraphernalia of the Common Market.
  Mr. Grylls: I should be ruled out of order if I became involved in discussions on the referendum and those who voted in favour of remaining in the Community. A more important point is that trade union leaders and members of trade unions are participating in Europe. There is a Social Affairs Committee which is doing good work. It is important that this type of draft directive should be considered. If this sort of thing is to come out of the Common Market, it is important to have contributions from the TUC and from individual trade unions that have valid points to make.
  Mr. Woodall: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Len Murray is saying that a warning, mandatory or emergency sign, which will be a yellow triangle with a black edge, is wanted by British coal miners?
  Mr. Grylls: Perhaps I should have read the whole of Mr. Murray's letter. It simply states in the first paragraph that the TUC agreees with the draft directive and thinks it a good idea. It does not mention the problem of the collieries. As the Minister said that has come out elsewhere. But there was no indication that this matter can be resolved anywhere within the Community itself. I cannot put words into Len Murray's mouth: I simply say what he wrote when asked for his views.
  This draft directive has been floating around Europe for some time. Much of the work was begun in the International Organisation for Standardisation, so a wider body was associated from the early days.
  The House should consider the directive against two other major areas in which there has been an attempt at harmonisation in recent years. The first does not apply to the EEC at all. This is the area of international transport signs, the Hazchem signs on tankers, warning of chemicals and other hazardous materials. That work was done under the auspices of the United Nations in the early 1970s. I agree that we should get as much agreement as possible, but we must start somewhere. That one started in a wider grouping, but what the EEC has done is at least a step in the right direction.
  The other area is that of consumer signs on packets, tins and bottles. I hesitate
  300
  to alarm those who do not favour this trend, but I understand that there may be another draft directive soon on consumer signs. That may be a horror to many people, but much work is being done on these matters.
  It may be asked why there should be three separate groups considering these matters. Perhaps the multitude of different signs has to be reduced to three groups before they can be fitted into one.
  Our main problem is whether this directive should remain a directive or whether it should be simply a recommendation, as the Government would have preferred. We understand from the Minister's evidence dated April last year that most of the members of the Community would prefer it to be a directive, so we are in a minority. I do not think that my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury and Faversham would say that we should go to the stake on that. If we use our veto on every piece of Community legislation, we shall soon become the laughing stock of Europe. People will ask why we went in in the first place if we intended to fight everything. The veto is devalued if it is used every time.
  Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend refers to our being the laughing stock of Europe. Surely it is the other way around: the Common Market is the laughing stock of the people of this country, is it not?
  Mr. Grylls: That is a matter of opinion which it would be wrong to debate now. We all know and respect my hon. Friend's views, as we do those of the hon. Member for Bolsover.
  What is the Community doing about safety generally? Rightly, it has put a high premium on safety at work in all possible areas. The Advisory Committee for Safety, Hygiene, Health and Protection at Work was set up in June 1974 with specific themes of activity suggested by member Governments—dangerous products, benzine in industry, risks from vinyl chloride, noise, fibres, gases and vapours. All will be covered by the committee. It may not produce directives, but it is surely right that these matters should be considered by the Community as a whole.
  There was a great dispute about vinyl chloride a few years ago after a discovery

  301
  in France that the production process could lead to long-term health damage to workers. It had been produced for many years until this danger was discovered in a French factory by a research chemist. Since then there has been an enormous amount of research in America and Britain, and many technical precautions are being taken.
  That was a transnational development. Are we to say that we are an isolated island and will take no notice of anything discovered in France? The consideration of vinyl chloride undertaken by the Community is important and should be valuable for us. It is fair to quote that experience and to say that there should be some working together in considering other potential hazards at work—and some harmonisation at the same time.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Surely the fact that research on these subjects, as on a whole range of other matters, takes place in the United States is no possible reason for common legislation being imposed upon the United States and upon this country. There is no relationship between where the legislative power ought to lie and the international comity which permits an exchange of information in the scientific and technological field.
  Mr. Grylls: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the scientific, research and technological interchange among countries has been going on for hundreds of years. I merely quoted that example as an indication of the amount of work that has been going on in Europe.
  As to whether this should be a directive, I think that the Minister accepted that the Government are unlikely to get their way in the Council of Ministers. The European Communities Sub-Committee of the House of Lords considered this matter carefully, taking evidence from the officials of the Health and Safety Executive. One of them said that it was the view of the Council of Ministers that this ought to be a directive, and added:
  "So it would look as though the chances are that this will become a directive."
  I do not want to get that official into trouble. He was giving his view as a member of the Health and Safety Executive, but it was given before a public Committee of Parliament.
  302
  The more that one has read about this matter the more it appears that what that official said is right; my own feeling is that it is right, but not everyone is likely to agree. Despite one or two exceptions tonight, it is generally agreed widely in industry throughout Europe and in this country that there is a need for standardisation. Whether that is best achieved by regulation or by a recommendation is a matter of opinion.
  After all, there are 6 million migrant workers in Europe, many going to new places where they cannot speak the language. For instance, many workers at the BSC plant in Sheffield come from Europe as well as the Commonwealth and do not speak English. They could be in danger. There is also the question of the multinational companies, which commonly practise a wide exchange of executives, workers and health and safety officers from one country to another. It would be impertinent of us to assume that those who come here can speak English and it is unlikely that our people can speak French, German or Italian. Certainly a common system of signs would be sensible for the multinational companies.
  In the chemical industry, tanker drivers regularly enter different factories all over Europe. No doubt most who come to this country cannot speak English and it is safe to asume that English drivers going to Europe cannot speak those languages. They go into factories driving tankers which carry hazardous, perhaps toxic, materials. They see various hazard warning signs. Does it not make sense that those signs should be the same wherever they are? With all these large tankers, container lorries and so on going around Europe, the hazards presented to the drivers as well as to other people should be considered.
  Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend asked whether that made sense and seemed to address the question to me. It would make sense if it were done through the International Organisation for Standardisation, but not in this little penny packet of the Nine countries of Europe. Let us have a much wider view of life than this enclosed suburban Community. Let us deal through international organisations so that Spanish and Portuguese lorry drivers, too, have similar signs, and not

  303
  just the people in the Community. My hon. Friend must look more widely.
  Mr. Grylls: I do indeed look more widely. I hope for the day when Portugal and Spain become members of the Community, when they will automatically be able to introduce these regulations, if they become a directive.
  I agree that it is a fair point that one would hope to see these common signs, if they are adopted, spread more widely into other countries—for example, into the United States and further into Europe and the Mediterranean countries. However, it would be sensible if the House said "Let us take one step at a time". This is a step forward for the Nine countries. Instead of nine separate symbols, at least we shall have one.
  Let us move on after that. There are problems, because in the United Kingdom and in Europe there is a variety of different signs. That happens even in this country. ICI set up its own system of safety signs within its own plant about 10 years ago. I understand that they are good signs. Ford of Europe, again a multinational company, has totally different sets of signs. My hon. Friends may not mind that, but it leads to potential dangers, and it would surely be more sensible that over a fair period they should all be put on the same basis.
  Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend has been most courteous in giving way. I want to raise a technical point about the standardisation of signs. Is it not nonsense that in the draft directive proposals for international signs should be different from the present road signs?
  Mr. Grylls: My hon. Friend makes a fair observation. I am labouring somewhat slowly to get to that part of my speech dealing with that problem. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me.
  I hope that the Minister will accept that at present there is confusion. I mentioned ICI and Ford, workers coming to Sheffield, and perhaps our workers going to Europe. There is a case for standardisation. Whether that be by directive or recommendation is another matter. The sooner signs can conform, at least in the Nine, the better. I hope that I am gradually convincing my hon. Friends, if not Labour Members.
  304
  One more weight which would tip the scale in my favour comes from the definition of the words "flammable material". Under the petroleum regulations, the word "flammable" is defined as describing:
  "a petroleum liquid that vaporises at not less than 73 degrees Fahrenheit or 22·8 degrees centrigrade."
  Under the fire regulations, also introduced by the Government, the same word "flammable" is defined as describing:
  "a liquid that vaporises at not less than 90 degrees Fahrenheit or 32 degrees centrigrade."
  If someone walks around a plant and sees the words, "Danger, Flammable Material", he does not have a clue what that sign means. "Flammable" in that instance could mean anything. That is one more point which should be taken into account.
  I take a giant chemical works where tankers are coming and going. It is desirable that road signs should be harmonised with the signs in the place of work, because the sign on a tanker which contains, for example, a highly dangerous inflammable material such as phosgene, could vary between factories. This leads to confusion amongst the drivers. When one is dealing with potentially a life and death matter to the driver or other workers, there is a good argument for having that harmonisation.
  I turn to the question of "No Smoking" signs. At present there are three different varieties—the straightforward "No Smoking", "Smoking Strictly Prohibited"and" Smoking Prohibited". If one goes into a factory where one or other of the three signs is displayed, one does not know how serious the risk of smoking is. Someone seeing the "No Smoking" sign may think that the danger is not serious because smoking is not "Strictly Prohibited". The sign may only say "Smoking Prohibited". That is another nonsense. Perhaps the boss is a crank and does not like smoking. This leaves a vagueness in the minds of the people in the factory about the danger they might be facing. We would be wise to do something about that.
  Three years ago this House passed the Health and Safety at Work Act without much difficulty. It was agreed by both sides. In that Act much greater care is

  305
  placed on employers and employees in factories in safety matters. Following on the Act, I believe that it is perfectly logical that we should take greater steps, because of some of the risks, to ensure that every considerable care is taken to protect everyone working in Europe against toxic and hazardous materials.
  There are some problems in implementing this draft directive. First, there is the question of timing. The EEC Commission asked for 18 months. The CBI in its evidence broadly agreed, as did the TUC, but felt that there should be a five-year transition period. The argument is probably somewhere in between. Whatever our views about this legislation, if it is implemented I think that the House would want to ensure that every worker, every executive, every conceivable person in industry is thoroughly trained about the signs. This should be done over a maximum period. Perhaps the Health and Safety Executive could play an important rôle.
  The cost to industry has also been mentioned. This is difficult to assess and is, to a certain extent, tied in with the question of timing. Obviously, if it were proposed that all the signs should be put up as from the date the directive was passed, it would be grotesquely expensive and quite ridiculous. But if there is a sensible transitional period, given time for worn-out old signs to be replaced by new ones, too much money need not be wasted.
  It is sensible to propose that as and when the new signs are introduced the translation is attached to them for a limited time. People may like to see the description underneath the new signs, which would help the education process.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham asked about the crossbar controversy and the question of confusion over road signs. The value of the crossbar is that it is simple. It describes what one must not do; the triangular signs describe hazards or potential dangers; vile circular signs tell us that we must do such things as putting on goggles, safety helmets and boots; and the square signs indicate the direction of exits.
  The Minister said in his evidence that if the road signs had to be changed, it would involve much expenditure. I accept that. I think that most people will
  306
  readily understand that the crossbar sign concerns something that is forbidden, and that the triangular sign, like the sign at a crossroads, warns of a potential hazard. Whether those signs must be harmonised with road signs is a much wider question. I agree that it would be absurd and very expensive to change all the road signs, and I do not believe it to be necessary.
  With any safety measure people will say that expense is involved. Industry is busy implementing the Health and Safety at Work Act, the cost of which I believe to be justified—otherwise, we should not have passed the Act. The signs will similarly involve cost.
  The British Standards Institution, which has played quite a big part in the work, has produced a document containing signs, though rather fewer signs than in the European document. The Institution has done a great deal of work, and the House should congratulate it on that work. It has consulted widely in industry and has consulted organisations outside. The International Organisation for Standardisation has also done a great deal of work.
  The British Standards Institution instigated research at the University of Aston's Department of Safety, Hygiene and Health, in which two signs were compared. A Department of Employment sign warning people to wear something over their ears to protect them from noise showed a man putting his fingers in his ears. The equivalent EEC sign showed a man wearing a hearing protection set. I thought that the fingers-in-ears sign was rather easier to understand, but the Department found, after asking many workers, that the EEC sign was preferred.
  I have tried to show that there are good reasons for the proposal. Whether it should be put into effect as a recommendation or a directive is a matter which the House will want to discuss. I think that there will not be harmonisation without force and power behind it.
  I want to suggest how the Minister should respond to the draft directive. I have spoken about the transition time. We must harmonise, but at a steady and sensible pace. The EEC has proposed 18 months and the CBI has suggested five years. Perhaps three years would be

  307
  reasonable and would not be too expensive for industry.
  I agree with the Minister that he must make it 100 per cent. clear to the EEC that we do not like the running man sign. Perhaps it would be wrong to say that in Europe people run away from an accident, but it is certainly true that we do not do it in England. Our training is to walk, not run, and therefore that sign is wrong.
  It may send the blood pressure of one or two of my hon. Friends even higher when I say this, but I hope that the Government will press the EEC to harmonise the consumer product hazard signs and try to bring them into line with the draft directive. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury that if that can be widened to cover as many as possible of those involved in international road transport signs, so much the better.
  Fourthly, the Health and Safety Commission should insist on more training. The British Standards Institution has a rôle to play. Perhaps the regulations, if the directive is accepted by the Community, could be made in accordance with the BS 5378 document. If further signs are incorporated, further regulations can be made. But it is important that consultation is carried out through the Health and Safety Executive.
  The Opposition believe that it would be churlish not to welcome at least the spirit of the work that has gone into producing the harmonisation of signs at the place of work. Most of us would certainly welcome the detail of the majority of the signs, with the exceptions I have mentioned.
  I hope that the Minister will try harder in one or two areas. The Opposition do not ask him to push hard to make the proposal a recommendation and not a directive. I think that we feel that it will have to be a directive if we are to get any movement, but there should be a sensible transition period. We see the proposal making a major contribution to safety over the years. It is a long-term matter. We shall not see all the signs change overnight. It would be wrong to suggest that that would happen, and it would be extravagant if it did.
  This is a step in the right direction. The Government should press on with
  308
  this good work, subject to the conditions and ideas that I have put forward. I hope that the Minister will not be diverted too much by the flak from both sides of the House in this not very well attended debate—though I add that those present are of a high quality. I am sure that the view of the majority of hon. Members is that the Government should press on with the good work in the hope that we shall see a sensible directive accepted by the Community, because we believe that it will make work safer for all the people in the Community.
  7.46 p.m.
  Mr. John Grant: In replying, I shall not try to speak for the silent majority.
  Several hon. Members who took part in the debate came into the Chamber after my opening remarks. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was one. Although I do not suggest that I should have converted him to passionate support for the EEC if he had listened to me, it may be helpful if I briefly repeat the Government's position, which comes down to three points.
  First, we are seeking a more flexible, non-binding instrument and not a directive. Secondly, we clearly believe that there must be a longer implementation period than the 18 months envisaged by the Commission. Thirdly—many hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to this—we think that the running man sign should be deleted.
  The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) talked particularly about the need for a wider base than the Community. He spoke about the OECD, the International Organisation for Standardisation and so on. Nothing proposed here precludes any extension. Indeed, it could reasonably be argued that if the Community took this kind of action, it might be said to be setting the pace. One would hope that other countries would wish to follow suit, and that the idea might spread through organisations such as the OECD.
  Mr. Marten: If the Community passes a directive, we must all have the signs. Then we might get into conversation with other countries, which might want to alter them. It all seems to me so wasteful. Why not get all the countries together first and do it all at once?
  Mr. Grant: The short answer is that the world is not that simple, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. As he acknowledges, it is not easy to get even the countries of the Nine to agree on such a matter. If one tries to secure wider agreement, there will presumably be an increase in the problems in the particular circumstances of particular countries.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of the obstacle to trade. I would not make a meal of that, but I was interested in his remarks about immigrants. He asked where he could obtain guidance on the number of people in the immigrant community who might have benefited from existing safety signs. I cannot give that guidance, any more than one can estimate the number of people who, because of signs, have avoided serious injury. I do not think that it is possible to do that, but clearly there is a language problem at the place of work.
  We are discussing symbols and it is important, not just for workers coming into Europe but for workers from the new Commonwealth, to have much more easily is signs. My Department is trying to increase language training in industry, and we regard this as a matter of considerable importance.
  I was asked whether this issue would go to the Council of Ministers. It will do so, and the directive will have to be a unanimous decision of the Council.
  I come to cost. When discussing the coal and steel industries, we are, of course, discussing good industries. The coal industry has a sophisticated and sensible system of safety signs, which is being installed at an estimated cost of £500,000. Many other industries have poor safety records, and in some instances appalling safety records. Those are the industries about which we are primarily concerned.
  Mr. Moate: Will the Minister confirm that in the bad industries—and I am sure that he is right to say that they exist—this directive will make no difference, because it will not be mandatory?
  Mr. Grant: That is so, but subsequently the House can make regulations on the basis of recommendations from the Health and Safety Commission, so that in particular industries where there are particular hazards we can take action. That industry would be bound by this system of
  310
  signs. There is encouragement for people to get on and do something about the situation.
  I cannot give a general estimate of the cost and it would be absurd to do so. There are many industries involved and there are varied situations with which to cope. It would be fallacious to try to give what could only be a wide guesstimate.
  Mr. David Madel: Is it not a fact that it would be industry that would have to bear that cost and that the Health and Safety Commission would not pay for the alterations?
  Mr. Grant: That is correct. I shall make a similar point about training costs later.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) and for Bolsover concentrated their remarks on the coal industry although my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover ranged slightly wider in his contribution. It is not true that there were no consultations. There was a great deal of consultation. There may have been some fault. We are dealing with the whole range of industry, and at the outset the Commission probably did not go to the Coal and Steel Community as it should have done. I am not too sure about that, but that is my understanding of the position. I understand that subsequently the Commission consulted those industries. Certainly the Health and Safety Commission was brought into the picture from the word "go".
  The CBI and the TUC are represented directly on the Health and Safety Commission. Furthermore, the National Coal Board is a member of the CBI and the National Union of Mineworkers is a member of the TUC. If there were a fault in communication, I do not think that it can be laid at the door of the bureaucrats in Brussels. I repeat that there was a good deal of consultation.
  The subject was withdrawn from the agenda of the Council of Ministers indirectly as a result of the NCB representations. It is not fair to suggest that this proposal has been steamrollered through without the mining industry being aware of the situation.
  I said earlier that we hoped that the Health and Safety Commission would

  311
  resolve the problems in the coal industry. This is one more reason for a flexible, non-binding instrument and also for a much longer implementation period.
  Mr. Skinner: Let us get the matter quite clear. Is the Minister saying that the letter received by the Miners Group, signed by Lawrence Daly, a member of the TUC General Council and General Secretary of the NUM, is lying when it says that there has been no consultation with the NUM? After the union discovered that the decision had been made, it went to the Department of Employment. It is stated in that letter that the Department told Mr. Daly that it could not get the coal mining industry out of this. The Department said that it would create difficulties for other industries. That was in the letter sent by Lawrence Daly to the Miners Group. Is the Minister challenging that statement? Let us have no more nonsense or shilly-shallying. Does he deny the existence of those words in that letter?
  Mr. Grant: It is not a question of shilly-shallying. It would have been helpful if my hon. Friend had read the letter.
  Mr. Skinner: I have read the letter.
  Mr. Grant: My hon. Friend should have read it to the House so that we could see what Mr. Daly had said. I am not accusing Mr. Daly of lying. I am saying that the Government have not recommended acceptance of a directive and are seeking exemption for coal mining.
  Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have heard in the last few minutes arguments focusing on the subject of the letter to which I referred. I think that it is necessary for the House to understand what is in that letter. I have referred to it, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Hems-worth (Mr. Woodall). It is dated 14th March and is signed by Mr. Lawrence Daly, General Secretary of the NUM. It is headed "Industrial Safety Signs" and reads:
  "Dear Alec"—
  he is the Secretary of the Miners Group
  "It has been drawn to my attention that there is to be a debate in the House at 10 o'clock on Tuesday 15th March 1975"—
  312
  obviously the writer does not understand how this place works, but that is neither here nor there—
  "on the above subject and I wish you to take note of the following. These proposed signs are the product of the EEC who drew them up without consultation with the ECSC. When this came to our notice, Mr. Gormley wrote to the EEC complaining about the lack of consultation with two major industries—i.e. coal and steel—and requested that the matter be referred to the Health and Safety Commission of the ECSC. This course was ultimately taken and we were given to understand that coal mining would be excluded and a working party was to be set up to deal with the coal mining industry. The British coal mining industry is not only concerned about the lack of consultation, but also because of the fact that the National Coal Board had already spent £500,000 on a system of safety signs which we would argue are both superior and more logical than the ones proposed by the EEC. You can understand, therefore, our concern about the forthcoming debate, particularly if, as we are given to understand, the Department of Employment are advising acceptance on the basis that if the coal mining industry were to contract out, it would create difficulties elsewhere. I trust that the Miners Parliamentary Group will be able to use their good offices to oppose such action."
  That is what I am doing.
  Mr. Grant: I am aware of what my hon. Friend is doing. Two points arise from that letter. First, Mr. Daly makes the point that there was no consultation with ECSC in the preliminary stages. That is also my understanding of the situation. It does not mean that there was not a great deal of consultation throughout, and I have already made that clear.
  As for the Department of Employment advising that we should have to accept a directive, that is not so. I made that clear in my opening remarks and my hon. Friend will have to accept that from me.
  I now deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). The hon. Gentleman was especially critical of the running man sign, among other things. There is general agreement in the House about the inadequacy of that sign. It is rather unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman takes the view that the whole scheme is unnecessary. I do not think that it is. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover began his remarks by saying that he was pleased that we were having the debate, although his reasons were rather different from mine as he wanted to debate the fundamental

  313
  issue of the Common Market, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss health and safety. I do not think that we have enough debates in the House on health and safety matters, which are of fundamental importance. A harmonised system of safety signs is of fundamental importance to health and safety, but not to the exclusion of many other measures.
  The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) made a persuasive case for harmonisation. The hon. Gentleman expressed his preference for a directive. I have already explained why we do not go along with him on that issue. We prefer a non-binding instrument.
  I shall not pick up the hon. Gentleman on each of the specific matters that he raised at the end of his remarks. We shall consider them carefully. The hon. Gentleman made some pertinent observations. For example, he mentioned training. The Health and Safety Executive is involved in a variety of consultations and considerations on matters such as the role of safety officers and advice on the appointment of union safety representatives and safety committees. All these matters have a bearing on what is now before the House, but the main training responsibility under health and safety at work legislation is on employers. There is a requirement on them to consult employees. That is where the main responsibility lies, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that training must be an important element.
  I understand the anxiety of my hon. Friends about the conduct of business in general. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has raised a number of the more fundamental issues. The overriding factor in this debate should be industrial health and safety. If we reject the broad principles that are proposed in this EEC proposition, we are rejecting the accumulated advice of the Health and Safety Commission, on which the TUC and the CBI are represented. We should also be rejecting the advice of the British Standards Institution and other bodies which all believe that harmonisation is worth while.
  I take the point made by the hon. Member for Banbury that some British workers, or British workers generally, may have less to gain from this sort of
  314
  move than many of their counterparts on the European mainland. However, we should not move away from this measure for that reason. If we are furthering the cause of working people, whether here or elsewhere within the Community, that in itself is worth while, providing that there is no particular detriment to working people in our own country. I do not think that a case has been made to that effect. On that basis I ask the House to accept the motion.
  Question put:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. Donald Coleman were appointed Tellers for the Ayes and Mr. Dennis Skinner was appointed a Teller for the Noes, but no Member being willing to act as a Second Teller of the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared the Ayes had it.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/960/76 and the Government's memorandum dated 10th March on Safety Information at the Workplace.

  HIGH COURT ATTENDANCES (OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE)
  8.5 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): I beg to move,
  That leave be given for the proper Officers of the House to attend the trials of the action between Metzger and others and the Department of Health and Social Security and to produce the Reports of Debates and Committee Proceedings to which reference is desired to be made and formally to prove the same according to their competence, as prayed for in the Petition relating to the action between Metzger and others and the Department of Health and Social Security presented to this House; yesterday, and that leave be given for reference to be made to the said Reports.
  When I had occasion to present a similar petition to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was rebuked for using gobbledegook, for having failed to explain to the House the purpose of the motion and for not having given notice of my intention to move the petition. As I understand it, it has not been the practice to give notice, but with the assistance of Officers of the House, for which I am extremely grateful, we have been able to adopt a procedure that enabled full

  315
  details of the petition to appear in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings, and the motion appear on today's Order Paper. If the House will bear with me, I shall offer a brief explanation.
  When it is desired to produce evidence before a court of anything said in the House, it is necessary to petition the House for leave that that should be done. That is dealt with in "Erskine May", on page 88. I had reason to elaborate on it somewhat on 18th July and 21st July 1975 in volume 895, column 1921 and volume 896, column 226 of the Official Report.
  The petition relates to an action brought by recipients of retirement pensions against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services for declarations to the effect that my right hon. Friend did not properly apply the procedures laid down by the Social Security Act 1975 to ensure that pensions are uprated in accordance with the level of earnings or prices. The petitioners are the solicitors respectively for the plaintiffs and the defendant. They are agreed that it would be helpful to the court if certain extracts from the Official Report were available so that the court might see what my right hon. Friend, his predecessor, and their junior Ministers told the House were the considerations they had in mind on the relevant occasions.
  I am satisfied that it is desirable for the administration of justice between the parties that the court should have that assistance. I ask the House to give leave accordingly.
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Solicitor-General and the House will be relieved to know that I am in full support of the motion. Furthermore, I do not intend in any sense to challenge the procedures, as happened. I think, on the earlier occasion to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. I go further and say that I hope that what happened yesterday and today, with the petition laid yesterday and the motion appearing on the Order Paper today, will be regarded as a precedent for the future.
  It always seemed to be an unsatisfactory procedure whereby a petition could be lodged with the House and on
  316
  the same day a motion immediately moved, when by its very nature there could have been no notice to any right hon. or hon. Member that that was to happen. No doubt the Solicitor-General has seared into his mind the several hours of debate to which he was subjected when the subject matter of the action was the publication of the Crossman diaries.
  I have before me the petition as it was reported in the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday's debate. It is proposed to produce to the court in Metzger and Others v. The Department of Health and Social Security a number of debates concerning the obligation to raise pensions and other long-term benefits by the more advantageous movement of prices or earnings. When I say "advantageous" I mean advantageous to the pensioner. I shall quote only four brief passages from the debates that it is proposed to put before the court. It would be quite wrong for me to refer at all to the proceedings or to advert to the question of their likely outcome, but I would hope that the following passages would at any rate be among those which the court will have.
  On 22nd May 1975 the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said this, after having announced increases in pensions:
  "These increases are in line with the movement in earnings of nearly 15 per cent. that has taken place in the period from August 1974 to March 1975, which is the relevant period for calculating this uprating."—[Official Report, 22nd May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 1624.]
  There was a very rapid period of inflation between then and when those upratings took effect. The then Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—said this on 24th June:
  "Changes in the movement of earnings and prices after March 1975 will of course be reflected in the next following uprating."—[Official Report, 24th June 1975; Vol. 894, c. 376.]
  The third quotation which I shall make, again from one of the documents to be produced by the House, is from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is, perhaps, one of the most astonishing passages in any Budget Speech that I have read:
  "Now that the rate of inflation is coming down, I believe that an increase of £3 in the

  317
  rate of pension for a married couple would be more than enough to match the actual and likely improvement in earnings to the 12 months to November. But I have listened carefully to representations from those who have urged me to go beyond this. In the light of these representations I have decided to raise the married rate by £3·30 to £24·50."—[Official Report, 6th April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 269–70.]
  At that point, as the House will remember the right hon. Gentleman actually won a cheer from his hon. Friends.
  My fourth quotation is from the next day, again from the right hon. Member for Blackburn:
  "now that the rate of inflation is coming down it would no longer be appropriate to base the uprating on a reference period which lies wholly in the past."—[Official Report, 7th April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 426.]
  It is not for me to say what the court will make of the contrasts and contradictions in those passages from Ministers' speeches that we are now proposing—
  The Solicitor-General: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but if we are to have words such as "contradictions" I submit that we are getting very much into the field of the merits of the matter, which is sub judice.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I was expecting the right hon. Gentleman to relate what he was saying to the question whether the evidence should be given to the court.
  Mr. Jenkin: If the Solicitor-General had contained himself for one half-minute further he would have heard me say that I was about to conclude my speech by saying that I can think of nothing but advantage that will come from allowing these passages and others referred to in this petition to be openly discussed, read and repeated again and again in the court. I therefore entirely support the motion that the Solicitor-General has presented.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That leave be given for the proper Officers of the House to attend the trials of the action between Metzger and others and the Department of Health and Social Security and to produce the Reports of Debates and Committee Proceedings to which reference is desired to be made and formally to prove the same according to their competence, as prayed for in the Petition relating to the action between Metzger
  318
  and others and the Department of Health and Social Security presented to this House yesterday, and that leave be given for reference to be made to the said Reports.

  TOYS (SAFETY REGULATIONS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ashton.]
  8.14 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Hawkins: The case I bring to the notice of the House tonight not only concerns my constituent Mr. Marcus and his business in Swaffham in my constituency but goes far wider and illustrates the difficulties with which business men must struggle in these days. It also shows the great influence that civil servants have in great Government Departments. They provide an endless stream of orders, regulations and Bills to Ministers, who have far too little time to consider at leisure whether they are necessary.
  I believe also that the civil servants are determined that whatever the level of unemployment is, their numbers will increase. Joe Haine's book, which I am half-way through, makes these points time and time again, and it is a great pity that the Press, instead of settling on certain other points, did not give these points more emphasis.
  When I was a Lord Commissioner—a breed of Whip—I came up against the will of the Treasury officials when they wanted blank forms signed which would later be used for authorising anything from judges' expenses to millions of pounds for nationalised industries. The pressures were enormous and, if it had not been for a very strong minded Chief Whip, I might have succumbed.
  I believe that all of us in Parliament have been too weak in allowing this flow of orders and regulations to go unchecked and for far too long we have meekly accepted this burden as a part of modern life.
  Fortunately, my constituent, a man of remarkable energy, does not suffer foolish regulations gladly. He is a manufacturer and importer of toys. To understand this case it is necessary to appreciate the timetable that he carries out in the normal course of his business. Briefly, he will go to toy fairs in the Far East, in Milan,

  319
  and in Nuremburg in, say, October. He will receive samples in November. Then—this is a vital point in my argument—in December, or perhaps a little later, he will send off an irrevocable letter of credit. The following June or July he will receive the goods, and then he will pack them and distribute them to retailers. In times of inflation he would put in a much larger order than normal and part of that order would go direct into the warehouse for repeat orders for retailers.
  It can be seen that very often the whole purchase may not be sold until up to 24 months after the ordering process started. This is a normal business pattern in this business, but it seems to have been completely ignored by the civil servants and Government Departments when they drafted these regulations which were published in August 1974 and came into effect on 1st October 1974 with two months' notice only. What chance had Mr. Marcus, my constituent, to dispose of the goods, which had been seen a year beforehand and ordered in the previous December, previous to the regulations coming into force?
  This is my constituent's major complaint and mine. He tells me that he has about £30,000 worth of goods in store or withdrawn from retailers which he cannot sell because of these regulations which were brought in after he had ordered the goods.
  In correspondence with me the Minister of State, whom I am glad to see here this evening to answer the debate, has consistently evaded this point. He has said in correspondence that he relies on the fact that trade associations were in negotiations with his officials from January 1974 until the regulations were produced in August 1974 and therefore the trade associations should have kept their members informed. My constituent denies that this was done in detail, and in any case surely the Minister would not expect him to stop ordering and to run down his business just because there might be new regulations in four to five months' time which might affect his business.
  In any case my constituent understands that the main cause of the trouble is the thickness of metal which was finally fixed at the last minute at a minimum of 0·5
  320
  mms. Up to that time it was understood to be 0·3 mms. Nothing could have altered the fact that goods had been irrecoverably ordered before the regulations took effect. I must keep hammering that point because of the enormous loss that my constituent faces. All the goods that he has in his warehouse are those that he had to take back from retailers and that he cannot sell. The goods were bought when they were legal but they are not now legal because of the regulations.
  When the regulations came into effect the Minister adopted a strange double standard by notifying local councils—whose newly created safety inspectors are responsible for implementing the regulations—of the full details but not notifying the companies that were importing the toys. The Minister left it to a hand-out to the Press instead of an advertisement that was paid for, and to the trade associations, to inform the 20 or 30 firms engaged in that type of business. That is a form of discrimination against the firms that are producing and importing this type of toy.
  In a letter to me the Minister refers to the impracticability of informing all the firms himself. He says that there are several hundreds, but his figures included all the retailers, who are not held responsible if they possess goods that contravene the regulations. That is correct and fair. They should not be held responsible. If the Minister and his officials or the safety inspectors had taken the trouble to consult my constituent and the managements of other similar firms before the regulations were introduced, more time would have been given to them to dispose of the goods.
  Although it does not alter my case one jot or tittle, my constituent did not know that he was transgressing the regulations until late in 1975 when he was prosecuted. As a result Mr. Marcus, who so far as I know has never in 14 years received a complaint about any of his toys and who has a good reputation, was justifiably annoyel. That puts it mildly.
  He corresponded with a Mr. Stacey of the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, which had taken over from the Home Office. He asked why the regulations were necessary. He was told in letters that there had been a constant flow of complaints and, when pressed for details about toys with sharp edges

  321
  Mr. Stacey in a letter dated 23rd June 1976 told him:
  "As I explained in my letter of 8th June the six accidents recorded as being due to sharp edges on toys were included in statistics which were collected in 1973–74 from six hospital areas."
  The letter continues—and I hope that the Minister will note this:
  "Projected on a national basis the figure is equivalent to at least 150 accidents a year throughout England and Wales."
  I always knew that Government statistics were suspect but this method beats the band. It involves six accidents in six hospital board areas, not one of which was investigated in detail to discover whether it was a matter of swallowing a button or of a cut hand or lip caused by handling a toy with a sharp metal edge. That is an extraordinary way in which to pass a regulation to which importers and manufacturers have to conform.
  I shall tell the House of an incident that makes a nonsense of the regulations on the thickness of metal and a nonsense of the spate of prosecutions, which my constituent prefers to call persecutions. When he was coming home from work after attending a court hearing in the heat of last summer my constituent stopped to buy a can of Coke. As he walked back to his car, he pulled the ring tab and cut his finger. On the way home he thought the matter over and sent the ring tab to Quality Control Service Ltd. of Wembley and asked it to measure the thickness of the metal tab. I have their report dated 13th July 1976 and addressed to my constituent. It states:
  "Report on Sample of Ring Tab from Coke Tin. Tests required:

  1. Measure thickness of metal tab.

  2. Determine presence of surface treatment."

  The thickness of the metal tab was 0·34 mms—well under the minimum thickness for toys. The second finding was that both sides of the metal tab were coated with lacquer.
  Thousands of Coke and other tins are used. My constituent does not want them to be made more expensive by making the metal thicker, but he believes that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and that such containers
  322
  are used more frequently than his toys by the children who open and drink from them.
  Surely the evidence that I have brought to the House shows the flimsy basis for the introduction of these regulations. They should be withdrawn or revised.
  The case is symptomatic of the way in which a host of regulations have been introduced in the last 10 years—and I do not exempt my own Government's regulations. Business men and others cannot possibly understand them. There is little need for them and many are not relevant. They have done much to harm the country and to suppress initiative. Because of the number of inspectors that are needed to enforce such regulations rates and taxes have gone up faster than necessary.
  Behind it, in my opinion, is the single-minded determination of the Civil Service to maintain and increase its employment and its influence and power. The civil servants honestly think that they know best. If one couples that with a Socialist Government, who have always stated that they know best, the result is disastrous.
  The disaster behind all this lies in the damage done to Mr. Marcus, my constituent, and his business, and the other constituents of mine who are his employees. The fact remains that my constituent, when he was buying in the autumn and winter of 1973, could not possibly know that regulations were to be introduced in October 1974 which would prevent him from selling toys that he had bought. I ask the Minister to deny that or to give me a reason, if he can, why my constituent should have known when he was buying in the autumn and winter of 1973 that regulations would be introduced which would prevent him from selling toys a year later.
  Will the Minister not admit, first, that the evidence on which these regulations were introduced was extremely flimsy and, secondly, that no adequate time was given to dispose of the toys that were in the pipeline? Finally, will he not be prepared to mitigate the loss to my constituent by either withdrawing and then revising these regulations or making monetary compensation for the loss that they have caused Mr. Marcus?
  8.31 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) has more than once referred in his speech to civil servants, and he has attached some blame for the mischief of which he complains this evening to civil servants. I reject that. So long as I am a Minister, I have full responsibility for regulations that are made, on my judgment, and sometimes I differ from the advice of my civil servants and sometimes I agree with it. Sometimes, I spend a good deal of time cogitating about regulations and trying to put myself in the position of a member of the public or a trader. That is the responsibility that I shall always take, and I reject the allegation that these regulations are made to satisfy an empire-building instinct among civil servants.
  I come, secondly, to the evidence and the basis upon which these regulations were made. Regulations relating to the safety of toys were first made by the Home Office, under the Consumer Protection Act 1961, in 1967. They prescribed limits for lead and other toxic metals in paint on toys and prohibited the sale of toys made from celluloid on account of the fire risk. Although, from time to time, there was pressure for more comprehensive regulations, the Home Office, which remained responsible for consumer safety matters until October 1974, continued to hope and expect that compliance with the British Standard Code of Safety Requirements for Children's Toys—British Standard 3443—would be achieved through the voluntary co-operation of the toy trade.
  The great majority of British manufacturers and most toy importers came to comply with this code. Many did so from way back in 1961. However, it became apparent from continuing complaints about unsafe toys that some were not doing so and eventually, towards the end of 1973—when the hon. Gentleman's party was in Dower—the Home Office decided to make further, more comprehensive regulations giving statutory support to some of the provisions of British Standard 3443, including those relating to sharp points and edges, the flammability of pile fabrics, the detachability of eyes, and facial features and
  324
  the maximum operating voltage of electrical toys. The decision was taken on the basis of the need to deal with obvious hazards which simply ought not to be presented by toys.
  Of course, the Government have a responsibility to manufacturers and importers. I am bound to say that they also have a responsibility to young, vulnerable children who may be injured. There have been some fairly severe accidents to children, particularly in regard to doll's eyes, and I owe that part of the community as much a responsibility—perhaps even more so because they are young and vulnerable—as I owe other people.
  There were full consultations with interested bodies. The Toys (Safety) Regulations 1974 were, as the hon. Gentleman said, made on 6th August 1974 and, with some exceptions, they came into force on 1st October 1974. There were very full consultations indeed between the time when the regulations were mooted by the Home Office towards the end of 1973 and the time when they came into effect in October 1974.
  I know the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He says that Mr. Marcus gave an order abroad for these toys, as I understand it, before the idea had even emerged in public from the Home Office in 1973. I can understand Mr. Marcus's anguish and perhaps I ought to congratulate him on his persistence in this matter. I understand his side of the argument, that the order was placed and was irrevocable before the regulations, or even the proposals for them, had seen the light of day.
  But I have two answers to that. First, it was known during 1973 that there was pressure for regulations and greater protection. Secondly, there was a British standard widely observed not only by British manufacturers but by importers. Many of them observed that standard as far back as 1961. That was the general practice of the trade. The general standard was accepted, was well known and was understood even in 1973.
  I do not know whether it is right for me to give legal advice from the Dispatch Box, but I suppose that, in these circumstances, one way in which Mr. Marcus might have protected himself when he made the contract—and any importer

  325
  might be wise to do this—would have been by including a clause that provided a right for the importer to rescind the contract if the goods that were the subject of the contract became illegal in this country. There could be other circumstances where there might be quicker action over toy regulations.
  Mr. Hawkins: I understand that once an irrevocable letter of credit has been given, the goods are paid for and are on their way, one cannot get one's money back even if the goods do not come up to the standard of the sample. This could apply to many things and I do not believe that such a clause appears in any contracts.
  As for the Minister's point that this was well known throughout 1973, it was not known until early 1974 that negotiations were taking place.
  Mr. Fraser: I am not suggesting that the regulations and the details of the regulations were known in 1973. I do suggest that there was a British standard that was widely observed for the protection of the public, particularly of children, and that Mr. Marcus could have taken that set of circumstances into account and might have anticipated that a widely observed safety standard might eventually be incorporated into law.
  If one looks at it the other way round, a good many people could have lived in peril of importation or production of a dangerous product for a long time—that is, if one accepts the hon. Gentleman's argument that the regulations ought not to have come into force until all the goods for which orders had been placed had not only passed into warehouses but right through to the general public.
  Mr. Hawkins: I think that I am correct in saying that these safety standards have existed since 1961, so that we might say that everybody was in peril from 1961 to 1974. It would have been fairer to give two years, or possibly only 18 months, to clear the pipeline of goods that had been ordered. That is the point that the Minister does not appear to have answered.
  Mr. Fraser: I understand the argument and I know that when regulations are made—for instance, under the Weights and Measures Act—they are preceded by
  326
  a great deal of consultation. As far as possible, one tries to provide a reasonable time span for goods to pass through from the manufacturing stage to the wholesalers and retailers, but one cannot accommodate regulations to every particular circumstance.
  I turn to the detail of the regulation and the effect upon the hon. Gentleman's constituent. Regulation 7 requires that edges of sheet metal up to a maximum thickness of 5 mm, used in toys, shall not be accessible to a child's fingers or, under normal conditions of use become so accessible without the use of tools, or that the edges of sheet metal shall be coated with a protective substance or be folded back. Many metal toys are made from sheet tinplate and these are particularly likely to have edges that are sharp enough to cut a child's finger. For these reasons it has become generally accepted practice in this country over the years and in some other countries—to take suitable precautions so that the edges of sheet metal toys are not accessible or are suitably protected.
  It was for this reason that the provisions relating to sharp edges were included in the 1974 regulations. The toys marketed by Kitfix Hobby's Ltd. which have led to prosecutions are made of tin plate. The British Standards relating to sharp edges and points are similar to the provisions which have existed since 1961 in the British Code of Safety Requirements for Children's Toys and Playthings produced by the British Standards Institution technical committee upon which British Toy Manufacturers' Association and the Association of Toy and Fancy Goods Factors and Importers are represented. They are included in the revised edition of the code which was published in 1968.
  Regulation 7 is consistent not only with the British Standards Code, but with the draft CEN standard for toys produced by the European Committee for Standardisation on which 15 countries, including the United Kingdom, are represented. Our delegation includes representatives of the British Toy Manufacturers' Association, and briefing of the delegation is undertaken by the BSI technical committee on which their representatives serve. The CEN standard is intended to form the basis of an EEC

  327
  directive which will be binding on all members.
  The United States Manufacturers' Voluntary Product Standard for toys provides that edges of sheet metal that are less than 0·02 inches thick must be rolled back. This is similar to our requirement.
  The first draft of the new regulations was circulated by the Home Office in January 1974 to consumer and safety organisations, local authority associations and all interested trade associations, including the British Toy Manufacturers' Association of which Kitfix Hobby's Limited is a member, the Association of Toy and Fancy Goods Factors and Importers and associations representing toy wholesalers and retailers. A number of comments were received about the proposed new regulations and they were all carefully considered by the Home Office before the regulations were made.
  Some trade associations asked for operative dates to be deferred to allow for the disposal of existing stocks and later dates were adopted for some of the requirements. It was decided to keep 1st October 1974 as the operative date for the requirement relating to sharp points and edges, although the Home Office took into account all the factors involved, including the fact that the British Standard had been in existence since 1961, that most British toy manufacturers and importers had complied voluntarily with the code since it was published and that it was undesirable to permit over the pre-Christmas period the continued sale of toys with certain hazardous features, including the obvious and substantial hazards of sharp points and edges. Irrespective of whether the regulation was made or not, importers and manufacturers of toys still had a duty of care to the public. It is incorporated in and strengthened by the regulations which have been made.
  On publicity, it is accepted that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. If laws were not operative until they had been notified to every person affected, it would be a long time before some health safety and consumer safety requirements were brought into operation.
  I think that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West used to be an auctioneer. I am a solicitor. We both
  328
  know that laws are passed which affect our respective professions and neither of us would complain that a law operated against us even though we had not been personally notified. People such as Mr. Marcus belong to trade associations. Consultations take place with those associations and if people read the journals of the associations they are normally informed of the passage of regulations of this nature.
  Mr. Marcus complained that he was not aware of the existence of the regulations until the first prosecution arose. He contended that he should have received individual notification about the regulations from the Home Office.
  In order to bring new regulations and proposals for regulations to the attention of the trade, it was the practice of the Home Office—now continued by my Department—to rely, first, on the circulation of information to their members by the trade associations concerned during the period of consultations and when the regulations were finally made and, secondly, on the issue of Press notices to the national and trade press and to the media generally when the regulations were published and when they came into operation.
  It is known that the British Toy Manufacturers' Association circulated the draft regulations to its members in February 1974, referred again to the proposed regulations in a Newsletter issued to its members in April 1974 and sent members a copy of the published regulations under cover of a Newsletter issued in November 1974.
  When the new regulations were made, a Press notice giving details was issued by the Home Office in August 1974 and they received wide coverage in the Press throughout the country. A further Press notice was issued by the DPCP on 1st April 1975, the date when some of the provisions took effect for manufacturers and importers. That gave details of all the regulations, including those which had come into effect on 1st October 1974. Articles on the regulations were published in British Toys, the BMTA journal, in August 1974 and in Toy Trader in March 1975.
  It is not possible for any Government Department, when making regulations

  329
  which affect traders in one way or another, to notify every trader individually about the requirements which they impose, and it is understood that it is common practice to rely, as the Home Office did, on the circulation of information by trade associations to their members and on publicity in the national and trade Press.
  Mr. Hawkins: I apologise for interrupting again. I believe that the Minister has already told me in correspondence that no advertisements were put in the papers but that there were hand-outs which the newspapers made use of as they thought fit. Did they in fact give the details of the thickness of metal or anything else? Did the trade associations, when they circularised members early in 1974, give full details about the 0·5 mm? Does the Minister know?
  Mr. Fraser: I do not know offhand. There were consultations about the regulations. They may have been altered during the course of the consultations. I do not know precisely the content of the draft regulations circulated to members, but wide publicity was given to them. It has not been the invariable practice of Government Departments to advertise new legislation. I know that it is done on some occasions. However, in such cases as this the Department relies on the trade association concerned notifying its members, as it did, including Mr. Marcus.
  I turn now to complaints and accident statistics. In his letters to the Department, Mr. Marcus has contended that the provision in the regulations relating to sharp edges is unnecessary and unjustified by the small number of accidents which they cause.
  In 1974, for example, 34 out of 121 complaints about potentially dangerous toys were about sharp edges and points. That is not a large number in relation to the millions of toys sold each year, but it is right to bear in mind that the majority have in the past complied with the British Standard Code and would not have had potentially dangerous features of this kind.
  Statistics collected during 1973–74 as part of a wider study on the collection of home accident information showed that in the six participating hospitals—the hon. Gentleman mentioned this matter—
  330
  there were 197 accidents involving toys, of which six were recorded as being due to sharp edges. On a national basis—the hon. Gentleman made some fun of this aspect—that is equivalent to 150 accidents throughout England and Wales requiring hospital treatment. There is nothing illegitimate in projecting statistics on a national basis. If one did not accept the projection of certain statistics, one would have to collect statistics for every accident. That would be far too expensive and, I believe, unnecessary. What is more, reported accidents are only the tip of the iceberg since the majority of cuts are treated at home or by family doctors. It is significant that the NEISS data collection system and in-depth investigations in the USA have shown that sharp edges are one of the primary hazards presented by toys.
  As in the case of all other regulations so far made under the Consumer Protection Act 1961, the Toys (Safety) Regulations apply to all products coming within their scope regardless of the date of manufacture. This is not unreasonable. If regulations are made to prohibit hazardous features of one kind or another in consumer goods, there can be little justification for excluding any existing stocks of potentially harmful products from their scope simply because they were manufactured or imported before the requirements were imposed.
  The situation in regard to stocks already in the pipeline is, of course, considered in deciding on operative dates, but in the case of the Toys (Safety) Regulations, the Home Office took the view that there was no case for allowing a lengthy period of grace for the disposal of stocks of toys with sharp points or edges—stocks which, incidentally, would not have existed if the British Standard Code had been complied with. This applies equally to any toys which may already have been ordered from overseas suppliers before the regulations were made.
  The placing of advance orders for toys is understood to be a practice followed by toy importers in general. It is, therefore, relevant to note that, from the time the Toys (Safety) Regulations came into operation, no representations have been received from any other importer of toys about non-complying toys of which they have been obliged to take delivery and

  331
  which they cannot now sell in this country. If Kitfix Hobby's Ltd. is now in this position, there is nothing that can be done to help it. It is hardly practicable to alter the operative date of regulations two and a half years after they have been in force.
  Mr. Marcus considers it unfair and illogical that sharp edges on toys are prohibited while nothing has been done about sharp edges on soft drink cans with ring-pull ends. I remember cutting myself on a Coca Cola can on one occasion. If these cans were, in fact, found to be causing cut mouths and fingers, suitable action would, of course, be taken to deal with them.
  Regulations made under the Consumer Protection Act 1961 are not enforced by my Department but by local trading standards authorities. There is no reason to suppose that they act in other than a reasonable manner in enforcing these regulations, and in many cases traders found to be selling non-complying products are warned in the first instance rather than prosecuted—especially in the period following the coming into force of new regulations. It is of interest to note that the first prosecution against Kitfix Hobby's Ltd was not brought until late in 1975, that is, two years after the regulations were first mooted by the Home Office.
  Since then, this company has been prosecuted in various parts of the country—possibly in respect of the same range of imported toys. This is the effect of the "passing over" provisions introduced by the Consumer Protection Act 1971, which enable enforcement authorities, on finding that non-complying goods are being offered for sale, to prosecute the original suppliers for the offence if it is considered that they are mainly to blame. When a manufacturer or importer has once been prosecuted under this procedure for an offence committed by a retailer, he would be well advised to recall existing unsold stocks held elsewhere.
  It is, of course, to be regretted if any toy trader finds it necessary, because of losses on non-complying toys, to contemplate closing his business, and it is naturally a matter for concern if this means a loss of jobs. No such case—
  332
  apart from Kitfix Hobby's Ltd—has been reported since the Toys (Safety) Regulations were made. It is understood that the toys which have led to prosecutions against Kitfix Hobby's Ltd have been imported toys.
  The 1974 regulations were made by the Home Office—not by my Deportment. The requirements they imposed seem reasonable and necessary, and there would seem to have been full consultations with all the associations representing the toy trade, which apparently kept their members well informed of developments. These consultations led to later operative dates for some, but not all, of the proposed requirements. There was little justification for allowing the continued sale for a lengthy period of toys with sharp points and edges, bearing in mind the obvious hazard which these present and also the comparable provisions which had been in the British Standard for toys since 1961.
  There is no evidence that the regulations have caused difficulties for toy importers or manufacturers, and it would appear that, generally speaking, the procedure adopted for promulgating information about the regulations was effective. The regulations will be kept under review, and, indeed, discussions are currently taking place with the British Toy Manufacturers' Association about the content of possible further regulations.
  The prohibition of accessible sharp edges will be retained, but it is too early to say whether the present requirement is likely to be altered in any way. In the final event, it will have to be consistent with any relevant provision in the EEC directive, when adopted. No significant change may be necessary as the requirements of the CEN standard as at present drafted, on which the directive is to be based, are similar to those in the existing regulations.
  I have corresponded with the hon. Gentleman on this matter and I have listened to what he has said. I looked into the matter carefully before I came to the House, but I am afraid that, in balancing one's duty to the general pub-lie and children in particular, and given the knowledge and foresight which the hon. Gentleman's constituent might have had, I do not see any ground for changing the decisions that have been made on this matter.

  WATER SUPPLY
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for inconveniencing him by asking him to be here and to the Officers of the House for delaying proceedings.
  At the risk of boring the House I wish to question again the proposal to build a new dam in the Elan Valley in my constituency, namely, the Craig Goch. This is a joint venture to be undertaken by two water authorities, the Severn-Trent Water Authority and the Welsh National Water Development Authority. The Severn-Trent authority would benefit from the development by receiving about 90 per cent. of the supplies, if it goes ahead as envisaged at present, and the Welsh authority would receive 10 per cent. of the supplies from the reservoir.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for drought—perhaps we should call him the Minister for floods these days—has said that he cannot intervene in the argument over the size of the proposed dam because he has a quasi-judicial rôle to play. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales takes a similar view, and I have no doubt that they are right to do so. However, if Ministers are not to intervene, we are in some difficulty.
  A consultative document was published last year stating that a national water authority will be created with powers to intervene over and above those of the regional water authorities. In the meantime, until legislation is produced—and I understand that legislation on this subject is pending—there will be a vacuum. These two water authorities can go ahead with their own plans, but if we think that a different plan ought to be pursued in the national interest, it seems that no one can intervene to overrule the water authorities.
  It would be a tragedy if a start were made on the proposal to build the Craig Goch dam at the minimum suggested height, as proposed at present, when we ought to build a larger dam in the national interest. There are doubts about building the smaller dam. As my hon. Friend knows, there is a delay due to fears
  334
  expressed by the Severn-Trent authority. It would be a pity if the smaller dam were built.
  Decisions of this nature should be taken out of the hands of bodies such as the water authorities. The project is designed so that the height could later be raised, but unfortunately the initial choice determines the kind of structure. We prefer a concrete buttress dam rather than a rock-filled darn, because a concrete dam would be more pleasing aesthetically and would be safer.
  In view of our experiences of the last 12 months and particularly last summer's drought, does my hon. Friend think that a decision on the size of the dam should be taken by the two water authorities, which will be able to get the water they need from the smaller dam, when other parts of the country could ultimately benefit from the project? The present proposal for a smaller dam would provide water for Wales and for the Severn-Trent authority until the end of this century. But, in view of the wider considerations, if we are to move towards a national grid system, the Craig Goch project would be central to that system. In that sense we would move away from the idea of constructing a series of small dams all over the country and instead we could build a much larger dam which would disturb many fewer people.
  When I first came to the House in 1970 I was involved in a controversy about a proposal to construct a small dam in my constituency. I argued against it at the time because I said it would disturb so many farm holdings and residents, but at the end of the day would not supply needs for far enough ahead. There was a larger project in another area which could have been extended to transfer water from one area to another. I see Craig Goch in the same way, so that transfers of water could take place into other areas of the country.
  If my hon. Friend the Minister intends to speak about his quasi-judicial rôle and intends to opt out of intervention, may I ask him to advise me about to whom I may turn for intervention at this stage? The two authorities are rightly looking only to their own needs. One cannot expect them to look further, but we have to look far beyond this point and I beg my hon. Friend the Minister

  335
  to advise us to whom we can best turn for advice on intervention.
  9.2 p.m.
  Mr. Mike Noble: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) for arranging this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for coming along to answer it. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor has raised the subject of water supply and its problems as they affect his constituents. I should like to widen the debate by looking at one group with a considerable interest in water.
  I do not suppose that the public ever paid as much regard to the supply of water as they did last year. In my constituency standpipes were put up in the streets—it was one of the few constituencies in the North-West where that happened. A great deal of attention was devoted to the problem at the time, and considerable groups have emerged since then. They deal with the problems facing industry and how it would continue with a shortage of water, with the problems facing the consumer, and with the problems facing anglers. I wish to speak briefly about the last group.
  It is sometimes not realised that well over 2 million people regard themselves as anglers and that angling is probably the most popular outdoor sport in the country. Yet often the activities of water authorities run contrary to the interests of anglers, and frequently one gets the impression—as an angler, I do—that the interests of this group are forgotten when plans are being made.
  One of the points which emerged last year when plans were being laid for a national water grid through which water could be transferred from one part of the country to another at a time of shortage was that this raised severe problems for anglers who were interested in migratory fish such as salmon, sea trout and so forth. No one fully understands how salmon return to the rivers of their birth, but many anglers are afraid that if a national water grid is introduced, it might disturb the natural pattern, and the opportunity to fish for migratory fish would be reduced accordingly.
  I recall reading an article in The Sunday Times last year indicating the difficulties
  336
  that would have to be faced. I hope that my hon. Friend will take this point on board and will ensure that consultations take place with angling interests before any such plans are put into effect.
  In a similar vein, there was an announcement last week that, despite the amount of rain we are having at present, there could be a severe water shortage in the North-West within about 20 years. It was announced on television that four possible schemes for dealing with that water shortage were being considered. Two of them were in the Lake District, one at Haweswater. There was a third scheme for a Morecambe Bay barrage and a fourth scheme at Hellifield on the Ribble.
  The interesting point about the television programme was that environmentalists were present to put forward their point of view but no account was taken of angling interests. Yet if one considers the benefits against the costs, there can be little doubt that the most effective scheme would be for the Morecambe Bay barrage to be developed. This would not only provide a large fresh water lake but, in addition, would provide a highway cutting the corner off on the long road to Barrow.
  In the foreseeable future Barrow could become an important development area if gas is found in the Irish Sea. At the moment the road to Barrow is long and tedious. The Morecambe Bay barrage would resolve the problem of water supplies and would at no cost to the environment or to anglers—rather an improvement to the environment and further facilities for all kinds of leisure pursuits on water—enable the North-West not only to meet the demand for water but also most probably supply other areas.
  However, if the scheme at Haweswater or the other scheme in the Lake District were introduced, it would have serious environmental effects. Similarly, the scheme at Hellifield on the Ribble would also have serious environmental effects. I believe that that scheme could effectively destroy the possibility of migratory fish, such as salmon and sea trout, on the Ribble, because the areas where the salmon spawn would probably be destroyed. That would be a serious loss not simply to present anglers but to future generations who might wish to be involved in this sport.

  337
  A further problem with regard to the angling fraternity concerns pollution. This is closely related to the problem of water supply itself. Anyone who has walked along a river which is normally alive with fish and who has seen the pollution caused by a chemical plant, or some other form of pollution, will know what a horrifying sight it is to see literally hundreds of fish dying or dead on the surface of the river. Those fish cannot be replaced and their deaths will result in the non-creation of thousands of other fish.
  The measures that the Government have at their disposal to deal with pollution are insufficient. My suggestion for dealing with industrial pollution would be initially to require every new factory sited on a river to have its effluent point above the point at which it takes water out of the river. By doing so the firm would have an interest in making sure that it was not taking in heavily polluted water for its own purposes. That is the kind of control that I believe to be necessary if we are to make any progress whatever with this serious problem of pollution in our water supplies.
  A practice that is causing a great deal of distress to fishermen, particularly those involved in seeking migratory fish is the excessive netting of those fish in estuaries. As well as being a serious environmental threat and detrimental to the interests of the angler, people involved in netting are making a killing, literally, at the expense of many others. This practice should be much more effectively controlled.
  Since the water reorganisation, the North-West Water Authority now covers an area from Calisle almost to the Midlands. It did an excellent job during the drought which could not have been done under the old structure, but all is not perfect. Anglers have a strong criticism of the authority.
  Many anglers have relatively modest means and do not wish to travel from Rossendale, my constituency, or Burnley, where I live, to the area around Carlisle to fish, yet they pay a licence charge to cover the whole area. The authority refuses to budge, but there is no reason why part-area licences, at a reduced cost, should not be introduced. There are also proposals, which should be carefully examined, for the charges to be increased.
  338
  I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me to make some points which are important to anglers. This subject is not often raised in the House.
  9.12 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) on seizing the opportunity earlier this evening of requesting an additional Adjournment debate. It does not make him any more popular with Ministers, but his constituents will see it as evidence that they have an alert and concerned Member. The short notice does make things difficult. My hon. Friend is right: I do intend to talk about the quasi-judicial rôle of the Secretary of State.
  We operate at the moment under the Water Act 1973, brought in by Conservative Members, who could be on the empty Benches opposite. The people responsible for the water supply are the water authorities, on which the local authorities are in a majority. Hon. Members who write to me and the Minister of State a good deal could get in touch with the chairmen of those authorities and the public could contact them through their local councils.
  On the subject of Craig Goch, it is virtually certain that there will be a public inquiry if an order is made for any scheme of the kind described by my hon. Friend. After such an inquiry, the inspector's report is referred to the Secretary of State for decision. That is what prevents me from stating any views tonight. I am greatly tempted to do so by some of the things that my hon. Friend said, but I may not. When that inquiry is held, there should be a consideration of the full range of options, not just those brought up by the water authorities.
  My hon. Friend was quite right to say that the Severn-Trent authority and the Welsh National Water Development Authority have considered jointly the possible scheme for a reservoir at Craig Goch. They believe that a 373-metre level dam would satisfy their needs at Severn-Trent, Wales and Wessex until the next century. Incidentally, that is not the depth of the dam but its height above sea level when the reservoir is completed. They have looked at the

  339
  possibility of going beyond that level to 385 metres or 400 metres.
  Some estimate of the costs of the various schemes has been made. A 373-metre dam would cost £39 million, a 385-metre dam would cost £70 million, and a 400-metre dam would cost £100 million. There have been some doubts in the National Water Council—I am not expressing an opinion of the Department on this—about the technical feasibility of 400-metre dam, not from the point of view of construction, but from the effect it may have on the upper Severn.
  My hon. Friend asked me to whom he should turn for information. He should go, first, in this case to the Welsh authority and, secondly, the National Water Council. The council does not have the powers we would expect it to have under the proposed legislation, but it would certainly help with information. During the next few days, the Welsh and the Severn-Trent authorities will probably be discussing with the National Water Council and with the Department the national implications of the scheme. The views of other regional water authorities will be taken into account.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to my hon. Friend on a number of occasions about this subject. I am sure that regional water authorities will keep the public informed, and the public in Wales and England will have an opportunity to participate in a public inquiry.
  There is no vacuum at present. We have had consultations, but plans of the water authorities are going ahead where possible. We hope to produce a White Paper on possible future legislation in the late spring and the House will have an opportunity to discuss the question before then. The difference between a national water authority and the National Water Council would be on the matter of strategic planning.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) also seized the opportunity with great effect, and I know that he will not expect me to answer all his points. The first Adjournment debate which I ever initiated as a Back-Bencher was about the pollution of rivers in South-East Lancashire. In the nine years since then there has been a considerable
  340
  improvement in those rivers. I can safely say that, despite restrictions on public expenditure, money spent to prevent pollution has not declined recently.
  I visited my hon. Friend's constituency last summer and I saw the standpipes. His area has never been under water since. He realised that the drought and the fact that we were saved from its worst effects was no joking matter, as some people thought.
  He mentioned anglers. Sport is another sphere of influence of my Department. I agree that angling is an enormously important sport and it has the largest following of any sport in the country.
  I noted what my hon. Friend said about the need for proper facilities for licensing and for watching conservation, another aspect of my Department's work. There ought to be consultation between anglers and the regional water authorities. We try where possible to see that anglers are represented on a water authority.
  As a North-West Member, I echo all that my hon. Friend said about the importance of the North West Water Authority. As a native of Manchester, I was always brought up to believe that while the pyramids might be among the seven wonders of the world, the Manchester Corporation waterworks were also among the seven wonders. I am sure that the North-West has been very appreciative of the foresight of the city fathers of Manchester and Liverpool during recent years.
  There will be plenty of opportunity for debating water supply and other relevant matters, such as the disposal of dirty water. I note what my hon. Friends have said, and I shall let them have a reply in due course.

  TEACHER EXCHANGES (UNITED STATES)
  9.20 p.m.
  Mr. Terry Walker: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to raise the tax and currency problems which face British teachers who have taken part in teacher exchanges in the United States. I assure my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that there are problems for those

  341
  who have been caught up in that situation over the past year. I know that to raise such a complex problem in an Adjournment debate is very bold, but I also know that my hon. Friend is aware of the problems, because I have corresponded with him on behalf of two of my constituents, and I know that he has sympathy about their problems.
  My plea to my hon. Friend is that the Treasury should think again about the problems of Dr. Robert Giddings, of Somerset House, Swineford, and Mr. F. R. Powell, of 20, Church Road, Bitton. They are two of the unfortunate people who happened to be on teacher exchanges in the United States during the past year.
  All British exchange teachers in the United States last year were exposed to the severities of the economic situation there during 1975–76. They also had to face the fall in the value of the pound. This is acknowledged by all those who have commented on the situation. Some of those who were on teacher exchanges last year have been featured in articles in The Sunday Times, The Times, and The Times Educational Supplement, and have been on television and radio in Great Britain and the United States.
  Evidence has also been passed to me underlining much of the hardship experienced by teachers and their families in the United States during that time. All the time this was happening they were supposed to be ambassadors for the United Kingdom. There is massive evidence that their hardship made the Americans realise that we were very poor cousins indeed. That is not a good thing for us to be advertising in the United States. We are having enough trouble advertising our best product, Concorde, there. Certainly to advertise financially poor teachers is something we could do without, and it should be avoided at all costs.
  United States teachers who come to this country receive tax concessions for doing so. While they are on exchange programmes in Europe they can also claim educational expenses. Yet the United Kingdom Government, through the Inland Revenue, now seek to tax the salaries of our teachers for the money they earned while they were in the United States.
  342
  The crux of the problem seems to me to be the interpretation of Schedule 2 of the Finance Act 1974. The phrase contained in that provision relates to duties
  "performed wholly outside the United Kingdom".
  The problem has arisen over interpretation of that phrase by the Inland Revenue.
  My constituent, Dr. Giddings, taught in the United States for a year or more and his duties were performed wholly outside the United Kingdom. The same applies to Mr. Powell, even though they were both being paid by their employer, the Avon County Council. That is where the anomaly arises.
  I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether business executives and others in this country pay British taxes when they spend a year or more outside the United Kingdom. The Inland Revenue's case is that earnings received by a person for a period of absence from an office of employment, the duties of which are ordinarily performed wholly or partly in this country, are treated as earnings for duties performed in the United Kingdom. In other words, a teacher who is given leave of absence to go to the United States under an exchange programme and who continues to be paid by a local authority in this country—in this case by the Avon County Council—remains liable to tax in full on his United Kingdom earnings.
  This means that British teachers, who are paid substantially less than their American counterparts, go on exchange to the United States which has a very high cost of living and where they have to pay for their own health insurance, commodity tax on their food, as well as having to meet British income tax for social and welfare benefits which they cannot enjoy while they are in the United States. This is nothing short of madness. Furthermore, American teachers pay much lower rates of tax than do British teachers.
  Last year a total of 90 teachers went from the United Kingdom to the United States. At a time when the pound was constantly falling in value, those teachers suffered severe hardship. Therefore, to screw them at this stage for income tax when they return to these shores seems

  343
  to be beyond belief, and is certainly a great shame.
  I wish to ask the Minister one other question. Do military personnel, civil servants and business personnel get clobbered in the same way for British income tax if they are out of the country for a year or more? I do not see why this is happening at the present time. The desperate position of teachers last year was recognised by the Central Bureau for Educational Visits, because it increased to £1,616 the amount of grant and raised the amounts for dependants to £323 and £405 respectively. It recognises the fact that teachers abroad have suffered great hardship.
  Dr. Giddings is a handicapped person in a wheelchair. He had to take his wheelchair to the United States, and the Department of Health and Social Security insisted that he should be liable for the upkeep and repair of that wheelchair while abroad. It cost him some 80 dollars in repairs and the hire of a loan chair during the time that his own chair was out of service.
  During the time that he was away he did not enjoy the benefits of the British National Health Service. His family were not covered by the scheme that operates under the Department of Health in Washington. I am told that that covers exchange teachers only. My constituent had to pay for medical bills incurred by the family for drugs and other matters, while American teachers in the same situation in this country get free National Health Service treatment. It seems that they are getting all the benefits and we are paying out all the money.
  The Central Bureau for Educational Visits in London was approached on this matter, and there is a definite precedent, so it tells me, in previous cases were British exchange teachers have not paid tax. There is no way that I can check that that has been the case, but that is what I am told. If there is a precedent, I ask the Minister to look into it. If there is a precedent, surely it should be honoured at this time.
  The West German exchange scheme with America avoids these problems because jobs and salaries are exchanged. My research has shown that the British scheme is the only one where the foreign
  344
  exchange teacher is paid salary from the home country and pays home taxation in the United States. The United States teacher gets a United States salary and pays United States taxes while in this country.
  If we are to overcome this anomaly, teachers must be given freedom from United Kingdom income tax while they are abroad. Before my constituents left this country the Inland Revenue did not seem to be very clear about the exact position. The Inland Revenue was approached by Dr. Giddings's accountants in this regard. I only wish that they had raised the matter with me so that I could have been in a position to raise the matter before rather than after the event.
  I ask my hon. Friend to look into these matters once again and to regard them in a compassionate light. On the evidence that has been presented to me, it seems to be a grossly unfair situation that should be quickly remedied. I hope that it will be remedied, but perhaps it may be considered retrospectively for my two constituents and others who are similarly affected. After all, we are talking about a small number of families—namely, 90. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with this matter. It occurs to me that it should be sorted out so that those who go to teach in America as our ambassadors should not be financially embarrassed.
  9.33 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): The House will have expected my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) to have made his case with his customary courtesy, lucidity and, if I may say so, accuracy. From the knowledge that I have it is clear that he has gone into this matter in great detail and has applied himself to assist his constituents to the best of his ability. The House always appreciates and recognises the value of a Member who acts in that way.
  The problems of the teacher exchanges that took place last year were clearly dealt with by my hon. Friend. After hearing what he has said, there can be no doubt that considerable hardship was involved in the cases of his two constituents—namely, Mr. Powell and Dr. Giddings. My hon. Friend has referred to two letters, the first being written by

  345
  Dr. Giddings on 2nd December and the second by Mr. Powell, and my hon. Friend wrote to me on 20th December.
  There are really three aspects to this matter. One—the question of grants and payments—does not concern me directly. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The two aspects that concern me and that cover the main points raised by my right hon. Friend are those of tax and currency problems.
  I shall deal first with the currency problems of these two constituents of my hon. Friend. We know that there was an exceptional decline in the value of the pound sterling in comparison with the dollar during the whole of the period of last year. Those who had made their arrangements on the exchange rate prevailing at the beginning of their visit, which in the case of these two constituents of my hon. Friend was 14th August 1975, would obviously have found that, however careful their budgeting, they would not have been able to make reasonable provision to cope with the decline in the value of the money available to them.
  We cannot contemplate poverty in people sent abroad as ambassadors for this country with anything but the greatest anxiety about their difficulties. We accept that, due to a number of arrangements that United States teachers have been able to make, they have some advantages, quite apart from the fact that they are generally more highly paid.
  I turn to the tax problem. Clearly there is room for some changes here. I shall come in due course to the type of changes proposed. My hon. Friend was right to point out that the problems of his constituents really arise from Schedule 2 to the Finance Act 1974, which deals with the position of those who leave this country, as his constituents left this country, to work abroad, but of course they were still being paid by the Avon County Council.
  My hon. Friend asked whether business executives and civil servants, if they were similarly affected, would have to pay United Kingdom tax. The answer, broadly, is "Yes". Where a business man has an employment the duties of which are not wholly performed abroad, he will remain liable to United Kingdom
  346
  tax as well. A civil servant and, of course, anybody else in the service of the Government will be taxed according to United Kingdom tax laws if abroad for not more than a year.
  So these teachers are in a difficult position. My hon. Friend tells me that the grant has now been increased, so those who go abroad in future on exchange visits of this type will be protected. My hon. Friend pointed out that United States teachers enjoy the benefits of free National Health Service treatment here and that West German teachers have a number of advantages.
  My hon. Friend also said that his constituents had problems with the local tax office where the position was not made quite clear to them. I regret that and apologise for it. I shall be happy to go further into that aspect of the matter.
  We have looked at what can be done to put the matter right for the future. It is of little advantage to those who blazed the way, to those who have suffered and find that they are unable to receive recompense, to tell them that the problems will be put right for others. However, we are unfortunately tied by statute and the provisions of the Finance Act 1974. Without commitment, we are hoping that we shall be able to look at the problem along the lines of the consultative document published on 15th December.
  The document deals precisely with the matter that my hon. Friend's constituents correctly brought to light. It deals with the position of people who work abroad. The category of person that we had in mind was that involved in exporting. We were thinking of the need to encourage exporting. But it will apply to all those taxpayers who go abroad in the way described by my hon. Friend.
  Without going into the details of the consultative document I shall briefly explain the provision from which my hon. Friend's constituents—or others who go abroad in future—will be able to benefit. The proposals in the consultative document have not yet been accepted, but on that understanding I shall tell the House how such people may be assisted.
  The provisions would apply to those going abroad for a continuous period of 30 days or more who would receive a 25 per cent. deduction from their overseas earnings which would then

  347
  be assessed for tax in the usual way. For those abroad for a period of more than 365 days the deduction would be 100 per cent. That means that there would be no United Kingdom tax payable on the overseas earnings of those people. That provision would meet my hon. Friend's objection in full. That is a remedy for the future. The problems of the past were caused by the Finance Act.
  I shall be happy to look at the particular problem raised by my hon. Friend of why his constituents were not given the information that might have been made available to them. That information might have enabled them to conduct their affairs in a different manner. Without involving any extra money, the information might have enabled them to plan at an earlier stage for their liabilities when they saw the exchange rate decline, and might have enabled them to assess the seriousness of their financial position. I am pleased to say that we have made arrangements for the arrears of tax to be deducted over a long period of time and that that has been met with a satisfactory response.
  Mr. John Cope: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the provisions of his Act created the problems and that they were considerably criticised at the time? The Minister referred to the consultative document. I hope that he was not implying that the proposals will be adopted in anything like the form of the proposals contained in the document. They might help the cases raised by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker), but they would create difficulties for others, such as exporters.
  Mr. Sheldon: The document is clearly consultative. Earlier I made it clear that it was only a basis for discussion. Representations have been made to the Treasury and the Inland Revenue which are being considered. A decision will be made in due course and will be announced during the course of the Budget Statement. Clearly, if the proposals were enacted in the form set out in the consultative document, that would meet the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood.
  With that understanding, I should be happy to look at the further point concerning
  348
  the ability of tax offices to furnish the information that does not seem to have been made fully available in this case, and which might have been of some assistance to the two constituents concerned. I hope that we shall be able to find out something in that respect.
  With that, perhaps we can take note that the grievance that my hon. Friend's constituents had was one that ought to have been brought to the attention of the House. But, such as it was, it will, if the consultative document is carried into effect, be remedied by future changes.

  TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGES (SCOTLAND)
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a tangential subject to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker), perhaps I may tell him that he is not the only person to have run into this problem. When I was a delegate to a conference at Lomé, I had similar worries expressed by British teachers working for the British Council at schools in West Africa, so I simply say to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that this is a widespread problem and it is not only my hon. Friend who is concerned about it.
  I object to people cheating on Adjournment debates, but I have tried, briefly, to find my hon. Friend at the Scottish Office who is responsible for the teacher training colleges in Scotland. However, I wish to raise with the Treasury the tangential problem which has some relevance to the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood has raised.
  As the Financial Secretary knows, there is the vexed problem of the closing down and merger of teacher training colleges.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Has the hon. Gentleman given notice to Mr. Speaker's office and to the Scottish Office?
  Mr. Dalyell: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have not been able to find a Scottish Office Minister to reply to this debate. But I think that it is fair to put this to the Treasury. I do not expect an answer this evening, because the Financial Secretary is a careful man and does not give

  349
  off-the-cuff answers, and it would be improper if he were to do so. However, may I ask—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman does that, I think that he well knows the rules of the House. Whereas the Chair cannot in fact prevent him from raising matters without notice, the Chair strongly deprecates the practice.
  Mr. Dalyell: I think it reasonable, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I say that I do not expect a detailed, off-the-cuff answer from the Treasury tonight, and legitimate to raise in the House of Commons—as I did last Tuesday, in an Adjournment debate on the question of the merger and closing down of teacher training colleges in Scotland—the question whether the Treasury has insisted on having from the Scottish Office any kind of proper costing of the proposals.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the hon. Gentleman given notice to the Treasury? He has not been able to find a Minister from the Scottish Office, but has he approached the Treasury and given notice to the Treasury for the debate?
  Mr. David Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I not right in understanding that the purpose of giving notice is to ensure that a Treasury Minister or the appropriate departmental Minister is present in order to reply to the debate? We have a Treasury Minister present. Therefore, is not the purpose of giving notice to the Treasury fulfilled in this case?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should have thought that in the circumstances the Minister concerned should have some notice of the subject matter of the debate.
  Mr. Dalyell: If one were demanding a reply off the cuff from a Minister, it would certainly be courteous and good manners to give a good notice. On the other hand, as you will recognise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the period of time that we have in the House is perhaps gratuitous for such subjects, and we do not always have the advantage of time in Adjournment debates. If I put the matter in the form of registering an argument with Treasury Ministers, Mr. Deputy Speaker, provided that I am not unreasonable and ill-mannered enough to press for a detailed reply tonight, which would be
  350
  totally unreasonable, surely I am entitled to express the problem.
  The problem is this. The Secretary of State for Scotland has come forward—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should inform the hon. Gentleman of the exact words on page 285 of "Erskine May" because they set out the situation clearly. They say:
  "The Chair has deprecated the introduction of such subjects "—
  that is, additional Adjournment debates—
  "in cases where clue notice has not been given to the Minister concerned".
  I really feel that I must strongly deprecate the raising of the matter, whether tangential or not, with the Financial Secretary, because he has not had due notice of the subject upon which the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak.
  Mr. Dalyell: Do you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, strongly deprecate or order me not to do it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can answer that at once. The Chair has no power to prevent the hon. Gentleman but the Chair does have the power to deprecate strongly the action that the hon. Member takes.
  Mr. Dalyell: In normal circumstances I would thereupon sit down, but the situation in Scotland is such, the justice of the cause is such, and the amount of feeling there is such, that I have received 540 handwritten letters, not to mention printed circular letters, about the merger and closure of these training colleges, and for the first time I do not take a hint from the Chair.
  The argument that the proposals have been based upon is that the merger of Craiglockhart College and Dunfermline Women's College of Physical Education, the closure of Craigie College in Ayr and the closure of Callendar Park College at Falkirk will produce a saving.
  All this is being done on the basis of an apparent cost saving. The whole argument has been the economic one that we must do this in order to achieve savings in public expenditure. Time and again over the last four weeks hon. Members have repeatedly challenged the Scottish Office to produce evidence of the savings and the Scottish Office has failed to do so.

  351
  During the Adjournment debate that Mr. Speaker kindly allowed me last Tuesday, I spoke for precisely two minutes, having given five days' notice to the Secretary of State that I would repeat the questions put during the Scottish Grand Committee about the savings involved in the closure and merger of these colleges. After well over a month of argument, nothing has been forthcoming. There is no evidence that if Craigie College—which is two years old and was purpose built for the physical education of women teachers—were closed and used for other specified purposes, there would be a saving. Furthermore, it is extremely doubtful that there would be any savings from closing Callendar Park College and using its extensive facilities for other purposes.
  As for Craiglockhart College, upon which a great deal of money of the Sacred Heart organisation has been lovingly spent during the past 60 years in bulding up a tradition of Roman Catholic primary and secondary teacher training, there is no evidence that any saving would result from closing it and merging it with a separate Roman Catholic training college—Moray House or Dundee College of Education. Indeed, it is doubtful that there would be any saving from the closure of a college of education that is celebrated for its in-service capacity and work in the South-West of Scotland—and it is the only one in the area.
  Surely at some stage the Treasury becomes involved in all policy decisions of the Scottish Office. If it can be proved beyond peradventure that, in present circumstances, there is a substantial saving, I am one of those hon. Members who understands these things well. I have supported the Government's cuts and unpopular decisions on the rate support grant and throughout the economic arguments I have been a strong supporter of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government.
  However, hon. Members who share my attitude find it intolerable that the Secretary of State for Scotland should put forward such proposals in a so-called consultation document with the imprint of the Government upon it. Surely a consultation document is not published unless there is a fairly clear intention of
  352
  carrying out the proposals. It would be frivolous to do so, and Scottish Office Ministers would not be that frivolous.
  The Financial Secretary can answer my questions in writing. Can he tell me what proper cost estimates have been made on the decision to merge and close teacher training colleges in Scotland? At a time when the Secretary of State of Education and Science has decided to close and merge colleges in 1981, with full consultation with all involved, including local authorities and the Roman Catholic hierachy, what argument is there for the Scottish Office to say that it will carry out the irreversible act of merging and closing colleges in 1977 and 1978? It is easy to give training colleges the chop, but much more difficult to build up a tradition.
  Our argument, which we have stated time and again, is that these colleges are essential for Scottish education. If there must be pruning, it could easily be done by making savings at the Jordanhill College of Education in Glasgow, which some of us think is far too big, or at the Moray House College of Education in Edinburgh, which some people think is rather big. There are also prunings which could be made to take care of the problems of the statistics and the falling birth rate.
  I speak not only for the majority of Scottish Members but with the unanimous approval of the Executive and the Conference of the Labour Party in Scotland and many other organisations, who, after a month, have still had from the Scottish Office no idea or evidence on the basis of which these matters were discussed.
  This is a heaven-sent opportunity to ask whether the Treasury were consulted. The Treasury's record is one of complete seriousness, earnestness, doing its homework and going into matters thoroughly. I doubt whether the Treasury civil servants, whom I regard as highly responsible people and not ogres—Ah! My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has just come into the Chamber. I welcome him and tell him that I am in the middle of putting to the Financial Secretary the same sort of questions that I put to my hon. Friend in an Adjournment debate on Tuesday last week concerning the costings of the closure and merger of training colleges. At some time I ask that

  353
  there be a thorough investigation by the Treasury of the decisions by the Scottish Office as to whether it is sensible, for example, to close down the Dunfermline College of Education with all the—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]
  Mr. Dalyell: I ask the Treasury to ask the Scottish Office in some detail whether it is sensible, for example, to close down the Dunfermline College of Education at Cramond when it would mean the extra expense of moving embedded equipment from Cramond to Dundee? I must go into some detail. Is it sensible to remove the trampoline equipment specially designed for Cramond to Dundee where the height of the buildings is not sufficient for the trampoline activity? Is it sensible to move from Cramond to Dundee 92 per cent. of the students, who are not resident in Tayside, and for whom extra residences will have to be found? Is it sensible not to use the expensive swimming pool and athletic facilities at Cramond, which are the very basis of Scotland's international position in women's sport, and to move them to Dundee where similar playing fields and facilities do not exist? Will the Treasury look at these matters and ask Scottish Office civil servants about the advice that they have given to Ministers in that regard?
  I ask my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary—for many years I have worked closely with him in one form of activity or another and I know him to be a man of total seriousness and integrity—and his able Treasury officials to demand of the Scottish Office how, after 60 years, the Craiglockhart College, lovingly financed by the Sacred Heart organisation and having built up a tradition of Roman Catholic primary and latterly secondary teacher training, can be moved to Moray House or to Dundee retaining a similar entity when those very colleges say that to retain a similar entity would be a highly expensive operation? Furthermore, what compensation will be paid to the Roman Catholic Church if Craiglockhart is closed down?
  354
  Why is it that, before issuing what may be called a consultative document—but a document with the imprint of Government, which we must assume is serious—neither the governing body of Craiglockhart nor the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, was consulted? How can a Secretary of State do such things?
  This is a very good question for the Treasury—the senior Department of Government—to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends. After all, the Treasury has some responsibility for the Scottish Office. I may say that Scots are not slow, when anything goes wrong, to blame my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury.
  I suggest furthermore that, if, under the 1918 Act, there is to be an obligation to the Roman Catholic authorities, my right hon. Friend might ask why this teacher training college—the only facility of its kind in the East of Scotland—is threatened with closure and what financial savings would be made, if there is to be a Roman Catholic teacher training facility in the East of Scotland, if it were to be closed?
  I now turn my attention to the question of Callender Park where some 35 per cent. of the students are my constituents. What financial or other savings will be made by closing a training college in the strongest growth area in Scotland knowing, as we do, that there are considerable advantages in having in-service training of teachers in schools near a training college.
  Indeed, if the numbers are to be reduced substantially in places like Callendar Park, can we have from the Treasury, as the senior economics Department, some kind of table balancing the cost savings that might otherwise have to be made in unemployment benefit and all sorts of other benefits with those of continuing the college? I also wish to know the estimate of the Treasury of the costs or otherwise of turning Callendar Park into some kind of college of educational administrators, as the inspectorate in Scotland seems to want. In the view of the Treasury, is that a sensible proposition?
  I record that, having been often to Callendar Park, I support the views, expressed publicly by demonstrating in his

  355
  march with the protesters, of the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), that Callendar Park should not be closed. I state here in the House of Commons absolutely and unequivocally that I think that he has performed a brave action, an action of conscience, an action of determination, an action justified in terms of the future of education in Scotland, by making it clear that he stands with Callendar Park on the issue of this consultative document, and that he is prepared to challenge his boss, the Secretary of State for Scotland in this matter. In my view, he is wholly right and should be supported, and I take the opportunity of supporting him tonight. I hope that when the Treasury looks at this matter it will reach the same view.
  Finally, I speak with much more diffidence. At the Scottish Labour Party Conference, I made it my business to talk to those who represented the area of Ayrshire served by Craigie College of Education. They pointed out that in that area of South-West Scotland, not only does Craigie train teachers but it also serves all sorts of other educational purposes, and that it would be an act of considerable lack of foresight to close it. I ask a direct question, although I do not expect my hon. Friend to reply offhand tonight. That would be unreasonable, and in 15 years of working with him I hope that I have never asked him ministerially or otherwise, any unreasonable question. I would like the Treasury's view on the cost savings of closing Craigie as of the other colleges I have mentioned. I should like a Treasury assessment of the total overall savings in the closure of Craigie.
  Mr. David Mitchell: The point I should like the hon. Gentleman to bring out, which is not personal as between him and the Financial Secretary, is one in which the House has an interest. It concerns the extent to which what is being proposed by the Government will damage religious education in that part of Scotland. All of us have an interest, in a Christian country, in seeing the continuance of the right of choice for those who wish to have religious education for their children, and I am disturbed that that choice might be restricted in the future.
  Mr. Dalyell: This is a delicate issue. It is no secret that I shared a platform with the Cardinal-Archbishop of Edinburgh and St. Andrews Cardinal Gray, Archbishop Winning, Monsignor Grady, the Vicar-General, and others who are concerned, and continue to be deeply concerned, about the future of Craiglockhart. They point out that if the Roman Catholic teacher training colleges in the East of Scotland close, this will have considerable effect on Roman Catholic education, and after all, there are certain guarantees under the 1918 Act.
  Mr. James Dempsey: May I draw the House's attention the fact that the Bachelor of Education course is being withdrawn from Notre Dame College of Education, which will make that college less attractive and is the beginning of the erosion of the college as one which teaches denominational students throughout the West of Scotland? There is now great fear that something similar to the college closures will ultimately follow there unless we act now and stop the rot.
  Mr. Dalyell: Of course I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). I know he feels that the Secretary of State for Scotland ought long ago to have met the Cardinal-Archbishop of Edinburgh and St. Andrews and others in the Roman Catholic hierarchy and discussed these things in the proper way.
  I say to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) that this is not a broad attack by me on the Labour Government. The truth is that in England my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mrs. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes)—the Secretary of State and Minister of State—had extensive discussions with the Roman Catholic hierarchy. It may be that there has to be some contraction in teacher training education, given the fall in the birth rate, but in England these things were done with a considerable amount of pre-discussion. It was done in the proper way, with discussions first to reach some kind of agreement, and an infinite amount of trouble was taken. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and my right hon. Friend the

  357
  Secretary of State naturally went to enormous trouble to get some kind of agreement and to have full and frank discussions, before putting any plan to paper with the imprint of Government. I say bluntly that I would have hoped that the Secretary of State for Scotland would have behaved in the same way. He should long ago have had discussions about the very real problems that he may face in relation to Catholic education, as the hon. Member for Basingstoke has said.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): I intervene briefly to say, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), who is not as familiar with the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), that I have made plain in the House on more than one occasion that there is no threat at all to Roman Catholic education in Scotland. That is guaranteed in the Act of 1918 and it is under no threat from this Government, just as it was under no threat from previous Governments.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to meet the hierarchy, as I have met the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. This is a consultative document. No final decision has been made on any college or any course, nor will decisions be made until all the considerations have been taken into account and the Secretary of State has gone through all the submissions. Everything will be taken into consideration.
  Mr. David Mitchell: I am grateful for what the Minister has said. I did not intend to inject any note of party dissent into the discussion. I thought that what the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said was of significance beyond the borders of Scotland. I am grateful to the Minister for having clarified the situation but I join the hon. Member for West Lothian in his sense of unease at the situation which he is unveiling.
  Mr. Dalyell: This is a matter of some significance. I would like to put on record, in case there is any misunderstanding, that I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) has done his very best in difficult circumstances and that his heart is in the right place. We all know the position in which junior
  358
  Ministers find themselves. That is why throughout my speech there has not been a note of criticism of the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's Park. His rôle in the matter has been wholly honourable, as one would expect.
  To the Financial Secretary, who is to reply to the debate, I say that I am asking that the Treasury, the most powerful Ministry in Whitehall, should turn its most critical faculties and its most determined investigatory powers, using some of its most able and determined and formidable civil servants, to investigate the way in which the Scottish Office has come forward with the proposals. I accept that the proposals are in a consultative document, but it is a document that has the imprint of Government about it. It would be a frivolous waste of taxpayers' money if a document with the imprint of Government gave no firm outline of the Government's intentions. One must therefore assume that the consultative document represents some kind of intent by the Government. Therefore I ask that some of the most formidable civil servants who work for the Financial Secretary should be asked to turn their attention to how it happened that the Scottish Office could put forward a document with this kind of intent.
  After weeks of questioning from my hon. Friends the Members for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), Coatbridge and Airdrie and many others, and from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who represents the Cramond College of Education, there has still been no proper argument or explanation about the savings which will be made if the proposals are put into effect. I protest as strongly as I can about proposals that lack evidence.
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House now have the gravest suspicions that there is the threat of closure, a threat to dismantle valuable institutes of Scottish education, a threat that is based on an unreal argument of economic savings. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire has taken a leading part in the campaign. He made a speech of eloquence and power, a very influential and good speech, on this subject at the Scottish Labour Party Conference at Perth. That conference unanimously—executive and all—came out against any closures in circumstances that were totally

  359
  different from the circumstances applying in England.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has been talking in terms of 1981. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has been talking in terms of 1977. Before my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary replies, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire, who played such a leading part at the Scottish conference, would like to say a word or two on this matter.
  For the first time I have not accepted a deprecation from an occupant of the Chair and instead I have insisted upon my rights. I did so only because this is a matter upon which I feel passionately, a matter which will affect the young people of Scotland for many generations to come.
  10.18 p.m.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: It is interesting to see my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury preparing to reply on behalf of the Government tonight. There is no educational justification for the proposals in the document, and if there is any reason for the proposals it is a financial, or rather a pseudo-financial, reason. I can see no savings in public expenditure arising from the document.
  I have tabled Questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland asking how much it is expected will be saved in public expenditure as a result of the proposals in the document. Unfortunately, the replies have been non-committal, or simply not forthcoming.
  This is not an educational document. It contains no educational philosophy or reasoning. The only and phoney reason behind the document is that the Treasury is looking over the shoulder of the Scottish Office and stupidly telling it to cut public expenditure in the vain hope of diverting resources into industry.
  That will not happen for several reasons. It will not happen in financial terms because as yet we do not have control over where the resources go, whether it is into manufacturing industry or elsewhere. We do not have a Socialist economy and the Treasury obviously has no intention of trying to create a Socialist economy.
  360
  This transfer of resources will not take place in human terms either. My own trade union, the Educational Institute of Scotland, conducted a survey among students who left the colleges of education last summer and less than 1 per cent. of that sample actually managed to find jobs in manufacturing industry. It is a myth to suggest that those who do not find jobs in education will find jobs in manufacturing industry.
  This transfer of resources theory, which the Treasury is trying to persuade the Scottish Office and all the other Government Departments to adopt, is not borne out in fact. It is living in cloud cuckoo land. The transfer is not taking place in financial or human terms. That is why I say that it is about time that the Treasury started listening not just to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and myself, but to the voice of the whole Labour movement as expressed at the Scottish conference of the Labour Party at Perth on Saturday.
  As a result of the recommendation of the executive and the emergency resolution moved by myself the whole conference said "Let us reject this document; let us think again and oppose the college closures and let us start thinking constructively about better ways to improve Scottish education instead of demolishing it."
  10.23 p.m.
  Mr. George Thompson: I would simply like to ask a question of the Treasury Minister. How does the Treasury quantify the social and economic value of these colleges to the areas in which they are situated? I am thinking most particularly of Craigie College which is of economic value, socially and educationally, to the South-West of Scotland. How does the Treasury quantify these matters before it takes such savage decisions about cuts?
  10.24 p.m.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to ask one question of the Treasury Minister. Before doing so I should say how much the speeches of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and West Stirling-shire (Mr. Canavan) have been appreciated, especially the speech by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire at the

  361
  Labour Party Conference: it carried great weight.
  I would ask the Minister whether it is possible to frame a sound policy without having a feasibility study and without having costings? How can the people of Scotland be convinced that reforms of this nature are necessary without costings of any kind having been prepared? If the Secretary of State wishes to convince the Scots that some harsh reforms are necessary, the costings must be made and must be made public. It is no us making decisions before making costings, because if the decisions are wrong, they cannot be put right later. The costings and the feasibility study must be done first.
  What is the Government's objection to having costings and a feasibility study? Never before has it been the case that Ministers have flatly rejected feasibility studies before making decisions. Why should they refuse in this case? In the case of Dunfermline College it is estimated that transfer to Dundee College, if Dundee College is to have the same facilities, would cost public expenditure well in excess of £1 million.
  To transform the present Dunfermline College to other purposes would need substantial public expenditure. Is there not an overwhelming case for a feasibility study and costings? Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State has flatly refused to visit any of the colleges threatened with closure or to allow any other Scottish Office Minister to do so? His refusal to do costings or a feasibility study is considered a gross injustice to the people of Scotland. They want to know the facts, which they feel they are being denied.
  10.26 p.m.
  Mr. James Dempsey: I opposed these suggested closures in the Scottish Grand Committee and I shall continue to do so. Wild horses will never drag me into the Lobby to support them. The whole case is based on an unconvincing premise. How many lecturers does the Minister estimate will be made redundant? What will the cost be to the redundancy fund? Of those, how many are likely to find equally substantial and responsible posts in high schools, for example? Let us have some facts and figures in place of wild conjecture.
  362
  If this foolish policy of closing down delightful colleges is followed, what will be the saving in building costs?
  Mr. Harry Gourlay: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of these lecturers work only about eight hours a week?
  Mr. Dempsey: I am not aware of that. My hon. Friend might not have had the grounding that I have had. I have been a member of the governing bodies of two of these colleges and during my time no one did anything but a full and, I hope, rewarding working week. Surely we are entitled to know what economic benefits this policy will bring. We can then ask whether it is really worth while.
  The birth rate is falling, but no one uses that as an argument to close the schools. I hope that we can avoid closing down colleges that have given excellent service.
  I have never been to Craigie and Callendar Park, but I know Dunfermline, which is one of the most excellent colleges not only in Scotland but in the United Kingdom, especially designed and constructed for the purpose. It is absolutely crazy to talk of closing it. I had a long association with Craiglockhart and it is equally disastrous to talk about closing down a college as splendid as that.
  10.29 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): I have only a few minutes to reply on matters in which I can claim no particular expertise. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State dealt with certain aspects of the educational problems and mentioned the statement which will be made in due course by the Secretary of State and the decision which will emerge.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked me to examine a number of points. I am happy to undertake to carry out that examination.
  Mr. Dalyell: That is all I ask tonight.
  Mr. Sheldon: In the limited time left I can deal with only one or two.
  I can tell my hon. Friend that the rôle of the Treasury is to establish the proper use of resources and to ensure that value

  363
  for money is obtained in various directions—
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having
  364
  continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Falcon II Catapult
  Falcon II Catapult
  Community Development Project
  Community Development Project
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Television Licensing (Wales)
  Television Licensing (Wales)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Spectacles
  Spectacles
  PROSECUTIONS
  PROSECUTIONS
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Beef and Veal
  Beef and Veal
  British Food Centre
  British Food Centre
  Butter (Sales to Northern Ireland)
  Butter (Sales to Northern Ireland)
  Salmon (Netting)
  Salmon (Netting)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Statutes (Availability)
  Statutes (Availability)
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Tribunal Referrals
  Industrial Tribunal Referrals
  Wales
  Wales
  Agriculture (Health and Safety)
  Agriculture (Health and Safety)
  Departmental Stab (Retirement)
  Departmental Stab (Retirement)
  European Social Fund
  European Social Fund
  Basingstoke
  Basingstoke
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Hopkinsons, Birkby, Huddersfield (Dispute)
  Hopkinsons, Birkby, Huddersfield (Dispute)
ENVIRONMENT
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Building Regulations (Financing)
  Building Regulations (Financing)
  Construction Industry Manpower Board
  Construction Industry Manpower Board
  Disabled Persons' Dwellings (Rateable Value)
  Disabled Persons' Dwellings (Rateable Value)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Diplomats (Cars)
  Diplomats (Cars)
  British Youth Council
  British Youth Council
  South Africa
  South Africa
INDUSTRY
  Shipbuilding (Scotland)
  Shipbuilding (Scotland)
  Telecommunications
  Telecommunications
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Welsh Estimates
  Welsh Estimates
TRADE
  European Common Fund
  European Common Fund
  Aircraft Noise (Heathrow and Gatwick)
  Aircraft Noise (Heathrow and Gatwick)
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Textiles
  Textiles
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
TRANSPORT
  Highway Inquiries (Inspectors' Fees)
  Highway Inquiries (Inspectors' Fees)
  Krypton
  Krypton
  Roads (Hard Shoulders)
  Roads (Hard Shoulders)
  Road Construction Units
  Road Construction Units
  STOCKPORT
  STOCKPORT
  LORD MAYOR OF LONDON
  LORD MAYOR OF LONDON
  HELSINKI
  HELSINKI
  CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY
  CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  UNITED STATES AND CANADA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  UNITED STATES AND CANADA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  HARDWAY
  HARDWAY
  CBI AND TUC
  CBI AND TUC
  DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES
  DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  LONGBRIDGE
  LONGBRIDGE
  EAST AFRICA
  EAST AFRICA
  NORTHWOOD
  NORTHWOOD
  HILLINGDON
  HILLINGDON
  BIRMINGHAM
  BIRMINGHAM
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL (MEETING)
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL (MEETING)
  GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND
  GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND
ENERGY
  Nuclear Power
  Nuclear Power
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Gas (Flaring and Consumption)
  Gas (Flaring and Consumption)
  Uranium
  Uranium
  Solar Energy
  Solar Energy
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
  Coal (Exploration)
  Coal (Exploration)
  Warwickshire Coalfield
  Warwickshire Coalfield
  Nuclear Material
  Nuclear Material
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Murders (Business Men)
  Murders (Business Men)
  Detonators
  Detonators
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Co-operatives
  Co-operatives
  Uganda and Mozambique
  Uganda and Mozambique
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Residential Homes (Children and Young Persons)
  Residential Homes (Children and Young Persons)
  Children's Regional Planning Committees
  Children's Regional Planning Committees
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Health Service Commissioner
  Health Service Commissioner
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Kidney Transplant Patients
  Kidney Transplant Patients
  Benefits Indexation
  Benefits Indexation
  Post Offices (Closures)
  Post Offices (Closures)
  Occupational Pensions
  Occupational Pensions
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schools Council
  Schools Council
  Policy Conferences
  Policy Conferences
  Mathematics and Science
  Mathematics and Science
  Comprehensive Education
  Comprehensive Education
  Schools Inspectorate
  Schools Inspectorate
  Disabled Children
  Disabled Children
  Schools (Optimum Sizes)
  Schools (Optimum Sizes)
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Education Service (Staff)
  Education Service (Staff)
  Gifted Children
  Gifted Children
  School Population
  School Population
  Sixth Form Colleges
  Sixth Form Colleges
  Religious Education
  Religious Education
  Dale Abbey Primary School
  Dale Abbey Primary School
  University Grants Commission
  University Grants Commission
  Education Committees (Meetings)
  Education Committees (Meetings)
  Truancy
  Truancy
  Head Teachers (Contracts)
  Head Teachers (Contracts)
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Educational Environments
  Educational Environments
  Student Fees
  Student Fees
  Teacher-pupil Ratios and Classes
  Teacher-pupil Ratios and Classes
  Association of University Teachers
  Association of University Teachers
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Construction Industry (Sub-Contractors)
  Construction Industry (Sub-Contractors)
  Ferrous Scrap Exports (Spain)
  Ferrous Scrap Exports (Spain)
  Messrs. Hurford Jones Ltd.
  Messrs. Hurford Jones Ltd.
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Devaluation
  Devaluation
  Aliens (Taxation)
  Aliens (Taxation)
  Double Taxation Agreements (USA)
  Double Taxation Agreements (USA)
  Foreign Emoluments
  Foreign Emoluments
  Wine Duty
  Wine Duty
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
WALES
  School Building
  School Building
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  House Building Costs
  House Building Costs
  Bangor (Bilingual Comprehensive School)
  Bangor (Bilingual Comprehensive School)
DEFENCE
  British Army of the Rhine
  British Army of the Rhine
  Training (Foreign Forces)
  Training (Foreign Forces)
  Gratuities
  Gratuities
  Civil Staff
  Civil Staff
  Rudolf Hess
  Rudolf Hess
  Cadets
  Cadets
  Sea Harrier Aircraft
  Sea Harrier Aircraft
  HMS "Ark Royal"
  HMS "Ark Royal"
  USSR Warships
  USSR Warships
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Uniforms and Kit
  Uniforms and Kit
SCOTLAND
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Birth Rate
  Birth Rate
  Education (Expenditure)
  Education (Expenditure)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.
The Lord Fairfax of Cameron—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BUS SERVICE IN CENTRAL LONDON
Lord INGLEWOOD: 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 how the average number of buses operating midday in Central London compares with the number—

(a) one year ago, and

(b) five years ago.

Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, separate figures are not available for Central London. I understand that the number of London Transport buses scheduled to operate in the whole of London at midday is 3,719. This compares with 3,565 one year ago, and 3,430 five years ago.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask whether she can explain how it is that nowadays those of us who have to depend on public transport and do not have the use of Government motor cars have to wait for ever-longer periods at bus stops for ever more crowded buses?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I accept that "bunching" of buses occurs, but it is mainly as a result of traffic congestion, and the situation is being improved by the introduction of the bus priority and other traffic restraint measures. In addition, London Transport are also carrying out experiments to tighten up route control supervision, particularly on
1444
the busy Central London routes. Those include the fitting of radios and of traffic light sensor devices to their buses.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, would the noble Baroness confirm that there is now no difficulty in recruiting operating staffs, since she claims that the number of buses has gone up? Can she also confirm that there is no difficulty in achieving adequate maintenance in the main depots so that there is no hold-up in services through an unreasonable number of buses being off the road?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, there is a considerable improvement in the overall availability of buses and also in the number of staff. The percentage shortfall on the establishment of bus-operating staff in post was at its worst in 1974 and 1975, when it stood at 15 per cent. It is now down to 12 per cent. The average number of unserviceable buses on any day is now 300, compared with 500 in January 1976; so the situation is improving.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, while being sorry to differ from my noble friend, may I ask her whether she is aware that the position on "bunching" is not improving? If she will allow me to take one example, is she aware that this "bunching" is not due to traffic? Is she further aware that I am very dependent on the No. 16 buses, which start from Victoria? I catch the bus in Terminal Gardens, which is the first stop after Victoria. Does my noble friend realise that the No. 16 buses, in common with many others, leave Victoria three at a time? Is she aware that the first one is then full and the other two sail past on the outside, leaving passengers stranded at bus stops, and it really is not good enough?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I was not aware of the position of the No. 16 bus, and I will certainly draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend. I also hope that London Transport will take note of my noble friend's comments.
Lord TAYLOR of MANSFIELD: My Lords, could my noble friend make representations to London Transportin respect of the infrequency of the 77A bus

1445
service, which serves two main line stations to the North; namely, St. Pancras and King's Cross?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, London Transport make their own decisions and their own arrangements. We can only hope that they read the Questions and Answers given in your Lordships' House and that they will take note of the comments which have been made.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I live in Chelsea and that this morning six—I emphasise, six—No. 11 buses went by, five of which were empty?
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, are the Government aware that the latest type of bus, which has a door to exclude passengers except at the stop, is highly inconvenient as compared with the old type which can be boarded at any moment when the bus is stationary?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that is rather outside the scope of this Question; but if the noble Lord would care to put down a Question to be answered in the future, I will do my best.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say what proportion of the total number of buses are withdrawn during the non-rush hours?
Baroness STEDMAN: Not without notice, my Lords; but, from my original Answer, there are obviously more buses now operating in Central London at midday than there were a year ago, so presumably not too many of them have been withdrawn. London Transport certainly aim to have the maximum of buses on the road at peak times, but, if they are paying drivers to do eight-hour shifts, presumably they are also operating at other than peak times.
Lord COLERAINE: My Lords, while I realise this is not so much a matter for the noble Baroness as for London Trans-port, may I ask whether it would not be a good idea, if, for a trial period of, perhaps, six to eight weeks, senior
1446
executives of London Transport were to travel to and from their work by public transport?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am not aware that they do not travel that way at the moment.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, the noble Baroness aware that, as a former busman, I can say that "bunching" can be caused by the human element?—because some crews are fast and some are slow, and there are places where dreadful traffic jams occur. If your Lordships were to go to the Elephant and Castle, to give one example, you would quite understand how "bunching" is caused.
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords; we are aware that there are problems on certain routes. There are also problems because private cars tend to us; the bus lanes at times when they should not be using them.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, could the noble Baroness tell us whether the bus schedules are arranged from the point of view of convenience to the staff or convenience to the public?
Baroness STEDMAN: The aim of the scheduling, my Lords, is to match the availability of the staff to the buses which are available. London Transport do that by having a primary schedule which is very closely related to the number of vehicles and staff likely to be available. Then they have a supplementary schedule to take account of any additional staff or vehicles that may come in.

COHO SALMON OVA
2.42 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: 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 which of their advisory bodies advised against the importation of Coho salmon eggs, in what terms their advice was couched, and why it was decided not to accept the advice.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, the following bodies have indicated opposition to the importation: two English Water Authorities—the Southern and North Western; the Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland; the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards; the Salmon and Trout Association, and the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers. Five of the six bodies cited disease grounds and all six ecological grounds. The application for an import licence was made in terms of the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is not in terms of that Act concerned with ecological issues. He is satisfied that he has taken into account all the disease points raised by those consulted.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his courtesy in replying not only to this Question but also to one on a similar subject yesterday, I should like to ask him whether there is any Act under which the Secretary of State can take a decision on ecological grounds; and, if not, whether the Secretary of State's advisers advised him that it would be to the advantage of the country to be able to do so?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, as I indicated in reply to the Question posed to me yesterday, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is pursuing every nuance of statutory provision which may or may not be open to him in an issue of this kind, and he is in fact addressing his mind to the problem.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, is it not a fact that the licensing to import these eggs is done under very strict rules, and that there is an agreement that if they do not prove to be satisfactory this importation will stop? I understand that in France they are being imported in a very easy fashion, whereas we have laid down extremely strict rules and they are being very closely supervised.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the reply to both points raised by the noble Baroness is in the affirmative.
Lord HALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the introduction of these varieties has anything to do with the
1448
diminishing quality of salmon? After listening to 16 debates on Salmon Bills since I have been in the Palace of Westminster, I recall that 60 years ago I could win a tin of crimson middle-cut on the hoop-la, whereas now one has to go to Woolworth's and queue up for diminishing shades of pink, verging on white, at prices which are too prohibitive for me to buy.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, in response to my noble friend's very interesting point, I can say to the House that the import licence has been granted to Unilever at Findon in Aberdeenshire, where I understand they intend to research the possibilities of this type of salmon as it would affect my noble friend's table.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, while associating myself with the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Onslow yesterday on the ecological angle, may I ask whether the Norwegians have been consulted on this matter, and, if so, what their views were? If it comes to that, may I also ask whether the EEC are involved, and whether the Canadians have thought of it, and, if so, why have they not brought the Coho salmon on to their East coast?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, there are certainly international agreements which have in their impact the control of ecology in the area from which the species may be imported. So far as the Coho salmon is concerned, Her Majesty's Government have conformed with every aspect of international practice.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the firm concerned with this experiment has given an undertaking that no fish will be released from the tanks in which they are at present kept until the Government have agreed and it has been shown that no risk will be taken?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I confirm to my noble friend that that is so.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that there are no statutory grounds for refusing a licence, or no statutory grounds for reviewing a licence, which are two quite different things? Either would be quite incredible, and if the law is such an ass ought it not to be changed fairly quickly? Also,

1449
will the noble Lord confirm that all of the 10 chief fishery officers in England and Wales advised against this import on ecological grounds, and was not the same advice given from Scotland as well? Why was it ignored?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, if I may take the last part of the noble Lord's question first, I think it would take too long to read out the whole list which I have before me, but I confirm that I will write to him on that point. I can only reiterate that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has power under the Diseases of Fish Act 1937. There is, at the moment, difficulty about drawing the line where ecological influence has statutory provision.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government welcome statutory provision to control imports of live fish or fish eggs on ecological grounds?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I can only reiterate what I thought I had very firmly said at the outset, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is considering every nuance of statutory provision available in these circumstances.

ADOPTED PERSONS: ACCESS TO BIRTH RECORDS
2.49 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT: 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 will state how many adopted persons have sought to obtain their original birth certificates under Section 26 of the Children Act 1975 since November 1st last.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, since 26th November last, when Section 26 of the Children Act 1975 came into operation, 3,039 adopted persons have applied for access to their birth records.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord very much for that figure and, also bearing in mind that this
1450
is a most intimate matter, may I ask whether he would consider measures for protecting the natural parents from being contacted unwillingly, except through a third party?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in the first place, this scheme under the Children Act 1975 has been in operation only since the end of November. May I say with great respect that it is too early to reach any conclusions. I would point out to the noble Lord that so far no complaints have been received from any mothers who may have been traced as a result of the new provision.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, from the figures he may have received, that one or two cases have been noted in the Press? While it may be too early to reach any conclusions, the time given, which is three years, is perhaps too long.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord says that one or two cases have been reported in the Press To the best of my knowledge, only one case has been reported in the Press. I think that the noble Lord and I are speaking about the same case, because a few days ago we had a discussion about it. My understanding is that there is no direct link between that case and the Children Act. In fact, the son succeeded in tracing his mother long before these provisions came into effect, and he must have been able to do it through a source that had nothing what-ever to do with the provisions of the Children Act.

SHIPBUILDING: SKILLED LABOUR
2.51 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. May I point out that in the last sentence there is a printing error about which I have already contacted the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom. The word "slipping" should read "shipbuilding".
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action is being taken to ensure that there are sufficient trained personnel

1451
to carry out any merchant shipbuilding contract efficiently, in view of the offer of £65 million to the merchant shipping industry.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, before answering the Question may I thank the noble Baroness for drawing the misprint to our attention. The purpose of the Intervention Fund of £65 million announced on 24th February is to assist shipbuilding yards in Britain to obtain orders and thus utilise existing resources of trained labour that would otherwise be under-employed.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, in view of the fact that completion of HMS "Cardiff" is four years overdue, and the reason given is that there is not enough skilled labour in an area of very high unemployment, may I ask the noble Lord what action can be taken in future to train more personnel and also to ensure that contracts are finished on time? As I understand it, the noble Lord is not even able to tell us what is the extra cost of the four years in regard to HMS "Cardiff".
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness has raised a point of great importance. Half the problem is that although labour is available it is not sufficiently skilled, and the ship in question requires highly skilled labour.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I then ask the noble Lord what the Government are doing to get further skilled labour? Surely the Government should set up a training scheme to train skilled labour. I would inform the noble Lord that even the Royal Dockyards are short of such labour. They are now employing women as apprentices, and they have proved very satisfactory. In fact, women now go to sea with the ships on sea trials.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will put down an Unstarred Question on the subject of the training of skilled labour for shipbuilding and ship repairing I will do my best to answer it. However, I thought that the Question asked by the noble Baroness
1452
was a commercial one: what the Government could do to assist shipyards to obtain orders? The carrying out of orders is a different matter.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that even in the worst days of heavy unemployment in some of the development areas in the North of Great Britain there has always been a chronic shortage of skilled labour for shipbuilding? Will my noble friend therefore try to inaugurate a far more comprehensive training scheme for this industry than we have ever seen before?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will bring the point made by my noble friend, which I am certain is a valid one, to the attention of the Secretary of State.

PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT TO USA AND CANADA
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement on the Prime Minister's visit to the United States and Canada.

FARRIERS (REGISTRATION) (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the provisions of the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 with respect to the qualifications for registration there under; and for other purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Newall.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (NOTICES TO QUIT) BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I understand

1453
that no Amendment has been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

HOUSING FINANCE (NORTHERN IRELAND)ORDER 1977
2.57 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett): My Lords, I beg to move that the Housing Finance (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 be approved. This draft order is designed to place on a more sensible basis the way in which the work of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is financed. In the current financial year, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland will make payments to the executive under no fewer than 21 different subsidies and grants. These existing arrangements are exceedingly complex and are certainly not conducive to sound financial management.
The draft order proposes new arrangements which would acknowledge the basic fact that the executive has only two main sources of income—rents and subventions from Government. Under Article 9, the executive will be required to submit to the Department estimates of its capital and revenue expenditure, and under Article 10 the Department will be able to meet the estimated deficit between the executive's approved revenue expenditure and its income from rents. There is already machinery for the Department and the executive to agree capital programmes, forecast revenue expenditure and monitor progress and this machinery will ease the introduction of the new financial arrangements.
1454
Articles 5, 6 and 7 deal with rents and rent rebates and largely restate existing law. The decisions about rent levels in Northern Ireland are, in practice, taken by the Government. At present, average public sector rents are lower there than in Great Britain. In determining future rent levels, the Government will be bearing in mind average rents throughout the United Kingdom, housing costs in Northern Ireland, national policy on prices, the differences in earnings and other household costs between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and the existence of a rent rebate scheme to help tenants on low incomes. The Government are of course very much aware of the grave housing problems in Northern Ireland. We recognise that every pound spent on subsidising rents for existing tenants is one pound less to be spent on building new houses and upgrading existing homes. In 1976–77 only 38 per cent, of the executive s revenue expenditure of £77 million will be met by rents; the rest must be met by the Government. The Government are, there-fore, convinced that a policy based on reasonable rent increases each year is sensible.
The rest of the draft order is mainly concerned with restating the existing law on housing finance. For example, Articles 3 and 4 deal with borrowing by the executive and Article 11 set; out the arrangements for auditing the accounts of the executive. However, I should like to draw your Lordship's attention to Article 8, which will enable the executive to introduce a new tenancy agreement to replace the many different arrangements which have been inherited from the former local housing authorities. It is intended that the new tenancy agreement will spell out as clearly as possible the rights and responsibilities of both the tenant and the executive. This draft order is designed to simplify the way in which the Government finance public authority housing in Northern Ireland. It is therefore of vital importance to the Governments drive to improve housing conditions in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Housing Finance (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, laid before the House on 16th February, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
3.2 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett,

1455
for explaining this order which reorganises the financial arrangements for the Northern Ireland housing executive, and in its main intention I support the passage of the order. However, there are three points related to the order which I should like to raise. The Explanatory Note to the order shows that the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment will provide a single comprehensive grant based on estimates of income and expenditure to be submitted to that Department by the Northern Ireland housing executive, and I think it is interesting that the Annual Report of the Northern Ireland housing executive for the last financial year makes the point that, so far as capital expenditure is concerned, avail-ability of finance has not been a factor which limits the executive's housing programme. But if one looks at the Northern Ireland housing executives' Report for the last year, there is a very different story to tell with regard to last year's operations for recurrent expenditure. The Northern Ireland Department of the Environment paid to the Executive a special subsidy of nearly £15 million and, as the noble Lord has explained, the deficit is being incurred because the only income for the Executive derives from rents and from Government grants.
The reason for the gap is further clarified when the executive, in their report, revealed that the gap between tenants' rents, which are at about £5·06 per week and the total outgoings in respect of a three-bedroomed house, for which of course the executive has to service the building loan and maintain and manage the property, is no less than £28·40 a week, which really is an astonishing sum of money.
I listened with interest while the noble Lord outlined briefly, but I thought very helpfully, the criteria to which the Government will pay regard in deciding policy on the increase for rents in Northern Ireland for which Article 7 in the order makes provision. Rent levels in Northern Ireland are of course a good deal lower than they are in Great Britain, and I must confess that I think that is right. One has only to visit Northern Ireland and obtain some knowledge of the statistics of income in Northern Ireland to take that view, but when one bears in mind that the average of rents in England and
1456
Wales two years ago was over 65 per cent, higher than in Northern Ireland, I can only support the general intention of Article 7 of the order. I was going to ask a question on that but the noble Lord has resolved it.
I now have two questions: first, has the noble Lord any information about the non-payment of rent and rates, which regrettably has been a feature of housing in Northern Ireland? I attach that question to this order because I wonder what part of the deficit that comprises for the Northern Ireland housing executive in a particular year. I am aware that as from the 5th April of last year, the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland took account of those owing rent and rates in making deductions in benefits, or seeing that deductions were made from the wages and salaries of those in arrears. Have these measures had effect, and could the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, give any figures of sums owing in respect of rent and rates?
I should like to ask one other question about housing completions. During last year—and again I refer to the executive's Annual Report up to 31st March 1976—the Northern Ireland housing executive built 5,164 houses, which I know is way below the target which the executive would like to achieve. There are of course reasons which are unique to Northern Ireland for the difficulty in completing more houses, but it does not alter the fact that the waiting list for new houses in Northern Ireland is very long and the number of people living in unfit houses is very high. I hope that the year which is now ending may show an upturn in the number of completions, and I shall be grateful if the noble Lord has any figures to give me about that today, though I should like to acknowledge that this should not be the only yardstick by which the valuable and sometimes dangerous work of those employed by the Northern Ireland housing executive should be judged. With those few words I should like to give my support to this order.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his support for the order and indeed for his acknowledgment of the very real difficulties which face the housing ' executive in Northern Ireland, both so far

1457
as their building programme and their completions are concerned and also the difficulties that face the Government as a whole in deciding the level of rents in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord quite rightly drew attention to something of which we are acutely aware; namely, the differential between the level of rents in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom, and at the same time the appalling problems which are faced by many people in Northern Ireland, who are receiving exactly the same level of social security and other benefits but are faced with much higher fuel costs and indeed higher costs with respect to food, clothing and so on. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that while we must take those difficulties into account, it is also necessary to raise the level of rents so that they are at least more in line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome for the steps which the Government are taking this year and indeed last year, to work our way towards that objective, but bearing in mind all the time the very real difficulties which are faced by people who are living on supplementary benefit and other benefits in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord asked me about the non-payment of rent and rates and the arrears owing to the housing executive. That is something in which I have a particular interest, because the Department for which I have responsibility—the Department of Health and Social Services—is responsible for administering one of the systems which is used for collecting rent and rates arrears in Northern Ireland, that of direct deductions from social security benefits, a system of collecting arrears which of course is not available in this country.
The noble Lord asked me about the level of arrears, and I can tell him that the executive is at the current time owed some £6 million for rent and rates. There are about 37,000 tenants in arrears of £20 or more out of a total of 175,000 tenants, but the rent increase which has recently been brought into effect in Northern Ireland is not due to the size of rent arrears. The housing executive's accounts are income and expenditure accounts in which the executive takes credit for rent it should receive each year: uncollected or unpaid rent is kept separately as a debt to be collected, and the basis on which
1458
rent increases are worked out assumes that the executive will be collecting all the arrears. Indeed, recently the Government have reaffirmed in Northern Ireland our determination to see that all the arrears owing to the housing executive and other public bodies should be collected. At the same time, as the noble Lord may know, we have made some changes in the system of allocating from social security benefits towards arrears to ensure that those families which are suffering real hardship as a result should have some means of coming to the Department of Health and Social Services and making a case for having lower reductions made from their social security benefits. Nevertheless, reductions, if they are necessary, will continue and the Government have made clear that the arrears will be collected and therefore the housing executive's finances are not directly affected by the size of the debt.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for one moment, I have tried to reconcile the figures. Did I understand him correctly—it is quite likely that it is my fault—that there are 30,000 tenants out of 175,000 who are in arrears and that the total amount by which those 30,000 are in arrears is £6 million? It sounds as though some of them have never paid at all.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct; 37,000 tenants are in arrears of £20 or more. It is quite true to say that some of the arrears are very large indeed. Some of the people who are in debt, just as people who are in debt to local authorities for their rent in this country, owe extremely large sums of money and face extraordinarily difficult problems in repaying very large debts. People on social security benefit, possibly with a large family to feed and clothe and who are facing higher heating and food costs than they are in this country, but who are on the same level of social security benefit as they would be in this country, face very real difficulties in repaying large debts. This is something recognised by the Government and by the housing executive, but, as I say, it does not alter our determination to ensure that the debts are collected.
The noble Lord also asked me a question about the rate of completions of the

1459
housing executive building programme. I do not have the figures in front of me. If I may, I will write to the noble Lord to give them to him. I think the significant change of policy which has taken place on the housing executive front in the last few months is a major switch to giving emphasis to housing in Belfast, and particularly the inner city areas of Belfast, where it is quite clear that the problem is of such proportions that a major drive is needed even to stand still, let alone to start making some inroads into the problem of the existing housing stock which is dilapidated or falling into disrepair. That is a major switch of policy on the part of the housing executive. A large amount of money will be available to back up their drive for better housing in Belfast, something to which I hope other Government Departments in Northern Ireland will shortly be able to give some considerable support. It will obviously be of major importance in the housing executive's policy over the next few years.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ADVICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1977
3.12 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft Consumer Protection and Advice (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, laid before the House on 17th February, be approved, The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Consumer Protection and Advice (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 be approved. The object of the order is to bring the law in Northern Ireland into line with certain provisions of, respectively, the Consumer Protection Act 1971 and the Local Government Act 1972.
The Consumer Protection Act 1971 amended the law in Great Britain by making manufacturers and importers of goods responsible for the failure of such goods to meet the construction and safety standards prescribed by regulations made under the Act. The amendments made it possible to institute proceedings against such manufacturers or importers who supplied substandard articles in addition
1460
to, or in place of, retailers and wholesalers. In addition, a defence was pro-vided where a person has taken all reasonable care to avoid the commission of an offence under the Act.
Article 3 of the present order amends the Consumer Protection Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 to provide identical pro-visions for Northern Ireland. Article 4 of the order has the quite separate purpose of empowering District Councils in Northern Ireland to provide consumer advisory services in their areas. Local authorities in Great Britain already have this power, provided by Section 201(8) of the Local Government Act 1972, and of course many local authorities are providing consumer advice centres in Great Britain.
In Northern Ireland two experimental centres are at present in the process of being established in Belfast and Londonderry by the Department of Commerce. Belfast City Council would wish to take over the running of the Belfast centre as soon as it has the necessary power; and it would be open to the Londonderry City Council to do likewise so far as the Londonderry centre is concerned. The Government would naturally be pleased to see district councils extending their role in this field. My Lords, this is a useful and desirable order and I commend it to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Consumer Protection and Advice (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, laid before the House on 17th February, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PATENTS BILL [H.L.]
3.14 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.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 54 [Interpretation, etc., of provisions about Crown use.]:
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey)The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey) moved Amendment No. 246:
Page 46, line 2, leave out ("last specification to be filed") and insert ("claims of the last specification to be filed (as interpreted by the description and any drawings contained in it)").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 54(1) and (2) confers on an applicant certain rights in respect of Crown use of his invention once his application has been published. Clause 53(5) envisages use of a patented invention for the services of the Crown on terms agreed between the proprietor of the patent and the Government Department concerned or on terms determined by the court. Clause 54(1) applies these provisions to Crown use of the invention between the dates of publication and grant. Clause 54(2), however, places restrictions on the applicant's rights in respect of Crown use in this period, in that any payment agreed or determined will be recoverable only (1) if a patent is granted and (2) if the Crown use in question would be an "infringement" not only of the patent as granted but also of the specification as published had it been a patent; that is the "infringing" act must fall within the claims of the published specification. The purpose and effect of the Amendment is to make this absolutely clear, and also to make it quite clear that the claims contained in the published application are to be interpreted by the description and drawings in like manner to the claims of a patent under Clause 114. A corresponding Amendment will be proposed for Clause 67(2): that is No. 266 in the fourth Marshalled List. If noble Lords are agreed, perhaps I may move that formally when it is reached. In the meantime, I beg to move Amendment No. 246.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: I should like to ask the noble Lord what is the purpose of the words in brackets. It would appear that the descriptions and drawings in a patent specification can always be referred to in order to interpret it, and to state it in this way implies, I think, that nothing else can be referred to. Is that the intention of the Amendment?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I can perhaps answer the noble Lord in this way:
1462
we have made similar Amendments earlier for the purpose of making the matter absolutely clear, and at this stage the purpose of putting in these words in brackets is to be consistent with the Amendments made earlier and to which I spoke on the first or second day of the Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 [Rights of third parties in respect of Crown use]:
On Question, Whether Clause 55 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: This is a very long-winded clause which gives to the Crown immense powers. In brief, the provisions of this clause will render inoperative for the services of the Crown "any licence, assignment, assignation"—and I like the word "assignation" when used in relation to patent matters and inventions—"or agreement" related to a patent. Therefore, no such licence or assignation or assignment or agreement has any effect in relation to the working of the invention, the subject of the patent. This is a clause which covers two or three pages of the Bill; subsection (1), for instance, has approximately 400 words in it without a full stop.
I should like to ask the Minister whether any similar powers are to be found within the jurisdiction of other Governments in Europe, and particularly the EEC countries, and whether it is likely that the progress of standardisation and the costing of military equipment, for NATO, for example, is affected by the fact that the Government have such large powers in relation to licences and arrangements under patents which may be owned by foreign proprietors. It is known among practitioners that foreign owners of United Kingdom patents are, therefore, rather careful about licensing then patents in the United Kingdom, which are likely to be used for the services of the Crown, which are defined in such wide terms.
I apologise to noble Lords opposite for not having given notice of this question and I fully appreciate that I cannot expect an answer this afternoon. Where disputes of this nature are likely to arise in relation to

1463
patented inventions and the foreign proprietors are finally forced to go to the courts of this country, there is likely to be some effect upon the introduction of new ideas in the field of technology where the invention is used for the services of the Crown.
Disputes over patent matters of this kind are, of course, dealt with by Government Departments. I should like to pay tribute to those Government Departments, usually known as patent departments, which have done such magnificent work, in solving disputes of this kind and acting as a kind of conciliatory organisation for dealing with these matters. The Royal Com-mission on Awards to Inventors, which was set up after the last war and to which I have referred on several occasions, in its many reports laid down some basic principles as to how Government Departments might reasonably behave in dealing with patent disputes. Therefore, I pay tribute to those patent departments for the difficult but successful work they have done for United Kingdom and foreign proprietors of patents, in settling disputes.
However, it must be remembered that many patentees, particularly foreign ones, sometimes with reluctance have to accept settlements rather than venture their fortunes on the uncharted seas in the courts, to which litigation with the Crown so often leads. It may also lead to astute firms being able to include large sums of money in their prices relating to their patents which, in the negotiations that ensue, are hidden. I shall suggest quite soon that some of these matters could be dealt with by a tribunal rather than in the High Court. Therefore, I should be grateful if at some stage, at the convenience of noble Lords opposite, the Government could answer my questions.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: To some extent the very length of this clause makes it suspect—he "protesteth too much" in getting these powers. I support the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, on the matter of a tribunal rather than a court. In the circumstances that are envisaged in the clause, I should not have thought that a court is the proper place to make decisions which are likely to affect the rights of individuals and third parties. The noble Lord has given notice that those matters will be discussed later. I hope
1464
that serious consideration will be given towards setting up a tribunal to hear these cases rather than having the courts as the deciding factor in this very long and, as consequence of its length, suspect clause.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Perhaps I might be allowed to reserve my fire on the matter of tribunals until the battle has been formally and properly opened by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, when we come to the next group of Amendments.
I have a deep sympathy and fellow feeling with what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said about the length of the clause. However, that does not make the clause suspect; it makes it more difficult to understand. Having repeatedly asked about this matter in the course of my briefing sessions, I am satisfied that the complications of the subject matter are such that if one follows normal drafting practice the clauses do become rather long.
I acknowledge the tributes that were paid by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and thank him for them. I defend the matter about "assignation" with a certain fervour because it is the Scottish legal term equivalent to the word "assignment" and, indeed, some purists and classicists might think that it is a better translation. I am obliged to the noble Lord for suggesting that we might take time to consider the answers to the questions that he asked. They are important questions and deserve time to be considered. Accordingly, if I may, I shall write to the noble Lord in due course.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [References of disputes as to Crown use]:
3.27 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN moved Amendment No. 247:
Page 49, line 22, at end insert ("or by agreement of the parties, to a tribunal for determination.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the House, I beg to speak to associated Amendments Nos. 248 to 251 inclusive.

1465
I shall also refer to Amendment No. 254. The object behind these Amendments is that if a dispute arises in the course of negotiations as to payment of compensation to a patentee for the use of his invention by the Crown, in default of agreement, an opportunity should be given to the patentee or the licensee, as the case may be, who is in dispute, to have the dispute dealt with not by the courts, as the present clause envisages, but by some kind of tribunal. The decision of that tribunal should be final. The tribunal would comprise a chairman, perhaps a chartered patent agent or a lawyer who is familiar with patent matters, and two persons who are also familiar with industrial matters associated with inventions. One matter that might have to be considered in a dispute is, for instance, the cost of developing an invention. If one had to deal with this matter before a tribunal of men versed in these industrial affairs there would be no problem. But if one has to advise and instruct members of the High Court in these matters, it becomes a very long and tedious business, as I know from experience in dealing with disputes involving the Crown.
When I suggested a tribunal for dealing with awards for compensation and payments to employees, it was said that there would be some legal problems. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor suggested that it would be difficult to find a list of people suitable to deal with matters of this sort. I should not have thought there was any problem about that. As your Lordships will know, under certain aspects of race relations a panel of men is called upon from time to time to deal with difficulties that arise in relation to immigrants to this country. In the same way, the Comptroller General, the Department of Industry or some other body could have a panel which could be called upon if the parties to the dispute agreed to go to the tribunal rather than to the High Court to have the matter dealt with.
The Banks Committee, of which your Lordships have heard, considered at great length the patent system of this country. That Committee was somewhat against this kind of procedure, but suggested that many patent disputes should be dealt with in a robust manner. When industrialists have a dispute on patents and invention,
1466
many do not wish to get involved in inevitably lengthy court proceedings. The Crown can say to a patentee that it cannot pay him anything because the invention in the patent application has been recorded in Government archives or Government research establishments. A great deal of time is involved in pressing discovery as against the Crown, and it has always been a difficult mater. Then comes the question whether the invention recorded in all the files of the Government Department is the same as the invention the subject of the patent.
It is difficult for a High Court judge without experience of patent matters to deal with these things quickly and robustly, as the Banks Committee indicated. May I say that my experience is that once a High Court judge has been instructed about the technical matters his judgments are often a very fine summary of the technological matters involved in the invention. But it is the expense of having to instruct the court, and the procedures of the court, which should in my view be considered. I think that a tribunal would be the more effective way of dealing with these matters. I beg to move.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I should like to say a word in addition to what I said a moment or two ago. The noble Lord is on to a strong point here. I thought that it has now become common form that in matters where there are likely to be disputes, such as we h id under the Industrial Relations Act, we had a learned Lord sitting as the Judge but he had two assessors sitting alongside him who understood the dialect and the language of the particular problems likely to come to an industrial court. Similarly with the rent tribunals there is an assessor sitting with a solicitor because they have the knowledge of the practical day-to-day problems which arise from these matters.
Here, when we get into the realms of scientific and technical disputes, they use almost a different language, and their whole idiom and approach is different. This is certainly no criticism either of the high standing or of the objectivity of the courts. They call for admiration, and deservedly so. However, in this field, if all parties agree that because of the technicalities of the matter an assessor sitting alongside a learned chairman would make

1467
it more easily and quickly understood, from every point of view I should have thought that that was more desirable.
The point the noble Lord made about cost really comes into it. So many times one feels that one has a case and would like to pursue it but the cost of doing so through the courts prevents one from pushing for one's rights, and that is certainly not a good thing in this particular field. Without in any way interfering with the normal reputation that the courts carry with them, I should have thought that in this new world where matters other than a dispute as to people's meaning come into it, where technical considerations have to be taken into account, this is an ideal vehicle for having alongside a learned chairman people who would be assessors. Provided that all parties wanted such a tribunal to give a decision, this would be much more likely to be satisfactory, and the results of their decision are much more likely to be accepted than resented.
3.33 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: First may I thank noble Lords who have spoken for the moderate way in which they have pressed this Amendment. I hope that I can reply to it in the same spirit. I think that it would be desirable to look at rather more of the Amendments for some guidance as to what the effect would be. First of all, to explain the background to noble Lords who have not attempted yet to follow it, Clause 53 of the Bill allows Government Departments power to use patents for the services of the Crown. It further provides that such use shall be on terms to be agreed between the proprietor of the patent and the Government Department concerned, or, failing agreement, to be determined by the court. I am repeating here what I said in relation to the previous Amendment I moved. Clause 56, therefore, provides for reference to the court of any dispute as to the exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 53, or as to the terms of use, also any dispute as to the right of any person to receive any part of any payment made or agreed to be made in respect of such use.
The effect of the Amendments which have been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, would be to
1468
enable parties to refer such a dispute by agreement to a tribunal. I invite noble Lords' attention to the wording of Amendment No. 247. This is not for a technical reason but for a substantial reason, because the purpose is absolutely plain; namely, that the matter would go to a tribunal for determination by agreement of the parties. That is an essential part of this and all the related Amendments. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is acknowledging that.
May I invite your Lordships' attention to Amendment No. 361 on the Marshalled List. Noble Lords will see that that is a related Amendment; the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, did not speak to it today, but I presume that it must be related:
"('"tribunal", means a tribunal comprising a qualified chairman and two or more other persons with experience in industrial matters;')".
That bears out the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was making. Amendment No. 323 in the Marshalled List has a bearing on this as well because it in effect makes the tribunal final. It reads:
"No appeal shall lie from the determination of a tribunal."
Amendment No. 328, as noble Lords will see, provides that in proceedings before a tribunal no costs shall be awarded against either party to the dispute. So one gets from these the character of the tribunal and the way it would operate. If one looks at Amendments Nos. 270 and 276 one sees that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will ultimately, I suppose, propose that tribunals of the same kind would deal with matters of infringement and revocation.
I sympathise with the noble Lord's wish to provide some means or mechanism for resolving these disputes informally, but the Government doubt, and I certainly doubt, whether the tribunal which he proposes would provide any mechanism for determining disputes which is not for all practical purposes already available. The essential point is that you cannot go to a tribunal without agreement. If parties are agreed that they want an informal determination of the dispute between them, then they can reach an ad hoc agreement to go to a body; and instead of being restricted to a selection of members of a tribunal from those who may be on a panel (who may not include

1469
people expert in a particular field) they are free to select their own experts in the course of the agreement and go therefore to an ad hoc tribunal.
In the circumstances I do not want to go on at length about this matter, but I would say to noble Lords that if the agreement is essential, as it appears to be, then that agreement would enable parties on any occasion ad hoc to set up a tribunal which would exactly meet their needs, and they can reach such agreement as they wish in relation to procedure and costs. Therefore, in my submission to the Committee, the Government's position is that the Amendments are unnecessary. For that reason I would invite the noble Lord not to press them.
Lord STRABOLGI: This may be a good moment to take the Statement at present being made in another place. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT TO USA AND CANADA
3.38 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, may I first say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, with the leave of the House, how glad we are to see him back. I am sure that he must have had a fascinating time in Africa and in other countries. We welcome him back.
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, on his visit to the United States and Canada, on which he was accompanied by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"This was my first opportunity of hearing at first hand the views of President Carter and the new Administration, a team which carries the heavy responsibility of guaranteeing the overall security of the Western democracies;
1470
and of supervising and guiding the world's most powerful economy—it is very much a national interest to strike up a close and effective working relation-ship.
"As my visit occurred during the British presidency of the European Community, I was able to explain to President Carter the attitudes of the Nine to some of the issues we discussed and the preoccupations of the Community.
"The President has set in hand new initiatives on a number of different fronts and it was stimulating to observe a positive approach to some longstanding international problems and a willingness to take a new look at the long-term objectives and low they should be achieved. We had no difficulty in identifying the major problems facing the Western world, and we shared, to a very considerable degree, a common approach towards the way in which they should be tackled. The President spoke warmly of the special relationship between America and Britain, and it is my intention that the Government should work closely with his Administration. We must also contribute to the maximum collaboration between the United States and the European Community, and President Carter made clear that he shares this purpose, and desires to see the strengthening of the Community.
"The President also attached great importance to full consultation and co-operation with America's Allies in the North Atlantic Alliance and I warmly welcomed this.
"During my talks with Prime Minister Trudeau, who has himself recently visited Washington, I was glad to learn that he agreed generally with this judgment.
"In both Washington and Ottawa the emphasis of the discussions was on economic problems, including cur aims and prospects for the Downing Street Summit Conference to be held in May. I have every reason to believe that it is the intention of both President Carter and Prime Minister Trudeau that the preparations for this Conference which have already begun should be carried forward in a constructive manner, and that we should be ready to adopt a

1471
positive approach to the major issues when we meet with the other leaders of the leading Western industrialised countries.
"We discussed the pressing problems—of employment, inflation and economic recession. I cannot claim that we discovered any panacea for these problems. But the important point is that there is an identity in our assessment. We recognised that it would take a considerable time to reduce the present high levels of world unemployment and agreed on the high priority we should give in this situation to the problem of unemployment among school-leavers and among young people generally.
"We agreed on the need to tackle the problems caused by large and persisting imbalances in the world's external payments system. I suggested that these imbalances, particularly as they affect less developed countries, call for an expansion of the official facilities for financing balance of payments deficits. This is an area in which I look for major advances in the period ahead. President Carter and Prime Minister Trudeau both agreed that this problem should be examined as a matter of urgency.
"We discussed whether the prospects for the multilateral trade negotiations would be set back by the present world recession. We agreed that general protectionism could only serve to delay the world's emergence from the present economic recession.
"I advanced the view that if the United States, as the largest trading nation, was unable to resist pressures for protectionism at home this would not only slow down progress in the negotiations but would encourage others to follow.
"We discussed the problems of relations between industrialised and developing countries which are being intensively examined in various international bodies. President Carter and I were agreed on the importance of adopting an understanding and constructive approach to the aspirations and needs of developing countries which are reflected in the issues to be discussed at the ministerial meeting of the Conference
1472
on International Economic Co-operation in May.
"I was able to inform him of the discussions in the Community on the preparation of a common position for the negotiations.
"In Ottawa, too, I was able to have useful discussions on these issues in the light of the special Canadian interest resulting from their position as co-chairman of the Conference on International Eeconomic Co-operation. In both capitals there is an encouraging desire to ensure a successful outcome of the ministerial meeting.
"President Carter and I discussed at length the subject of human rights, on which, as the House knows, the President feels deeply and has expressed his views in a forthright manner.
"It was clear that President Carter had given very careful thought to his approach to this matter, and he welcomed the speech made recently by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
"In the area of East-West relations, we agreed on the importance of adopting a non-polemical approach to the Belgrade Conference and I was assured that the President is anxious to work closely with the Nine and with all their NATO partners with a view to a serious dialogue with the East at Belgrade. Europe need have no doubt that the new Administration shares a desire for improved detente between East and West, while maintaining adequate security.
"We discussed the problems of nuclear non-proliferation and arms control to which President Carter attaches high priority. Both of us subscribe to the same objectives.
"These are complicated issues but vitally important for the future security of the world.
"President Carter is well aware of the difficulties—political, technical and sometimes commercial—which lie before us in the search for solutions. But we were in complete agreement that renewed efforts must be made to resolve them.
"We also discussed the situation in various parts of the world in which we have a mutual interest in helping to create or maintain stability. On the future of Cyprus, we welcomed the

1473
resumption of intercommunal talks at the meeting which is to take place shortly in Vienna.
"On the Middle East, President Carter informed me fully of the United States' latest ideas on the matter and I emphasised the importance of keeping closely in touch with each other over developments in this area.
"In addition to the general talk I had with President Carter about Southern Africa as a whole, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary had detailed talks on Rhodesia and Namibia with Mr. Vance. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary informed them that he will visit Southern Africa during the Easter Recess to have a first hand discussion with those most directly concerned.
"President Carter confirmed that he is prepared to give his full support to our efforts to find a basis for a settlement, and that he will continue the co-operation with us which was begun under the previous Administration.
"I took the opportunity of emphasising to the President our concern that Concorde should be allowed to land in New York.
"The President has indicated that he is in favour of a trial period. Judging from some of the statements which were made while I was there, it seems that American opinion may be moving slightly in our favour.
"I end this report by saying that I am confident that President Carter will give a positive lead to the West in areas where American leadership is necessary and welcome; that the Administration's new ideas and initiatives are tempered by realism, and confident that the President recognises the importance of fostering and strengthening his ties with America's allies by regular contacts and consultation.
"I look forward to welcoming him and Prime Minister Trudeau as well as the other leaders to the Downing Street Conference in May".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.49 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord
1474
the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement. Perhaps I might be allowed at the outset to thank the noble Lord for welcoming me on my return; at any rate, when one travels about the world one learns that we are not the only people who have problems. The Statement is in general terms and is really a list of the topics which the Prime Minister discussed with the President. And of course that is all it could be; I do not think one would expect any epoch-making decisions to come out of a meeting of this sort. It shows that there was a wide-ranging discussion an all the matters which affect us, and shows perhaps even more that the Prime Minister has established a successful personal relationship with President Carter, and that must be in the national interest.
I shall make only two points. I was particularly glad to hear in the Prime Minister's Statement of the stress that the President laid on NATO, because President Carter is to some extent an unknown quantity. We do not know all his thoughts or policies; he made very few commitments in his campaign. We are certainly extremely glad to know that he attaches such significant importance to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
Secondly, I should like to welcome the proposal that the Foreign Secretary should go round the African countries. I do not know whether the noble lord can tell us whether the Foreign Secretary will take any proposals. It will certainly be true, I believe, that any British Foreign Secretary visiting Southern Africa will be expected to have some proposals with him, because I found that, talking to the leaders of the various countries, the general feeling there was that they expected the British Government to do something because it was the British Government's responsibility. Nevertheless, I hope that Dr. Owen will have a successful trip and I should also like to ask the noble Lord whether Dr. Owen intends lo visit Rhodesia or to see Mr. Smith. Whatever the Foreign Secretary's opinion may be of Mr. Smith and the Rhodesian Government, no negotiated settlement will be possible without Mr. Smith and the Rhodesian regime, so it will be very much to the advantage of the Foreign Secretary if he can see Mr. Smith.
3.53 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement, I should like to welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and to tell him that this House has been a much quieter place since he left. We are looking forward to his resuming his normal duties. I believe that the whole House will be delighted that the Prime Minister's visit went off so well. We on these Benches welcome the establishment of a friendly and effective relationship with the new regime in the United States, though I must say that I am always a little worried when people talk about a "special relationship" because it does not make life any easier with our other allies, particularly those in the EEC. However, I think that the Statement has the matter well in perspective and I feel that it has been very well drafted to cover that problem.
We very much welcome the confirmation that the President will visit this country in May and, since he is obviously an exponent of open politics, I wonder whether we could not devise some method by which he could meet more politicians of all Parties, industrialists and others for more intimate and meaningful discussions rather than the normal truncated and formal exchanges of view that take place. That also goes for Prime Minister Trudeau. I believe that we have here an opportunity of extending the relationship with Canada and the United States to a lower level in, as it were, the top bracket of those of us who are fascinated by the problems with which we have to deal and who would be very much helped if we could have exchanges of views with people who are at the centre of things. I hope that Concorde will not be allowed to dominate Anglo-American relationships. Our relationships with Canada, the United States and other countries are much more long term and worldwide than the problems of Concorde, important as those are.
3.56 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I thank both noble Lords for their kind remarks about the Statement and about the success of the meeting of the Prime Minister with President Carter and Prime Minister Trudeau. Obviously, I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he said that the Statement must inevitably
1476
be a general one. He is quite right to stress the importance of NATO. I know that, as Minister of Defence and subsequently, the noble Lord has always been an advocate of support for NATO. I support it myself and that is Government policy. Of course it is good that we should know that the American President supports our approach and is a strong advocate of NATO.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked me about the visit of the Foreign Secretary to Africa. My right honourable friend made a statement which was reported in today's Press, indicating that he was going to South Africa, Botswana, Zambia, Mozambique, Tanzania and Nigeria. I agree that he did not mention Rhodesia in the Press report that I have here, but I will certainly convey to my right honourable friend, the views of the noble Lord about the need to have talks with Rhodesia. After all, Rhodesia is the key to the situation. On the question of whether or not the Foreign Secretary will go with proposals, I understand—and he stressed this yesterday—that he will not be making any specific new British initiatives to break the deadlock. However, I believe that it is important that he should go to meet people there, for he is only a new Minister. I hope that he will be successful in assessing correctly and positively the situation in Southern Africa.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, thought that we should play down the "special relationship" a little because of the views of other Powers with whom we have to deal. However, I still think that it is good to have a special relationship and I believe that many of our other allies understand this. On the question of more open politics when the President's visit takes place, that is something that we shall have to consider. I would agree that it is often right that we should enable industrial leaders and others in our community informally to meet distinguished visitors like President Carter and Prime Minister Trudeau when they visit us. That is a matter for others to decide, but we note the suggestion.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, in view of the fact that Mr. Ian Smith has extended an invitation to the Foreign Secretary to visit Rhodesia, may I ask my noble friend the Leader of the Houses

1477
whether it would not be a good idea—though none of us is particularly hopeful about the situation in Southern Africa—for the Foreign Secretary to go to Rhodesia, especially because Mr. Smith has made some movement towards a settlement? However small it is, Mr. Smith has made a slight change and no one has pushed him to go a little further.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I responded to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which my noble friend has taken up. I shall certainly inform the Prime Minister of the strong views held by noble Lords on all sides.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I should like to follow up the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that there was nothing epoch-making in the Statement. What I found, not having had the advantage of being able to read the Statement before, was that it struck a note of integrity. We had the statement that there is no panacea and, as one who has noted many of these meetings of the leaders of the world in the past, it seems to me that for us to build up the integrity of politicians is an important step in getting people to understand that, in the last analysis, a nation only saves itself by millions of little people proving their integrity and doing their best with honesty and goodness instead of developing a completely acquisitive society that thinks only of itself. That Statement is one that gives an understanding and integrity to the people without any flannel.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's comments.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, in these conversations, did the President by any chance refer to the desirability of the European members of NATO making every effort to rationalise their production of conventional weapons and, more generally perhaps, to the necessity, in the interests of the Alliance as a whole, for the standardisation of armaments of all kinds? Also, while we are on the subject of armaments, may I ask whether there was perhaps general agreement that any progress in the follow-up conference to be held in Belgrade next June should be made dependent on progress in the discussions in Vienna on the mutual and balanced reduction of armaments?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I cannot give the House details of the conversation. After all, I was not there. I have only just seen the Statement. On the other hand, I have, naturally, asked questions about it myself. I mentioned the Belgrade conference and the importance of adopting a non-polemical approach. The Prime Minister says in his Statement that he was assured that the President,
"is anxious to work closely with the Nine"—
and I emphasise that—
"and with all the NATO partners with a view to a serious dialogue with the East at Eelgrade."
I believe that there is no doubt that he is well aware of the difficulties and the special problems. After all, he was once a distinguished naval officer and also, academically, in another particular field, has a very good "track record", if I may use that expression. So we must accept that the President is well aware of the importance of negotiations and the need for us to be firm and strong in this. One need have no doubt about that with the new Administration.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in the expressions of satisfaction and congratulation over the visit and to return once more to the special relationship. We live at a time when we do not claim a special relationship of power and wealth, as we perhaps sometimes did. But so many people on this side of the Atlantic have spilt so much ink and wasted so much breath saying that no special relationship exists, that I ask whether it is not very satisfactory to have this relationship restored to its proper proportion by the greatest authority on the matter in the world, the President of the United States?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, who knows about the Foreign Office and international affairs as well as does any man in this House, and I personally agree very much with what he said.

PATENTS BILL [H.L.]
4.2 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Debate resumed on Amendment No. 247.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: The object of my suggestion that these matters of dispute should be determined by a tribunal is to save expense to the individual inventor, to the small firm, and to avoid stifling innovation in invention by giving the Crown such great powers where it appears that the only course to take to get a settlement of a dispute is to go to the court. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, for his general support of my Amendment, and I detected in the reply of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, a Celtic sympathy to the matters I was proposing. However, as I understand him, his argument was that my Amendments were not necessary; but with the greatest respect to him, I should like to suggest that it would be of great help for the objectives that I have in mind in putting forward these Amendments, if there could be included in the Bill clear words indicating that a tribunal should be or could be set up.
This would not be an ad hoc tribunal in the way that the noble and learned Lord referred to it, because such tribunals would not necessarily have the air of finality. It is necessary to have finality to such a dispute, and by agreement the parties go along to a tribunal of persons with knowledge of industrial affairs for a final decision, in the same way as so many hundreds of firms and individuals went to the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors after the last war to settle their disputes in relation to inventions, patented or otherwise.
It would be helpful for the main objectives which I have in mind, and which I have indicated, if the form of the tribunal was set out in the Bill. It would also be helpful to indicate in the Bill that the costs were to be paid by each party themselves, and that the tribunal would not have power to award costs against either of the parties appearing before it. Therefore it seems to me that even from a general psychological point of view it would be very helpful in resolving such disputes and in saving expense if the form of the tribunal could be mentioned in the Bill itself. I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord has said and I do not propose to press the Amendment, but I may return to it at another stage after I have read in Hansard what the noble and learned Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 252:
Page 50, line 2, after ("Wales") insert ("or Northern Ireland").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a small Amendment, simply allowing Crown use disputes to be referred to a circuit judge or an arbitrator in Northern Ireland, as in the case of England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.6 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 253:
Page 50, line 5, at end insert—
("(5) One of two or more joint proprietors of a patent or application for a patent may without the concurrence of the others refer a dispute to the court under this section, but shall not do so unless the others are made parties to the proceedings; but any of the others made a defendant or defender shall not be liable for any costs or expenses unless he enters an appearance and takes part in the proceedings.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This new subsection is parallel to Clause 64, which noble Lords will have seen, and its purpose is simply to put the position of joint proprietors in Crown use proceedings on the same footing as in infringement proceedings. The Amendment also has the effect of implementing a recommendation of the Banks Committee (which can be seen in paragraph 434 of the report) that it should be made clear that Government Departments may deal with joint proprietors as a single entity for the purpose of settling terms in respect of Crown use. That is all it does. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 [Special provisions as to Crown use during emergency.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 57 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: This clause gives very wide powers to the Crown in relation to the use and exercise of inventions. It seems to me that these powers are far too wide. Therefore I should like to ask the noble and learned

1481
Lord whether any other countries of the EEC have such wide powers in relation to inventions. I have particularly in mind the powers which the Crown has, as set out in subsection (1)(d), (e) and (f). In this Patents Bill these very wide powers of the Crown are required for the promotion of the productivity of industry. What does that mean? Why should it be necessary to have these wide powers in regard to the exericse of inventions for promoting productivity of industry, commerce and agriculture—the three spheres mentioned in the clause?
It is proposed in paragraph (e)—and I do not understand why this should be necessary—to have these wide powers in relation to inventions:
"for fostering and directing exports and reducing imports, or imports of any classes, from all or any countries and for redressing the balance of trade;".
Lastly, in paragraph (f), the powers are,
"generally for ensuring that the whole resources of the community are available for use, and are used, in a manner best calculated to serve the interests of the community…"
I ask why, in a Patents Bill dealing with inventions, should it be necessary to reserve powers of such wide categories? I fully realise that the noble and learned Lord may not wish to answer the question at this stage; but no doubt he will let me know the answer, if not now, then at a later date.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am indebted to the noble Lord for remaining on his feet until a messenger brought to me the Patents Act 1949. But I think that the noble Lord and the Committee should know that provisions of this kind have in fact been contained within our law under Section 49 of the Patents Act 1949, and have given rise to no difficulty. That is the only answer that I would offer at the moment, but it will be found that precisely these provisions are paralleled in Section 49 of the 1949 Act. In so far as the other countries are concerned, perhaps I could return to that matter when I deal with the similar question which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, when he spoke on Clause 55 stand part.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: May I, with due modesty, indicate that I rather expected that that would be at least part of the answer that the noble
1482
and learned Lord would receive; namely, that these provisions were in the 1949 Act. Therefore, I assume his argument follows that because they are in the 1949 Act they must be in the 1977 Act. May I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord a supplementary question? How often have those powers under the 1949 Act been used in relation to inventions connected with the paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) to which I have referred?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I cannot specifically answer that but, of course, the period of emergency which was referred to in that Act was a limited period, as no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, knows. I merely refer to that to show that there was a precedent for them; and I should have thought that, speaking as one lawyer, in effect through the Committee, to another, that might have produced a twinge of sympathy.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Whenever the noble and learned Lore, speaks I have twinges of sympathy, of course, but we have progressed since 1949. We are in a technological age. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, wants to communicate with the noble and learned Lord.
Lord McCLUSKEY: It was merely to enable me to answer the specific point raised by the noble Lord. The answer is that they have not been used.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I rather anticipated, again, if I may say so, that that would be the answer of the noble and learned Lord. May I therefore ask him this? Would he consider why these powers should be introduced? I know from my own experience that when foreign manufacturers want to deal with Government Departments in relation to inventions for the services of the Crown—and "for the services of the Crown" is a very wide term in this country—there is a reluctance on their part to get embroiled in activities where their inventions might be interfered with for the purposes set out in paragraphs (d), (e) and (f). I do not propose to press the matter any further, but I have raised it and the noble and learned Lord has been kind enough to give me several fairly impromptu answers.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Meaning of infringement]:
4.12 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 255:
Page 51, line 13, leave out ("whether for disposal or otherwise") and insert ("for one of these purposes").
The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 255 and 257 together, which I think Members of the Committee will see are identical except for the fact that they occur in separate places in Clause 58. The words in the clause at the moment, "whether for disposal or otherwise", do not seem to appear in the Community Patent Convention. However, in the Bill that we are discussing now, Clause 58 provides that an infringement occurs if a person,
"where the invention is a product…makes, disposes of, offers to dispose of, uses or imports the product…"
We find that in subsection (1) (a); and in paragraph (b) we find that,
"where the invention is a process, he uses the process or he offers it for use "
without consent, there is an infringement. Then, in paragraph (c), if a person,
"where the invention is a process,…disposes of, offers to dispose of, uses or imports…or keeps any such product",
et cetera, there will be an infringement. What we are concerned with are the words "whether for disposal or otherwise" which are added to paragraphs (a) and (c).
In Article 29 of the Community Patent Convention, the nearest that that Convention comes to the words "whether for disposal or otherwise" seems to be to prohibit what is called the "stocking" of a product; and where the invention is a process obtained from a product, again "stocking" is prohibited. We would have thought that if the Government had wished to add this particular term "stocking" to Clause 58(1)(a) and (c) of our Bill, then that small addition would have brought the whole of Clause 58(1) into line with the Community Patent Convention. On the other hand, there is the possibility that the Government may have reasons for not wishing to include this term "stocking", which occurs in the Community Patent Convention, in paragraphs (a) or (c). But neither option
1484
makes the words "whether for disposal or otherwise", which we find in (a) and (c), necessary, and the effect of these two minor Amendments is to delete these particular words in paragraphs (a) and (c) from the Bill because we believe they are not absolutely necessary. For that reason, I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: I anticipated that the noble Lord's reasons for moving this Amendment were in connection with the European Patent Convention, and that he had in mind the problem of the "stocking" of a patented product. It seems that his proposal is a drafting change with a view to excluding from infringement the mere "stocking" of a patented product. The Bill was drafted with this intention, and I should like to refer the noble Lord to subsection (5)(a) which specifically states that an act such as keeping a product is exempt from infringement if it is done privately and for non-commercial purposes. However, it may be that that is not sufficient to meet the noble Lord's point. I am prepared to look at it again, and if on reflection I feel that the Bill could usefully be improved certainly I shall table an Amendment at a later stage. I should say at this stage that I do not anticipate that when the matter has been looked at again such an Amendment will be necessary, but I appreciate the point that has been raised and will undertake to look into it.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord has said with regard to the proposed Amendment, but I have some difficulty in understanding why the Government wish to retain the words "dispose of" and "disposal" in this clause when, in regard to Clauses 41 and 42, the Government Amendments were to replace the same words used in those clauses by the word "supply". The word "dispose" is used in Clause 58, and also elsewhere in the Bill, such as Clauses 46, 49 and 53, in addition to "supply" and "sell". I am not sure what is intended to be conveyed by the word "disposal" in this connection. It seems to me that the use of the words "dispose" and "disposal" in these subsections requires some reconsideration, and I wonder whether the noble Lord will be good enough, perhaps, when he is reconsidering the Amendment before him, to consider

1485
my suggestion that the words "dispose" and "disposal" could perhaps be replaced by the word "supply", with the suitable prepositions, as was done by the noble Lord when he proposed a large number of Amendments in relation to Clauses 41 and 42. The Amendments were numbered 207 to 222.
Lord ORAM: I take note of what the noble Lord has said and give the undertaking that when the matter that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has raised is looked at I will take into account also what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said about the word "dispose". Here again, I anticipate that a satisfactory reply will be possible without an Amendment, but we shall see.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I thank the noble Lord very much indeed.
Lord LYELL: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for going some way towards considering this series of two Amendments. I am grateful for the fact that he wishes to consider the Amendment to see what can be done to improve the Bill, or to incorporate our particular Amendment. However, he did not hold out much hope, and I would be interested to know what indication we shall have that he has considered it if he is not going to put down an Amendment or take any further overt action; but doubtless we can have further consultations of a formal or informal nature. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.20 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 256:
Page 51, line 15, leave out ("or") and insert—
("( ) where the invention is a process").
The noble Lord said: This is another drafting Amendment. The words in Clause 58(1)(b):
"…when he knows, or it is obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances, that its use there without the consent of the proprietor would be an infringement of the patent",
qualify the offering of a process for use. The words, "when he knows" et cetera do not refer to the using of a process which is an absolute offence and infringement under Clause 58 and needs no word to qualify it. Article 29 of the Community
1486
Patents Convention in paragraph (b) separates these two forms of infringement from each other by a rather different use of grammar. Surely subsection 1(b) of this clause must do so, too! This Amendment does so by making the use of a process and the offering for use separate paragraphs. I realise this may not be the best method of achieving the desired result, but I would suggest that some Amendment is necessary here.
Lord ORAM: My attitude to this Amendment is somewhat similar to my attitude to the last one. We agree with the intention of the Amendment, but here again we feel the Bill as drafted has the same effect. I accept that the point is worth looking at and I am prepared to give consideration to this Amendment, although I repeat that we believe that the phrasing at the moment is satisfactory. If, in our view, an Amendment is not necessary, I will communicate to noble Lords opposite our conclusions in relation to this and to the last Amendment.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I know that there is a tremendous weight of Amendments down and that he and his officials are having to work very hard. On this Amendment, I would say that Parliamentary counsel might get his English grammar cut more quickly. It should be possible for somebody to decide whether you have to use or do not have to use a conjunction in this case. Also, it ought to be possible to look at CPC Article 29 and to reach a conclusion. My conclusion is that this Amendment is necessary and, when the noble Lord comes to look at it, I hope that he and his officials will find that I am right. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 257A:
Page 51, line 32, at end insert ("in the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: The Amendment is intended to restrict liability for infringement by a supplier to those cases where he knows or it is obvious that the goods he is supplying are intended for putting the invention into effect in the United Kingdom. This brings the provision of Clause 58(2) into line with Article 30 of the Community Patent Convention.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause No. 58, as amended, shall be agreed to?
4.25 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: This clause is the most important clause in the Bill. As it defines the infringement of a patent, it is essential that the matter of what constitutes infringement should be clarified in order to reduce expense in any dispute that may arise. The wording of this clause has caused very considerable anxiety among members of the Patent Bar and the Law Society and I propose, in view of the importance of this clause, to raise a number of points at this stage. I apologise for not giving notice to the noble Lord of these points but I should be grateful if, at some time before Report stage, he could indicate what the answers are.
I should like to make one general comment. There is in patent law a very well-settled body of case law which has developed over a long period and which has established what constitutes infringement in the present law. Many lawyers, including myself, feel it would be most unfortunate to put all this body of case law aside and to start afresh with a statutory definition which, in the construing of the new words in the Statute, can only lead to a considerable length of time in the hearing of many cases. I appreciate that the Banks Committee recommended a step of this kind but, with respect to the Banks Committee, I think that the recommendation was largely mistaken. If a definition of infringement is to be included, in my view it should merely codify the existing well-settled law as to infringement using well known terminology, the ambit of which is settled by existing case law.
My first question is whether the words "product" and "process", which we find throughout this clause, are wide enough to cover all patentable inventions. I should like to suggest that perhaps the word "article" should be used in places in order to cover other inventions which are the subject of patents. It may be necessary, if that suggestion is accepted, that there should be amendment of Clause 118(1). Subsection (4) of Clause 58 on the meaning of infringement raises a new
1488
matter, the exhaustion of rights. So far as I am aware, that is a new term in United Kingdom patent jurisprudence, at any rate in the Patent Acts, and I wonder whether it really is necessary to have subsection (4) in the Bill. I can see no reason for its inclusion, having regard to such recent decisions of the courts as the Parke Davis case; because it seems now possible for an exclusive licence to be granted in the United Kingdom and a different exclusive licence to be granted in other countries of the Community. In such circumstances, it would seem onerous upon a patentee to ensure that purchasers of goods in one country have to know of a condition that they could not be used in another country.
The next point is that subsection (5) of Clause 58 leaves out reference to the body of a ship. Subsection (5)(d) deals with an infringement in the use of tackle and other equipment on the ship; but it does not mention the ship itself, which may be the subject of a patent. The words "body of a ship" occur in the present Act. They also occur in the Paris Convention on industrial property rights, and again in the European Patent Convention. My suggestion is that the noble Lord might perhaps be good enough to look at Clause 58(5)(d) to include, in addition to the contents of the ship, the body of the vessel itself.
The next point is that this clause in relation to infringement excludes any reference to the aiding and abetting of infringement. It may be that the noble Lord will indicate why that aspect of infringement has been left out. It seems to exclude what is well known among patent practitioners as the "pith and marrow doctrine" in relation to infringement. The pith and marrow doctrine is well set out in case law as to its significance. In brief, it means that where the substance of an invention has been taken, as claimed in the specification, the infringement occurs, although there may be a difference of words which does not really affect the substance of the invention.
The last point is this. I am advised that this clause on infringement seems to include the case of a person finding and infringing an article. This person, although he has merely found the article, is not using the article but would be liable to action for infringement. I

1489
apologise to the noble Lord for having raised so many issues but it is necessary in the public interest that this clause, particularly as it defines infringement, should be clear from the outset.
Lord ORAM: The noble Lord has apologised for not giving me notice on these matters; but he said that he did not expect an answer today. That is sometimes even more comforting than giving me notice of detailed points. The noble Lord raised a number of serious issues that need examination. It would be wrong for me to comment on them off the cuff, and I will seek advice about them. I will make a general point in relation to his opening sentences when he queried the need for the clause giving a definition of infringement. It is absolutely necessary to have a definition of infringement in the Bill, and to have one which is on all fours with the Community Patent Convention; otherwise there would develop a duality of standards, and this would be recognised as being contrary to the common aim of the Parties opposite as well as of the Government. So the clause is justified. As to the more detailed points that the noble Lord raised, I will have them looked into and make sure that at some later stage he gets his answer.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59 [Action for infringement of atent]:
On Question, Whether Clause 59 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.32 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: This clause is associated with the action for infringement. It says that an action for infringement may be brought by the proprietor of a patent. The first matter I should like to draw to the Committee's attention is this: Should it not be made clear that the proprietor should be the registered proprietor, and that if an action is to be brought by the patentee he should be registered as the proprietor? If an unregistered proprietor is allowed to bring an action, this is unreasonable because the person threatened with the action ought to
1490
be able to find out from the register of patents whose rights are in question and from what quarter the threat of litigation may come.
My second point concerns subsection 1(b). It says that in an action for infringement an application may be made for an order to deliver up or destroy any patented product in relation to which the patent is infringed, or any article in which that product is inextricably comprised. My suggestion is that subsection (1)(b) is far too narrow. An order for delivery up or destruction will normally, in accordance with the present practice of the courts, apply to such things as jigs and fixtures which are used to make the infringing product. An order for delivery up is usually ancillary to the injunction granted by the court and is to ensure that the injunction is carried out. Therefore would the noble Lord at some stage let me know whether or not he considers hat subsection (1)(b) is too narrow in its application?
Lord ORAM: Again, I will look at the points that the noble Lord has raised. The remedies listed under subsection (1) are those which are available under existing law. I know from his comments to my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey on an earlier Amendment that that does not necessarily convince the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran; but unless there is some real objection to the existing law, then we are right to carry them forward into this Bill.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Relief for infringement of partially valid patent]:
4.35 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 257B:
Page 54, line 21, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: The Amendment corrects a drafting slip in subsection (2). As drafted, the court is obliged to grant relief if the patent was framed in good faith and with reasonable skill and knowledge. This was not intended; as is evident from subsection (1), the intention is that relief should be in the discretion of

1491
the court and the amendment to subsection (2) makes this clear. This is a drafting change with that objective. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 [Right to continue use begun before publication of patent]:
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Nugent of Guildford): I should tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 257C is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 258.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 257C:
Page 54, line 33, leave out from ("does") to end of line 43 and insert ("in good faith an act which would constitute an infringement of the patent if it were in force or makes in good faith effective or serious preparations to do such an act shall have the rights conferred by subsection (2) below.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment makes two changes to Clause 62. First, it picks up the point which has been noted by the noble Lords opposite in their Amendment No. 258 that Clause 62(1) as drafted only gives a right to continue an act which would constitute an infringement of the patent as defined in Clause 58(1). We agree with the noble Lords that acts which would infringe under the terms of Clause 58(2) should also be covered. The Amendment I am moving does this and so subsumes Amendment No. 258 put down by the noble Lords. Secondly, my Amendment substitutes "good faith" for the two conditions (a) and (b) presently referred to in subsection (1) of Clause 62. We consider that this makes the position clearer, and also makes it consistent with Clause 26(5), which was accepted on the first day of the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: We are grateful to the noble Lord for meeting, in the first part of his Amendment, the point that we would have made in our Amendment No. 258. Of course we will support the Government's Amendment.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: May I ask whether there is a precedent for this in the European Patent Convention?
1492
This clause is new and, as the Committee will realise most of my interventions on the Bill endeavour to reduce the expense of litigation. It may be desirable, for some reason which I do not appreciate, to make inquiries as to whether a potential infringer has made preparations in good faith. But it must be understood that to do so opens up the scope of very lengthy trials and inquiries. It gives a defence to a potential infringer which was not in previous Acts.
The public is best served by having certainty in relation to many of these patent matters and, particularly, in the clauses dealing with infringement. Thus, a patentee knows that his patent is either invalid and he loses the dispute, or he succeeds. Further, an infringer knows where he is. But to have an inquiry as to whether an infringer has made preparations "in good faith" is something which can usually be looked at only after lengthy research, and probably then only in part. Therefore, until the parties get into court, that point is open to doubt. Perhaps the noble Lord will be kind enough to refresh my memory as to why it was thought necessary to introduce this aspect of "good faith", and whether it is being done because of some clauses in the European Patent Convention which I may have forgotten.
Lord ORAM: If they are there then, like the noble Lord, I have forgotten them; but, as he knows, the general intention of the Bill is to bring our legislation into conformity in large measure with the European Convention, and I would expect that to be the case here. It is inevitable that there are some phrases, such as "good faith", which have to go into a Bill, which I agree are not absolutely precise, and that leads to difficulty both administratively and in the courts. However, I am advised that the phrase is the most suitable one and I do not think there is any cause to query it.
Lord BELSTEAD: I think my noble friend Lord Lyell will be querying it when we come to Amendment No. 263. That relates to Clause 67, but it is the same point, and it was when the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, mentioned the Community Patent Convention that I opened my ears. When my noble friend comes to move Amendment No. 263, he will be

1493
expressing anxieties about the use of the expressions "good faith" and "reasonable skill and knowledge", which mean different things to different countries who are members of the Convention. Perhaps I had better say no more at this stage, except that I believe we share the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and we shall be raising them at a later stage.
Lord ORAM: I thank the noble Lord for indicating that, and possibly there will be an interval which will be sufficient for me to seek advice and to give a satisfactory answer.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I should also like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in that he appears at least to be moving towards my views as to the objectives which would be served in trying to cheapen the resolving of disputes under the Bill. This is the first occasion that I can remember during the course of our many long hours of debate on patents that I have had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in relation to an Amendment which has as its objective the taking care of the interests of the small inventor and also of the small firm, which are not always able to employ expensive professional advice.
Lord BELSTEAD: The noble Lord is quite right to take me to task for not having supported him previously on this particular aspect. If he glances down the list of Amendments he will see Amendment No. 271, in the names of my noble friend and myself and also that of Lord Cawley. We shall once again be supporting him in this respect when we come to that Amendment, but I shall say no more at this stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 259:
Page 55, line 2, at end insert ("and acts of the same nature").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is similar to Amendment No. 119, which was moved during a previous Sitting by my noble friend Lord Lyell. The Government then said they would be kind enough to look at this matter to see whether Amendment No. 119 was necessary.
1494
Perhaps at the same time the Government would be kind enough to look also at Amendment No. 259 with the same objective in mind.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 259A:
Page 55, line 16, at end insert—
("(4) Where a patented product is disposed of by any person to another in exercise of a right conferred by subsection (2) above, that other and any person claiming through him shall be entitled to deal with the product in the same way as if it had been disposed of by a sole registered proprietor.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. Where a person has a right, by virtue of Clause 62(2), to dispose of a patented product it is evident that subsequent dealings in the product should also not constitute an infringement, otherwise the value of the right given by Clause 62(2) would be seriously weakened. It is the purpose of this Amendment to make it clear that such subsequent dealings I are not infringements. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Proceedings for infringement by a co-owner]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 259B:
Page 55, line 34, leave out ("if") and insert ("any of the others").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. It is purely a drafting Amendment and does not alter in any way the effect of Clause 64. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Effect of non-registration on infringement proceedings]:
4.47 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 259C:
Page 56, line 15, leave out from ("is") So end of line 28 and insert ("subsequently infringed, the court shall not award him damages or order that

1495
he be given an account of the profits in respect of an infringement occurring before the transaction, instrument or event is registered unless—

(a) the transaction, instrument or event is registered within the period of six months beginning with its date; or

(b) the court is satisfied that it was not practicable to register the transaction, instrument or event before the end of that period and that it was registered as soon as practicable thereafter.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 295C. Clause 66 was intended to give effect to the Banks Committee's recommendation that unless a change of ownership or grant of an exclusive licence is registered within six months no damages should be recoverable for acts of infringement committed before registration. The purpose of this Amendment is to make the clause reflect the Banks Committee's recommendation more closely and also to make it clear that it applies to an account of profits as well as to damages. Perhaps at this stage I might say that in my view this Amendment takes care of the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Lyell, Lord Belstead and Lord Cawley, in their Amendments Nos. 260 and 261 and, on reflection, it may be that they will consider that it is unnecessary to move those two Amendments. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: As the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has so kindly suggested, we believe that this particular Amendment meets the points we have raised in our two subsequent Amendments. The noble Lord explained clearly the objective of his Amendment and we are at least some way towards appreciating that the Amendment alters and improves the clause.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I, and other practitioners, read Clause 66 before the noble Lord introduced this Amendment. It would appear that the new proprietor who registers late could never get damages for infringements committed after he registers. Therefore, an assignee who has had the patent assigned to him together with all rights of action, could be precluded from obtaining the benefit of the assignment. It would therefore be necessary to join this assignor in the action. Although I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord said in support of his Amendment, may I ask him whether it is to deal with the point that I raised?
Lord ORAM: That sounded to me a somewhat new point, rather than the point which I covered in my explanation of the Amendment. If it turns out to be a new point which needs further comment, I will certainly see that that is made.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 67 [Infringement of rights conferred by publication of application]:
4.51 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 262:
Page 56, line 34, leave out ("or an account of profits").
The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 263 and 267 as well. My remarks may become somewhat intermingled, and I begin by commenting on No. 267, but I hope that the Committee will see that the totality of my remarks is bound up with this series of three Amendments, which deal with the same clause and, I hope, with the same point.
Clause 67 is concerned with the rights of a patent applicant against an infringer as soon as the patent application has been published. Clearly, the intention of Clause 67 is sound, because if publication carried no rights against infringement anyone at all could effectively steal an invention and the patent application would do nothing to stop this. Clause 67 follows a recommendation of the Banks Committee, and we believe that it is covered by, and has similar provisions to, the European Patent Convention, the Community Patent Convention and the Patent Co-operation Treaty. Article 34 of the Community Patent Convention provides that between the date of publication of an application and the date of grant, compensation which is reasonable in the circumstances may be claimed from an infringer.
But we do not believe that this point in the Convention is what Clause 67 provides for, because what it says is that damages against an infringer, or an

1497
account of profits in respect of any infringing act, may be claimed against an infringer between publication and grant. Thus we can see that the Bill is giving the patent applicant the right to full compensation against an infringer, if the infringement occurs between publication and grant, whereas the provisions in the Community Patent Convention give only compensation which is reasonable in the circumstances. We believe that this is a particularly germane and important point, which seems to justify Amendment No. 267, which would write these words into the clause.
However, the problem which the Community Patent Convention recognises about infringement between publication and grant is that if an applicant makes a very broad claim, or series of claims, others will be left in a great deal of doubt as to whether or not they will be liable to infringe an application for the patent. From such researches as we have been able to make, we understand that in Germany and the Netherlands a very long period of time can elapse between publication and grant. So that applicants often make very broad claims, which they hope will ward off anyone who might be liable to infringe an application. In these circumstances, it seems just that a person who infringes an application at an early stage should not necessarily be liable for full damages. We hope that Amendment No. 267 recognises this point, and also brings Clause 67 into line with the Community Patent Convention.
We have suggested Amendment No. 262, because it seems that an account of profits, as defined in respect of an infringing act, will not be necessary if the fuller wording of our main Amendment, No. 267, is accepted. However, I am afraid that there is still one important problem. I apologise for the fact that my remarks are somewhat lengthy and a little complicated, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will be able to bear with me a little longer.
Under subsection (1) of Clause 67, where an application for a patent has been published, the applicant shall have certain rights against an infringer, and it goes on to provide that references in Clauses 58 to 60 and 64 to 66 shall be construed as including references to any such application. It is here that we come on to the points which were touched on by my noble
1498
friend Lord Belstead, and which were germane to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. We believe there is a problem here, in that Clause 60, taken as a whole, includes subsection (3) of that clause, which expressly exempts an infringer of a patent which has been amended after the infringement was committed,
"…unless the court is satisfied that the specification of the patent…was framed in good faith and with reasonable skill and know edge."
We hope that the reason for this will be clear. If an applicant deliberately puts in a very wide specification and subsequently has to amend it, he cannot expect to claim damages for the infringement of the original very wide specification. My noble friend Lord Belstead touched on this earlier and said that good faith and reasonable skill and know edge will mean different things in different countries. As noble Lords will be aware, future patent applications will be coming to the Patent Office in this country, through the Patent Co-operation Treaty, from all over the world. If we remove subsection (3) of Clause 60 from the reference in subsection (1) of Clause 67—sub-section (2) of Clause 60 has no relevance in this case, so far as infringing is concerned—we are left with the reference to subsection (1) of Clause 60, which we consider is the only relevant subsection. We hope that subsection (1) of Clause 60 protects the infringer who is innocent because he was not aware, and had no reasonable grounds for knowing, that the patent existed.
There could be a problem as to what is to replace good faith and reasonable skill and knowledge. We hope that compensation "reasonable in the circumstances", which we find in the Community Patent Convention, would be the basis for assessing reasonable and fair damages against an infringer, and the effect of Amendment No. 267 is to insert those words. I apologise for the length and complication of my speech, and for going back to Clause 60, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and the Committee will understand that my remarks were tied up with, three separate Amendments. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord ORAM: There was no need for the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, to apologise

1499
for taking due care in explaining the three Amendments with which he has dealt, for I may have to make a rather long reply. I am able to forecast that I shall give some, but not complete, satisfaction to the noble Lord. I agree with the noble Lord that Amendment No. 262 would bring the wording of Clause 67(1) into closer conformity with Article 34 of the Community Patent Convention and that it would be unreasonable and going too far to provide that the patentee should be entitled to an account of a defendant's profits arising out of an infringement which takes place between the date of publication of the application and the date upon which the patent takes effect. Until the patent is granted, the scope of the patentee's monopoly will be uncertain. We can well imagine that a person who contemplates doing some act which may infringe the patent when granted will, in the period before grant, be in a difficult position, because at the dale of publication of an application the claims made may be vague and indeterminate in scope—I think this was a point which the noble Lord himself made—and they will not have been examined by the Patent Office and, when the patent is granted, the claims allowed may be substantially different.
For those reasons, I am in a position to accept Amendment No. 262, but I am afraid that I must resist the other two Amendments. Amendment No. 263 specifies that the application of Clause 60 is to be limited to what is provided by subsection (1) of that clause. Frankly, we see no reason for this. Clause 60(2) will, without saying so in Clause 67, not apply in proceedings brought under Clause 67, since it relates to infringement of a patent during the grace period for paying renewal fees. However, Clause 60(3) will, and in our view should, apply. It is important that applications should be drafted in good faith and with reasonable skill and knowledge. In considering whether the applicant should be allowed to recoup any loss for an act by a third party in the period before grant, this is surely a factor that the court should take into account and, unless so satisfied about the drafting of the published application, it should refuse damages.
Since the noble Lord interpolated at this point his views about the phrase
1500
"good faith" and other similar phrases—
and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, did so as well in connection with an earlier Amendment—may I say that we accept that these terms will have to be interpreted and that I indicated earlier that this would be the case. However, we consider also that these terms are as clear as can be. In fact they are used in Article 122 of the European Patents Convention and in Article 28 of the Community Patent Convention. Having regard to the infinite variety of circumstances, it is not really feasible to use different words. Frankly, we do not believe that these words would cause difficulty for our courts or for the parties to a dispute.
May I now comment on the third Amendment to which the noble Lord spoke; namely, Amendment No. 267? This Amendment is, in his view, the important one, for it is directed to the main point that the noble Lords opposite are making. While I commend their desire that we should keep our law in line with the Convention, I am afraid that I must resist the Amendment. Once again we are discussing a matter in respect of which the effect desired by noble Lords opposite does not differ from that desired by the Government, but the words in which the required result is expressed differ. It is necessary to use terminology in the Bill which is appropriate to the legal framework within which the Bill fits. Infringement is a tort and, like all other torts which may be committed, the term "damages" is the correct term to define the appropriate remedy. This does not mean that in all cases a full measure of damages will be obtained by the patentee. On the contrary; in assessing the damages to be awarded the court will, as is usual, take account of all the relevant circumstances to ensure that only a reasonable amount is awarded.
For these reasons, as I hope to have made clear, I am recommending the Committee to accept the first Amendment which the noble Lord has moved, namely. Amendment No. 262, but I shall not be able to make a similar recommendation regarding the two subsequent Amendments.
5.8 p.m.
Lord LYELL: First, I think we had better take the good parts of the egg of the

1501
noble Lord, Lord Oram, if we can call it that, and thank him for his acceptance of the first of the three Amendments. So far as Amendment No. 263 is concerned, I should like to study at greater length what the noble Lord has said. Probably what he said was fairly reasonable, but it seems to me that here there is a slight case of the Chinese box. We are already considering "good faith" and "reasonable skill and knowledge". So far as I could understand what the noble Lord had to say, in a dispute as to whether an infringer had infringed a patent which might or might not have been fairly wide in its scope, the infringer would again be entirely dependent upon the court's interpretation of "good faith" and "reasonable skill and knowledge".
Of course we must be slightly disappointed that the noble Lord could not accept Amendment No. 263. We accept what the noble Lord has said: that a full measure of damages will not necessarily be awarded in the case of Amendment No. 267. However, we submit that this does not provide much of a guideline for any person who may wish to make, or produce, or carry on any process which might infringe a patent. In Amendments Nos. 263 and 267 we were looking for a little more certainty than we believe the Bill, as it stands, provides. We consider that the noble Lord's inability to recommend that the Committee should accept Amendments Nos. 263 and 267 means that the Government have taken half a pace backwards towards uncertainty in this area. Certainly we are grateful for the first mercy—that Amendment No. 262 will be accepted by the Government—but we should like to reserve our position in order to consider the reply which the noble Lord has given on the other two Amendments. As I am sure the noble Lord and the Committee are aware, we regard these two Amendments and, indeed, the whole of Clause 67 as very important. We hope that this clause will be considered to be more in line with the articles, both of the European Patent Convention and the Community Patent Convention.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.10 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 264:
Page 57, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment was to try to avoid the individual inventor or the small firm from being penalised because, when filing his original specification, he did rot employ a professional adviser and that the original specification was not as wide as it could be. Three further Amendments have been tabled in relation to the subsection which my Amendment proposed to delete, and in those circumstances I do not propose to move the Amendment but to await the result of the debate on the other three Amendments, which go some way towards assisting the individual inventor and the small firm who have not been to very good advisers and who could not afford advisers for the original specification which they filed.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 265:
Page 57, line 3, leave out from ("but") to end of line 5 and insert ("the claims also of the printed specification published under section 13 above as interpreted by the descriptior and any drawings contained in it.").
The noble Lord said: The person calculating whether he would be infringing a patent which has only been published, will naturally refer to the claims in the specification published under Section 13. I suggest that such a person would be very unlikely to refer to any amended specification filed subsequently which might be lying at the Patent Office. I understand that it is normal for industry and commerce to receive regular copies of specifications which have been published under Section 13 and that it is wholly reasonable that infringement of these specifications should be liable for damages under this clause. However, I wonder whether it is reasonable to make anyone liable for infringing a later version of a specification which an infringer may well know nothing about and which, incidentally, would probably be narrower in scope anyway. It is to prevent that happening that this Amendment has been tabled. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Nugent of Guildford): Before I put this Amendment, I should explain to the Committee that if Amendment No. 265 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 266.
Lord ORAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman for pointing out the similarity between Amendments Nos. 265 and 266, because here is a case of great minds thinking nearly alike, in that noble Lords opposite have identified a problem which the Government also recognise. The two Amendments are indeed aimed at the same purpose, which is to make clear that it is the claims as interpreted by the description and drawings of the application as published under Section 13 which must be infringed. In the view of the Government, the drafting of Amendment No. 266 is superior to that of Amendment No. 265. In Amendment No. 265 there is a reference to "printed specification". I suggest that that is misconceived since Section 13 does not refer to printing. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will recognise that the Government Amendment achieves the purpose which his Amendment seeks to achieve but with rather better drafting.
Lord BELSTEAD: I concede at once that the noble Lord is correct that almost certainly the wording "printed specification" is less attractive, at any rate, than the wording of the Government Amendment. However, the Government Amendment totally fails to meet the point which I sought to make when I moved my Amendment, because their Amendment refers to the "last specification to be filed". So I cannot support Amendment No. 266. Perhaps we ought to work out how we are going to proceed.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: There is only one way we can proceed now. The question is that this Amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say Content? To the contrary, Not-Content? I think the Not-Contents have it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 266:
Page 57, line 3, leave out ("last specification to be filed") and insert ("claims of the last specification to be filed (as interpreted by the description and any drawings contained in it)").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this Amendment when replying to Amendment No. 265, but I recognised from what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that he was not entirely satisfied. I do not wish
1504
in any way to "pull a fast one" procedurally. If there is a point which we need to take up at a further stage, that would be quite acceptable to me and we could look into it at Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: I do not want to destroy the harmony of the Committee, but I was seeking to say that in my view this Amendment should not be written into the Bill because as a matter of principle, for the reasons which I gave when I moved Amendment No. 265, my noble friend and I disagree with the intention behind the Amendment. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord to leave the Bill as drafted and the Government could look at it to see what Amendment they should table for the Report stage.
Lord ORAM: In view of what the noble Lord has said, I will agree to withdraw this Amendment and to look at the wording again. It may well be that at Report stage I shall bring forward exactly the same Amendment, but at least we shall have the opportunity of discussing it further at that stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 68 [Remedy for groundless threats of infringement proceedings]:
5.18 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 267 A:
Page 57, line 9, leave out ("to which this section applies") and insert ("of a patent").
The noble Lord said: Where a patentee threatens another person with infringement proceedings, that other person may, under Section 65 of the 1949 Act, bring an action for threats against the patentee. The Banks Committee recommended in paragraph 275 of their report that an action for threats should not lie at the instance of a person actually making or importing a product for disposal or using a process. Clause 68 is intended to repeat the present Section 65 in substance, but with the modification recommended by the Banks Committee. The modification is intended to be effected by subsection (4). However, that subsection is at present defective in that in disapplying Clause 68

1505
entirely to infringements which consist of making or importing a product or using a process, it may have a broader effect than intended. Therefore, the purpose and effect of Amendment No. 267E to subsection (4) is to avoid this defect by barring proceedings rather than disapplying the clause.
Therefore, it is really Amendment No. 267E which is the principal Amendment. I apologise to the Committee; I should perhaps have made it clear that I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 267A, 267B, 267D and 267E. We have put this forward because Amendment 267E revises subsection (4) of Clause 68 so that it more clearly reflects the Banks Committee's recommendation that it should not be possible for a person allegedly making or importing an infringing product for disposal or using a process to bring proceedings for threats. The Amendment does not change the intended purpose of subsection (4). The other Amendments, Nos. 267A, B and D, are consequential drafting changes. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 267B:
Page 57, line 11, after ("may") insert (", subject to subsection (4) below,").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 267C:
Page 57, line 17, leave out from ("unless") to ("the") in line 18 and insert—
("(a) the defendant or defender proves that").
The noble Lord said: As Clause 68 is drafted, the words "the defendant or defender proves that" may be read as applying to both subsection (2)(a) and (b) The intention, however, is that these words should apply only to subsection (2)(a), as is the case under the present law. The Amendment is designed to make that clear. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 267D:
Page 57, line 20, leave out ("to which this section applies") and insert ("of a patent").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 267E:
1506
Page 57, line 30, leave out from beginning to ("of") in line 31 and insert ("Proceedings may not be brought under this section for a threat to bring proceedings for an infringement alleged to consist").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 69. [Declaration as to non-infringement]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 267F:
Page 57, line 36, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to the court's jurisdiction to make a declaration apart from this section,").
The noble Lord said: As it stands, Clause 69 would be construed as throwing doubt upon the existence and the extent of the court's inherent jurisdiction. The Amendment is, therefore, intended to make it clear that the inherent jurisdiction of the court to make declarations is not affected by the jurisdiction specifically conferred by Clause 69. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 268.
Page 57, line 38, after ("court") insert ("or the comptroller").
The noble Lord said: I hope the Committee, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will forgive me if once again I appear with not one, lot two, but a trio of Amendments. I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee that I should speak to Amendments Nos. 268, 269 and also Amendment No. 271. If I am prejudging or (reading on any ground or taking any of the points that might be raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, may I convey my apologies in advance; I hope I shall not in any way preclude or prejudice the discussion of his Amendment which precedes No. 271. I hope it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I could combine my remarks on these three Amendments.
The Amendments have been put down in order to give the comptroller additional powers. First, we would wish that the comptroller should be enabled to give a declaration that someone or some person has not infringed a particular patent, and that is the main object of Amendment No. 268. Then we come to the second

1507
major point, this new clause, and it is providing that if the parties agree they can go to the comptroller over cases which involve infringement. We hope that this corresponds to Section 67 of the 1949 Act; indeed we believe it does. However, there is no longer any limit on damages that the comptroller can award; otherwise, the new clause after Clause 69 corresponds with Section 67 of the old Act.
It may appear to the Government, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that very little use has been made of the provisions of Section 67 in the 1949 Act. But we believe that with the increased power of the comptroller to revoke patents during their lifetime it could be that there will be a call for a cheap alternative to arbitration proceedings. This is the main reason for my noble friends and I moving the Amendment containing the new clause, which preserves the comptroller's power to hear infringement proceedings if both parties agree. Certainly at an earlier stage this afternoon the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was pointing out that it was very important that the two parties should agree, and where they did agree they had a certain range of options open to them.
We also hope that the new clause lifts the limits in damages, which we understand are at present in the range of £1,000. This is the maximum that can be awarded by the comptroller under Section 67. We would hope that the Committee would consider this new clause, because if the present trend of costs in infringement cases continues we believe that in the future the parties may be more than ready to have an inexpensive alternative available. We hope that this Amendment will go some way towards the objectives which we heard expressed earlier in the day by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd; but of course we look forward to hearing any further comments that he may have. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: I do not quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for having spoken to the three Amendments that he indicated, although I agree with him that in terms of the discussion it may cut somewhat across the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, intends to
1508
move later. But since the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has spoken to these three Amendments—namely, Nos. 268, 269 and 271—I shall try to comment on those, and we will see how we go when we get to the speech which we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd.
First, may I refer to Amendment No. 268, the one the noble Lord has now moved. I am grateful to him for drawing the Government's attention to the point of the Amendment, which I am pleased to accept. Under the 1949 Act the comptroller does not have the power to make declarations as to non-infringement, but then under that Act the grounds on which he can revoke a patent under Section 33 are very limited compared to the grounds on which the court can revoke a patent under Section 32. However, under the Bill the comptroller will have the same revocation jurisdiction as the court and it seems both sensible and logical that he should have power to make declarations as to non-infringement. It is for that reason that we are prepared to accept the Amendment.
I can be almost as helpful to the noble Lord in relation to Amendment No. 269. Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord for this Amendment which seeks to make clear the intention of Clause 69. However, I should prefer to recommend to the Committee that we do not actually adopt this particular Amendment. We would wish to have a closer look at the actual drafting of this Amendment and bring forward a Government Amendment on Report to give effect to the noble Lord's intention. However, we accept it in principle.
Then there is Amendment No. 271, to which the noble Lord also spoke. This is another Amendment which we can accept in principle. I am aware that the Banks Committee recommended that Section 67 of the 1949 Act, which provides for the comptroller to have a limited infringement jurisdiction, should be repealed. The principal reason for this recommendation was that the procedure had been very little used and the Committee admitted that it had been offered no explanation for that. The fact that a provision has been little used is not necessarily a good reason for repealing it. I accept that the comptroller should

1509
retain an infringement jurisdiction though not in precisely the same terms as Section 67 of the 1949 Act.
As the comptroller will have a full revocation jurisdiction in future, it is right that his infringement jurisdiction should be exercisable either together with or separate from his revocation jurisdiction. I can visualise cases where this facility would be both useful and helpful and I note that the proposed new clause overcomes some of the major criticisms levelled at Section 67 of the present Act by the Banks Committee. It does not specify that the parties are not bound by the comptrollers' decisions in subsequent proceedings for infringement before the court. It does not limit the amount of damages which the comptroller may award and Clause 91 will provide a right of appeal to the Patents Court or the Court of Session. So I am also grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this Amendment. However, for drafting reasons, I ask him to consider withdrawing it. I undertake that a Government Amendment to the same effect will be tabled at a later stage.
Lord BELSTEAD: It is most refreshing to find the noble Lord and those who advise him overcoming what I would call "the official mind". In saying that, I mean no discourtesy whatever to members of the Civil Service. I refer to a sort of state of mind into which some of us fall from time to time which says, "This particular proposal is untidy and was recommended against in the last official report. It has not been used very much, so away with it". The official mind into which we sometimes fall does not very often trouble us with the possibilities that times have changed, that maybe the need for the provision of, for instance, this new clause, might manifest itself, and that the future might demand no deletion, but substitution, addition or preservation.
Joking apart, I am very glad that the noble Lord has agreed with this, but for a different reason. During the Second Reading debate on the Bill I, together with other noble Lords, heard my noble friend Lord Eccles, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran—who has made the point again today—and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, refer to the expenses of litigation, not least litigation in the patent
1510
field. It was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who jokingly said that perhaps the matter of patent lawyers' fees could receive some consideration. Many a true word is spoken in jest. To be serious, the preservation of Clause 69 in some form—and I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Lyell will accept the Government's offer—will leave open an inexpensive route down which parties in some infringement cases may be able to proceed rather more frequently in the future than they have done in the past without diving too deeply into their pockets.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 269:
Page 57, line 38, after ("doing") insert ("or intending to do").
The noble Lord said: I should have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Oram, at the conclusion of my noble friend's remarks on the previous Amendment. I should like to put on record my gratitude for his acceptance of Amendment No. 268, and the redrafting intentions behind the other two Amendments. I understand that the noble Lord wishes me to withdraw Amendment No. 269 because he will table a Government Amendment?
Lord ORAM: Yes.
Lord LYELL: In that case, I do not move it.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
5.37 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN moved Amendment No. 270:
After Clause 69, insert the following new clause:
Proceedings for infringement of patent before comptroller or tribunal
.—(1) Any dispute between a proprietor of a patent or an exclusive licensee under a patent and any other person whether that person infringes the patent may, by agreement between the parties, be referred to the comptroller for determination, or to a Tribunal whose decision shall be final.
(2) Such reference may be made as a separate issue or conjointly with an application for revocation of the patent under section 70 below.
(3) If the comptroller or the Tribunal finds that the patent has been infringed relief by way of damages may be granted.
(4) Sections 61 and 67 above and section 97 below shall apply to a reference under this section.
(5) The Arbitration Acts shall not apply to proceedings before the comptroller or a reference under this section.
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for taking the course which somewhat straddles my Amendment. Therefore I find myself in an interesting position. The two Amendments prior to mine have been agreed in principle, if not entirely, and the Amendment following mine has also been agreed in principle. Those being the two sides of the sandwich, I am the meat in the middle because my Amendment differs from the subsequent Amendment in substance only in the fact that it suggests' that any dispute relating to infringement of the patent or licence should, by agreement, be referred not only to the Comptroller General but also to a tribunal.
I support the subsequent Amendment which says that the dispute can be referred to the Comptroller General of Patents. However, Amendment No. 270 suggests not only that the parties to the dispute should have the opportunity of sending the dispute to the Comptroller General, but also that by agreement they should be able to send it to the tribunal from which there would be no appeal—the decision of the tribunal would be final. In the case of a reference to the Comptroller General, his decision would not be final—one could appeal against it to the courts, and so on. The practical effect of introducing the Comptroller General's jurisdiction may be that it extends by one step the course of litigation in this matter.
I urge the Government to consider using a tribunal over which even the Comptroller General or a chartered patent agent, who have knowledge of the law in relation to patents, could preside. Persons associated with these industrial and technical matters should sit with him. This would give the kind of robust justice and expeditious hearing of disputes which industry normally requires. In patent disputes industry usually requires a fairly quick decision on these matters so that it can proceed with its other business. If a tribunal was used for this purpose it would reduce the costs because the fees of the
1512
counsel appearing before the tribunal would necessarily, in accordance with practice, be not as great as those that are usually charged in the High Court or even before the Comptroller General.
Therefore, my Amendment is the same in principle as the subsequent Amendment, except that I have suggested that not only do the parties have the opportunity of referring their dispute to the quasi-judicial tribunal, the Comptroller General with all that that means, but the dispute could be referred to this tribunal composed of men and women who know something about industrial affairs. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: It is often the case that the most attractive part of a sandwich is that which is in the middle, but in this case I am afraid, from the Government point of view, the meat to which the noble Lord refers is less attractive than the two slices on either side of it. I have indicated our acceptance of what noble Lords opposite have put down, but I am afraid that I cannot do the same thing in regard to Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran's Amendment. It arises out of a point which he made at Second Reading; his concern, which we recognise, for the small inventor and the small firm who were precluded from fighting patent infringement actions by the enormous expense involved.
The Government share his concern and indeed my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor indicated that he shared that concern. I remember too that the Lord Chancellor suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, with his expertise in these matters, might suggest ways in which the situation could be improved, and I acknowledge that that is something that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has been attempting to do in moving this Amendment, by making it possible for infringement actions to come before both the comptroller and the tribunal which he has described. He will recognise that we have been over this ground somewhat earlier this afternoon, but nevertheless it is worth making a point or two in response to his moving of this Amendment.
I fear that I cannot accept the proposal that a new statutory tribunal should be set up. There are already many courses open to those in dispute about patent infringement. They may refer the matter to arbitration; they will, the Committee

1513
having accepted, I hope, the principle of Amendment No. 271, be able to ask the comptroller to resolve the dispute. Then, failing all else, they can go to court. I would ask the noble Lord what advantage would there then be in a new tribunal? It would not be cheapness of litigation since there is no reason to suppose that proceedings before three men will last less long than proceedings before one. It cannot be ease of litigation since it would be hard to devise a procedure simpler than that before the comptroller. It would not necessarily be speed of litigation which would be an advantage, since to find three men of the right qualities may well not be easy. And not, I fear, finality, in spite of the expressed words of the Amendment on this point, for it would always be possible to apply to the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division for the decision of the tribunal to be quashed on the grounds of error of law or excess of jurisdiction.
The Patents Appeal Tribunal was in this situation until Section 87 of the 1949 Act was amended in 1971 to allow appeals to the Court of Appeal on points of law. I do not think that anyone connected with patents would wish to revert to that situation. The tribunal proposed by the noble Lord would also have a revocation jurisdiction, and I think that he concedes that Amendments Nos. 276, 278, and 279 are consequential on the proposal that he has moved. But the comptroller and the court both have a revocation jurisdiction, and I can see no advantage in setting up a new body with the same powers.
In short, I do not believe that the very desirable object which the noble Lord seeks will be achieved by this Amendment and the consequential ones, and it is for that reason that I resist them. In asking him to consider withdrawing it, I know he will have in mind the discussion that we had earlier on the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. I hope he will concede that at least we have gone along the road that he wants us to go, at least part of the way.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am grateful for the long and careful consideration which has been given to my Amendment. In the circumstances, I do not propose to press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 [Power to revoke patents on application]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 272:
Page 58, line 9, leave out from ("o") to end of line 12 and insert ("a person not entitled under section 6(2) above to be granted that patent (alone or with other persons)").
The noble Lord said: This is a consequential Amendment to Amendment No. 34 which was made to Clause 6 and which was accepted by the Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): Amendment No. 273. I have to call the Committee's attention to the fact that, if this Amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 274.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 273:
Page 58, line 16, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
("(d) the subject-matter of the patent extends beyond the content of the application for the patent as filed or, in the case of a patent granted on an application under section 7(3), 12(4) or 34 above beyond the content of the earlier application is filed;".
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 273 will be met by Government Amendment No. 274. Therefore, I shall not move it.
5.46 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 274:
Page 58, line 17, leave out from ("in") to end of line 18 and insert ("any relevant application (within the meaning of section (Amendments of applications and patents not to include added matter) below) as filed ").
The noble Lord said: This is one of the series of Amendments that have been accepted at various stages by the Committee pending Amendment No. 295. Amendment No. 295, which I shall speak to briefly at this stage, proposes a new clause which deals with the prohibition on amendments adding matter, and deals with this prohibition in a comprehensive manner. Amendment No. 274 is a consequence of that Amendment. The purpose of all these Amendments which have been taken at various points in the

1515
Bill is to simplify the draft without affecting any material change. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: The reason why we from these Benches supported Amendment No. 274 which the noble Lord has just moved for the Government, and have withdrawn our Amendment No. 273, is that the Government Amendment will, as we wish to do, import Clauses 7(3), 12(4) and 34(4) into Clause 70(1)(d). In fact, the Government Amendment does that by reference to Amendment No. 295. It is on those grounds that we support Amendment No. 274.
As the noble Lord said that he would refer to Amendment No. 295, may I refer to it as well without going into any detail? I still disagree fundamentally with the Government view that they can use the words "matters disclosed" to refer to subject matter. I think it would be best if we waited and argued that out when we come to Amendment No. 295. For that reason, I am not standing in the way of these various Government Amendments which are being moved into the Bill by reference to Amendment No. 295, and to be consistent with that I shall support Amendment No. 274.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: A number of comments that I had intended to make about this provision have been partly met by the new clause tabled by the Government for insertion after Clause 71 dealing with proceedings in which validity of patent may be put in issue. While on my feet, I might tell the Committee that I shall be supporting in principle Amendment No. 280.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.51 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 275:
Page 58, line 21, at end insert ("provided that an application under paragraph (b) above may be made only by the person or persons who were entitled to the grant of the patent or by their successors in title.").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment is to prevent anyone objecting to the grant of a patent on the ground that it was granted to the wrong person unless the objector is the person who should have been granted that patent; that is, third
1516
parties may not object under the subsection. I will explain why the Amendment is being moved by referring to the Community Patent Convention. Article 57(1)(e) of that Convention, when read with Article 56(1), is absolutely specific on the point at which the Amendment is trying to get. Article 57(1)(e) provides the ground for objection, which is that the proprietor of the patent is not entitled to his patent. Then Article 56(1) provides that on that ground an application for revocation may be filed,
"…only by a person entitled to be entered in the Register of Community Patents as the sole proprietor of the patent or by all the persons entitled to be entered as proprietors."
To me, that seems absolutely clear and it is to conform with that provision of the CBC that I move the Amendment.
Lord ORAM: The Amendment would limit the right to apply for revocation of a patent on the ground specified in Clause 70(1)(b) to the person who was entitled to the grant of the patent, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, indicated. The European Patent Convention imposes no such restriction on the revocation of European patents by national authorities. On the other hand, as Lord Belstead again indicated, the Community Patent Convention limits the right to apply for revocation in the way proposed by this Amendment and, as he indicated, the noble Lord feels that our procedure on this point should follow the Convention. However, there is a good reason for this approach being adopted in the Convention, since the European Patent Office is not empowered to decide for itself the question of entitlement to the grant of a patent. Such entitlement must first be decided by a national authority and, on request, the European Patent Office will recognise this decision and, if the decision is against the proprietor, will then revoke the Community patent.
No such limitation is imposed on the powers of the Patent Office. The question of entitlement may be referred to the comptroller or the court under Clause 7 or Clause 34 and he may decide. The practical reason that makes it necessary to limit the right to apply for revocation before the European Patent Office does not therefore apply in the case of a revocation action brought under Clause 70 of the Bill. In practice, we expect that the

1517
applicant for revocation on the ground of Clause 70(1)(b) will in most cases be the person entitled. However, we do not think it would be right to limit the right to apply for revocation to such person. If another person can show that the proprietor of the patent had no right to its grant, we feel that he should be able to revoke the patent. If he were not able to do so, he could not, for instance, commence manufacture within the terms of the patent claims without running the risk of an infringement action. It is surely right that, if sued for infringement of a patent, a person should be allowed to defend himself by alleging that the proprietor does not have a good title. I should also make the point that, under the present Statute, there is no such limitation on the right to apply for revocation. For all these reasons I must resist this Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will see the virtue of the arguments I have put forward.
Lord BELSTEAD: I appreciate that the Amendment flies in the face of the "any person" provision in Clause 70(1), but I moved it to harmonise with the CPC, which of course is absolutely specific on this point; it is crystal clear on the subject. I should like to look at what the noble Lord said about the moment when a national patent office is no longer responsible for deciding the entitlement to the grant of a patent and the moment when the European Patent Office becomes responsible. I am afraid that I had not taken that on board as completely as I should have done. I will study what the noble Lord said because it seems extraordinary and untidy, to say the least, that the national patent office, in this case the British Patent Office, should have one set of rules for revocation from the point of view of when the patent was granted to the person dealt with under Clause 70(1)(b) whereas the European Patent Office will have a different rule. I will read what the noble Lord said on the subject and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 275A:
Page 58, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) Rules under section 11(4) and (8) above shall, with any necessary modifications, apply
1518
for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above as they apply for the purposes of section 11(3) above.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is necessary to make it clear that a patent, whether a United Kingdom patent or a European patent designating the United Kingdom, for an invention which involves the use of a micro-organism may be revoked under Clause 70(1)(c) for failure to comply with rules mace under Clause 11(4) and (8).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.58 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 277:
Page 58, line 28, after ("section") insert ("34 above or").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on Amendments which have already been agreed to in respect of Clauses 34 and 35. As the Bill stood, the relationship between Clause 34 (determination of right to patent after grant) and Clause 70 (revocation) was not entirely clear, although the question referred to under Clause 70(1)(b) might be the same as that under Clause 34(1)(a). The effect of this Amendment is that if a person who claims that his invention has been pirated elects to go for revocation rather than proceed under Clause 34, he can obtain the same relief, subject to the same conditions, under that clause as an alternative to revocation.
Examples of cases where this provision might apply are where the revocation proceedings are brought as a counter-claim in an infringement action and where the complainant wishes to argue that, even if the invention is not his, the patent is invalid on some other ground. The purpose of the Amendment is thus to avoid the complainant having to choose between two types of action and to insure that there is neither advantage nor disadvantage to be gained or suffered by proceeding in one way rather than the other. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.1 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 280:
Page 58, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) A decision of the comptroller or on appeal from the comptroller shall not estop

1519
any party to civil proceedings in which infringement of a patent is in issue from alleging invalidity of the patent on any of the grounds referred to in subsection (1) above, whether or not any of the issues involved were decided in the said decision.").
The noble Lord said: If I may, I shall move Amendments Nos. 280 and 282 together.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Amendments cannot be moved together unless they are consecutive.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am so sorry. I shall move Amendment No. 280 and speak to Amendment No. 282, if I may. Under Clause 70, if the comptroller refuses an application for revocation—in other words, if he allows the patent to remain with the original proprietor—no further application to the court can be made without leave unless it is by way of appeal, and that is provided for in subsection (4). The result of an unsuccessful application may be that the applicant will then be sued for infringement. The unsuccessful applicant would be in an impossible position in such a case if he were not allowed to defend himself—an expression which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, used only a few moments ago on another Amendment.
The effect of Amendment No. 282 is to provide the right for someone to defend himself against an infringement charge after revocation proceedings and to make this absolutely clear. But I am advised that this is not enough because the law of estoppel requires new grounds for a counter-claim. Amendment No. 280 provides that any of the grounds set out in subsection (1) may be used as grounds for alleging invalidity of a patent after a revocation decision by or after an appeal from the comptroller. I beg to move.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I rise briefly to support the submission of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in this matter. It seems essential that a new subsection should be inserted to prevent the party from being estopped from alleging invalidity of the patent in the circumstances set out.
Lord ORAM: Amendment No. 280 would have the effect of preventing the court from applying the doctrine of
1520
res judicata in certain cases. That doctrine is that the courts will refuse to hear again an issue previously raised between the same parties and previously adjudicated upon. Clearly the doctrine is in general a good one; it obviates repetitive litigation and enables the court to get on with other business. However, it is thought extremely unlikely that the courts would ever apply the doctrine of res judicata, where a defendant in infringement proceedings wished to raise the issue of validity as a defence. The Government have in fact already set down their own Amendment (No. 287), which introduces a new clause after Clause 70, and this sets out the occasions on which validity may be put in issue. Subsection (1)(a) of that proposed new clause covers the circumstances envisaged by the noble Lord's Amendment No. 280, and the Government would prefer to deal comprehensively with this topic in that new clause, rather than piecemeal, as would the proposed Amendment. That being so, I must resist the Amendment but I hope that the noble Lord may feel that his point is being catered for in the new clause.
Since the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred also to Amendment No. 282, I should like to indicate in relation to that Amendment that we would accept the principle, but that it is thought extremely unlikely that a defendant who had previously unsuccessfully applied under this clause for revocation of a patent would ever be refused leave to raise the issue of the validity of a patent if he were sued for infringement. In these circumstances, the Government accept that it would be better to make it plain that the doctrine of res judicata has no application in such circumstances. Consequently, I am happy, as I have said, to accept Amendment No. 282 in principle, but I should like to give further consideration to the way in which the Bill should be amended so as to achieve the desired objective. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press the actual wording of Amendment No. 282.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for raising the question of res judicata because it has always been a moot point among practitioners as to whether validity of a patent can in any event be res judicata. I understood the

1521
noble Lord to say that the Amendments which are to be introduced after Clause 71 are intended to avoid the question of res judicata being capable of being raised in the High Court after a decision of the comptroller.
Lord BELSTEAD: I was wondering what was the answer to that point. Subject to the answer, I must say that I am delighted with the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Oram. It seemed to me, as one with no legal mind at all, that Amendment No. 287, by inserting subparagraph (d) which states that the validity of a patent may be put in issue
"(d) in proceedings before the court or the comptroller under Section 70 above for the revocation of the patent"
absolutely meets Amendment No. 280. All that I can do is to apologise to the noble Lord for not having noticed that, though perhaps, as there are 300 Government Amendments to the Bill, I may be forgiven.
With regard to Amendment No. 282, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for saying that this provision should be put in because, from the advice I have received, I should have thought that this was right. I am still not sure what is the answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, but, pending any communication—perhaps by letter—from the Government, I can withdraw the Amendment because it and Amendment No. 282 will, in the first case, be catered for by Amendment No. 287 and, in the second case, probably be redrafted by the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
6.9 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 282A:
After Clause 70, insert the following new clause:
Effect of disclosure of matter on application for a patent where such disclosure occurs after filing earlier relevant application.
. Where an invention to which an application for a patent relates has the priority date of an earlier relevant application pursuant to section 5 above, then, notwithstanding anything in this Act, the comptroller shall not refuse to grant the patent, and the patent shall not be revoked or invalidated by reason only that any
1522
matter disclosed in the earlier relevant application was used or published at any time after the date of filing the earlier relevant application.
The noble Lord said: The reason for this Amendment is twofold. First, I think it necessary in order to continue protection which hitherto has been given by Section 52 of the 1949 Act. The effect of Section 52 is that, once a patent application has been filed in the case, for instance, of a company, that company may start to sell the goods protected by the patent application. In the case of an inventor, he may start to exploit his invention in one way or another and may publish the invention in a technical or a scientific journal. In addition, because of Section 52, any improvements or modifications of the invention will be protected by a later specification as long as it is filed within one year of the original application.
If I may be allowed to take an example which has now become familiar to your Lordships, I shall refer to an inventor who has discovered a means of attaching an upper to the sole of a shoe. He writes about it, he thinks about it, he begins to develop it. Later on, he finds that this same invention can be extended to attaching blinds to rollers and canvas hood to the roofs of cars. The inventor, realising that his invention has these broader possibilities, withdraws his original application for shoes alone because he does not want to waste the money, and he files a second, broader application for shoes, roller blinds and car hoods. If it were not for Section 52, as I understand it, although a claim for attaching uppers to soles of shoes would have the earlier priority date, the application for the broader subject matter for the same invention—that is to say, for shoes roller blinds and car hoods—would not necessarily be supported by the origina1 description and would not have the earlier priority date.
Moreover, if it were not for Sect on 52 being in existence, the three claims in the second application might all be regarded as obvious because the inventory had started to sell the shoes which were made by his invention immediately after filing his first application. I suggest that this new clause which I am moving is necessary, therefore, if protection is to be given against the consequences of publication or

1523
exploitation of an invention after the original application has been filed (and this was the protection which was afforded hitherto by Section 52) and to make it clear that the test for priority continues to be any claim fairly based upon the original specification bearing the priority date of filing of the original specification, whereas any claim not fairly based on the original specification has its own priority date.
I believe that the new clause is necessary for another reason; namely, in order to comply with the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, which is known as the Paris Convention. Article IV of that Convention provides that any applicant for a patent in any one of the countries of the union which was set up by the Convention, which extends more or less worldwide, has a year after filing the first patent application within which he may file corresponding applications in the other countries of the union and obtain priority from the first filing. That is exactly like Section 52.
But as I understand it, the system in the Convention, operating internationally, works as follows. Let us suppose that a Frenchman files a patent application for the shoes invention in France, on the date 1st February 1976. He has a year until 1st February 1977 to file patent applications anywhere else throughout the union. He does so, and one of the countries in which he does this is the United Kingdom. His United Kingdom application has that broader set of claims which he has begun to know about—shoes, roller blinds and car hoods. Taking each claim individually, any of these claims—for example, only shoes in this case, which is fairly based on the French application—is entitled to the priority date of that application, but any claim which is not so fairly based, but which is fairly based upon the specification as filed in the United Kingdom is entitled to the United Kingdom priority date. Incidentally, the Paris Convention also allowed the patent applicant to disclose his invention publicly after his first filing, just like Section 52.
I am suggesting that Section 52 of the 1949 Act fulfilled our obligations under the Paris Convention; that is to say, it ensured that any publication or exploitation of an invention as described in the
1524
priority document—in the case of my Frenchman, the French specification—would not invalidate the United Kingdom patents specifically. Section 52 also protected the patent applicant if he wished to develop his invention.
As I see it, the problem with this Bill in this context is that there is no protection similar to that which was given by Section 52 to protect the inventor in the case of an invention where some only of his claims are supported by the description of the priority application and some of his claims are not so supported. Your Lordships will notice that the new clause refers to "an invention". It does that because Clause 5 of the Bill refers not to claims but to "inventions". So the effect of the new clause is that where an invention—by that I mean a claim—has the earlier priority date, then the comptroller will not refuse to grant the patent even if it contains claims to inventions which have not the earlier priority date, merely by reason of the fact that the inventor has published the invention or anyone else has published the invention or acquired rights contrary to those of the inventor during the period between the priority application and the filing of the application under consideration.
That seems to me to be precisely the intention of Article IV of the Paris Convention and has been the effect of Section 52 of the 1949 Act. I catch myself apologising once again for a convoluted argument, but the consequences of not including either this new clause or something like it in the Bill seem to me crystal clear. Without some kind of protection similar to Clause 52, which I am suggesting is certainly missing from the Bill, patent applicants will be far more chary of publishing or using their inventions during the first year after filing their original application, and this may mean that the exploitation of some inventions is delayed, and we all know what that means in present commercial and economic circumstances. In addition—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will be sympathetic with this—it seems to me that unless some protection of this kind is put in the Bill, private inventors who do not have very much financial backing will lose the facility which they have had up to the present of being able to file an application at a low fee with the protection of Section 52, needing to get professional

1525
advice only when the application is ready for exploitation or further development. I apologise for the rather convoluted argument, but I most seriously suggest that unless something along the lines of the new clause is put into the Bill the effects, particularly for the private inventor, but also for inventors in general, will be fairly severe. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for raising this question. He said that it was a convoluted argument. It is indeed a difficult matter, and I think he would concede that the points he was making merit study and I will undertake to make that study. He made a rather long speech, at a fair rate. I do not complain about that, but it means that we should take time to consider it, and that I will do. But as at present advised I can assure him that Clause 2 of the Bill already produces the effect which the Amendment has without the necessity for this further clause.
Under Clause 2(1) an invention is taken to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art, and under Clause 2(2) the state of the art does not include any use or a publication of the invention made after its priority date. An application for a patent cannot therefore be refused in the circumstances referred to by the noble Lord. Equally, a patent already granted cannot be revoked in these circumstances. The only relevant ground of recovation would be that of Clause 70(1)(a), and so far as non-patentability for lack of novelty is concerned, Clause 70(1)(a) imports Clause 2.
Therefore I must resist the Amendment, but as I understand it, and from what the noble Lord said, the underlying purpose of his Amendment goes further and is intended to deal with the situation where the invention under consideration is not in fact entitled to the priority date of the earlier relevant application in accordance with Clause 5(2)(a). In such a case I appreciate that a publication or use of the matter disclosed in the earlier relevant application could defeat the novelty of the invention. This seems to be another aspect of the problem of so-called self-collision, which first arose when we considered Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, which noble Lords opposite had put down on the first day of the Committee stage.
1526
On that occasion I undertook to give further consideration to this.
If I am right in thinking that it is the possibility of self-collision by reason of publication or use of the matter contained in the earlier application with which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is concerned—and I gathered from what he was saying that that is the problem to which he is directing himself—I am, of course, as I have indicated, willing to give further thought to this particular problem with a view to dealing with it generally at the Report stage. But I must once again make it clear that we must not depart from the terms of the European Patent Convention in this respect. However, as I said at the beginning, the noble Lord has clearly raised an important problem which merits further thought, and if undertake to give it that further thought and, if necessary, to take action at Report stage.
Lord BELSTEAD: Having been very long-winded to start off with, I hope I can be brief in withdrawing this Amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out to me the effect of Clause 2, and I should like to think about that, if I may. The noble Lord is quite right: what I was trying to get at was the problem of self-collision, and if, as he has undertaken to do, he will continue to give thought to this and will contact my noble friends and myself, we will be most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): Members of the Committee should note that if the next Amendment, No. 283, is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 284.
Clause 71 [Comptroller's power to revoke patents on his own initiative]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 283:
Page 59, line 7, leave out from ("above") to ("he") in line 8.
The noble Lord said: Amendments have been accepted in respect of Clause 2 so as to line it up more closely with the European Patent Convention, and Amendment No. 283, which I am moving, is a consequence of this and subsumes

1527
Amendment No. 284, which noble Lords have on the Marshalled List. I beg to move Amendment No. 283.
Lord LYELL: We agree that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, wishes to improve this particular clause, and we indeed agree with him that his Amendment subsumes our Amendment. We are therefore happy to agree to his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 285:
Page 59, line 11, after ("amending") insert ("the specification of").
The noble Lord said: It is not, strictly speaking, the "patent" which is amended, as presently stated on page 59 at line 11. As is evident from other clauses, amendment is made to "the specification" of the patent. This is therefore a drafting Amendment which more accurately expresses the position. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 286:
Page 59, line 12, leave out from ("aforesaid") to end of line 13 and insert ("without contravening section (Amendments of applications and patents not to include added matter) below").
The noble Lord said: This is another of the Amendments which we considered when we dealt with Amendment No. 274 and which relate to the forthcoming Amendment No. 295. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
6.24 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 287:
After Clause 71, insert the following new clause:
Proceedings in which validity of patent may be put in issue
.—(1) The validity of a patent may be put in issue—

(a) by way of defence, in proceedings for infringement of the patent under section 58 above or proceedings under section 67 above for infringement of rights conferred by the publication of an application;

(b) in proceedings under section 68 above;

1528

(c) in proceedings in which a declaration in relation to the patent is sought under section 69 above;

(d) in proceedings before the court or the comptroller under section 70 above for the revocation of the patent;

(e) in proceedings under section 56 above.

(2) The validity of a patent may not be put in issue in any other proceedings and, in particular, no proceedings may be instituted (whether under this Act or otherwise) seeking only a declaration as to the validity or invalidity of a patent.
(3) The only grounds on which the validity of a patent may be put in issue (whether in proceedings for revocation under section 70 above or otherwise) are the grounds on which the patent may be revoked under that section.
(4) It is hereby declared that for the purposes of this Act the validity of a patent is not put in issue merely because the comptroller is considering its validity in order to decide whether to revoke it under section 71 above.
The noble Lord said: The main purpose of this new clause is to set out the kinds of proceedings relating to a patent in which the validity of the patent may be put in issue. This allows the drafting of Clauses 24 and 72 to be much simplified, and it also serves to clarify the position. No change in the present law is made, other than to provide, as recommended by the Banks Committee, that invalidity of the patent may in future be pleaded in actions brought under Clause 69 for a declaration of non-infringement.
Subsection (1) identifies the proceedings in which invalidity may be pleaded, and subsection (2) makes clear that these are the only such proceedings. Subsection (3) brings more clarity to the situation by specifying that in any such proceedings the only grounds on which invalidity may be pleaded are those stated in Clause 70. It will be noted that proceedings under Clause 71 are not included in the list set out in subsection (1). This is because Clause 71 relates to proceedings in which only the patentee and the comptroller are involved, and in which the validity is being questioned only on the narrow ground that the invention is not new having regard to Clause 2(3). Subsection (4) therefore completes the picture by specifying that Clause 71 proceedings are not covered by the new clause. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: I have already thanked the noble Lord for the fact that paragraph (d) of this Amendment meets

1529
the Amendment of my noble friends and myself, No. 282. I think there is still an outstanding question from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, as to whether these grounds for putting the validity of a patent in issue overcome the law of estoppel, but I am not a lawyer and I think I will do no more than remind the Committee that there is that outstanding question and say that it will be for the convenience of myself and my noble friends, if perhaps the noble Lord is writing to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, on that, if we might receive a copy of the letter.
Lord ORAM: Certainly we will do that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 72 [Amendment of patent in infringement or revocation proceedings]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 288:
Page 59, line 15, leave out from ("court") to first ("the") in line 18 and insert ("or the comptroller in which the validity of a patent is put in issue")
The noble Lord said: Clause 24 deals with amendments to the specification of a patent on application by the proprietor of the patent, and subsection (3) provides that no such amendments should be allowed when certain other proceedings are pending before the court or the comptroller. As a consequence of Amendment No. 287, it is sufficient simply to refer generally to proceedings in which the validity of the patent may be put in issue. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 289:
Page 59, line 19, leave out ("by order") and insert (", subject to section (Amendments of applications and patents not to include added matter) below,").
The noble Lord said: This is another of the series linked with Amendment No. 295. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 290:
Page 59, line 21, after ("terms") insert ("as to advertising the proposed amendment and").
The noble Lord said: Under present practice a patentee in infringement or revocation proceedings before the court may propose amendments, and the court has a discretion whether or not to advertise the amendments. The amendments are normally advertised if the court feels that their acceptance may affect the interests of persons who are not parties to the proceedings. This makes such persons aware of the proposals, and the practice is to allow them to oppose the amendments if they so wish. Amendments Nos. 290 and 291, in so far as the latter proposes the insertion of a new subsection, are intended to preserve this practice before the court. Moreover, they make clear that the same practice is to be adopted in revocation proceedings before the comptroller.
This is a change from the present situation, but we believe it is necessary since the jurisdiction of the comptroller under Clause 70 has been made the same as that of the court. These Amendments produce the effect which I think the noble Lords, Lord Oram and Lord Belstead, are seeking to produce in their Amendment No. 293. I hope they will consider with drawing that Amendment in the light of the Amendment I am now moving.
Amendment No. 291, if I may speak to that at the same time, also leaves out from the Bill subsection (2) of Clause 72. Subsection (2) is another of the several provisions which have already been discussed which concern the prohibition of amendments which extend the matter disclosed. All these are picked up in a new clause (Amendment No. 295) and so it is proposed to delete subsection (2) as a direct consequence of this. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.31 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 291:
Page 59, line 23, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) A person may give notice to the court or the comptroller of his opposition to an amendment proposed by the proprietor of the patent under this section, and if he does so the court or the comptroller shall notify the proprietor and determine whether the amendment or any amendment should be allowed").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 295:
After Clause 72, insert the following new clause:
Amendments of applications and patents not to include added matter
.—(1) No amendment of an application or the specification of a patent shall be allowed under any of the provisions of this Act to which this section applies if it—

(a) results in the application or specification disclosing matter which extends beyond that disclosed in any relevant application as filed, or

(b) (where a patent has been granted) extends the protection conferred by the patent.

(2) The following are relevant applications for the purposes of this section—

(a) in the case of an application which it is proposed to amend, that application, and also, if it is made by virtue of section 7(3), 12(4) or 34(4) above in respect of any matter disclosed in an earlier application, that earlier application;

(b) in the case of the specification of a patent which it is proposed to amend, the application for that patent and also, if that application was made as aforesaid, the earlier application.

(3) This section applies to the following provisions of this Act, namely, sections 7(3), 12(4), 14(3), 15(3), 16(1), 24(1), 34(4), 71 and 72.
The noble Lord said: On the first day of the Committee several provisions of the Bill were considered which have the effect of prohibiting amendment of an application which extends the matter disclosed in the application as filed. Government Amendments to those provisions were accepted, subject to later consideration of a new clause which is the object of the present Amendment. The primary intention of this new clause is simply to improve the drafting and clarity of the Bill by collecting together in one clause all the provisions of the Bill which prohibit amendments.
Subsection (3) of the new clause identifies the clauses of the Bill under which amendment of an application or of the specification of a patent may be made and subsection (1) sets out the two general conditions applicable to such amendments. They will not be allowed if they have the effect of extending the matter disclosed. Neither will they be allowed in proceedings after a patent has been granted if they extend the protection conferred by the patent.
The second purpose of the new clause is to make clear that, in the case of a new application which may be filed under
1532
Clause 7(3), 12(4) or 34(4), no amendment may be allowed which extends the matter disclosed in the earlier application from which it has been derived. As the noble Lords, Lord Belstead and Lord Lyell, made clear in connection with Amendment No. 273, this is a necessary provision, otherwise the applicant of the new application could obtain the benefit of the date of the earlier application for matter which he puts into his new application at a much later date. For this reason, subsection (1) refers to "any relevant application" and defines such applications in subsection (2). I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: I support the intention of the Government of gathering together provisions into one new clause, but on the first day of the Committee I explained that it appeared to my noble friend and to me that the wording of this Amendment should have referred to "extending subject matter beyond the content of" instead of "disclosing matter which extends beyond the content of". If Article 11 of the EPC is consulted, we find the expression "subject matter", It was for that reason, if no other, that I made this observation. Both the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, replied at this point. The noble and learned Lord said:
"in various parts of the Bill we use the expressions 'matter', 'matter contained' and 'matter disclosed'. 'Matter' is the general word; it means everything. 'Matter contained' refers to matter contained in the patent specification by way of description. 'Matter disclosed' refers to matter contained which is revealed for the first time: in other words, it is matter which relates to the invention. Accordingly, when one extends the matter disclosed, one is adding to knowledge which was not revealed at the date of filing. It follows, I believe, that we use the term ' matter disclosed' as the exact equivalent of the words ' subject matter' in the Convention and in particular, in Article 100."—[Official Report, 15/2/77; col. 1462.]
That was what the noble and learned Lord said and I am grateful to him for it.
I understand that explanation but I am worried about whether it corresponds with Clause 5(5) of this Bill which perhaps Ministers might like to glance at. If they do so, they will see the words:
"For the purposes of this Act matter shall be taken to have been disclosed in any relevant application if it was either claimed or disclosed (otherwise than by way of disclaimer or acknowledgment of prior art) in that application."

1533
My reading of that is that the words in brackets show clearly that the word "disclosed" is being used as embracing a meaning which includes the revealing of prior art. It would be impertinent of me to contradict the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in his explanation of the meaning of "matter disclosed". I am not doing that. I am saying that I do not think that the explanation he gave me and which I quoted is quite on all fours with the way in which the word "disclosed" is being used in Clause 5(5). If the Government would like to think about this and to write to me about it, this is the only bone of contention I have, except that I still am puzzled that we could not have used "subject matter"; but I will not pursue that any further.
Lord ORAM: My noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey and I made some effort, as the noble Lord has acknowledged, on the first day of Committee to clarify this point as the noble Lord has indicated at columns 1543 and 1462. Those attempts are recorded; but it is clear that they were neither sufficiently clear nor sufficiently convincing to satisfy the noble Lord. In the light of what he has said, I will give an undertaking that we will look again at what he said during the course of the first day in Committee and what he has just said. If we are convinced by what he has said, we will write a further explanation to him and possibly—and I am not holding out any commitment—a further Amendment will be decided upon.
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN moved Amendment No. 294:
Before Clause 73, insert the following new clause:
Filing of European patent.
. A European patent application may be filed at the Patent Office.
The noble Lord said: We now enter upon Part II of the Bill which purports to deal with provisions about international conventions. I may say that the terms of the Bill in this clause are of such delightful international obscurity that during the last few days they have produced a scintillating shower of Amendments from the Government. There is one matter which we need not discuss today but which is of considerable importance to practitioners in this field of patents: the
1534
European Patent Office is at Munich. It may be that many practitioners from abroad feel that the only way of getting a European patent is to file their patent application in Munich. Therefore practitioners in this country want to make it clear both nationally and internationally that a European patent application may be filed in the United Kingdom Patent Office. My Amendment is to include the simple sentence positively directing practitioners all over the world that their European patent application may be filed at the Patent Office. I beg to move.
6.41 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The purpose of this Amendment has been explained by the noble Lord and I am grateful to him for tabling it. He is concerned to ensure that publicity is given within the four corners of the Bill that European patent applications may be received by the Patent Office. Let me seek to put his mind at rest in this matter in another way, because the Government are equally concerned that the Patent Office has authority to receive such applications, and that is known. We are advised that the Office has authority to receive such applications without any statutory provision, and therefore I give the Committee a solemn assurance that the Pate: it Office is perfectly willing to carry out this service for all those who desire it, and the Patent Office intends to provide that service. I hope that that assurance, given in such terms, will satisfy the noble Lord and that he will not press the Amendment.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: May I ask how publicity can be given to this event? What is the objection to maintaining it in the Bill?
Lord McCLUSKEY: The objection appears to be that it would set an undesirable precedent because Ministers and Government Departments can dc things of this kind without statutory provision, and if one starts to put into Statutes a provision of this kind in relation to a particular Government Department or branch of a Government Department, then it might shed doubt upon the authority and right of other Departments to do what they do—and there are countless examples of it—without any statutory warrant at the

1535
present time. In other words, it is regarded by the draftsman as being an unfortunate precedent if one inserts a new clause of this kind.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I resist the temptation to proceed with cross-examining the noble and learned Lord on his reply. He talks about precedent, but we are in a new field in relation to European patents. I should have thought that in this new field a statement that European patent applications can be filed in the United Kingdom Patent Office would be of considerable help to the practitioners, particularly the patent agents in this country and their clients abroad. I had no idea that such a profound constitutional point would be raised by my simple factual Amendment. I do not propose to embarrass the noble and learned Lord, nor the Government, by pressing the Amendment to a Division.
Lord McCLUSKEY: One has a good deal of sympathy for what the noble Lord has said and the way in which he has said it. I do not think he should regard this as necessarily the end of the story.
The Earl of SELKIRK: Is the authority of the European Patent Office in the European Community and not in Parliament? Is this a matter on which we can have authority?
Lord McCLUSKEY: The Amendment speaks about the Patent Office, which is the United Kingdom Patent Office.
The Earl of SELKIRK: But it is the European patents that I am talking about. Is that under our authority or the Community's authority?
Lord McCLUSKEY: The European patent is something which is dealt with in many places in the Bill. We are not concerned here with the Community; we are concerned with the European patents. Of course the Bill gives effect to our obligations under the relevant Convention to which I will be referring in the course of the next hour or so.
Lord LYELL: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will permit me to add to the very high-powered legal points that have been put by him and
1536
the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. We are discussing the question of the European Patent Office and we are starting Part II of the Bill, which is a very important Part. Is the noble and learned Lord able to give us some indication as to the possibilities of ratification of the European Patent Convention? As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and other members of the Committee are aware, the Convention was signed in Munich in 1973. I understand that 14 nations, including the United Kingdom, signed the Convention then. The European Patent Office is due to be in business as from 1978. Everybody in the profession, including noble and learned and noble practitioners dealing with patents and patent registration, will be aware of the importance of the United Kingdom becoming a founder member of the European Patent Convention. This is for two major reasons: first of all, the United Kingdom, as a leading nation in the field of patents and practitioners of patents, must obtain its share of senior and junior responsibilities at the European Patent Office in Munich——
Lord McCLUSKEY: If the noble Lord will give way, I can tell him that we ratified the Convention on 3rd March 1977 in order to achieve the very object which the noble Lord has described, and the object to which he was about to refer.
Lord LYELL: I have never had the legs cut from under me so gracefully. I wish that I could play the national sport of both the noble and learned Lord and myself on a football field, and that the foul which has been committed could be dealt with with such grace. I was seeking to put up my marker at an early stage because we wondered whether we would get an opportunity later. But I apologise for intervening and hope the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will forgive me.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: May I return to the point to which the noble and learned Lord referred. He said that the matter on my Amendment No. 294 would not be forgotten. To my surprise, I find that my noble friend Lord Simon has been following closely the arguments on this clause. He has reminded me that Clause 11(1) says:
"Every application for a patent—
(a) shall be made to the Patent Office;"

1537
Perhaps the noble Lord will consider Clause 11 in relation to my Amendment No. 294 when he reconsiders the matter as he has so gracefully agreed to do. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.50 p.m.
Clause 73 [Effect of European patent (U.K.)]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendments Nos. 294B and 294A:
Page 60, line 1, after ("had") insert (", on the date of that publication,").
Page 60, line 1, after ("Act") insert ("granted in pursuance of an application made under this Act").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will see that, in accordance with the jinx which has affected this fourth Marshalled List, Amendment No. 294B precedes Amendment No. 294A. Perhaps, by leave of the Committee, I may take these two Amendments together. They are simply drafting Amendments intended to complete the equation between a European patent (UK), which noble Lords will find defined in Section 118, and a patent granted under the Bill. Amendment No. 294B has the effect that under the provisions of Part I concerning revocation and amendment after grant the European Patent (UK) will be considered as if it resulted from an application in the same terms for a patent under the Bill.
Amendment No. 294A defines more clearly the date on which a European Patent (UK) is to take effect here. For a patent under the Bill, the date on which it takes effect is the date on which notice of its grant is published in the Journal of the Patent Office. This Amendment provides that in the case of a European patent (UK), this notice is deemed to have been published on the date of publication of mention of the grant of the European patent in the European Patent Bulletin. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 294B and 294A.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
6.52 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendments Nos. 294C and 294D:
Page 60, line 6, leave out ("and").
Page 60, line 8, at end insert ("; and
(c) any statement made and any certificate filed for the purposes of the provision of the convention corresponding to section 2(4)(b) above shall be respectively treated as a statement made and written evidence filed for the purposes of the said pars graph (b).").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move, by leave of the Committee, these two Amendments together. The first is simply a paving Amendment for the second Amendment, which adds a new paragraph to subsection (1). It fills a gap by making it clear that if in revocation proceedings under Clause 70(1)(a) it is alleged that an invention is not new because of prior disclosure at an international exhibition, the proprietor may pray in aid a certificate filed at a European Patent Office under Article 55(1) of the European Patent Convention. That is part of what is necessary in order to equate the two kinds of patent with which the clause is concerned. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 294C and 294D.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 294E:
Page 60, line 12, at end insert ("in proceedings before the European Patent Office").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. Although subsection (1) of this clause has the result that a European patent (UK) is to be treated as a domestic patent as from the date on which it takes effect as a granted patent, the European patent may nevertheless be the subject of opposition proceedings before the Europear Patent Office and be amended or revoked in those proceedings. Subsection (2) already makes provision for that, and the Amendment does nothing more than make a minor drafting change to make it clear that subsection (2) refers to amendment or revocation before the European Patent Office. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendments No. 294F, 294G, 294H and 294J:
Page 60, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
Page 60, line 25, at end insert—>
("(aa) subsection (1) above shall not apply to a European Patent (UK) the specification of which was published in French or German, unless a translation of the specification into English is filed at the Patent Office and the prescribed fee is pad before the end of the prescribed period.").
Page 60, line 28, leave out ("with") and insert ("at").
Page 60, line 30, leave out from ("period") to end of line 36 and insert—
("(6) Where a translation of a specification or amendment into English is not filed in accordance with subsection (5)(aa) or (a) above, the patent shall be treated as always having been void.
(7) The comptroller shall publish any translation filed at the Patent Office under subsection (5) above.
(8) Subsection (5) above shall come into force on a day appointed for the purpose").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move these four Amendments at the same time. The first Amendment is consequential upon the transfer by the second of the Amendments of the contents of subsection (3) to a new paragraph in subsection (5) in order to avoid any different treatment as between the specification for a European patent application (UK) which is published in French or German and an amendment of the specification which is so published. The third Amendment preserves consistency of drafting in the Bill. The fourth Amendment replaces subsection (5)(b) and widens it to include the case of the specification as well as the amendment, and also removes the requirement that the translation must be filed before the publication of a specification is amended. The translation must be filed before the end of the prescribed period, and that is made clear by the first of the new subsections introduced by the fourth Amendment. The fourth Amendment also introduces another new subsection, requiring the comptroller to publish any transaction filed under subsection (5). That is necessary in the public interest. Then, the fourth Amendment changes subsection (6) as a consequence of the deletion of subsection (3). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 74 [Effect of filing an application for European Patent (UK)]:
6.56 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 294K:
Page 60, line 43, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 27 on page 61 and insert ("the provisions of this Act to which this section applies
1540
as an application for a patent under this Act having that date as its date of filing and having the other incidents listed in subsection (3) below, but subject to the modifications mentioned in the following provisions of this section.
(2) This section applies to the following provisions of this Act:—

section 2(3) and so much of section 11(7) as relates to section 2(3);

section 5;

so much of section 10(3) as relates to an application for and issue of a certificate under that subsection;

sections 28 to 30;

section 33;

sections 53 to 67;

section (Proceedings in which validity of patent may be put in issue), so far as relevant to any of the provisions mentioned above;

section 100; and

section 114.

(3) The incidents referred to in subsection (1) above in relation to an application for a European patent (UK) are as follows:—

(a) any declaration of priority made in connection with the application under the European Patent Convention shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a declaration made under section 5(2) above;

(b) where the date of filing an application is re-dated under that convention to a later date, that date shall be so treated as the date of filing the application;

(c) the application, if published in accordance with that convention, shall, subject to subsection (5) and section (Operation of section 74 in relation to certain European patent applications) below, be so treated as published under section 13 above;

(d) any designation of the inventor under that convention or any statement under it indicating the origin of the right to a European patent shall be treated for the purposes of section 10(3) above as a statement filed under section 10(2) above;

(e) registration of the application in the register of European patents shall be treated as registration under this Act.

(3A) Rules under section 29 above may not impose any requirements as to the registration of applications for European patents (UK) but may provide for the registration of copies of entries relating to such applications in the European register of patents.
(3B) Section 30(1)(b) shall not apply to an application for a European patent (UK).").
The noble and learned Lord said: I think this may be the point at which to apologise for what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, called a "scintillating shower of Amendments". There certainly is a flood of them. I beg to move Amendment No. 294K. The Government have looked closely at Clause 74 and, having done so, have reached the view that it goes

1541
further, as drafted, than is needed to implement our obligations under the Convention in respect of European patent applications designating the United Kingdom. The subsection as drafted equates a European patent application (UK) with an application made under the Bill for all the purposes of Parts I and III of the Bill. Subsection (3) qualifies this by specifying that in respect of certain matters it is not Parts I and III of the Bill that govern the European application (UK). However, on reconsideration it was felt to be preferable to adopt a different approach. To that end, the Amendment makes clear in the new subsection (1) that a European application (UK) is equated with an application made under the Bill only for certain specific purposes, which are exhaustively denned in the new subsection (2). As a result, the existing subsections (2) and (3) become superfluous and have been omitted by the Amendment.
In order to illustrate the effect of the Amendment, I might mention a few of the provisions listed in the new subsection (2), contained in Amendment No. 294K. Article 139 of the Convention requires a European application (UK) to have the same prior art effect in this country as a domestic application. The new subsection (2), in referring to Section 2(3) of the Act, together with the new subsection (3)(c), does just this. The reference to Clause 67, when read with the new subsection (3)(c), also gives effect to an obligation; namely, under Article 67 of the Convention, by attaching provisional protection rights in this country to the European application (UK). Finally, the reference to section 10(3) enables the true inventor to apply to the comptroller for a certificate to the effect that a European application should have named him and not some other person, thus complying with our obligation under Article 62 of the Convention.
Subsection (3) of the Amendment reproduces most of the incidents presently set out in Clause 74(1) of the Bill as now drafted, but with some modifications and the addition of a reference to registration of the European application. The modifications occur in paragraphs (c) and (d); they are merely drafting changes to make clear the intention. In particular, paragraph (c) is now made subject to subsection (5) and a proposed new section so
1542
as to indicate clearly that, if it is desired to implement subsection (5), a European application (UK) which is published in French or German by the European Patent Office will not in most cases be effective here for the purposes of Clauses 54 and 67, unless and until an English translation of the claims has been filed at the Patent Office and published.
The addition that I have referred to is paragraph (e). Although a European application (UK) is equated with a United Kingdom patent application, paragraph (e) now makes clear that registration of the European application in the register kept by the Patent Office is not required. A Register of European Patents will be kept by the European Patent Office it would therefore be pointless also to require registration of the application on the British register, and so paragraph (e) provides that registration of the application on the European register shall lave effect as if it had been registered on the British register. Subsections (3A) and (3B) are consequences of this. The Committee will realise that Amendment No. 296 is, of course, subsumed in this, and therefore if the Committee agrees to Amendment No. 294K I shall not be moving No. 296. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: Before we go any further, the noble and learned Lord has mentioned translations and I should like to get my mind clear. Are we to assume that English translations, whenever they are mentioned amidst this plethora of Government Amendments, are always going to be required? This sounds to me a very expensive procedure. I ask the question particularly because Amendment No. 296D, strangely enough, comes before what is still subsection (7) of Clause 74, which clearly makes it a temporary effect. If one reads subsection (7) of Clause 74, it is clear that the requirements of the new subsection (5), which is Amendment No. 296D, will be temporary, and that refers to translations as well.
So in broad terms, whenever we talk about translations into English an these Amendments, and when the noble and learned Lord talked about them just now, will this be something which is mandatory; will it be something which is both mandatory and temporary, or will it be permanent. And in the case of European applications, which are German or French,

1543
will they need to have translation provisions in their legislation so that if something is written in English it has then to be translated into German or French? I am not deliberately trying to ask difficult questions, but it would be interesting to know the answers, possibly at a later stage.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I appreciate very much what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said about "a later stage". Perhaps at the moment I can confine myself to saying this. As we go through Part II, we shall of course come to different provisions about the need for translations, about what are the official languages, and the position will be seen to be expressed in a different context in the different clauses, and perhaps I could deal with these as I come to them. That might satisfy the noble Lord, but if it does not satisfy him, then, when we come to the end of Part II, I am sure that he could let me know here and we could then endeavour to answer any question which he feels is left unanswered.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: I wonder whether I may ask the noble and learned Lord a question. As I understand it, if an application for a European patent is made, the patent will in fact be drafted in the language in which the application is made. If a European patent is granted and an applicant has made his application in French, when that patent is granted it would have application in this country if it were a European patent—is that not a fact?—and therefore the question of translation into English would not arise.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Is the noble Lord referring, when he talks about a European patent, to a patent under the European Patent Convention or a patent under the Community Patent Convention?
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: I was referring to the European Patent Convention.
Lord McCLUSKEY: That is one of the matters which I think we shall deal with as we pass through these clauses.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.5 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 296A:
Page 61, line 28, leave out ("and (2)") and insert ("to (3)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is like Amendment No. 296C. They are both drafting changes consequent on the introduction of the new subsections (1) and (3). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 296B:
Page 61, leave out lines 33 to 38.
The noble and learned Lord said: A European application when published by the European Patent Office is, by virtue of Clause 74(3)(c), treated as published under Clause 13 and hence is effective as a "published application" for the purposes of Clause 2(3). Once this application is in the state of the art, it remains there no matter what may be the later fate of the application. This is quite clear from Clause 2(3) itself, and accordingly the Amendment seeks to delete sub-section (4)(a) as unnecessary. For these reasons, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 296C:
Page 61, line 40, leave out ("and (2)") and insert ("to (3)").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 296D:
Page 61, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 62 and insert—
"(5) While this subsection is in force, an application for a European Patent (UK) published by the European Patent Office under the European Patent Convention in French or German shall be treated for the purposes of sections 54 and 67 above as published under section 13 above when a translation into English of the claims of the specification of the application has been filed at and published by the Patent Office and the prescribed fee has been paid, but an applicant may—

(a) recover a payment by virtue of section 54 above in respect of the use of the invention in question before publication of that translation; or

(b) may bring proceedings by virtue of section 67 above in respect of an act mentioned in that section which is done before publication of that translation;

1545
if before that use or the doing of that act he has sent by post or delivered to the Government department who made use or authorised the use of the invention, or, as the case may be, to the person alleged to have done the act, a translation into English of those claims."

The noble and learned Lord said: As result of Amendments already made to Clause 9, the existing subsection (5) has become unnecessary, and one purpose of the Amendment is therefore to delete it. In addition, however, the Amendment introduces a new subsection which is to the same effect as subsection (6) which it subsumes, but which is also directed specifically to the right to recover payment for Crown use under Clause 53. Payment will, of course, not be recoverable until a European patent has been granted, but compensation will then be payable for any use made under Clause 53 from an earlier date. If the European application (UK) is published in English, this date will be the date of publication by the European Patent Office. However, if the European Patent Office publishes in French or German, the new subsection puts the Crown in the same position as other persons and makes clear that payment is recoverable only in respect of use made after an English translation of the claims has been supplied to and published by the Patent Office or transmitted to the Department.
As a matter of drafting, the opportunity has been taken to combine the new provision with the existing subsection (6) which the Amendment consequently deletes. Having said that, I might refer to that explanation as being one which deals with this question of translation and the effect of having the application translated into English. It is not, of course, the only one. I beg to move.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Can the noble Lord say whether the translation into English will be mandatory? This is a point which my noble friend raised, and which the noble and learned Lord did not answer at that stage.
Lord McCLUSKEY: In this instance, as I understand it, unless there is a translation into English the person who has made the application does not derive certain benefits. As I sought to explain, the benefit comes after an English translation of the claims has been supplied to
1546
and published by the Patent Office. Therefore it is mandatory, in a non-technical sense, if one wants to derive the benefit.
Lord BELSTEAD: Why, under subsection (7), is it temporary, or potentially temporary?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am afraid that at the moment I am not in a position to answer the noble Lord's question, but I hope to be able to do so before finally I leave the question of translations. I am having some difficulty in dealing with the notes which are coming to me.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 298:
Page 62, line 14, after ("purpose") insert ("by rules").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a minor drafting Amendment to bring subsection (7) into line with Clause 73(6). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
7.11 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 298B:
After Clause 74, insert the following new clause:
"Operation of section 74 in relation to certain European patent applications.
(".—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, section 74 above, in its operation in relation to an international application for a patent (UK) which is treated by virtue of the European Patent Convention as an application for a European patent (UK), shall have effect as if any reference in that section to anything done in relation to the application under the European Patent Convention included a reference to the corresponding thing done under the Patent Co-operation Treaty.
(2) Any such international application which is published under that treaty shall be treated for the purposes of section 2(3) shove as published only when a copy of the application has been supplied to the European Patent Office in English, French or German and the relevant fee has been paid under that convention.
(3) Any such international application which is published under that treaty in a language other than English, French or German shall, subject to section 74(5) above, be treated for the purposes of sections 54 and 67 above as published only when it is re-published in English, French or German by the European Patent Office under that convention.")
The noble and learned Lord said: If one looks at the Fourth Marshalled List, one sees on page 20 Amendment No. 317V. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if, in dealing with the first of these Amendments, Amendment No. 298B, I were to make some reference to Amendment No. 317V. I hope noble Lords will bear with me if I go into a somewhat convoluted explanation as to the general intention of this Amendment and, indeed, of the second Amendment.
In the course of our consideration of the Bill we have, or we shall soon come across, four species of applications which can turn into patents operative in this country. They are, first, United Kingdom domestic applications; secondly, applications for European patents (UK); thirdly, applications for Community patents; and, fourthly, international applications for a patent (UK). It appears that from time to time these species, as it were, interbreed. Sometimes, therefore, an application will start out as one kind of application and then be converted into another. On reconsideration, we think the Bill does not at present deal satisfactorily with two cases where an application which starts out as the one can turn into the other.
Under the Patent Co-operation Treaty, an applicant who makes an international application is required to designate the contracting State or States for which protection is desired. If an applicant designates the United Kingdom, then prima facie it is because he wishes to obtain a United Kingdom patent. If I may, I will call such an application a direct international application (UK). I would remind your Lordships that the provisions concerning such an appliction are to be found in Clause 83. How-ever, Article 4(1)(ii) of the Patent Co-operation Treaty goes on to provide that if for any designated State a regional patent is available, the request for grant which forms part of the application may indicate that the applicant wishes to obtain a regional rather than a national patent.
The Preambles to both the European Patent Convention and the Community Patent Convention make it clear that those Conventions are regional patent treaties under the Patent Co-operation Treaty. It is therefore possible for an international
1548
application (UK) under the Patent Co-operation Treaty to contain an indication that the applicant wishes to obtain not a United Kingdom patent but either a European or a Community patent. If it does so, then special rules apply to it, and these are to be found in Part X of the EPC. It is necessary for us to give effect to these rules in the Bill.
Accordingly, the second of the Amendments—that is, Amendment No. 317V—provides that most of Clause 83 is not to apply to an international application for a patent (UK) which is treated, by virtue of the EPC, as an application for a European Patent (UK). Thus, such an application is not to be searched and examined in the Patent Office and the comptroller will not decide whether to grant or refuse a patent for it. In the case of one of these applications which is also, by virtue of the Community Patent Convention, an application for a Community patent, no more needs to be said. Clause 80 brings in the CPC, and the CPC incorporates Part X of the European Patent Convention by reference to Article 2(3) of the Community Patent Convention. That is one of these beasts with which I am dealing and I can now turn to another.
In the case of the international application for a patent (UK) which is treated as an application for a European patent (UK) but is not—and I emphasise "not"—an application for a Community patent, there are three main things to be done and these are done in the proposed new clause after Clause 74. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause declares that things done under the Patent Co-operation Treaty are to be taken to have been done under the European Patent Convention. This provision is in implementation of Article 150 of the EPC. Thus, for example, if the applicant files a declaration of priority under Article 8 of the PCT, that is treated as a declaration under Article 88 of the EPC and, hence, under Clause 5(2) of the Bill.
I said that there were three things, and the second that I come to is this. Subsection (2) provides that a published international application of the kind we are concerned with only has a Clause 2(3) "whole contents" effect on other applications when a copy has been supplied to the European Patent Office in one of its official languages: that is, English, French

1549
or German. Thus, an applicant for a domestic or a European patent cannot be defeated by, for example, a Japanese application which is published in Japanese under the Patent Co-operation Treaty but never proceeded with. This subsection implements Article 158(1) of the European Patent Convention.
Thirdly, subsection (3) provides in effect that an international application of the kind with which we are concerned which is published under the PCT in Russian or Japanese, the two PCT languages which are not EPC languages, does not get "provisional protection" under Clause 54—that is the Crown use clause—or under Clause 67, the clause dealing with infringement of rights conferred by publication of application, until the application is republished by the European Office in English, French or German. It is then subject to the same rules as a normal European application. For example, if published in French or German, claims may have to be further translated into English before protection begins. This subsection is in implementation of Article 158(3) of the European Patent Convention.
I have mentioned Amendment No. 3174V. I do not move that Amendment at this stage, but if it were to be accepted in due course we would not then deal with Amendment No. 318, which is an Amendment that stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the noble Lord, Lord Cawley. I apologise for the length and complexity of that explanation and I hope that those whose responsibility it is to read what has been said will be able to understand it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.20 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 298C:
Insert the following new clause:
Authentic text of European patents and patent applications
".—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the text of a European patent or application for such a patent in the language of the proceedings, that is to say, the language in which proceedings relating to the patent or the application are to be conducted before the European Patent Office, shall be the authentic text for the purposes of any domestic proceedings, that is
1550
to say, any proceedings relating to the patent or application before the comptroller or the court.
(2) Where the language of the proceedings is French or German, a translation into English of the specification of the patent under section 73 above or of the claims of the application under section 74 or (Operation of section 74 in relation to certain European applications) above shall be treated as the authentic text for the purpose of any domestic proceedings, other than proceedings for the revocation of the patent, if the patent or application as translated into English confers protection which is narrower than that conferred by it in French or German.
(3) If any such translation results in a European patent or application conferring the narrower protection, the proprietor of or applicant for the patent may file a corrected translation with the Patent Office and, if he pays the prescribed fee within the prescribed period, the Patent Office shall publish it, but—

(a) any payment for any use of the invention which (apart from section 53 or 54 above) would have infringed the patent as correctly translated, but not as originally translated, or in the case of an application would have infringed it as aforesaid if the patent had been granted, shall not be recoverable under either of those sections,

(b) the proprietor or applicant shall not be entitled to bring proceedings in respect of an act which infringed the patent as correctly translated, but not as originally translated, or in the case of an application would have infringed it as aforesaid if the patent had been granted,

unless before that use or the doing of the act the corrected translation has been published by the Patent Office or the proprietor or applicant has sent the corrected translation by post or delivered it to the Government department who made use or authorised the use of the invention, or, as the case may be, to the person alleged to have done that act.
(4) Where a correction of a translation is published under subsection (3) above and before it is so published a person begins in good faith to do an act which would not constitute an infringement of the patent or application as originally translated but would constitute an infringement of it under the amended translation, or makes in good faith effective and serious preparations to do such an act, he shall have the rights conferred by section 26(6) above, and subsection (8) of that section shall apply to the exercise of any such right accordingly."
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a new clause to be inserted. Noble Lords have commented upon the fact that in this area of the Bill there is a good deal about translations. These provisions are highly technical but are of considerable importance and it is also necessary for the Bill to specify whether in particular instances the original or the translation is to be regarded as the authentic text. Accordingly the proposed new clause

1551
would follow Article 70 of the European Patent Convention in providing that the basic rule is to be that the text in the language of the proceedings—that is to say, English, French or German as the case may be—is to be taken as the authentic text, but that if the United Kingdom decides to insist on translations of the claims or applications under Clause 74 and of specifications of patents under Clause 73, then those translations are to be regarded as authentic except for revocation proceedings if they confer a narrower protection than the original. So potential infringers—if I might so describe them—will thus be able to rely on the English text (where there is one) and need not concern themselves with the original. Subsections (3) and (4) deal with the correction of the translation in such circumstances and the protection of people who may have relied on the incorrect translation. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Conversion of European Patent applications]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendments Nos. 298D, 298E and 298F:
Page 62, line 29, leave out ("within the prescribed period")
Page 62, line 29, leave out line 39 and insert ("the applicant requests the comptroller within the relevant prescribed period")
Page 62, line 45, after ("transmits") insert ("within the relevant prescribed period").
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I deal with these three Amendments together. Again this is an instance where further consideration has been given to the text of the Bill and on further consideration of subsection (2) of this clause it has been noticed that it imposes a time limit within which the European Patent Office is to be expected to transmit a request for conversion. This is not intended and to preserve this time limit would be contrary to Article 136(1) of the European Patent Convention. Therefore Amendment 298D removes this time limit, but consistently with Article 136(2) of the Convention there should be a time limit in the subsection (2)(b) cases and the Amendments Nos. 298E and F serve this purpose. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 298G:
Page 63, line 3, leave out ("pays the prescribed") and insert ("within the relevant prescribed period pays the filing").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is intended to do two things: first, to make clear that the acts referred to in subsection (2)(c), that is to say payment of fee and the lodging of filing translations, must be carried out within a prescribed period. This is consistent with and is allowed by Article 137(2) of the European Patent Convention and the Amendment is necessary because of the deletion by the Amendment 298D of the reference to "a prescribed period".
Secondly, instead of leaving the fee to be prescribed by rules the Amendment identifies it as the filing fee, this being the fee required by Clause 11(2)(c) for filing a United Kingdom application under the Bill. The filing fees in fact are described in Article 137(2)(a) of the Convention as the national application fee. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY move Amendment No. 298H:
Page 63, line 4, leave out ("French or German") and insert ("a language other than English").
The noble and learned Lord said: Again we are still with Clause 75 and this is another Amendment which relates to the language provisions. Under Article 14(2) of the European Patent Convention, it is allowable in certain circumstances for a European patent application (UK) to be filed in a language other than English, French or German, these being the official languages of the European Patent Office. For instance, a resident of Sweden—and Sweden is of course a contracted State under this Convention—may file his European application (UK) at the Patent Office in Stockholm in the Swedish language. In the normal course, the applicant would be required to supply a translation into one of the official languages of the European Patent Office. But, before he does so, it may happen that the Swedish authorities impose what I may describe as a secrecy order on the application in accordance with procedures corresponding to Clause 19 of the Bill relating to security and safety. In this event, if

1553
subsection (2)(b)(ii) is to be complied with, it would be possible to convert the European application (UK) into an application for a patent under the Bill and the Patent Office here would then obviously need to be supplied with an English translation.
As your Lordships will understand, the placing of a secrecy order would prevent the application taking the normal course through the European Patent Office. If that did happen it would be possible to convert the European application (UK) into an application for a patent under the Bill. As drafted, subsection (2)(c) only allows a translation to be required if the European application (UK) is in French or German. Normally this would be the case but it is not necessarily so, and to cater for the situation that I have described and others that might arise the Amendment extends the power of the patent office and requires a translation whenever the European application (UK) is not in English. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 298J:
Page 63, line 13, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 19 and insert ("but if that date is re-dated under the convention to a later date, that later date shall be treated for those purposes as the date of filing the application;
(b) if the application satisfies a requirement of the convention corresponding to any of the requirements of this Act or rules designated as formal requirements, it shall be treated as satisfying that formal requirement;
(c) any document filed with the European Patent Office under any provision of the convention corresponding to any of the following provisions of this Act, that is to say, sections 2(4)(b), 5, 10(2) and 11, or any rule made for the purposes of any of those provisions shall be treated as filed with the Patent Office under that provision or rule; and
(d) the comptroller shall refer the application for only so much of the examination and search required by sections 14 and 15 above as he considers appropriate in view of any examination and search carried out under the convention and those sections shall apply with any necessary modifications accordingly.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Sometimes when I hear the expression "a language other than English", I wonder whether what I am saying to
1554
the Committee sounds like English. This again is a substantial Amendment to Clause 75. Subsection (3)(a) refers to the date of filing under the Convention and specifies that this date shall be regarded as the date of filing for the purposes of the Bill. This seems straightforward enough, but the fact is that in certain circumstances the Convention provides for the redating of the European application. For this reason the Government think it advisable to make it clear that, if redating occurs, the new date shall be regarded as the date of filing for the purposes of the Bill. This is the first purpose intended to be served by the Amendment.
Secondly, the Amendment expands the existing subsection (3)(b). This is concerned with the form of the application. It is also concerned with the documents required. On further consideration of the subsection it seemed advisable to make clear exactly what is intended. For this purpose the Amendment introduces new paragraphs (b) and (c). Paragraph (b) makes clear that, if the European application satisfies a formal requirement of the Convention, then it satisfies the corresponding formal requirements of the Bill or rules. This complies with the obligation imposed on us by Article 137(1) of the Convention. Paragraph (c), on the other hand, clarifies the situation by indicating that if a document has already been filed with the European Patent Office then it is to be treated as filed with the Patent Office. For instance, if a declaration of priority has been filed with the European Patent Office it will be treated as filed at the Patent Office here for the purposes of Clause 5.
Thirdly, the Amendment adds a new paragraph (d). Since under the terms of subsection (1) the converted European application (UK) is to be treated as an application for a patent under the Bill, it follows that the Patent Office should make a full search and examination under Clauses 14 and 15, as it is expected to do in the case of an application made under the Bill. However, this would be pointless in many cases because the European Patent Office would be likely to have carried out a full preliminary examination and search. Accordingly, the Amendment, by adding the new paragraph (d) to subsection (3), removes the obligation on the Paten: Office and provides for the extent of the search

1555
and examination to be at the comptroller's discretion. Accordingly, he looks at the particular case and in the light of what he deems to be necessary, having regard to what has been done, he can exercise discretion in respect of what is allowed under the new paragraph (d). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 76 [Jurisdiction to determine questions as to right to a patent]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 299:
Page 63, line 20, at beginning insert—
("( ) The Court shall not have jurisdiction to determine a question to which this section applies except in accordance with the following provisions of this section.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I am happy to say I can be brief here and dispose of quite a number of birds with one stone. May I speak to Amendments Nos. 299, 300, 301, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309 and 310 at the same time. Amendments Nos. 309 and 310 relate to Clause 77. In our consideration of Clause 7 the Committee will recall that we agreed an Amendment (it was Amendment No. 48) expressly reserving the inherent jurisdiction of the court to decide questions as to entitlement to patents. These Amendments are all consequential on that one and make it clear that the position in relation to Clause 76 questions—that is, questions as to the right to a European patent—is the same. Therefore, they are simply drafting Amendments of a consequential kind. I beg to move Amendment No. 299.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 299B:
Page 63, line 26, leave out ("right") and insert ("share").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 299B, I should like, with the leave of the Committee, to refer at the same time to Amendment No. 310D. "Right" is defined in Clause 118(1) as including among other things an "interest" in a patent, for example an interest as a mortgagee. The Protocol on Recognition which these clauses implement deals
1556
only with entitlement to be granted a patent. These Amendments would bring the clauses into line with the Protocol—that is, the Protocol on Recognition annexed to the European Patent Convention—so as to ensure that only cases covering entitlement to a patent are covered. I beg to move Amendment No. 299B.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 299A:
Page 63, line 30, leave out ("of") and insert ("made by").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is another Amendment which is in reverse order; it is No. 299A, which relates to page 63, line 30. It is purely a drafting Amendment intended to put beyond doubt that the clause is dealing with all inventions made by employees and not merely those which belong to employees. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 300:
Page 63, line 31, at beginning insert ("The court and").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 301:
Page 64, line 1, at beginning insert ("The court and").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Amherst of Hackney): I have to tell your Lordships that if Amendment No. 301A is carried I cannot call Amendment No. 302.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 301A:
Page 64, line 17, leave out ("subsection (1) to (3)") and insert ("subsections (1) to (4)").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 301A, which stands in the name of my noble friend, and Amendment No. 302 are both seeking to correct a typographical error in the Bill as printed. The Government prefer the Amendment which I am now moving, No. 301A, because it picks up an additional typographical error in that "subsection" should in fact be "subsections".

1557
We are grateful to the noble Lords opposite for bringing the matter to our attention.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendments Nos. 303 to 308:
Page 64, line 17, after ("above") insert ("the court and")
Page 64, line 20, leave out ("comptroller") and insert ("court or the comptroller, as the case may be")
Page 64, line 27, after ("Kingdom") insert ("proceedings are begun before the court or")
Page 64, line 28, leave out from first ("the") to ("unless") in line 29 and insert ("court or the comptroller, as the case may be, shall stay or sister the proceedings before the court or the comptroller")
Page 64, line 34, after ("which") insert ("court or")
Page 64, line 35, at end insert—
("(6A) References in this section to the determination of a question include respectively references to—

(a) the making of a declaration or the grant of a declarator with respect to that question (in the case of the court); and

(b) the making of an order under section 7 above in relation to that question (in the case of the court or the comptroller).")

The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 303 to 308.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended agreed, to.
Clause 77 [Effect of patent decisions of competent authorities of other States]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendments Nos. 309 and 310:
Page 65, line 1, leave out ("comptroller unless") and insert ("court or the comptroller unless the court or")
Page 65, line 3, at beginning insert ("The court or").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 309 and 310. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 310D:
Page 65, line 5, leave out ("right or interest") and insert ("share").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this Amendment in connection with Amendment No. 299B. I simply move it formally.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 310A:
Page 65, line 13, leave out ("parties") and insert ("same parties as in the proceedings in question").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a simple drafting Amendment. It seeks to make it quite clear that the earlier proceedings—that is, those which entitle the court or the comptroller to disregard a later decision made in another relevant contracting State—must have been between the same parties as the parties to the later proceedings.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 78 [Patent agents and other representatives]:
7.44 p.m.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL moved Amendment No. 31 0B:
Page 65, line 16, leave out from ("as") to ("European") in line 17.
The noble Lord said: In the Second Reading debate on the Bill I conceded that I knew nothing about patent law, but I do know something about professional life and the importance in professional life of nomenclature, status and relationship. That is what I should like to speak to on this Amendment. Perhaps the House would be kind enough to allow me to talk to Amendments Nos. 310B and 310C together. Amendments Nos. 312A and 358A are consequential, so I need not refer to them.
We are concerned with the fact that under Article 134 of the European Patent Convention, two categories of people will be practising—those qualified in law and those qualified as patent agents. They will be described in the English language in a Eurolist, which is provided for under the European Patent Convention, and known throughout the English-speaking world as "European patent attorneys". Unless there is an amendment to the Bill, members of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents in this country will not be entitled so to describe themselves. They will be placed in a

1559
gravely disadvantageous position in obtaining business throughout the English-speaking world because of this distinction in nomenclature, which could have a distinction in fact though, indeed, it would be conceded that members of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents in this country are as well if not better qualified than their European colleagues. I understand that this has been the subject of discussion. between the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents and the Law Society.
Naturally and rightly the Law Society has been greatly concerned at the use of the term, "attorney", even though it is a term which has largely fallen into disuse in this country. Prior to the Second Reading debate I do not think that any agreement had been reached and therefore no Amendment was tabled. Since then I believe that quite considerable progress has been made in the discussions. Certainly the Law Society has accepted that it would not wish to place chartered patent agents in this country in a disadvantageous position. I am sure the Government will know that the Patent Office feels as strongly as the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents on this matter.
I believe that the Law Society has suggested an Amendment, although it was probably not acceptable to the Government. The Amendment which I have moved at this stage probably goes beyond what the Government might think appropriate or what the Law Society might think appropriate because it concedes a point which greatly concerned the Law Society. When the Eurolist is established it will, in the first instance, admit not only those who have satisfied examination requirements—which will subsequently be necessary if one wishes to be included on the list and which will be comparable to the examination requirements of the Chartered Institute in this country—but it will admit those with five years' experience practising as patent agents. Not unnaturally the Law Society is gravely concerned at the description of such people as "European patent attorneys".
In my professional life I have had occasion to recognise that when a profession is very largely being established or when a new status is being established, as is happening in this case—and we must
1560
accept that in the long term we are establishing virtually an international profession of European patent attorneys—it is inevitable that there will be a certain whitewashing operation. This is what will happen over the years, just as it happened in the teaching profession when we created the status of the qualified teacher. One cannot simply discard people who have been practising a profession, sometimes for many years with success, because they have not passed the required examination. This is as true in this field as it was in teaching. My information is that in this country there are only 20 people in a profession of 1,000 to whom this would apply who have not satisfied the examination requirements but who have been practising successfully.
This is an important matter to those in the profession. If it is not provided for, it could adversely affect the opportunities of such people to obtain business throughout the world where English is the spoken language, and where this term is applied to their European colleagues and not to them. I am certain that the House would wish to avoid this and I am quite sure that if time allows between now and the Report stage, the Government might find it possible to table an Amendment, the terms of which would be acceptable to both the Law Society and the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents. Therefore, I do not propose to press this Amendment. I seek an assurance from the Government that they would be prepared to examine the matter further in the hope of tabling an Amendment on Report which would certainly protect the interests of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents in this country and their opportunity to obtain business for the benefit of this country. I hope it would also satisfy the other interests which are concerned. If the Government could give an assurance that they will explore this matter, I should be very happy to withdraw the Amendments.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I had hoped that I should hear other voices on this matter. I have certainly listened with interest to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, in support of these Amendments and acknowledge that there is much that is persuasive in what he said. I want it to be clearly understood that the Government are just as anxious to secure the same object; namely, that qualified British patent agents do not operate under

1561
any disadvantage when competing with others, wherever they may be, for European Patent Office business.
As the noble Lord recognised, the Government need to give further consideration to these Amendments with a view to being satisfied that the use of the title "European patent attorney" is not only fully justified in the circumstances but also would not mislead the public into thinking that the people concerned were fully trained lawyers. As the noble Lord obviously recognised and referred to, legal bodies on both sides of the Border are concerned about this matter, and the Government, which must pay heed to the representations they receive from whatever quarter, are in fact in the course of doing that at the present time.
I can and do give the noble Lord the assurance that the suggestion he has put forward will be given full and further consideration by the Government and that if, as a result of such consideration and such consultation the Government believe that amendment to the Bill—perhaps not here but in a different place—is needed, a Government Amendment will in fact be tabled if that is the decision. The noble Lord asked that that be done at the Report stage. I would not hold out much hope that our consideration could be completed by that stage, but I would say that if the Government come to the view I have referred to, the Amendment will be tabled at a later stage. Of course if that should not be done, then the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, will no doubt take his own counsel upon what he will do. He is not proposing to press this Amendment, and therefore I need say no more on it. I am indebted to him for making his contribution in this way.
The Earl of SELKIRK: Perhaps I should say a word on this, and I apologise for not speaking before the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, that it is not quite as easy as he is making out. For instance, the Scottish Law Society view is that a solicitor in Scotland is by law prevented from calling himself an attorney. Therefore, if it happened that there was a solicitor who was a member of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents he could not call himself an attorney. I think, therefore, that it is
1562
rather harsh to suddenly impose that, unless you are going to change the law on a wider scale. As a matter of fact, there are objections to changing the law on a wider scale because the words by which the solicitors profession are called in Scotland are precisely defined, and it would be a pity to bring in other words which may be more vague.
After all, the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents is a respected organisation. Are you really going to improve an organisation's standing by changing its name? I happen to have had experience, not exactly in a professional line, of doing that, and it had no effect whatever. I should have thought that the Institute itself had a very high standing in all the English-speaking world, and it certainly would confuse the English-speaking world in North America if these words were introduced.
I should hope that the Government would think very hard about this before bringing this in. I did not know there was anything in the Statute to say that the word "attorney" was to be used. So far as I am aware, that has been developed purely in this country. Is it actually laid down? I was not quite certain that it had been laid down. I am very doubtful whether this would make any difference.
Their own standing, I should have thought, would have carried them far enough, and I believe that to change would be extremely confusing. The law on technical matters is an intricate subject, and the word "attorney", though fallen into complete disuse in this country now, seems to apply in North America largely to the meaning of law. Anybody who looks at this Bill, unless he knows a great deal about the law, will never get very far with it. I think it could in that sense be misleading. I think I would on the whole regret it being generally used.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the undertaking that he has given, and I would entirely accept that it might be at a later stage than the Report stage before appropriate action could be taken. I tabled this Amendment at the request of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents who are deeply concerned about it. I therefore cannot accept that they are not worried about it. They are

1563
very worried about it, because they believe that it could adversely affect their opportunities in European business in the future. In the American case, the patent attorneys of America are qualified in law, but they also have to be qualified as patent agents. This is a fact. I entirely accept that. But it is because of that that there is a very real distinction in the United States between a patent agent and a patent attorney. A patent agent, so called, would not be given business by responsible bodies because he would not have the status which they would require.
Therefore, if the patent agent in this country had so to describe himself, he would be putting himself in parallel with a similarly named person in America of a very different status and standing. Therefore, it is very important. I fully accept the difficulties in relation to the legal profession, and obviously the Chartered Institute would have no wish in the world in any way to affect the legal profession or its operation in relation to patents. This is not at issue. I suggest that to change the title is much more important than has been suggested by my noble friend.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Is the noble Lord aware that to some extent the boot is on the other foot? In Scotland solicitors are known as law agents.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: That is perfectly true. I never knew that they were called attorneys, either. I thought they were always called advocates. I have been away from there sufficiently long that I am probably out of date, because they sometimes move rather rapidly in these matters. I would be happy to withdraw my Amendment with the assurance which the noble and learned Lord has kindly given.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 311:
Page 65, line 19, after ("unless") insert ("he satisfies the condition that").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 311 and 313 are related, though they are purely drafting Amendments. The first Amendment provides the antecedent for the condition referred
1564
to in subsection (5), and the second deletes an unfortunate reference to nonexistent paragraphs. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.57 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY The Earl of HALSBURY moved Amendment No. 312:
Page 65, line 23, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Subsection (1) above shall not prohibit a barrister advocate, or solicitor in any part of the United Kingdom from taking part in proceedings in that part of the United Kingdom relating to European Patents and applications therefore to the same extent as he would before the appointed day have been entitled to take part in proceedings under the 1949 Act.")
The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment to Clause 78 which contains material which is the European counterpart of material in Clause 102, to which I have proposed Amendments Nos. 341 and 342, which are themselves derivative. They are consequential upon Amendment No. 333, which we shall not reach tonight. I therefore believe that it would be in the interests of economy of time for your Lordships' House if the noble and learned Lord were to give me an assurance that whatever reconsideration I can persuade him to extend following our debate on Clause 33 will include my Amendment No. 312. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am happy to give the noble Earl the assurance which he has sought. In fact, these matters may be most appropriately dealt with when we come to Clause 96, which we shall not even attempt to reach tonight.
The Earl of HALSBURY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 313:
Page 65, line 36, leave out ("paragraph (a) or (b) of")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is simply a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 [Application of sections 78 and 74]:
On Question, Whether Clause 79 shall stand part of the Bill?
8 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Before we leave this clause, which is the last in this group of clauses, perhaps I might attempt to answer the point which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, raised about Clause 74(7), to which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, also referred in relation to translations. The effect of Clause 74(7) is that the Government may, by their operation of the subsection, make the filing of an English translation of a foreign language application mandatory. Having made a translation into English mandatory, the Government may remove the requirement by rules.
Whether or not we shall require translations into English will depend largely on what the other countries do in relation to applications in languages foreign to them; if other countries are chauvenistic about it, we can be so, too. The United Kingdom is perhaps at an advantage in this matter in that it is likely that most European applications will be in English in the first place. It is not properly described as a temporary provision; it is a provision which enables the Government to act and react in the light of what others may do.
The course we propose, with Amendment No. 314A, will correct two defects in the Bill. First, as drafted it fails to cover one case where, if a patent is granted, it would be a Community patent, and so it and the patent would be governed by Clause 80. Secondly, clauses other than Clauses 73 and 74 should also have been disapplied. The Amendment will paint the picture more clearly in that it will show that the reason for disapplying various provisions is that Clause 80 applies corresponding provisions, and not that Community patents and applications are to be exempt from the type of restrictions imposed by the clauses. Perhaps I need say no more than that.
On Question, Clause 79 disagreed to.
Clause 80 [Implementation of Community Patent Convention]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 314A:
Page 66, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) Sections 73, 74, 76, 77, (Operation of section 74 in relation to certain European patent applications) and (Authentic text of European patents and applications (UK)) above shall not apply to any application for a European patent which under the Community Patent Convention is treated as an application for a Community patent, or to a Community patent (since any such application or patent falls within the foregoing provisions of this section")
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this Amendment on the Motion, Whether Clause 79 shall stand part of the Bill? I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 315:
Page 66, line 38, leave out ("the court") and insert ("a court of the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: When we look at Clause 80(2) we see that it provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations to allow any obligations under the Community Patent Convention to be implemented by a "domestic institution ". This may seem rather weird nomenclature, and if we consult Clause 87 we find that costs may be ordered to be paid by the European Patents Office and that such costs may be recoverable through the county court or the equivalent.
It would seem that the definition of a "domestic institution" should be a court of the United Kingdom because different obligations imposed by the Community Patent Convention will be implemented by different courts in the United Kingdom, and that of course applies very much to courts in Scotland as well as in England and Wales. It would seem that the court is defined in Clause 118 as being, in this instance, the High Court. Would it be the High Court in Scotland? I go out on a limb and say that that would be the Scottish equivalent, but I say it subject to correction by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord McCLUSKEY: In answer to the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in Clause 118 he will find that, as respects Scotland, "the court" means

1567
the Court of Session. The Government are sympathetic to the suggestion which Lord Lyell has made—that Clause 80 should enable matters such as enforcement of costs to be allocated to the county courts and their equivalent if it were decided that to do so would be desirable—although I am advised that the Amendment as drafted would not achieve the result he seeks.
The Community Patent Convention deals with the matter in Article 61(3), which applies Article 104(3) of that Convention, and Clause 87, to which Lord Lyell referred, seeks to implement Article 104(3) of the EPC. As the Bill stands, the clause would apply equally where it was a Community patent that was concerned. It may be that for consistency with the general approach adopted in relation to the CPC, Clause 87 should not apply where Community patents are concerned, and we will be looking at this point. Perhaps I need not give a long and involved answer on this matter at this hour. We agree to consider the point and, with that assurance, perhaps the noble Lord will feel able not to press it further at this stage.
Lord LYELL: I am only too glad to accept the invitation of the noble and learned Lord. With his usual charm and kindness he has agreed to look at the matter further and I am therefore pleased to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Decisions on Community Patent Convention]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 316:
Page 67, line 11, leave out ("of that convention").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is seen to be an Amendment of purely drafting character. I need not explain it, but the words to be deleted are plainly otiose. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: I presume that the noble and learned Lord's Amendment means what he intends, but it occurred to me that there could be a possibility in the
1568
near future that the United Kingdom might not be so united as at the moment. How would the Bill read then? Possibly my homeland and that of the noble and learned Lord might choose some looser form of association with the United Kingdom. The Amendment might be somewhat dangerous in that case. It may be pedantic, but it seems to me that the clause as drafted makes a great deal of sense. I would not quibble, but perhaps I could have the opinion of the noble and learned Lord on this.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I have given a lot of grey hair to the subject of devolution and I do not know how long the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, is prepared to listen to me on the matter, but perhaps the proper place to deal with the awful eventuality that he is prepared to consider is not Clause 81 but some subsequent Bill for the dismemberment of the United Kingdom. Perhaps I can leave it at that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.13 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 317:
Page 67, line 12, at end insert ("(nor the European Patent Office)")
The noble Lord said: Again, this deals with Clause 81(1) and we see that it provides that there is a possibility of a dispute or question with regard to the meaning of the Community Patent Convention. We believe that this could be treated as a question of law and that this query would be referred to the relevant convention court, which we understand to be the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. But subsection (2) seems to go a little wider, for it seems to define the "relevant convention court" as a court or other body over which the Community Patent Convention has jurisdiction. This would appear to include the European Patents Office which would mean that our own courts, including the highest court in the land—your Lordships' House—would be subject to the rules of the European Patent Office. This is what we hope that the Amendment will prevent. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think that the noble Lord may have made a slip of the tongue. The body referred to in subsection (2) is a body which, under the

1569
Convention—that is, the Community Patent Convention—has jurisdiction over proceedings, but I accept his point. If the Amendment as presently drafted were accepted, it might prevent our courts from staying proceedings under Article 77(2) of the Community Patent Convention, pending consideration by the European Patent Office of the question whether the patent should be revoked. The Amendment would also mean that, in hearing questions as to validity, our courts might not be bound to follow a prior decision of the European Patent Office concerning the validity of a patent which, so far as the facts are the same, Article 90(1)(a) of the Community Patent Convention requires. Noble Lords will see that that Article says so in clear erms.
Having said that, however, I acknowledge that it is arguable that the effect of the clause as drafted is to make a non-binding opinion of the European Patent Office (being such a body as is referred to) binding. It is not intended that this should be the result and the Government would therefore like to consider the point and at the same time will have regard to what the noble Lord has said in introducing the Amendment. So, in the spirit in which these proceedings have been conducted and in the light of the Government's intention to look again at this point, may I invite the noble Lord not to press the Amendment at this stage?
Lord LYELL: Certainly, I am very grateful for the reply of the noble and learned Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 82 [Jurisdiction in legal proceedings in connection with Community Patent Convention]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 317A:
Page 67, line 18, leave out ("made by statutory instrument")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a purely drafting Amendment. Clause 113(1) already requires any order made by the Secretary of State to be by
1570
Statutory Instrument, so it is unnecessary to repeat the requirement here. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 83 [Effect of filing international application for a patent]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 317C:
Page 68, line 12, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an Amendment which really seeks to leave out a provision which, although it is thought to be strictly correct, seems to read rather oddly. There are a number of provisions of the Bill dealing with granted patents which refer back to the original application—for example, those dealing with revocation (Clause 70) and provisional protection (Clause 67). In applying these provisions to a patent granted in pursuance of an international application, it is necessary to assume that the international application was a domestic application. It was for this reason that the paragraph which this Amendment seeks to delete was included. However, it is appreciated that the provision reads oddly and, on reflection, it is felt that there is sufficient implication to be able to dispense with the paragraph. No change in effect is intended. With that explanation, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendments Nos. 317D and 317E:
Page 68, line 15, leave out from ("satisfies") to ("shall") in line 16 and insert ("relevant conditions")
Page 68, line 17, at end insert ("subject, however, to subsection (6) below);
(bb) where the date of filing an application is re-dated under the Treaty to a later date, that date shall be so treated as the date of filing the application;")
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like at the same time as moving Amendments Nos. 317D and 317E en bloc to speak to a substantial number of other Amendments; that is, Amendments Nos. 317G, 317J, 317K, 317L, 317M, 317P and 317R. These Amendments are intended to make improvements to Clause 83 and I shall try in a general way to separate them so

1571
far as that can be done. They are designed to achieve two main purposes. The first is to allow for the different effects permitted by the Patent Co-operation Treaty of publication under that Treaty in relation to Clause 2(3) (the whole contents) and Clauses 54 and 67 (provisional protection). It would be wrong to allow an international application that is published but not pursued further to destroy the novelty of a domestic application, particularly if published in a language other than English.
Accordingly, Amendments Nos. 317D and 317E provide that the application is only to be treated as published for Clause 13 purposes if the application has been received at the Patent Office in an English version and the fee paid. This proposition is, however, subject to the new subsection (6) which provides that, for provisional protection purposes, time starts to run from the date of publication under the Treaty if publication was in English or from whichever is the earlier of two dates—re-publication under the Act or the date of actual notice to the person concerned in other cases.
The second main purpose of this group of Amendments is to cover the possibility that an application may be amended under the Treaty even after the relevant conditions have been satisfied, If the amendment is made before the copy is sent to the Patent Office, then the applicant need supply the application and the amendments only once. If the amendment is made later he must do what is necessary to satisfy the conditions again in respect of that amendment. I ought to mention that deletion of the existing subsection (6) is not intended to remove the power to remit fees; the fee in question is the search fee, and as noble Lords have seen, there is already power to remit this fee in Clause 14(8). I beg to move Amendments Nos. 317D and 317E en bloc.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: These Amendments remove points of considerable anxiety to practitioners, particularly in relation to the two principal points mentioned as to destruction of novelty and the amendments. We are very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for introducing these Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
8.21 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 317F:
Page 68, line 19, after ("be") insert ("so").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 317F, like Amendment No. 317H, is a purely drafting Amendment; indeed both Amendments are. They are intended to bring paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) into line with paragraph (b). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 317G:
Page 68, line 20, leave out ("and").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 317H:
Page 68, line 22, after ("be") insert ("so").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 317J:
Page 68, line 23, at end insert ("; and
(e) an amendment of the application made in accordance with the Treaty shall, if it satisfies the relevant conditions, be so treated as made under this Act.").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 317B:
Page 68, line 25, leave out ("that treaty") and insert ("the Treaty").
The noble and learned Lord said: Noble Lords will see that the Treaty is defined in lines 7 to 8 on page 68, and so it is right to refer to it as such. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendments Nos. 317K, 317L and 317M:
Page 68, line 26, leave out ("as aforesaid") and insert ("to subsection (6) below").
Page 68, line 33, leave out from ("the") to end of line 36 and insert ("relevant conditions are satisfied and, if those conditions are not satisfied before the end of the prescribed period, the application shall be taken to be withdrawn").
Page 68, line 37, leave out ("said conditions") and insert ("relevant conditions—
(a) in the case of an application,").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move these three Amendments en bloc.

1573
I have already spoken to these Amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 317N:
Page 68, line 39, leave out ("prescribed") and insert ("filing").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 317N is intended to make it clear that the fee to be paid is in fact the filing fee referred to in Clause 11(1)(c), which I mentioned a little earlier. Perhaps I should at this time mention a later Amendment, No. 317Q, which I will move formally in due course. That Amendment is consequential on the first Amendment, to which I have spoken, in that there will be an additional fee for publication of the translation of the application, and now that subsection (4) will refer to the filing fee it is necessary to mention this fee specifically. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 317P:
Page 68, line 40, at end insert ("; and
(b) in the case of an amendment, that a copy of the amendment and, if it is not in English, a translation into English have been filed at the Patent Office.").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 317Q:
Page 68, line 41, alter ("shall") insert ("on payment of the prescribed fee").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 317R:
Page 69, line 1, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) For the purposes of sections 54 and 67 above an international application for a patent (UK) published in accordance with the Treaty—

(a) shall, if published in English, be treated as published under section 13 above on its publication in accordance with the Treaty;

(b) shall, if published in any other language and if the relevant conditions are satisfied, be treated as published under section 13
1574
above on the publication of a translation of the application under subsection (5) above;

but, if the application is published in a language other than English, the applicant may recover a payment by virtue of section 54 above in respect of the use of the invention in question before publication of that translation, or may bring proceedings by virtue of section 67 above in respect of an act mentioned in that section which is done before publication of that translation, if before that use or the doing of that act he has sent by post or delivered to the Government department who made use or authorised the use of the invention, or, as the case may be, to the person alleged to have done the act, a translation into English of the specification of the application.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move it formally.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 317S:
Page 69, line 3, leave out ("not") and insert ("cease to").
The noble and learned Lord said: As the Bill stands, if an application is, for example, deemed withdrawn under the Patent Co-operation Treaty it will be treated as if it had never been. This result was not intended; the application must continue to be treated as an application which has been withdrawn so that, for example, the applicant can use it as a basis for claiming priority here or elsewhere. The Amendment is designed to achieve the desired effect, which was always intended. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendments Nos. 317T and 317U:
Page 69, leave out line 5.
line 10, leave out from ("where") to ("the") in line 19 and insert ("the application or the designation of the United Kingdom in the application is deemed to be withdrawn under the Treaty because of an error or omission in the Patent Office or any other institution having functions under the Treaty or of an application not being received by the International Bureau, owing to circumstances outside the applicant's control, before the end of the time limited for that purpose by the Treaty.
(8) Where the relevant conditions are satisfied before the end of the prescribed period,").
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to both Amendments Nos. 317T and 317U at the same time. These Amendments are designed to bring the

1575
clause more closely into line with Article 25 of the Patent Co-operation Treaty. When I was dealing with Amendment No. 298B I spoke to another Amendment, No. 317V, which is related. In relation to these two Amendments, Nos. 317T and 317U, perhaps I might deal with the proposed new subsection (10), which is incorporated in Amendment No. 317V. The Amendments are all drafting Amendments. They are designed to bring the Bill more closely into line with Article 25.
In particular, the Bill as it stood did not seem to deal satisfactorily with cases where the application is not accorded a filing date, since the application got off the ground for the purposes of the clause only if it was accorded a filing date. The proposed new subsection (10) deals with this point. Similarly, the comptroller does not need to be empowered to decide that a withdrawal by the applicant himself was the result of an error or omission. With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 317T and 317U en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Amherst of Hackney): Before I call Amendment No. 317V, I should tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 317V is carried, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 318 or 319.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 317V:
Page 69, leave out lines 25 to 44 and insert—
("(9) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to an international application for a patent (UK) which is treated by virtue of the European Patent Convention as an application for a European patent (UK).
(10) If an international application for a patent which purports to designate the United Kingdom is refused a filing date under the Treaty and the comptroller determines that the refusal was caused by an error or omission in the Patent Office or any other institution having functions under the Treaty, he may direct that the application shall be treated as an application under this Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 317V; indeed, I referred to it at a much earlier stage when I dealt with Amendment No. 298B. So at this stage I beg formally to move the Amendment.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Before the noble and learned Lord exhausts all the letters in the alphabet in
1576
relation to the Amendments to this clause, perhaps I may say that the Amendments which he has so eloquently submitted to the Committee have removed a great number of the anxieties of practitioners in this matter, and I am grateful for the large amount of work which has been done in getting these Amendments prepared.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am indebted to the noble Lord for these repeated tributes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 [Evidence of conventions and instruments under conventions]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 319B:
Page 70, line 36, leave out ("mentioned in section 81 above") and insert ("arising under or in connection with the relevant convention").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 85(1)(c) as drafted provides for judicial notice to be taken of decisions and opinions of any court having jurisdiction under the Community Patent Convention on questions relating to that Convention. Clearly, similar judicial notice should also be taken of decisions and opinions of any court having jurisdiction under the European Patent Convention. The purpose and, I believe, the effect of this Amendment is to make this clear. I therefore beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 319A:
Page 70, line 38, after ("(b)") insert ("above").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is clearly a pure drafting Amendment. Without it there could be said to be a doubt as to whether the subsection 1(b) referred to was the preceding one or some other one, so the word "above" is to be inserted to remove any doubts on that. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 391C:
Page 70, line 40, leave out ("community") and insert ("convention").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an Amendment designed to correct a typographical error. It was intended to refer to a "convention institution" as defined in Clause 85(6). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 320:
Page 71, line 33, leave out ("member of") and insert ("party to").
The noble and learned Lord said: This, again, is a pure drafting Amendment. It is more correct to refer to States as being "party to" rather than "members of" the conventions there, and accordingly I beg to move this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 85, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 86 to 88 agreed to.
Clause 89 [Financial Provisions]:
Lord McCLUSKEY: Before the Question is put, perhaps I may say that my attention has been drawn to the fact that earlier on I was somewhat critical of what I thought was the order of some of the numbers and letters on the Marshalled List. In fact, the way in which the Fourth Marshalled List is laid out is the correct and conventional way. I had not understood that, and if I have offended anyone I should like to apologise for it.
Clause 89 agreed to.
Lord ORAM: I think this may be a convenient time to agree that we have made good progress; and, if that is so, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. Older made on the 8th February last discharged, and the Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
ANGLIA WATER AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  CUMNOR BY-PASS
  CUMNOR BY-PASS