§ Mr. NottI beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 52, line 26, leave out
'contrary to the public interest'and insert:'prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the safety of the public '.We debated the principal of allowing these amendments in Committee but we did not make a great deal of progress with the Minister, who was kind enough to write me a letter on 13th July on the subject. However, I am still unhappy about what is intended in the Bill and I wish briefly to run through the arguments we used in Standing Committee.We did not agree that the terminology in the Bill—
contrary to the public interest"—was specific enough, and we wished to insert instead the words in the amendment. We feel that the termcontrary to the public interestis very wide.I shall give two examples of why we are concerned. First, it may be the view of the Government and of the Departments that it would be contrary to the public interest to allow payments to go abroad under patents because of their impact on the balance of payments. In such a case, it would be possible for the Government to say that it was contrary to 2079 the public interest that large sums of money should go abroad under patented inventions, because at the particular time the Government were running a very substantial balance of payments deficit. We believe that it would be possible for that to be defined so as to meet the Government's point that such a practice would be contrary to the public interest.
Secondly, there might be cases where the Crown considers a patent to be invalid but where it would be contrary to the public interest for the Government to argue the case with the inventor because argument might be difficult and might lead to problems for the Government. We feel that such action should be deemed to be contrary to the public interest. Therefore, we feel that
prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the safety of the publicwould enable the matter to be fully covered.Finally, in a letter to me the Minister gave an example of where he felt an issue would be contrary to the public interest but would not come within the definitions that we had chosen. I am sure he will agree that it is reasonable to read out his example, which, to quote from his letter, was as follows:
it might well be against the public interest for it to become known that a new security device was in use in H.M. Prisons, although the description of the device in a published patent specification could not be said to be prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the safety of the public".I am not sure about this particular example. A new security device in a prison is very much related to the safety of the public.
§ Mr. Clinton DavisI tend to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that from a wide permutation of possibilities we chose about the worst.
§ Mr. NottThat is a very fair admission. I could have dreamed up a hundred examples to support the Minister's case, and that was not a very good one.
Will the Minister answer my first question? Could not the Crown claim that it would be contrary to the public interest, if we were running a substantial balance of payments deficit, to enter into an arrangement under which large sums of money could flow across the exchanges 2080 under a new patent? The Minister is a lawyer. Does he not consider that it would be deemed to be contrary to the public interest? We are very concerned, and so is the patent agents profession, that this provision goes much too wide. It is the job of the House to make sure that the executive arm of the Government is not allowed, because of the loose drafting of legislation, to avoid the sanctions which should exist in a clause of this kind.
We have always accepted that there will be inventions which are prejudical to the defence of the realm or which involve situations prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the safety of the public. We understood what the Government were doing in New Clause 1. We did not oppose it. I still believe that this provision is much too broadly drawn and will give the bureaucracy, if I may use that term in no offensive sense, too much discretion.
I am sorry that the Minister has not taken this on board. He should have stood out against his advisers and come round to our view. Perhaps he can say something about it now.
§ Mr. Clinton DavisI am not able to go along with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) in his strictures about what I ought to have decided, because I gave this matter very careful consideration, as I gave to all the amendments considered in Committee which were likely to be part of a debate here. The hon. Gentleman omits in his contribution this morning to recognise that what has happened with the Bill is simply a restatement of what appears in Section 46(5) of the 1949 Act. It has never given rise to any difficulties. If it had, the Government would have been aware of them. What is even more to the point, the Opposition would have been told of them. However, the Opposition are not able to cite any instances of difficulties arising.
§ Mr. NottI did not endeavour to seek out examples, but this point would not have been brought to us in this new legislation had there not already been grounds for concern in the profession that the provision was too wide under the old Act. I fully accept that this is putting into the new legislation what was contained in the old. I am sorry that 2081 the Minister wanted examples from me. I am sure that I would have been able to produce specific examples of something that had arisen in the past. I hope he will not press that aspect, because it is not quite fair.
§ Mr. DavisI do not want to appear to be unfair. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said in Committee that no difficulties had been brought to our attention. Therefore, my point is absolutely fair. If there were difficulties, we would have known about them. My right hon. and learned Friend also stated that we were not very far divided on the objectives of the clause. When one uses an umbrella phrase of this kind, difficulties are likely to occur in theory, if not in practice.
12.30 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman effectively asks me to give him better examples than I have produced in the letter. I shall give him two. Suppose, for example, that some new form of Totalisator was in vented. It could hardly be said, if it was likely to be injurious to the public interest in some way, that it was prejudicial to the defence of the realm or to the safety of the public. It might, however, be contrary to the public interest. Again, there might be a security system —this is perhaps carrying it to absurd limits—in Government buildings whereby people admitted to those buildings were enclosed and given no opportunity for egress. That might not be prejudicial to the defence of the realm—it might even be to the advantage of the safety of the public—but it could be contrary to the public interest.
§ Mr. NottMay I ask the Minister about his first example? In what circumstances would a new Tote be contrary to the public interest? This type of example is what bothers us. Are we suggesting that the judgment of Methodists and those who feel strongly about betting could be induced to support the public interest?
§ Mr. DavisIt was not a moral argument which I was making. I was talking in terms of some device which could constitute a fraud on the public in some way. There is a wide permutation of possibilities that could be cited which would not fall into the category the hon. 2082 Gentleman seeks to use. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the balance of payments might involve something which could be regarded as being contrary to the public interest. I suppose that, particularly in this area, it might already have happened. It does not appear to have done so. Parliament is the guardian of the people's rights, and if legislation is seen to be too broad, not simply in theory but in practice, and is working to the disadvantage of those rights, I am sure that Parliament would not be slow to give protection. We also have a Parliamentary Commissioner, which is another important safeguard. The point is that this provision has been in operation for many years and has given no practical, as opposed to theoretical, difficulty. In the light of the arguments produced, I do not feel that there is anything to justify changing the situation.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.