HL Deb 28 May 1906 vol 158 cc9-14

Report of Amendments received.

THE EARL OF GRANARD

My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for bringing forward Amendments at the present time, but my excuse must be my want of knowledge of the procedure of your Lordships' House. The object of my first Amendment is to provide that the penalty shall be imposed only if the title is used "with intent to deceive." This Amendment was not moved last year, but a letter to that effect was written to the Board of Trade by Lord Halsbury, who suggested that the Bill should be amended in the way now pro posed. Communication was opened with the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill, and he consequently then with drew the Bill. I understand that the present Lord Chancellor is also in favour of this Amendment. As the Bill stands at present, a person prosecuting under it could get a conviction if a person other than a registered patent agent held himself out to be a patent expert or used any of the other titles referred to. The words which I propose by this Amendment to insert would make it necessary also to prove that the title was used with intent to deceive. The Board of Trade would like to make a suggestion. They think it would be a good thing if the Patent Office were in some way able to discriminate so as to be in a position to refuse to deal with persons who had been guilty of misconduct.

Amendment moved. In page 1, line 8, after the word 'If' to insert the words 'with intent to deceive.'"— (The Earl of Granard.)

LORD COLERIDGE

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not accept the Amendment which has just been moved on behalf of the Board of Trade, the effect of which would be practically to destroy the purpose of the Bill. If my noble friend's Amendment is carried, I cannot conceive of any conditions in which a prosecution would be possible. Before a man holding himself out to be a patent export could come within the Act he must by this Amendment use the title with intent to deceive. What does intent to deceive mean? A man who has been struck off the list of patent agents for disgraceful professional conduct continues to practise, using the title patent expert instead of patent agent. He describes himself to persons as an expert. He has perhaps devoted all his life to this business, and therefore is an expert. I have in my hand the actual advertisement of a man who has been struck off the roll of patent agents for disgraceful professional conduct and who is now issuing the same advertisement as before, simply substituting the word "expert" for "agent." He has a perfect right to say he is an expert, and if this Amendment is inserted he will not be touched under the Bill, for he would not be deceiving anyone by saying he was an expert. This is the very class of case which the Bill was framed to hit, and if the words proposed by the noble Earl are inserted the Bill becomes waste paper. If that pleases the Board of Trade so be it, but at any rate the object with which the Bill was introduced will be entirely destroyed.

LORD ALVERSTONE

My Lords, I desire to join in the appeal of the noble and learned Lord, and to ask His Majesty's Government not to insist on this Amendment. I have had this matter before me officially and unofficially for many years, and I sent a Memorandum to the Board of Trade which led to this class of legislation being suggested. If these words are inserted, not only will the Bill fail to be of any use, but there will be no possibility of protecting those persons who do get taken in by fraudulent patent agents. There is already in the ninth line of the Bill the word "knowingly." Therefore to constitute an offence under the Bill not only must a man who is not qualified call himself a patent agent, but he must have knowingly done so. The word "knowingly" in the clause would prevent any person being hit for an innocent mistake; but the words "intent to deceive "would give no protection to the public. I had for many years a great deal to do with patent agents and the patent law, and I know what the mischief is. I should like to add that in regard to previous Bills in connection with which I had the honour of advising the Board of Trade dealing with the prevention of the improper use of titles, I am not aware of these words having been inserted.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN)

My Lords, I take exactly the same view on this subject as was expressed last year by the noble and learned Earl who preceded me in my present Office, that this is a class of legislation which, though it may be necessary and beneficial, has to be safeguarded against abuse. The Act of 1888 enacts that if a man describes himself as a patent agent and is not registered he may be prosecuted. That is a kind of legislation which, as I say, ought to be rather carefully watched. It turns out that people avoid the use of the precise term "patent agent," but represent themselves as such by employing other titles. Thereupon my noble and learned friend proposes in this Bill that if any person other than a registered patent agent knowingly takes or uses, whether by description on his place of business or elsewhere, or by advertisement, or in or on any paper or document, or otherwise, and whether in his own name or any other name, the title of agent for obtaining patents, or patent registration agent, or patent attorney, or inventor's agent, or patent expert, or any other name, title, addition, or description stating or implying that he is a patent agent, or uses on his place of business, or elsewhere, the words patent office, office for patents, patent agency, or any other words implying in any way that he acts or practises in any part of the United Kingdom as an agent for obtaining patents, he shall be liable on summary conviction for each offence to a fine. The Board of Trade now propose the addition of the qualification "with intent to deceive." Unless it can be shown that a man does use the title with intent to deceive, why should he be prosecuted and made liable to a fine? I share the dislike which was expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Hals- bury to laying people open, by a clause of this kind, to conviction unless you can show that they committed the offence with intent to deceive. If they do not use the title with intent to deceive, I repeat that I do not see why they should be prosecuted.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I feel very great reluctance in saying even a few words to your Lordships on this very technical subject, especially in view of the fact that the learned lights who advise your Lordships' House are not agreed as to what ought to be done. I have already had occasion once to be reproved by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—very kindly and courteously reproved, I admit —for venturing to hold an opinion upon a legal point, and I shall certainly not incur his reproof on the present occasion. The question is evidently a very difficult and very subtle one. We have on the one side the Lord Chief Justice of England and the noble and learned Lord opposite, who declare that no change in the Bill in this respect is required. We have, on the other side, the late Lord Chancellor and the present Lord Chancellor and the whole force of the Board of Trade, as represented by the noble Earl on the Front Bench opposite. In those circumstances, my Lords, so far as we are concerned who sit upon these benches, we can hardly advise your Lordships to do otherwise than support the Government. They have access to the official advisers to the Board of Trade, they have the great legal acumen of the noble and I learned Lord on the Woolsack, and they have also the important assistance of the noble and learned Earl the late Lord Chancellor. Under these circumstances, so far as we are concerned, we shall not resist the Amendment moved on behalf of His Majesty Government.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF GRANARD

My next Amendment, to leave out the word "knowingly," is consequential.

Amendment moved — In Clause 2, page 1, line 9, to leave out the word 'knowingly.' "—(The Earl of Granard.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF GRANARD

The object of my Amendment to Clause 3 is to provide that this Bill, when it comes into operation, shall not apply to any person who was prior to the commencement of the Actbona fide practising as an agent for obtaining patents in the United Kingdom, and whose name is for the time being entered on a list to be kept by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade are of opinion that those who have been practising in the past should be allowed to go on doing so, but they also think there should be some means of preventing such persons being in a better; position than registered patent agents, who are liable to be removed from the list for misconduct, and they have, provided accordingly.

Amendment moved— In Clause 3, page 1, line 21, to leave out from the word 'any' to the end of the clause I and to insert the words 'person who was prior to the commencement of this Actbona fide practising as an agent for obtaining patents in the United Kingdom, and whose name is for the time being entered on a list kept by the Board of Trade in the prescribed manner. (2) Every person who proves to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that prior to the passing of this Act lie had been practising as an agent for obtaining patents shall, on making application for the purpose within six months after the passing of this Act, and on payment of the prescribed fee, be entitled to have his name entered on the list unless his name has been erased from the register of patent agents or the Bond of Trade are satisfied that he has been guilty of such an offence or misconduct as would have rendered him liable, if his name had been on the register, to have his name erased therefrom. (3) The name of a person on the list may be erased therefrom on any ground on which a name on the register may be erased therefrom. (4) In this section 'prescribed' means prescribed by general rules under the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883, as amended by any subsequent enactment.'"—(The Earl of Granard)

LORD COLERIDGE

I accept the Amendment, which seems to me to be an improvement of the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF GRANARD

My next Amendment is on Clause 4, which provides that in and for the purposes of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, person includes a body corporate. I beg to move to leave out the words "unless the context otherwise requires."

Amendment moved— In page 2, lines 4 and 5, to leave out the words 'unless the context otherwise requires.'"—(The. Earl of Granard.)

LORD COLERIDGE

What is the object of omitting these words?

THE EARL OF GRANARD

The words are proposed to be omitted so as to make it quite certain that in this Act person includes a body corporate.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD COLERIDGE

The object of the Amendment standing in my name is to meet the case of a reconstruction merely, where the body corporate is exactly the same though legally it may be a different thing.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 5, after the word 'corporate' to insert the words 'and its successor.'"—(Lord Coleridge.)

THE EARL OF GRANARD

I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.