HL Deb 12 November 1919 vol 37 cc221-39

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD)

My Lords, in asking you to give a Second Reading to this Bill I attempt a task which, I fear, must be tedious and somewhat lengthy in its performance. The subject is technical; it is one in which, as I have reason to know from what has been put to me, some of your Lordships take an interest and in respect of which some desire explanations; therefore it seems to me that the most convenient course that I can adopt is to give a general explanation of the objects of the Bill and then a more particular explanation of some of its most important clauses. I may say at the outset, for the convenience of those who desire to take part in the debates in Committee, that I do not propose to ask your Lordships to take the Committee stage next week but probably in ten or twelve days; in any event, adequate notice will be given of the precise date.

This Bill deals with matters that were really dealt with in a Bill to amend the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, which was introduced into the House of Commons in November, 1917. The Bill then introduced was not in fact proceeded with, but advan- tage has been taken of the criticisms and suggestions then made to re-draft the Bill, and as re-drafted and presented to the House to-day it contains amendments to the Act which in the opinion of the Board of Trade are desirable. The experience which the Board has gained in administering the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (Temporary Rules) Act, 1914, under which licences are granted to work old patents and designs, has naturally been of great advantage in drafting the Bill, and its provisions—I hope your Lordship will observe this—have been framed after the most careful consideration by a special expert Committee consisting of some of the principal legal and expert authorities on Patent Law. It has also been examined and approved of by the Advisory Commercial Council of the Board of Trade.

Now as to the main objects of the Bill, and I will attempt to dispose of these as shortly as I can. The Bill is put forward in the interests of reconstruction and of trade generally. Its main objects are to prevent the abuse of patent monopoly, to encourage and reward inventors, and to secure the earliest possible use of inventions. Special attention has been given to provisions—of which I will not say more in detail at the moment—to prevent the obstructive use which may be made of foreign-owned patents, and the Bill contains numerous minor amendments which the experience of the last ten years has shown to be necessary.

Let me say, first of all, a word as to the prevention of the abuse of patent monopoly. The object of granting patents for new inventions is one with which your Lordships are familiar; it is primarily to benefit the trade or industry concerned. You may attempt to achieve this object in a variety of ways, none of which, considered individually, would be adequate for that purpose. For instance, it is not enough to reward the inventor; it is necessary also to secure that the new invention should be brought into commercial use without undue delay. To bring a new invention into commercial use requires in many ways, for obvious reasons, the co-operation of the capitalist, and the readiest way of securing this co-operation is the grant of a monopoly. That is an economic conclusion which was reached in its main features many years ago in this and other connections. It is a familiar observation that a monopoly, being contrary to the common right, can be justified only by some consideration which offers an advantage to the public. The consideration which justifies the grant of a monopoly to a new invention is not only to use it for the advantage of the public but also to benefit the trade by new inventions being brought into commercial use during the period of the monopoly. The public are entitled to have a monopoly so framed and guarded that they are not deprived of this consideration. The difficulty is that of preventing the abuse of the patent monopoly without so restricting it as to disincline the capitalist to finance it.

The chief abuses of the patent monopoly may be summarised under three heads. In the first place, the prevention of abuse within the Realm of all patents of invention from indirect ulterior motives; in the second place, using a patent monopoly to encourage trade abroad and injuring it here; and, in the third place, hindering trade in the Realm by unfairly refusing the grant of licences. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill are an attempt to deal with the whole question by a complete and comprehensive scheme for the purpose both of encouraging manufacture within the Realm and preventing the abuse of a patent monopoly. As regards Clause 1 the procedure as to the grant of the compulsory licences under Section 24 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, has been found in practice to be both cumbrous and inconvenient, and it has been very rarely used in fact, though great hopes were entertained of it when it was first adopted. As regards Section 27 of the earlier Act the standard of comparison between British and foreign manufacture was one which was extremely difficult to work out in practice, simply because the necessary data were not available. Further, other cases have occurred where the appropriate remedy is revocation, and still others where the appropriate remedy is a compulsory licence. Under the old practice one had no alternative, but experience suggests that there is no reason for not allowing a tribunal to order either remedy in its discretion. It is therefore proposed in Clause 1 to replace both the sections to which I have referred by a single one, amalgamating the procedure so far as possible. The procedure recommended is a simple and inexpensive procedure which it is hoped, will be found generally convenient.

I ought to make an observation now as to the second object which I defined as the second general object—namely, the assistance and encouragement which the State ought to give in order, so far as possible, to bring about the early use of inventions. Clause 2 is specially designed to encourage the bringing of inventions to commercial use at the earliest possible moment, and it is hoped also that this clause will be of great assistance to the poorer inventor. Under the terms of the clause the patentee may at any time cause his patent to be endorsed by the words "licence of right." In any such case any person is entitled to the grant of a licence upon terms which in default of agreement, are settled by the Controller. Clause 2 further lays down the principles upon which such licences should be framed. When patents are so endorsed the patentee pays only half the yearly renewal fees from the date of such endorsement. It is hoped that this provision will be a great boon to the poorer inventor who cannot find sufficient financial support and who is often unable to place himself in touch with those who might be disposed to utilise his invention. It is also believed that it will be found an advantage to those manufacturers who desire to make an early use of any important improvements in processes or in machinery.

I said that the third general object which it was hoped to attain was the extension of the grounds of opposition, and I ought to say a word, perhaps, about that, because I understand that some doubt or apprehension is entertained upon that part of the Bill. Clause 4 extends the grounds of opposition and provides that the grant of patent rights may be opposed on the ground that the invention was published in any printed document published before the date of application. This clause will, it is hoped, help to secure the validity of patents which are granted. It is in some respects a substitution for a provision which, in the view of the board, is unsatisfactory and one which presents very considerable difficulty.

Clauses 6 and 7 deal with the subject of the extension of the terms of the patent, as to which your Lordships know there has been a great deal of discussion among inventors and traders. The Bill proposes, in the clauses to which I have referred, to extend the life of all existing patents for a period of two years, thus making the normal period of a patent sixteen years from the date of application, instead of fourteen as at present. By a further amendment to Section 18 of the existing Act, Courts are given specific power for the extension of the terms of a patent where the patentee, as such, has suffered special loss or damage as the result of the present war. There are many such cases of hardship, and your Lordships will probably be of opinion that some such assistance should be given to them. It is hoped that these two proposals will satisfy the demands of those who have asked that some provision should be made to deal with the more essential cases. The extension of two years will have the additional advantage that it will bring the period of protection in this country into closer agreement with the period that is given in other countries which are parties to the International Convention for the protection of industrial property.

There are other clauses in the Bill with which I do not think it is necessary at this stage that I should trouble your Lordships, because I have given a general statement which indicates the main objects of the Government in making their proposals. If there is any obscurity I shall, of course, be very pleased to deal with any special cases if any further observations are invited from me. I may, perhaps, say one word about the Schedule. The Schedule of the Bill contains several minor amendments to the Act of 1907 which experience has shown to be desirable. Some of the amendments are by way of deletion of matter which has become obsolete, or they merely make statutory what is at present office procedure. There are certain amendments to Section 5 of the Act of 1907 and other sections. Those of your Lordships who take a special interest in this subject will be able to call attention to any special amendment made by the Schedule as the debate takes place. I have only to add that, naturally, very great attention will be paid to the views of those of your Lordships who are interested in the subject. I shall allow a considerable period to intervene before the Committee stage takes place, and I am sure your, Lordships will put down Amendments for the Committee at as early a date as is convenient, so as to afford me an ample period in which to examine and discuss them.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, this is as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, a complicated and complex question, and I agree with him that it would be quite impossible at this stage to deal with all the detailed matters which must give rise to considerable controversy when we come to the Committee stage. I should like at the outset to associate myself with what the Lord Chancellor has said as regards the loss we are suffering in all discussions on patent questions through the death of Lord Parker. He stood out as a man of special knowledge on all such questions, to which he had given the most careful attention.

The subjects with which the Lord Chancellor said the Bill was primarily intended to deal are really in themselves easily stated, and I do not wish to re-state them. I want at this stage of our discussion to point out that the Bill is faulty in many directions. It does not carry out the ideas and principles which the noble and learned Lord has expressed as being the ideas and principles of the Government. It is, of course, a difficult topic. Monopoly is contrary to the Common Law and Statute Law of this country, and what is really done in the Statute of Monopolies as regards patent rights is not so much to safeguard, or have consideration for, the inventive faculty of the patentee, as to safeguard our industrial interests in order that; we might have the advantage of what is called "new manufactures," which are essential in order to maintain our industrial position.

What we have to carefully consider in Patent Law is whether the manufacturing side has every possible facility, consistent of course with due remuneration for the inventive faculty. As regards the abuses to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, and which he says are dealt with in Clause 1, I think by far the greatest abuse of our Patent Law is when the patentee seeks to use the monopoly right which has been granted to him in order to get indirect and outside advantages. That is absolutely inconsistent with the whole principle of our Patent Law. Unfortunately this tendency has been carried very far, so far indeed that the owners of patent rights have attempted to dominate large trades and industries in which a particular patent right may be of value, but which goes far outside any consideration as regards the use of any patent right or claim.

This matter is, I think, intended to be dealt with in Clause 1, sub-section (e)— If any trade or industry in the United Kingdom, or any person or class of persons engaged therein, is unfairly prejudiced by the conditions attached by the patentee, whether before or after the passing of this Act, to the purchase, hire, license, or use of the patented article, or to the using or working of the patented process: —it constitutes an abuse, in reference to which he comes under the liability of a revocation of the patent. There is attached to that a proviso which I do not think is of any importance. I consider this provision is absolutely inadequate for the purpose for which it is designed.

No provision against this monstrous abuse of monopoly right granted for patent purposes will be sufficient except one which renders any contract containing these outside conditions, which are aimed at dominating particular trades or industries, absolutely null and void. It is no good giving the right of litigation as regards the persons whose trades or industries are injuriously affected. It is a most costly matter to promote litigation against trusts and combines who deal with questions of this sort, and I hope that far more stringent regulations will be introduced.

In the well known Act, what I may call the great Consolidating Act of 1907, the original provision there was that a contract which included these outside advantages attaching to the use of patent rights should, ipso facto, become null and void. That would have been satisfactory, but unfortunately a certain proviso was attached with the result that, instead of having a very simple remedy which would have been effective in all cases, you had litigation under the terms of the proviso which was immensely costly as regards the individual, and which, so far as the combine or trade was concerned, did not really affect their gains one way or the other.

I look on this as one of the most important matters in our Patent Law. The abuse has been carried to a large extent in the United States. There was a famous action brought by the United States Government against the United Shoe Company, I think it was. It went on for eight years at a most prodigious cost, and ultimately the United States Government were defeated by a majority of one vote in the ultimate Court of Appeal. Litigation of that kind would cost any private individual thousands of pounds, and if we are to have an effective remedy against this admitted abuse it ought to be a remedy which does not imply litigation but which makes these arrangements null and void. May I call your Lordships' attention to the words "unfairly prejudiced"? Whether the prejudice is unfair or not will depend on individual opinion, and to allow the individual manufacturer to embark on litigation in those circumstances is almost suicidal as regards his trade interests.

The next point on which I should like to say a word or two is with regard to the meaning of "licence." It is true that, in order that manufacturers may have the full benefit of patent grants and patent rights, you must have a system of compulsory licence. Where I think great danger lurks in the present proposal is this. You give every licencee, whatever may be the terms of his licence, the right to call upon the patentee to promote litigation (in the sense of an infringement action) whether the patentee desires it or not. In other words, you encourage litigation and in a very bad way, because the patentee himself might not desire to litigate as regards his monopoly or patent rights. The effect of the proposal is that, whether he wishes it or not, the licencee can compel the patentee to bring litigation, which may often be promoted in the interests of the licencee and not in the interests of the manufacturer or the patentee himself.

Upon that point—I have a strong feeling about litigation myself—may I read a passage from a judgment by Lord Lindley. He said— Every person of common sense knows what is involved in patent actions and what the expense of them is. And everybody knows that to be threatened with a patent action is about as disagreeable a thing as can happen to a man of business, and is a thing most calculated to paralyse a man in his business even if he is innocent of any infringement of the Patent Law. That is a true statement, and I hope the clause as to licences will be altered, taking away from the licencee the right of enforcing upon the patentee to bring an action when the patentee does not want to bring it himself. Litigation ought to be reduced as far as possible.

With regard to the rights of the Crown in patent actions, I quite agree with the principle which has been adopted—that the Crown, which in this connection merely means some official in the Department, should not be entitled to use patent rights and patent claims without recognition of the interest of the patentee. In other words, there is no reason whatever why an official in the Department should be put in a better position than an ordinary manufacturer. What I do object to is this, that whereas the ordinary manufacturer would have to pay whatever in the court of law was ascertained to be the cost of the infringement or the cost of using the patent right, so far as the Crown is concerned the matter is settled merely by the Treasury. There is enormous dissatisfaction amongst patentees as regards the amounts ascertained by this domestic forum, and I think the time has come when what I should call the Treasury dole ought not to be the measure of remuneration of the patentee with regard to patent rights or claims, but an official department, under the control of the Law Courts, should have to pay neither more nor less than an ordinary manufacturer has to pay if he desires to use a patented article. Let it be put on the same footing, and the same principle be applied in either case.

Then I am entirely in agreement with what the noble and learned Lord has said as regards the extension of patent rights, but I am not quite sure that the particular point to which I wish to call attention is covered by it. The proposal is generally, if I follow the Bill aright, that the fourteen years for patent rights should be extended to eighteen. To that in itself I make no objection, but I want to take a particular case. Supposing, as the noble and learned Lord has said, that during the period of the war a particular patented article has not been required or a particular patent right could not be floated, because there was no capital for purposes of that sort during the period of the war. Is there a provision in the Bill that a patentee who has suffered, and can show he has suffered, under conditions of that kind, should have a further opportunity of obtaining some remuneration when the war conditions have ended? I think that is a case where a moratorium is justified, although I do not find it is in the Bill itself.

There is another matter upon which I should like to say a word. I agree entirely with what the noble and learned Lord has said—namely that it is desirable as far as possible to go into questions concerning patent rights when the patent grant is made, in order to avoid litigation in the future; and therefore he has extended the subject matters or questions which can be brought before the Controller. I desire to add my testimony as to the way in which the Controller has done his work; but when we come to the question of the amendment of patents I wish to make this suggestion. The amendment of patents is very often a complicated and technical subject. It first comes before the Controller, and then on appeal before the Law Officers. I do not wish to speak with other than great respect of the Law Officers, but they are not suited to act as judges in these matters. Many of them have no special knowledge of patent law at all, and I ask whether it is not now time to dissociate the Law Officers from matters of this kind, and allow an appeal from the Controller on the amendment of a patent to go to the Courts in the same way as other appeals from the Controller go. Except on this particular matter all appeals from the Controller go to the Courts at the present time, and without making any undue complaint I can say—I had a considerable number of patent matters to deal with when I was at the Bar—that consideration of these matters by the Law Officers appeared to me to be highly unsatisfactory, not in accordance with their ordinary duties—they had great difficulty in finding the time —and I think certainly there were many complaints. Of course, I do not want to make a complaint against them personally, but against the system.

One other point. At the present moment, if one claim to a patent is found to be bad, as the noble and learned Lord well knows, the patent right fails, and the proposal is that we should adopt what is really the American system, of a number of claims to a patent which can be considered separately, some of them good and some of them bad, and if you bring an action on a claim that is held to be good you are not defeated because there are other claims which may be held to be bad. At first sight that may appear to be a reform, but I want to suggest to your Lordships that it is quite the contrary, and that we should want to see how the matter operates. An inventor in this country—and I suppose it applies to other countries—lives very largely—I do not want to use terms of prejudice—by a suggestion to manufacturers that they are infringers. They are only too glad if they can to avoid matters of litigation, and rather than embark upon litigation they naturally very often give way.

What is the effect of a large number of claims? The patentee has claims on which he can make suggestions of infringement, very much to the detriment of the manufacturers. He has other claims, perhaps, which he can substantiate more easily, and in reference to which he frames his litigation, and therefore obtains an advantage of somewhat an unjust kind. He ought to stand or fall by the claims he makes, and if you compare the practice in the United States with the practice here I hope that the old practice in this country will be maintained. The practical difference is this, that in this country you find two or three carefully prepared claims—carefully prepared because it is known that if a single claim is unsupported the whole claim is upset. In America you find a patent with fifty to sixty claims, put in every variety of language, intended to frighten every kind of manufacturer within the patent area, and it does not matter how many claims there are, because if forty-nine or fifty-nine of the claims are found to be bad and one supports a claim, in that respect the patentee will succeed. At any rate I hope that the American system will not be introduced here. I have only been able very shortly to indicate one or two of the points upon which I think this Bill will require considerable revision.

As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, it is quite impossible to go at any detail into a Bill of this kind on the Second Reading, and I venture to doubt whether even in Committee a Bill of this kind can be satisfactorily discussed in your Lordships' House. It is too complicated, it is too detailed, and it requires somewhat enlarged knowledge of preceding law. Particularly is that so in a Bill of this kind where there is so much legislation by reference It is an extremely difficult and complex bill to understand, and it occurred to me that possibly we might consider it in a far more satisfactory way than it was considered in the House of Commons—where it was pushed through in a very hurried manner—by appointing a committee of your Lordships' House to consider it in detail. I only throw that out as a suggestion. I do not propose myself to make any Motion in that direction. I am sure we ought to thank the learned and noble Lord on the Woolsack for the luminous way in which he has introduced this Bill.

LORD EMMOTT

My Lords, naturally I come to a consideration of this question from a very different standpoint from that of the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. It is simply because various rather important bodies of commercial men have interviewed me in regard to some of their objections to details of this Bill that I venture to say a few words about it. The whole subject, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, has said, is extraordinarily difficult, and I feel it rather an act of temerity on my part as a mere layman to speak about it, but the representations made to me have been so strong on certain points that I venture to ask your Lordships' attention for a few moments while I deal with them.

I do not, of course, offer any opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill. If I may venture to say so, I think that there are useful provisions in it. I certainly shall be glad to see useful inventions more used in this country than they often have been in the past, and shall also be glad to see that foreigners will not be able to block manufacture here so as to import the goods, made under patent processes, from abroad. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said that this Bill has, amongst other objects, the encouragement of inventors; and Sir Auckland Geddes in another place, in dealing with the Bill, said that it was introduced for the purpose of assisting and encouraging poor inventors. I cannot find much in this Bill that is really going to encourage invention. I am told that it was drawn without reference to the patentees and manufacturers, although it no doubt went before certain people qualified to express an opinion, but many of its provisions are in opposition to the recommendations that the patentees made.

It is true that the period of a patent is extended two years, and that is a concession in favour of inventors, but even so we fall short of America. There is no reduction in fees, which is advocated by many commercial men, except of course in the case of "licences of right." Many people believe that revenue will be increased and not diminished if fees are reduced, but this House is not the place where a proposal of that kind could properly be made. Some of the other provisions of the Bill are, I think, rather doubtful. The "licences of right," of which personally I approve, the power to revoke patents which some commercial men object to—in regard to that I feel hardly qualified to express an opinion—the provision to which the noble and learned Lord opposite referred, and also the provision with regard to the use of a patent by the Crown—those are not provisions in themselves which encourage inventions.

It is also true that this Bill received rather scant attention in another place. It was introduced on July 15, the Standing Committee to which it was referred was changed at the last moment, and there were members of that Standing Committee who did not know until the morning of the day on which the Committee sat that it was going to sit, or that they were members of it. The result was that after very brief discussions in Committee the Bill was passed through. There were some points which were put off in Committee by the Minister in charge, the Solicitor-General, on the ground that they would be discussed on Report, and they never were discussed on Report. I suppose that either the House was tired or that the members interested were not there, and so the Bill really was very little discussed in detail. I think that is the reason why your Lordships may well consider the Bill with some care.

Unfortunately the questions in a Bill of this kind are very technical. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with any extended remarks on details. There will be Amendments moved in all probability to extend sixteen years to eighteen years, or perhaps alternatively to make the period of sixteen or seventeen years, or whatever it may be, run from the period of acceptance and not from the period of application. I expect also that there will be an Amendment to extend by six instead of three months, as proposed by the Bill, the time for examination into the novelty of an invention—a time which is also occupied very often in settling difficulties with the Patent Office.

I believe that commercial men would like to have patent cases as far as possible sent before one Judge. That is a question on which I am hardly competent to speak, because it touches upon the legal system of this country, but as a matter of practice when the Judge is experienced in Patent Law and such questions as come up under it, I am told that the whole matter is grasped much more quickly, and the case is dealt with much more satisfactorily than when it comes before a Judge who is a comparative stranger to them. If such a thing could be done so that patent cases should go before one Judge rather than before several, I believe that measure would be very gratefully received by the commercial community. These are matters of some importance, but as regards the commercial community so far as I know the claim most strongly put forward by important bodies of commercial men and experts—such bodies as the Federation of British Industries, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, and the Institute of Patentees—and very strongly put forward by Chambers of Commerce, is a. demand for a moratorium for the period of the war. Most commercial men, I believe, put forward a claim to eliminate completely the period of the war. Since the Bill was in the other House I believe that legislation has been proposed or carried in Belgium, France, and Germany in which in different forms the principle is recognised that the period of the war should be left out from consideration in computing the life of a patent. As far as possible, it is contemplated in those counties that the extension of benefits should apply only to other nations giving reciprocal rights. I do not, of course, know how our treaties would affect a matter of that kind, but at any rate the action of those countries is an additional argument for the concession which was appealed for by my noble and learned friend opposite (Lord Parmoor).

What are the arguments against? It is said that this Bill increases the period of the patent by two years. That is true, but that is a change in the general law as regards patents and has no bearing on the hardship suffered by many men whose patents were of no use during the war— patents which would have been all used had no war occurred. It is said also, and justly, that under Section 7, to which the noble and learned Lord opposite also alluded, one reason for extending the life of a patent which may be considered by the Court is that the patentee has suffered owing to the war having occurred. The objection that commercial men take to making use of that provision is this. I believe that the costs of an undefended case would be at least £100, and the costs of a defended case would be not less than from £750 to £1,000, and that is rather a heavy premium for a man to pay who has already suffered owing to not being able to use his patent during the war. Then it is said that many patentees have benefited by the war. That is perfectly true. Ex hypothesi they will not benefit now that the war is over. But in any case it is no answer to say that some have benefited. That only makes the case rather worse for those people who have lost owing to the war.

I hope the Government will meet the strong body of opinion that exists in regard to this question. If they cannot give an all-round moratorium applying to all patents, there is an alternative Amendment which could be proposed — that those patentees who could show, as a matter of fact, that they had suffered owing to the occurrence of the war and owing to causes produced by the war should have an extension of their patents. I think it is unfair to throw heavy expense upon poor men with inventions in which they believe who could not work them during the war. So far as I can gauge the opinion of commercial men, there will be a deep feeling of injustice if the Government are unable to meet them in regard to this particular branch of the question. I apologise for detaining the House so long, but I wanted to give expression to opinions which had been suggested to me by commercial men who seem very well qualified to speak on this question.

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

My Lords, I should like to call attention to a point which has not been mentioned, and, while I shall not deal with any question of substance arising under it, I think it is a point of form in legislation which is of very great importance. The noble and learned Lord has pointed out to the House that in his Bill there is a Schedule with many items in it that are called minor amendments. There is precedent for that. I think that in a certain sense I was responsible for the first occasion when this method of legislation was used. It was in 1897 in the Land Transfer Bill. There was an immense number of very technical amendments that could not be, perhaps, simply described as drafting amendments, but it was thought it would make the Bill very tiresome and difficult to pass if all those amendments were set out in clauses. Accordingly this device was invented of a schedule of minor amendments which were enacted by means of a short clause such as there is in this Bill. The very greatest pains were taken that there should be nothing that could really be called a matter of substance in those amendments, and, at any rate, that there should be absolutely nothing of a controversial character. I think it is only under conditions of that sort that such a schedule is admissible in the drafting of a Bill.

It certainly is the case that there are some points in this Schedule which raise questions upon which a great deal of interest is taken. I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord has seen that Lord Southborough has put down an Amendment which is an Amendment upon the Schedule. I do not say that therefore the Schedule is in fault for raising the subject, but the subject, which is an important one, can only, I think, be raised in the Bill by dealing with the Schedule. It is the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, has just referred, the question of whether patent actions should be referred to one Judge. There is a great deal to be said on that subject, both for it and against it. But there you have a question which arises on the Schedule. It is perfectly clear that it is a question which ought to be in the body of the Bill.

The general effect of amendments put in a schedule like this is really to withdraw them from the consideration of Parliament, because people do not look at the schedule and they are told in the body of the Bill that it is a minor amendment and so they do not trouble themselves about it. There are several other questions to which my attention has been called and which, no doubt, will be heard of in Committee. My point is that a schedule ceases to be such a document as ought to be presented to Parliament in that form if it contains controversial matter and matters which ought to be dealt with fully in the body of the Bill.

If the House thinks that I am right in that view, I think it adds some force to the appeal made by the noble and learned Lord opposite that it might be well if this Bill were examined in a Select Committee. I think that it is certainly worth while, because then this Schedule, which has the fault in it which I have mentioned, would be carefully examined, instead of being practically passed en bloc. This is not the Lord Chancellor's Bill. This is a Bill that has come up from the House of Commons. If the Lord Chancellor had introduced a Bill and had said, "I will give you a schedule of amendments which are minor amendments and you may take it that they are of the character that I have described" this House would at once have passed them en bloc, and never thought further of examining them, but the state of things is quite different now, and I think the Schedule will have to be examined item by item.

LORD SYDENHAM

My Lords, I, like the noble Lord who spoke just now, have received a number of communications from Chambers of Commerce pointing out a good many faults in the Bill as it stands, and suggesting Amendments which are very complicated and technical. I hardly think those Amendments could be considered in Committee of the whole House, and I should like to reinforce what has been said upon the advantages which would be gained by referring this Bill to a Select Committee. I believe that that course would give great satisfaction in many quarters.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (who was indistinctly heard)

My Lords, I think those speakers who have suggested that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee have really betrayed some lack of observation in regard to the qualities which your Lordships are accustomed to show in dealing with the Committee stage of even complicated measures. It is quite true that the course is sometimes adopted of sending matters to Select Committees, but there are large numbers of matters very much more difficult than this is which have been commonly dealt with by your Lordships. All of the specific points which have been the subject of criticism are well within the capacity of your Lordships sitting in Committee of the Whole House.

Take any one of the points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor. His were more technical than most of the points which were made. The noble Lord has great experience in this matter, and he objected that under Clause 1 (2) (e) the remedy was not provided in the best possible way. Let us see whether that is so? The words are— (e) If any trade or industry in the United Kingdom, or any person or class of persons engaged therein, is unfairly prejudiced by the conditions attached by the patentee, whether before or after the passing of this Act … In such circumstances application may be made to the Comptroller for a statement of the abuse of monopoly rights. Certain consequences follow in the plainest possible manner if he succeeds in obtaining a statement from the Comptroller that there has been an abuse. My noble and learned friend wishes that it should be declared that it is ipso facto an abuse. There is a great deal to be said upon that if the noble and learned Lord wishes to make the point in Committee. But to say that your Lordships are not competent to deal with it in the full House is to do your Lordships a great injustice.

Then my noble and learned friend developed a further point in his reference to the immunities provided in favour of the Crown. That is an arguable point, and I should be glad to hear him develop the argument when we come to the Committee stage. Lord Parmoor made another point —namely, that the appeals in such matters should not go to the Law Officers. I was a Law Officer for nearly five years, and if I had been a member of the House when the proposal was brought forward I should have given it warm support, because the hearing of these appeals adds considerably to the work of the Law Officers; but having done the work for nearly five years I may, perhaps, express the opinion that the work is well done, though I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is incongruous that it should be dealt with by the Law Officers. No doubt the matter will receive consideration in the Committee of the Whole House.

My noble friend Lord Emmott spoke of the desirability of giving more relief to those whose patent period has suffered by reason of the war. An increase, not of fourteen to eighteen years, but of fourteen to sixteen years has been given, which really does not prevent the additional two years being a relief to a man who has suffered by the war. I can assure Lord Emmott that the matter has been carefully considered, and the opinion is that full advantage has been enjoyed by the persons concerned. However, it is a fair matter for discussion, and it will be fully considered. I must confess that my noble and learned friend and Lord Emmott, when they spoke of the drastic way in which, according to their views, the Bill ought to be amended, did a little less than justice to the industry of the Committee which passed every clause of the Bill. Because a number of commercial men, I will not say with axes to grind but from their own special points of view, are playing a more prominent part in this matter than the interests of the whole community require and are assailing noble Lords with resolutions, we must not assume that the men who put forward those resolutions are right and that the men of great experience who considered all these matters are wrong. I think when these things are fully considered you will find that those who attempted to adjust these things were right. However, it can be dealt with in Committee.

I do not agree with Lord Emmott when he says that this Bill does not give encouragement to inventors; but whether it gives enough encouragement is a fairly debatable matter, and any suggestion made by the noble Lord will receive careful consideration. When Lord Emmott suggested that in the case of those who suffered by the war there should be a moratorium and greater relief than is given in the Bill, the noble Lord will not forget that under our international agreements any advantage we concede to our own inventors must be given to foreign inventors, and in some cases it is not convenient to give such extensions.

One word with regard to what Lord Muir Mackenzie said as to the Schedule of minor amendments. The noble Lord was good enough to remind us that he was the father of the practice which he corrects in the observations he has made. The noble Lord distinguishes his innovation by saying that in the case of his Schedules all the amendments were as unimportant as possible. It is at least a curious coincidence that in the notes that were made for me when I began to study this Bill the draftsman said that in this case also they were of the least possible importance. After having refreshed my memory by looking at the creation of the noble and learned Lord in the Lands Transfer Bill, I shall be able to tell him which of them have violated what is not, perhaps, a fundamental rule of Parliamentary practice. I am hopeful that with help and good will we shall get through the Committee stage, contriving at the same time to give the impression that we have considerately attempted to meet every real case of hardship.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.