Lords Sitting of 29 April 1948

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (FAMILY PENSION FUNDS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1948.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I have the honour to present a message from the King signed with his own hand. His Majesty's Message is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the Government of India (Family Pension Funds) (Amendment) Order, 1948, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament. I will comply with your request."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, before we come to the business on the Order Paper, I should like to inform your Lordships that there will be a formal Sitting to-morrow to receive Bills from another place. It will not be necessary to meet for Public Business on Monday.

RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES BILL. [H.L.]
4.6 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The primary purpose of the Bill is to secure protection for the health of workpeople and the public generally against the harmful effects from undue exposure to dangerous radiation. We are dealing in the Bill with radiation both from natural radioactive substances—radium, radon, and other natural elements and a whole range of artificially produced substances—and from certain types of apparatus of which X-ray apparatus is the most widely known. It will be recalled
556
that a Bill for this purpose was introduced into your Lordships' House about a year ago. Discussions which followed the introduction of that Bill showed that it was capable of improvement in a good many respects, and we decided, therefore, not to proceed with it last Session. Those improvements have now been effected, and I hope that the present Bill which embodies them will secure a substantial measure of agreement.
Your Lordships will be aware of the many uses of radiations of the kind I have mentioned, and the wide fields with which this Bill is concerned. Radioactive substances are used in industry as luminising agents—many of your Lordships are, no doubt, carrying about with you radioactive substances in the form of luminous watches—and they are also used in the manufacture of many other products. Radium and radon are used in medicine in the treatment of certain forms of cancer. Powerful X-ray tubes are used for a similar purpose and also for many industrial purposes—for example, for the testing of castings. Natural radioactive substances are already widely used in scientific research; and the artificial radio elements which will shortly become available will be of immense importance as research tools and for therapeutic purposes. These substances and apparatus are dangerous. The possibilities of injury to health, if they are handled without the most stringent precautions or by people who are not fully aware of the risks, range from minor burns and other ill-effects to the most serious illness, disability and death. There is reason to suppose, too, that undue exposure to radiation may have genetic effects which are, as yet, uncertain. These are not new dangers. They have existed ever since, some fifty years ago, we began to use radioactive substances and apparatus and to discover their possibilities.
It is true that a great deal has been achieved by the British X-ray and Radium Protection Committee, appointed over twenty-five years ago by the Medical Research Council, but the recommendations of this Committee, valuable as they have been, are and remain recommendations only, and their advice has not, I am afraid, always been asked for or taken. Despite the Committee's work, accidents have happened—almost certainly more accidents than we know, for the dangers

557
are insidious and the effects often do not become apparent until years after the cause. Moreover, recent developments in nuclear physics and electrical engineering have created a new situation. Artificial radioactive substances will soon be available in considerable quantities. X-ray apparatus of much greater power—and therefore proportionately more dangerous—is being developed, and the use of such apparatus, both in medicine and industry, has for some time been steadily increasing. To the X-ray tube has been added the cyclotron, the betatron, and the synchrotron—all capable of emitting very powerful radiations. Though potent tools in the hands of the scientist and the doctor, these new substances and apparatus have added greatly to the need for protection. The new situation calls for new measures, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Health is strongly advised by experts in this field that the provisions of this Bill are essential if all these developments are not to be attended by danger as well as benefit. We must be able to protect the worker who is in contact with these substances or apparatus in industry, in hospitals or elsewhere; the patient who runs the risk of unskilled treatment; and the public at large.
Your Lordships will not have failed to observe that the Bill is, to a great extent, an enabling measure. It puts—I will admit it freely—wide powers into the hands of the Ministers, since the substances and apparatus concerned, and the elaboration of the methods of protection required, are alike left to be laid down in regulations. We propose this for two wholly practical reasons. The first is that it is a difficult and complicated technical matter to draw the line between dangerous and harmless amounts of radiation, and the line may vary for different substances and different purposes. We must be able, as regulations will, in fact, make possible, to frame appropriate definitions and apply them on expert advice for the different fields we have to cover. Secondly, the method of proceeding by way of regulation will make for ease of amendment to meet changing circumstances, a precaution which, I am sure your Lordships will agree, is entirely necessary in a field in which new discoveries are being made almost daily.
If there is to be a wide use of the regulation method of procedure, safeguards
558
are clearly needed. I will, therefore, at this point, draw your Lordships' attention to the stringent safeguards embodied in Clauses 6 and 9 of the Bill and designed to ensure that any controls proposed are fully considered both by expert opinion and by the public before they are adopted. Clause 6 requires the Ministers principally concerned to appoint an advisory committee, whose duty is to be to advise them on any matters concerned with the exercise of their functions under the Bill which the Committee itself thinks fit to raise and, of course, on questions referred to it by the Ministers. The Committee is to be appointed after consultation with the appropriate scientific professional and technical organisations, which will certainly include the Medical Research Council, the Royal Soceity, the Physical Society, the three Royal Medical Colleges and the three Royal Medical Corporations in Scotland, the Faculty of Radiologists, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and the British X-Ray and Radium Protection Committee. I can give your Lordships the assurance that the Ministers concerned intend to appoint to the Committee persons of the highest eminence in the different subjects on which advice will be needed, and to ensure a proper balance between the medical, scientific, and other interests affected.
One of the advisory committee's most important functions will be to advise on the framing of regulations under the Bill since, in each case, the Minister concerned is required by the Bill itself to consult the committee before making his regulations. In this way, the closest expert scrutiny will be applied to the exercise of the powers of control given by the Bill, and no measures will be adopted which do not commend themselves to those best: qualified to judge. Two further safeguards against the imposition of unnecessary or excessive restrictions are contained in Clause 9, which requires that all regulations shall be published in draft and objections heard—if necessary, at a public inquiry—before they are finally made. When made, the regulations have to be laid before Parliament, and are thus subject to a third examination. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this public review, following upon expert advice, amply ensures that there will be no ill-considered or hasty control which the public interest does not justify.

559
May I now turn in rather more detail to the actual forms of control we propose in the Bill? To begin with, the Bill proposes in Clause 3 to prohibit the sale or supply to the public of medicines or toilet preparations containing more than a prescribed quantity of radioactive material, except by a doctor or dentist holding a licence for the purpose from one of the Health Ministers, or by a chemist under the authority of a prescription from a licensed doctor or dentist. We are aiming here primarily at preventing the indiscriminate sale to the public of a wide range of manufactured products—radioactive water, soap, face cream, bath salts and things of that kind—which are at present readily available and which, if they really are radioactive, may do definite injury to those who use them.
Clause 3 also limits the administration of radioactive substances by way of treatment of human beings to licensed doctors and dentists. We put forward this proposal because we are advised that the dangers inherent in the use of many of these new substances, and the method by which they may safely be used in treatment, are not by any means universally known, even among members of the medical profession. And the dangers are serious. Similarly, the Bill, in Clause 4, requires anyone using irradiating apparatus emitting radiation (of a strength to be defined in regulations) for medical or dental treatment, to obtain a licence from the appropriate Health Minister. Here again we know of many unfortunate accidents which we intend to prevent in future. I should add that the clause provides for the extension of this licensing power to cover the use of irradiating apparatus for diagnostic purposes, if that course should be found to be desirable in the light of the advice of the expert advisory committee.
Before I leave the licensing system, there are one or two points which I should like to mention. Both Clause 3 and Clause 4 empower the Health Ministers to make orders exempting specified classes of persons from the requirement to obtain a licence, and both clauses require the making of any such order to be dependent on consultation with the advisory committee. The committee will also advise on the general principles on which
560
licences are granted—the appropriate qualifications, experience, and so on—and on any conditions to be attached to the grant of licences.
Clause 5 of the Bill empowers the appropriate Ministers to lay down by regulation codes of safety precautions for the protection of the public and workers in premises where radioactive substances and irradiating apparatus are used. The Factories Act already empowers the Minister of Labour to make regulations to safeguard the health of workers in factories. Your Lordships will be aware that regulations relating to factories in which luminising is carried on are already in force and have been found most useful. But the Factories Act does not apply to all industrial premises or to the transport of dangerous substances, and there are other establishments for which we think that safety precautions should be prescribed—hospitals, for example, and laboratories. These premises—and the clause covers transport as well—are the concern of a number of different Ministers. The clause therefore empowers the appropriate Minister, who is in each case to be designated by Order in Council, to make
"such provision as appears to him to be necessary to prevent injury being caused to the health of persons employed at those premises or places, or other persons."
Here again, there must be prior consultation with the advisory committee.
In addition, the appropriate Minister is empowered by regulation to ensure that radioactive waste products from factories and so on are disposed of safely. Discharges from premises where radioactive substances are handled—smoke, dust, liquid effluent—may be contaminated with radioactive material and may be dangerous to people living in the neighbourhood and to animals and water supplies. The kind of requirement we have in mind is that chimneys should be heightened to ensure that dangerous smokes are dissipated, that the rate and temperature at which liquid effluent is discharged are regulated, and that contaminated articles of clothing or equipment are disposed of safely.
These are the outlines of the forms of control we propose in the Bill. There are two further matters I should mention. First, Clause 1 empowers the Minister of

561
Supply to manufacture, process and distribute radioactive substances. This provision will enable the Minister to dispose of the radioactve by-products from atomic energy piles as well as natural radium and radon, and we hope by this means to improve the supply of radioactive substances of all kinds for the purposes of medicine, research and industry. Secondly, the Minister of Supply is given power by Clause 2 to control the import and export of radioactive substances. This control is at present effected under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939; but that is a temporary measure, and under Clause 2 the Minister of Supply will be able to keep the control in being when that Act expires.
It will, I think, be clear from what I have said that this is both an important and an urgent measure. The means we propose to adopt for safeguarding health may appear drastic, but I cannot emphasise too strongly our intention to avoid the least unnecessary interference with science, medicine or industry. I hope your Lordships will agree that the Bill gives us sufficient power to attain our objects and, at the same time, guards adequately against the possibility of any unreasonable use of that power. I am hopeful, therefore, that the Bill will be regarded as non-controversial, and I trust that it will have a speedy passage through your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Henderson.)
4.23 p.m.
LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, I can well understand the Labour Party being very much interested in radioactivity. As your Lordships know, the primary phenomenon in radioactivity is that occasionally from time to time a small particle is ejected from the nucleus. This leaves the nucleus in an excited state, which may or may not result in further ejections, until it settles down again into a stable condition. In the early days of X-rays, of course, before the danger of this form of radiation was realised, there were some lamentable incidents and some occasions on which severe injury was suffered by people using X-rays. But for the last twenty-five years or so there have been scarcely no cases of severe injury. When one compares the relative safety of this form of work and experi-
562
ment with, for instance, the number of deaths on the road, one feels that perhaps on this occasion we are taking somewhat unnecessary trouble about a very slight danger. On the other hand, we are producing a number of new radioactive substances, and as some of us have seen in the newspapers, there have been some quite ridiculous scares about the terrible results which have been, produced, usually in factories which had not started working. For instance, it was claimed that impotence had been produced, of which there is at present no evidence whatever, in any circumstances. On he other hand, of course, sterilisation is one of the early results of undue exposure. In all the circumstances, I think we shall agree that the introduction and carrying into law of some measure of this sort is probably justified. It is not only necessary that the public should be safeguarded against these dangers, but that they should seem to be safeguarded. In view of these scares especially, it is worth while making certain that everybody realises that the matter has not been overlooked.
I am very glad that the Bill which was introduced some time ago has now been replaced by this new measure. The old Bill was calculated to hamstring research altogether in many ways. It is quite impossible to prevent people working in laboratories from committing suicide if they want to. One cannot possibly make certain that nobody can get hold of high tension terminals or that they cannot obtain a poison or that they cannot expose themselves to some form to danger. In every reasonable physical laboratory where these sort of radiations are used, anybody liable to come into the neighbourhood of the substance that is radiating, or of the machines producing the radiation carries a recording device which tells him exactly the amount of radiation to which he is being exposed, so that in case of danger the man can be safeguarded and the source of danger removed. Under the old Bill nobody was allowed to treat, use, import or possess any radioactive substance. As your Lordships know, it is almost impossible to produce anything that does not contain some of these radio-active substances. A ton of any material contains something like a microgram of radioactive material: This table, that glass of water—everything contains radioactive

563
substances. Therefore, in the form in which it was drafted, the old Bill was really unworkable.
The new Bill is a great improvement. According to the new Bill the Minister may prohibit—it does not say that he must prohibit—anyone from importing or exporting radioactive substances and it says that he can prescribe the quantity of radioactive element to which the prohibition applies. Presumably, on the advice of his committee he will prescribe a reasonable quantity, and will not say as was said in the old Bill: "No radioactive material whatsoever." Then the Bill lays down that nobody, unless he has a licence, is to administer any of these radioactive substances to human beings. There again, presumably, the Minister will act on the advice of the committee; otherwise, some innocuous salt like potassium bromide, which is a perfectly harmless substance, would be barred simply on the basis that potassium is radioactive. I take it that when the Bill says in Clause 3 (2):
"…no person shall administer any such substance,"
it means: "any such substance containing more than the prescribed quantity." Frankly, I was a little surprised to see subsection (5) (e). In previous clauses it is laid down that nobody except an expert, or someone who knows what he is using it for, may possess any of this material, or have it, or buy it. Yet I find that any Minister of the Crown is allowed to have it. As I have said, one of its first effects in excess is to cause sterilisation. I do not know whether the Minister of Health's dislike of the hereditary principle is coming into the open here, but I think it is a little hard that he should put it to the test on his own colleagues.
We then come to the question of the irradiating apparatus. There again there is no definition given of "irradiating apparatus." I imagine that this, too, will have to be decided on the advice of the committee; otherwise, anyone who advised someone else to sit in front of an electric fire to cure his rheumatism, or to alleviate it, might be liable under the Act. I confess that subsection (5) gave us a little anxiety, because it seemed at first to open the way to all sorts of interference. There again, I look to safeguarding by
564
the advisory committee. As to the waste products, of course it is necessary to take precautions, but I think the danger may easily be exaggerated. For instance, I have seen grave doubts raised about small quantities being put into the Thames, although they should not make the waters there nearly as radioactive as those of Bath or Gastein, which are always considered as health resorts, and where radioactive water is paraded as being one of their great virtues. As I have said, everything hinges upon the advisory committee. If it is sensible all will be well, but if it contains a lot of fussy, pernickety people, then I think we may have a lot of trouble. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will make sure that the committee contains a number of users—by users I have in mind industrial people who use these substances, as well as scientific people in laboratories—and that it is not over-weighted entirely with medical watch-dogs, whose intentions are the very best but who like to be on the safe side, and who could, by imposing excessive precautions, probably do a great deal more harm than good.
I need hardly say that we scientists are particularly anxious to be well represented, having recently been told by the Chief Commissioner of the Civil Service that we are uneducated human beings who never lift our vision to the wider horizons. We feel a certain anxiety lest we be over-weighted by a number of civil servants, picked for their personality and bursting with the desire to prove how easily they can put their views across against a humble and, perhaps, unnecessary scientist. But I believe we shall be able to discuss that on a future occasion. There is one further point and it arises in regard to Clause 7 (2) (b). Very properly, penalties are to be inflicted upon anyone who, having discovered industrial secrets in the course of his inspection, discloses them improperly. The threatened penalty is a very small one compared with the penalties for this offence in other Bills of a similar nature. I do not, for a moment, wish to say that the penalties for any ordinary breach of the regulations in this Bill should be increased, but for this particular offence I think it might be advisable if ways could be found to increase the penalty, so as to make it really not worth anyone's while to go in and find out about secret processes and then give them away.

565
As the noble Lord said, my friends and I attach the greatest importance to the various safeguards which have now been provided: the fact that notice must be given to interested parties before regulations are made; that objections will be heard and, if necessary, a public inquiry will be held, and finally, that if the worst comes to the worst the regulation is subject to annulment by Resolution of either House. The only other point—which is not really very substantial—is with regard to some of the definitions in Clause 12. We read, for instance, that "substance "can mean" any natural or artificial substance."That seems to be a somewhat circular definition, as philosophers would call it. We read also that" a radioactive substance "means" any substance which contains any radioactive chemical element." Again, that includes practically everything, and especially it would contain substances like potassium and rubidium which are practically harmless and are in common use. I am informed that these definitions are not to be taken in the scientific sense, but that the legal people think they are of use and importance.
As I have said, I believe that on the whole it is a good thing to have a Bill of this sort, and I think it is drafted probably as well as it can be. Normally, I strongly dislike government by regulation which is not laid down in a Statute, but here, as the Minister said, things alter so quickly and inventions and discoveries change so rapidly that it is difficult to lay down anything in legal terminology which would hold water if it were exposed to expert criticism. It seems to me that the best way to proceed is like this—to get a good, reasonable, common-sense advisory committee; and I trust that reasonable interpretation of the Bill will make it a workable measure.
4.36 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I would like to say a few words in giving this Bill a warm welcome. I think it will go a long way towards overcoming a series of dangers which at present exist. The precautions which are taken to ensure that any regulations which may be made will not hamper medical work, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, said, scientific work, will be satisfactory if they are administered in a reasonable way. One point about this Bill which I did not very
566
much like when I first saw it is that this is the first time that any form of control in regard to any treatment has been placed upon any members of the medical profession. Up to the present, if one had a medical qualification one could carry out any kind of medical work one wished. It will now, for the first time, be necessary for a doctor to obtain a special permit before he can carry out certain forms of treatment. Personally, I do not like that requirement very much and I hope it will not become a regular practice. In this particular case, I think that the danger to patients from the use of radium and X-rays by medical practitioners who have not been well trained and experienced in their use, are very great. I have myself seen a number of really catastrophic instances where people have been severely damaged by radiation. That being so, I am glad to see that some form of control has been put upon the general use of these materials.
The same remark applies to people who possess such materials. In the past it has been possible for people to acquire small quantities of radium from commercial firms. I think that is a practice which has never been very satisfactory and I am pleased to see it is not going to be encouraged by this new Bill. I am not very clear in regard to one point in Clause 3 (5) (d). I am probably being unduly apprehensive about it, but that paragraph says that a person carrying on a hospital, clinic or nursing home may possess radioactive substances. Under other provisions of that clause nobody may make use of those things unless he is licensed. I am wondering whether sufficient care will be taken to ensure that matrons cannot acquire radium, or other radioactive substances and keep them in such a way that proper protection is not afforded. I would like to raise that one point in passing.
I am pleased to see that various safeguards are to be provided in hospitals, factories, and so on, where radioactive substances are used. Just before I came to your Lordships' House I was reading an article in an American paper, The Radiological Journal, which shows how danger can come from scattered radiation, not by the direct beam of an X-ray tube but from the scattered beam. Six men stood in a room in which there was an X-ray tube. They were not there

567
for two minutes before they were badly burned. I think it is very important that proper care should be taken to protect workers, both in hospitals, factories and, so far as can be, laboratories, provided that not too much difficulty is created in carrying out the work. It would be very valuable, if it were possible, to control more buildings where radioactive substances are used, which do not come under the Factories Act, because we are dealing with a poison which, improperly applied, can be worse than, or at any rate as dangerous as, any other poison. One of the dangers is that the effects of this poison may not appear in the patient for a considerable time afterwards. Having made those points, I have very great pleasure in welcoming the Bill.
4.42 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I am grateful to you for the friendly way in which this Bill has been received this afternoon. I think the discussion on Second Reading has made my task of answering the debate an easy one. There are only one or two points which call for observations from me, and I will confine myself to those points and deal with them briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, asked whether there would be any industrial representatives on the advisory committee. I indicated that there would be consultation with various bodies, which I named, before the committee was appointed. Naturally, I am not in a position to anticipate what will be the ultimate composition of this committee, but I can assure the noble Lord that the physicists will have proper representation. Whether there will be industrial representatives of the nature that I understood the noble Lord to mean, I am not at this moment able to say; but I will certainly take back his views and see that they are considered by the Minister before we reach the Committee stage. I would only remind the noble Lord that what I said in my opening speech was that the Ministers would seek balanced representation among the various interests affected.
As regards the controls of the use of irradiating apparatus for therapeutic purposes, the noble Lord was right in his assumption; the advisory committee will be consulted about the regulations prescribing the classes and the descriptions of
568
the types of apparatus referred to in the Bill. The noble Lord also had some doubts about the penalties provided in Clause 8 (2) in respect of an offence of disclosure of information relating to special processes and trade secrets. He thought that, while the penalties are adequate for other offences provided for in the Bill, in this case, perhaps, the penalties are not sufficient, because it is possible to commit an offence and, if there is only a small penalty, still to make a substantial profit. I am impressed by that, and I will call the attention of the Minister to the views which the noble Lord has expressed. Perhaps we can have further thoughts on the matter before we come to the Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, was not quite sure whether hospitals, nursing homes, and so forth, which are entitled under Clause 3 (5) (d) to hold these radioactive substances, would be subject to proper protective regulations. I think there can be no doubt that it will be well within the province of the advisory committee to make recommendations to the Minister as to the conditions in which such stocks should be held. I hope that by this explanation I have removed whatever doubts the noble Lord had in his mind. I would again thank your Lordships for the friendly reception which has been accorded to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL. [H.L.]
4.46 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. Its purpose is to ensure that full and proper use is made of British inventions, and to secure for this country the benefit of inventions resulting from public research, and of any other inventions which are either not taken beyond the laboratory stage or are insufficiently developed or exploited. The Bill will, in fact, fill a serious gap in the technical and industrial equipment of the country, a gap caused by the failure either to put our scientific discoveries and

569
inventive ideas to practical use in industry or to secure the protection which national and commercial law could provide for the product of the brains of our countrymen.
To maintain our competitive power in world markets, and to provide a reasonable standard of living at home, we must keep up a continuous flow into industry of new ideas which will result in new products, new processes of improving old products, and increased efficiency generally. Much of the scientific work of the country is at present being carried on in the research stations of our Defence Departments and is, of course, directed primarily to the needs of defence. But many of the ideas and discoveries produced in this way would be of great value to industry, either in the form in which they are produced or after further experiment and development work. But it is not the job of the Defence Departments to spend money and time in finding and developing civilian uses for their inventions. Nor are they equipped to handle the highly technical and difficult job of exploiting these inventions in the civilian field by the negotiation of licences, here and abroad.
Inventions produced in the industrial research associations flow naturally to the industries concerned, but the discoveries in the research stations controlled by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research have no such natural outlet. The stations are concerned mainly with fundamental researches, as are those of other civilian departments, and we should not expect them to direct their energies from their proper function by taking on the entirely different task of carrying their discoveries through their development stages or of undertaking their commercial exploitation. By far the greatest number of inventions produced by the private inventor, or within an industrial firm, probably receive the treatment which they merit. There will be cases, however, where an employee produces an idea which is not quite in the firm's own line of business, or where a private inventor is unable to afford the cost of development to the point at which he can sell or license his invention to industry.
Our past record has shown that we are second to none in producing ideas, but it also shows that we have, on occasion,
570
been slow to put some of our ideas to use, or have even neglected them altogether, with results which have been much to our disadvantage. There was, for example, the case of Richard Babbage, to whom the British Government made a grant in connection with his work on a differential calculating machine. The grant was later withdrawn, Babbage became disheartened, and the lead in the development of calculating machines passed to Europe and America, where it has been maintained until this day. Indeed, a major development in this field in 1930 was based essentially on the principles of the Babbage machine of a century ago. Another example is that of Perkin, who in the middle of the last century founded a flourishing industry based on the discovery of aniline dyes. His successors, however, failed to continue his researches, and the initiative passed to the German dye industry which built up and retained practically a world monopoly for seventy years. We must not be so short-sighted to-day, and there is a danger that, without legislation such as that provided in this Bill, we might lose the benefit of some of our inventions, or allow our competitors to get ahead in developing them, simply because we lack the organisation to put them to proper use.
Medical research presents some difficulty, since the ethics of the profession prohibit its members from seeking any profit from a proprietary interest in medical products for the alleviation of disease. As a result, medical discoveries have been published for the free use of the world. But in many cases—for instance, when a drug has been discovered—the development of production methods has been done abroad, so that the application of our own discovery to the relief of suffering has cost us foreign royalties. Penicillin is a case in point, although here I must point out that our failure to develop the discovery in this country was due to war-time lack of facilities and labour, difficulties which did not apply overseas. Another reason for taking out our own patents is that, in some cases, licences granted under a patent would afford a valuable method of controlling the quality of vital medical products and of ensuring that these are made available: to the public as freely and cheaply as possible. The present Bill offers a solution to these difficulties, and in

571
this particular connection it has the support of the Medical Research Council, who have been anxious to see established a body of suitable trustees prepared to accept patents dedicated to them and to administer them in the best interests of the public as a whole. This is the part which it is proposed that the Corporation should play. University workers have their own pride in the disinterestedness of the research work which they do, and prefer to publish their discoveries. These sometimes contain valuable and patentable ideas.
For one reason and another, then, there are numerous occasions within the technological and scientific life of the country when the inventive process fails in getting an invention carried to the point where it becomes of practical use to industry, or when the valuable rights in the products of British brains are unnecessarily lost to this country. In the particular case of a steady stream of inventions, discoveries and new ideas flowing from Government or Government-financed research establishments, the Scientific Advisory Council suggested that an organisation, independent of Government Departments, should be created to take over inventions arising from Government research. The problem was also considered independently by Mr. Kenneth Swan's Committee on Patent Law who made a recommendation on similar lines. Since the war, the Departments concerned have given the matter detailed consideration and the present Bill is based on their recommendations. I should mention here that its proposals do not affect in any way the law of patents but legislation to amend the Patents and Designs Act is under consideration.
Clause 1 of the Bill creates the National Research Development Corporation, whose functions are defined as being, broadly, to secure the development and exploitation of inventions in the public interest and to deal in rights in inventions. The Corporation are given the power to act like any other commercial body in the execution of their business, but have no powers beyond those inherent in any other legal person or association under the laws of the country. In so far as they obtain their inventions from private persons, the Corporation have to do this by freely negotiated contract. Clause 2 deals with
572
the constitution of the Corporation. The directors are to be appointed by the President of the Board of Trade and will then, subject to his direction on general matters of policy and to certain other reserved powers, be left to exercise their independent judgment in carrying out their duties. In so doing, they will have to take into account the public interest, any general directions which they may be given, and the financial requirements in Clause 3 that the Corporation must, by and large, pay their way.
Clause 4 deals with the power of the Board of Trade to give directions to the Corporation, and provides that the Corporation shall seek the approval of the Board of Trade if they wish to engage in the actual manufacture, or the practical application in any other way, of an invention or to create a company for this purpose, or, indeed, to take an interest in any other commercial concern. The clause also requires the Corporation to make annually to the Board of Trade a report which the Board will lay before Parliament. Clause 5 provides for the case in which, for reasons of public policy, a Department wishes the Corporation to embark upon a project which the Corporation cannot easily reconcile with their general programme or, perhaps, within their obligations under Clause 3. In these circumstances, the Department concerned is authorised to reimburse the Corporation for any loss which may be sustained and to provide this money from its Vote.
Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 deal with the financial provisions of the Bill, and they are so clear that I am sure your Lordships do not require me to deal with them now. Clause 10 requires the Corporation to keep proper accounts and records, and requires an annual statement of account to be submitted after audit to the Board of Trade. A copy of this statement and audit report is to be laid before Parliament by the Board of Trade. I would like to say here that the proviso at the end of this clause regarding the withholding in the public interest of any part of this report, has been reconsidered by His Majesty's Government, and a Government Amendment proposing the deletion of this proviso will be tabled on the Committee stage. Clause 11 provides the mechanism for the transfer of money from the Consolidated Fund, and Clause 12 provides

573
for the payment of receipts into the Exchequer. The Schedule to the Bill makes various provisions for the proper constitution and operation of the Corporation.
The Corporation thus created will be empowered to accept inventions resulting from public research. Inventions resulting from research in Government Departments and, therefore, belonging entirely to the Government will be assigned to it. Research associations and other grant-aided bodies, under the terms of their grants, have various rights in their inventions, ranging up to complete possession. Nothing in this Bill destroys these rights but, if the people concerned are willing to assign them or part of them, the Corporation will be prepared to negotiate suitable terms with them. The Corporation may patent any of these inventions at home or abroad if they are not patented already; they may develop them by further experiment or pilot scale operation and, at an appropriate stage, will license them to industry on terms calculated to secure the maximum benefit to the economy and a reasonable return to the Crown; or they may license abroad on terms to bring in a good return to this country.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I ask the noble Viscount which clause he is speaking about?
VISCOUNT HALL: If the noble Viscount will wait, my noble friend Lord Chorley will deal with any point he wishes to raise.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I only wanted to follow what you were saying.
VISCOUNT HALL: I am dealing with the Schedule. In the case of a private invention likely to be of national value, the Corporation may negotiate the purchase of the whole interest or a share in the invention or of certain rights, say to the overseas patents arising from it. The terms of acquisition will be freely negotiated with the inventor. These inventions will then be treated in the same way. They will take over such inventions as may be offered to them by medical and university researchers, and we hope that, now that the Corporation offer an opportunity of patenting discoveries for other than private profit, the people working in those fields of
574
research will be willing to consider taking out patents rather more freely than they have done in the past. The Corporation, therefore, will usually exploit inventions through established industry, but, in the very exceptional case in which industry cannot see its way to take up an invention which the Corporation believe is good and valuable, the Corporation may arrange for manufacture, and distribution if necessary, on their own account. Before taking such a course, however, they will have to obtain the consent of the Board of Trade. The Corporation will, of course, concern themselves in this way only with their own inventions. They will not engage in the general manufacture or trading.
In all their doings the Corporation will necessarily act in the closest co-operation and agreement with the Departments concerned, with the universities and with every industry. The Federation of British Industries have been consulted and have expressed certain views on the Bill which I can assure them will receive full consideration. The Institute of Patent Agents support the principles of the Bill, the Trades Union Congress have also promised their support, and, as I have already said, the Bill has been welcomed by the Medical Research Council. I think it will be agreed that the Bill is a valuable one and I recommend it with confidence to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Hall.)
5.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the interesting and moderate introduction which the First Lord has given to this Bill has certainly led me to believe that his intentions are strictly honourable. I am bound to say that I listened to him with a good deal of relief because, on reading the Bill, I thought that the powers which are sought in it went a good way beyond the moderate and reasonable desires which the First Lord has expressed. We all want to encourage inventors, and we all want the development of inventions. I was delighted to hear the First Lord so definitely concur in this. I am sure that the development of inventions can best, and generally, indeed only, take place in industry. Nothing would be worse than to set up

575
a divorce between the Government and industry or between scientists and industry. We want them to be blood brothers. I am certain that progressive industry will always be alert for new processes and new inventions. Indeed, the noble Viscount said that we could not compete with foreign countries unless we had that. He might also have added (but it would have been a little indiscreet of him) that that ability to compete is best fostered by a system of competitive industry.
I must join issue with him on one of his historical memories. I had a good deal to do with the re-establishment of the dyestuffs industry in this country. The noble Viscount spoke of it as though what had happened was that an ingenious inventor had invented the aniline dye and a lazy country had failed to take advantage of it. As a matter of fact, what happened was that the industry was developed here. The dyestuff makers and the chemists of this country were the first to take advantage of it and were keen to do so; but, because no system of protection was allowed at that time to this industry, it was killed by competition. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, does not know. He learnt about this in the London School of Economics. I learnt about it in the hard school of experience, when I had to re-establish it. The industry was killed, and in the First World War how badly we needed it! And then how much more wise were we! It was one of those cases where the users thought the one thing that mattered was to buy their dyes in the cheapest market. The dyestuff industry had to be re-established, and we did re-establish it under a system of protection, with the wiser understanding that we were members one of another, in full partnership and collaboration with the colour users. Given that opportunity the industry went right ahead. We again became the best makers of dyestuffs in the world, and we were able to make them at competitive prices. As the noble Viscount the First Lord said, it is only an exceptional case where an invention is not fully developed. I am glad to note to-day that all those foolish ideas about universal one-sided free trade have gone by the board. The noble Viscount and I take a much more practical and national
576
view of the way in which to conduct the national effort.
The noble Viscount referred to the Swan Committee, who made a number of extremely practical recommendations. One of the things they did was to set at rest a number of rumours which were not at all well supported. One rumour which one often heard was that it was the habit of industry to acquire patents and to sit upon them and not develop them, and to deprive poor inventors of opportunity. The Swan Committee went into this matter very carefully. They went out into the by-ways and hedges and invited any inventors who had been so obstructed to come in, but they could not get any to do so. That was the odd thing.
In paragraph 24 of their First Report they said:
"Rumours of this practice are frequent,"
and they went on to say:
"but, in spite of our endeavours to obtain it, no satisfactory evidence of particular examples has been forthcoming. Several persons who have made public statements about the suppression of inventions were invited to give evidence before us but did not accept the invitation."
That sort of thing, of course, often happens when an inquiry is conducted into general allegations. The Report proceeded:
"We have formed the opinion that this type of restriction has been much exaggerated…"
The Committee said later in their Report that they thought that probably the rumours were
"generally due to the unfulfilled expectations of over-sanguine inventors."
They further said that they thought some amendment of Section 27 of the Patents Act was desirable, not because they thought it allowed inventions to be suppressed in this way, but because they thought there was some doubt as to whether the wording of the section did, in fact, cover all the mischief with which it was intended to deal. I am glad to hear that this has been considered, and I hope that it will get further than mere consideration. We had a very good Act in the Companies' Act, and an amendment of the Patents Law would be a better contribution to industrial efficiency and development in this country than some

577
other controversial measures which I can think of, which may also be in contemplation but which, perhaps, have not yet reached a more advanced stage than that.
I was interested to learn that this Bill is not intended to trench upon the provisions of the Patents Law. I take it that what the noble Viscount means is that if there is some invention which has not been exploited and advantage ought to be taken of Section 27 of the Patents Act, then, under the Bill, the Corporation will be entitled, just as any individual is entitled to-day, to make application to the Comptroller for permission to exploit the derelict or unused patent. Incidentally, it is interesting to observe that in the United States the tendency to seek protection by patents is, I think, rather falling into desuetude. The tendency over there, when a new process is discovered, is now not to take out a patent to protect it but rather to rely on being first in the field and having the know-how. I have been given in America some very interesting examples—I will not trouble the House with them now—of cases in which, when entirely new processes have been discovered, companies put them into practice right away, without bothering to patent them at all. They do not rely on protection by patent but on the fact of being first in the field; and they have confidence that, having obtained a start, they will be able to keep their lead in the exploitation and development of the processes.
Now I wish to turn for a moment to the language of the Bill, because, after all, it is the language that matters. What we pass are not the very reasonable intentions which have been expressed by the noble Viscount—most of which I share—but the: provisions expressed in this Bill. I speak as a layman or, at any rate, as one who has not been a lawyer for a long time, and therefore I am subject to correction. But, as I understand, the Corporation have to act under Clause 1 (1) (a) whenever they think it desirable in "the public interest." But "public interest" is not defined. I agree that probably it is an almost impossible thing to define, although we think we know it when we see it. Of course,"public interest" will be whatever the Corporation think. Every Government and all Ministers say they are acting in the public interest. In fact public interest is, if undefined, what each
578
of us thinks it desirable to do. Therefore, we want to make no mistake—public interest will be what the Corporation think ought to be done.
To be frank, I am not greatly relieved of any anxiety in that respect when the noble Viscount says (I think this comes under Clause 4) that the Board of Trade may give the Corporation any directions. I do not know that I should regard that as necessarily being inspired writ. But the very wide powers which the Corporation are to have will be exercised without appeal. If the noble Viscount is right (and I feel sure he is right in saying that this is the intention) about the Bill giving no compulsory power of any kind to the Corporation, but that anything which: he Corporation do by way of acquiring a patent or a process has to be done by free voluntary agreement between the Corporation and the owner of the patent or process, then, of course, I agree that there is no case for going to arbitration. Obviously, in such circumstances, nothing will be taken over unless there is a freely negotiated agreement between the Corporation and the owner. I hope that is true, but I am bound to say that I find it a little difficult to understand why such a lot is said in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 1. One might have supposed that it would be sufficient to say that the Corporation shall have power to enter into an agreement with any owner of a patent or process or invention to acquire that patent, process or invention and, if the Corporation acquire it, to exploit it.
The words are rather curious. Paragraph (a) says that it is a function of the Corporation to secure:
"…where the public interest so requires, the development or exploitation of inventions resulting from public research, and of any other invention as to which it appears to the Corporation that it is not being developed or exploited or sufficiently developed or exploited;"
I am bound to say that that looks as though the Corporation are to have some power to develop an invention if they think that it is not being developed or exploited, or sufficiently developed and exploited. Paragraph (b) sets out that the Corporation shall also have the function:
"of acquiring, holding, disposing of and granting rights (whether gratuitously, or for consideration) in connection with inventions resulting from public research "—

579
those would belong to it anyhow—
"and, where the public interest so requires, in connection with inventions resulting from other sources."
I should like to be reassured that there is to be no compulsory acquisition of any sort or kind. If I am told that that is the intention, I shall be quite content that the lawyers shall look at this and see that no compulsory powers of any kind are implied in the Bill.
Then I turn to another power, the power to carry on any activity which the Corporation regard as convenient. This is provided for in Clause 1 (3). This states that they shall be able to carry on any activity:
"…convenient for or in connection with the exercise of their said functions, and in particular may carry on, or promote or facilitate the carrying on by other persons, of any business."
On the face of it that means that when they have acquired a patent right they may set up a factory, using Government credit and the taxpayers' money in the establishing of the industry. If I understood him aright, the noble Viscount said, very fairly, that though there would be that power under the Bill, when it was a case of exploiting an invention commercially, it was the intention of the Corporation to do it through an existing industry.
I agree with the noble Viscount that that is the right way. I leave aside the pure defence invention, which may be best dealt with in a Government establishment—though it may well be that even that is best dealt with in industry. For instance, in the case of an aircraft invention, probably the only practical way of developing it would be to pick the best firm in the industry or make it common to all firms and see that the invention is used. It is quite easy for the State to recoup its expenditure—I did it very often—by arranging with the firm that the development charges shall be added to the purchase price of the finished article. I would say, do not hesitate to pick the best, and make sure you are using the best. I do not want to go into Committee points in any detail now, but if what I have indicated is the intention, it ought to be further explained. If I may suggest so, it would be wise to put down something on these lines to express the intention of the noble Viscount and myself—namely, that where an invention is to be exploited
580
commercially, the Corporation will seek to do it on proper terms through existing industry. And if they cannot get it done that way and think it ought to be done, then I agree they should have the power to do it themselves.
I want to turn for a moment to the expression "public research." A distinction is made, but if there is to be no compulsory power, I do not know why the distinction is made. In Clause 1 (2) it says that
"the expression 'public research' means research carried out by a Government department…."
It seems to me to be quite obvious that, if the whole of the research is conducted by a Government Department, the product of that research is the property of the Government. No question can arise there. The subsection goes on to say that "public research" also means research carried out by any "other public body." I am advised that "public body" would include any research association instituted and conducted by an industry, even if it received no Government money. I do not think the words "financial assistance…provided out of public funds" are intended to cover that case; those words relate to "any other research." I would like to know whether that is so. In any case, suppose we have a research institution established by an individual firm or by the whole of an industry (as I am glad to say is so often the case) which receives some modest grant, say 5 per cent., from Government funds, is it not true that that grant would bring it within these words "public body"? If that is so, is there a special power exercised under this Bill? The subsection finally says that "public research" also means:
"any other research in respect of which financial assistance is provided out of public funds."
I am sure it cannot be intended that the Corporation are to have arbitrary powers over inventions coming from all those sources.
I think it is common ground that it is greatly in the interests of the Government and of industry that there should be the closest co-operation between industries and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and other Government research organisations. If this Bill is left so drafted that it leaves doubt as to what are the powers of this Corporation, then

581
it may well be that the existing co-operation between industry and the different research organisations of the Government will be jeopardised, and industry, not unreasonably anxious and suspicious, might be chary of giving that full co-operation which we want to see. I am sure that is not the intention and the desire of the Government, and we should see that the Bill is in a form which will make that clear.
I am glad that the proviso to Clause 10 is to be struck out. I could not see any point in it. If this institution is to go on and do its job, obviously there ought to be a report about it. If there were anything which concerned security, I should not ask for it. But obviously it should be subject to the light of day. I think I have said enough to show that, subject to any further assurances we may receive, and indeed apart from them, we wish to make sure that the terms of the Bill are what we want them to be, and we shall have to consider them carefully in Committee stage. We wish to make sure that the Bill does state and limit what is our common intention. It certainly would be wrong to give delegated powers to this Corporation wider than I hope and believe it is our common intention to give.
5.27 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, not only on the manner in which he introduced this Bill, but on the Bill itself. It is of immense importance. I do not think its importance could be exaggerated. With respect to the noble Viscount who has just resumed his seat, I do not think he quite appreciated how important the Bill is from a certain point of view, which he may not altogether hold. Nevertheless, from his speech, I thought some warning was given that there will be an attempt to emasculate the Bill in this House. I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, is prepared to stand firmly against any interference with the fundamental principles in this highly important measure.
It is a significant Bill, certainly as important from our point of view on this side of the House as any of the schemes of nationalisation brought in by the present Government. And I will explain in a moment why. In the past and up to the present time, a great many inventions have been discovered through
582
Government research, but though of great value, they have not been of sufficient profit or interest to commercial interests and they have been neglected and allowed to languish. Valuable inventions were neglected to our great loss. I will leave the question of aniline dyes to my noble friend, Lord Chorley, who knows the subject much better than I do. In any case, the reason why we lost the industry of making aniline dyes is very different from that put forward by the noble Viscount, who said we lost it because we had not got protection, because we were a Free Trade country. The reason is entirely different. It was a flagrant case of national neglect.
The majority of research is now carried on by the Government itself in the defence Ministries and elsewhere, and we badly need this Corporation. It will have powers to examine and offer to industry such inventions made during Government research if desirable; but, above all, to see that worth-while inventions, made under Government auspices by the Government-controlled and employed scientists, are properly developed for the good of the nation, even if commercial interests are not prepared to exploit such inventions.
In this connection may I for a moment follow the lines of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, on the last Bill which we discussed this afternoon? A lot will depend on the personnel of this Corporation. The only question I am going to ask the noble Lord, Lord Chorley—who I understand is to reply—is whether the appointment of the chairman of the Corporation, who will be the most important person, will be a whole-time appointment. He will be far more important than the managing director, and I submit that it is necessary for that appointment to be a whole-time one. I would prefer to see a small Corporation. The numbers mentioned are between four and ten, but I would rather see a smaller Corporation of whole-time directors. The most successful companies in private industries are those which have boards of only whole-time directors, and I should have thought that that was desirable in this case. The reason why the chairman is so important is that it is he who, if necessary, can make or recommend a change in the post of managing director. He is the man who will know, or ought to know, whether the managing director can be improved upon.

583
At one stage of my career I had a good deal to do with inventors. When I was in the Planning Division of the Admiralty war staff during the First World War one of my jobs (this may possibly interest the First Lord) was to "vet." new inventions. In many cases I had to see the inventors as well. Some of them were most difficult people, and a good deal of patience was required to deal with them. Indeed, it has been said that all inventors are more or less mad, or they would not be inventors. A person of special qualifications is required to be the managing director of this Corporation, and I suggest that the chairman should be a whole-time official, at any rate in the first years, in order to see that we really have the right man there. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, talked of industry and inventors as being blood-brothers.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I said that I hoped to see a complete brotherhood and partnership in this matter between the Government and industry.
LORD STRABOLGI: I hope so, too. I took it down as "between the inventors and industry." The inventors and industry have not always behaved to each other as blood-brothers. I am afraid there have been far too many cases where valuable inventions have been put into cold storage because they cut across the vested interests of powerful corporations. I will take the liberty of quoting to your Lordships one or two very startling cases. The zip fastener was patented first of all in 1879. Its development was blocked, very naturally, no doubt, by the button-making interests. They took out blocking patents, and that kind of thing. That is a practice which is well known, not only in this country but also in the United States of America. It was only in the First World War, when the zips were needed for ammunition carriers or containers, that they came into general use. War always stimulates invention, and does away with the prejudices and blockages against interesting inventions. It was only after 1918, as a result of experience in the First World War, and the utilisation of the zip fastener, that it came into commercial use. Up till then, between 1879, when it was first patented, and the time when it was first put on the market on a large scale after the First World War, the modern woman was no
584
better off than Queen Cleopatra, who had all the wealth of the gorgeous East to draw upon, but had not the zip fastener. Neither had the modern woman the zip fastener until the war-time necessity for a quick fastening device brought it on the market, against the opposition of the button-making interests.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Had the patent lasted for forty years?
LORD STRABOLGI: No, of course it had not. No patent can last for more than fifteen years. But subsidiary patents can be taken out. The noble Viscount probably knows a good deal more about patents than I do but I know some of the devices used. I am told that even to-day what is called the everlasting match—the match that can be used a great number of times; I am told up to one hundred times—has been prevented from being put on the market by blocking patents, at the instance of the match-manufacturing interests, even at a time when we are woefully short of timber.
The noble Viscount referred to the United States of America. The Federal Communications Commission in 1937 found that the Bell Telephone Company had suppressed no fewer than 3,400 patents, simply to forestall competition. The noble Viscount said that it has become more usual not to take out patents in the United States. That is because it is notorious in the United States that the only thing that matters in the protection of patent rights is 10,000,000 dollars.
In passing, I was glad to hear my noble friend say that it was proposed to introduce a Bill to improve the existing patent laws in this country. I do not think I shall be contradicted when I say that in the engineering and commercial world in the past, the British patent practice has not been held in such high regard as that of Germany or America. When an important patent is under consideration, I believe that the first question asked in the engineering world is: "What is the American and German patent position?" In referring to the German patent position, of course, I am speaking about the years between the wars, and before the First World War. I am informed also (this is another example of the "very rare cases" referred to by the noble Viscount where there has been any stoppage on the use of inventions for commercial interests) that the Wellsbach Mantle was blocked for

585
years by the gas interests because it used less gas. Those are just one or two examples, and I have reason to believe there are many others.
My noble friend Lord Hall referred to the intentions with regard to the discoveries that will be made or have been made by public servants. Again, there is a great need for a better system and practice, and I am glad to see that this Bill contains the necessary clause to deal with that side of the subject. In the First World War the famous Mr. Contanesco, who invented the synchronised firing gear for the machine-gun (many of your Lordships will remember that invention, and the great difference that it made to our Air Force) also invented a pump for diesel engines. The diesel engine was at that time beginning to come into large-scale use. He gave the discovery gratis to the Government, on condition that particulars were not published. Great use was made of Mr. Contanesco's invention, but by some mistake it was published. The German Bosche Company immediately possessed themselves of it; they quickly took out the necessary patents, and exploited the use of this diesel engine pump, in the comparatively modern type of diesel engine coming into general use, all over the world. On a smaller scale, that is another example of the sad story of the aniline dyes.
This Bill is also important for the poor man who produces a useful invention, perhaps one of great value, and finds it impossible, for one reason or another, to secure financial backing, or if—and I suppose it will be possible to deal with cases of this kind—he has come to an arrangement with a powerful corporation and the invention, because it cuts across existing processes or other vested interests, or would render obsolete existing methods, is put into cold storage, blocking patents are taken out, or it is otherwise neglected. Then, if the unfortunate inventor tries to go to law, he finds himself handicapped by having to fight a wealthy corporation who are prepared to take the case all through the courts, to employ the best patent experts and lawyers to look after their vested interests, and to spend unlimited money. The handicap against an inventor in the face of great and sometimes unscrupulous companies has always been a menace in the past. Not only has the individual suffered, but the whole
586
nation has suffered. I have quoted one or two cases and others have been quoted by my noble friend, the First Lord. If we can really free the genius of the British people, which is unsurpassed in this field, and allow free development of inventions which are made over the next decade, it will be of tremendous importance to this country. In saying that our genius is unsurpassed, I am not exaggerating. In the last century and a half this country has led the world in invention, but we have not always been alert or, I am sorry to say, in some cases over scrupulous in the way in which those inventions have been utilised and developed.
I said just now that war always stimulated invention, and that is true. It is one of the few good things that can be said about the practice of warfare. It not only stimulates invention, but it leads to the rapid development of new discoveries. It sweeps away all the artificial commercial obstructions in the way of its use. But to have a war in order to stimulate invention is rather like burning down the house to have roast pig. This Bill, if it is properly administered and properly supported and is not cut about too much by the spokesmen of the F.B.I, and others in this House, will be able to do what war in the past has done: to give a tremendous stimulus and speed up to the development and use of inventions In this world, as things are now, our economic situation requires the greatest use to be made of one of our most valuable assets, the inventive brains of the British people.
5.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I should like to add something on this topic, because I had a good deal to do with patents at one time in my life, and because, as a result of what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said, I think there is a certain misconception in his mind and quite likely in the minds of many others as to the real object of this Bill. I agree with him that it is a Bill of the greatest importance, though I do not think I have come to that conclusion upon the same grounds as the noble Lord. I also agree that there are many abuses in connection with the patent law of this country and, I may add, of all other countries with which I am acquainted. It is almost impossible to deal with all of those abuses. Patents may be taken out in all countries

587
for some object other than the development of the invention which is the subject of the patent. If my memory serves me correctly, some of those abuses were pointed out in the Report of my friend, Mr. Kenneth Swan, and I hope and believe that some of them will be dealt with in the Patents Bill which is to be brought before this House at, I hope, an early date. I have not seen a draft of that Bill and I do not know what it contains, but I hope that it will deal with some of the abuses which exist in this country and are capable of being dealt with by law. Many of them cannot be, but one has to do one's best. I hope that rich corporations will not in future take out patents by the hundred for some reason other than the exploitation of a particular invention.
Why I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in his view of the Bill is this. Speaking as a lawyer, I do not think that Clause I of the Bill is so framed as to give any power of compulsory purchase, nor do I believe it was intended to give any such power. There is nothing of the sort in the Bill. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 1 are in the nature of a memorandum of association in the case of a company, and are intended to convey the objects for which the Corporation is to be established. You must look in other clauses—if you can find them—to find how those powers, which are not compulsory powers of exploitation or anything of the sort, are to be exercised. If I have not yet said it, I will say this at once: I think the objects of the Bill are completely admirable, and will fulfil a long-felt need in this country for assistance in connection with the exploitation of inventions. I think we all agree that the inventions of this country are equal to those of any other country, and have in many respects revolutionised industry all over the world. We have heard about dyes, and I am not going to travel into that topic, but it was the celebrated Mr. Perkins, who was a brewer's assistant, who started the great dyestuff industry by his invention.
What I would suggest to the noble Viscount the First Lord is that the Bill does not fully explain its objects, and may I say (for I suppose the tenth time in this House), it is a bad principle to have excellent intentions in a Bill and not to limit, define or explain what those intentions
588
are. In this Bill there is practically nothing that the Corporation will not be able to do except exercise compulsory powers. They will not possess compulsory powers, but the ordinary rights they will have—with the consent, of course, of the Board of Trade—are to go into industry and carry on practically any industry in the world. I am quite sure that that is not intended. I would humbly submit to the Government that it will do the Bill no harm, but will do it a great deal of good if, by some Amendments, they define a little more in detail the nature of the functions which the Corporation are intended to carry out under Clause 1.
I hope the Government will understand that I do not think—and I know my noble friend Lord Swinton does not think—that this is a Party matter at all. We are simply interested in getting this Bill—which we both think is an admirable Bill—so framed that the ordinary inventor in a little workshop in the country who has discovered something of value or who has done something in connection with his employment by the Government on some project or other, without the necessity of going to a lawyer, may find out what the Bill empowers the Corporation to do. Inventors should be able to understand the Bill in general terms, and should know that they can go to a certain address in London or elsewhere and ask for assistance. I am not going through all the points that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton has put before your Lordships, but I have a burning desire to help. I have known a number of cases, and if it were not so late an hour I could give your Lordships an account of some of them, in which a private inventor has actually made an invention of first-rate value. He has patented it on paying the fees for obtaining a patent in the first case, but has got nothing out of it; then somebody else, some other corporation or the like, has made millions—I am not exaggerating—by the development of the invention, simply because the unfortunate man has not been able to find anyone to help him to pay the renewal fees.
One of the most valuable patents ever made was made by such an inventor, who received nothing for it; but, because he was one of the very best inventors, he patented some other inventions which gave him some advantage. The patent I

589
am thinking of, the triode valve, would, if he had been able to keep it as a patent and had been able to get it accepted and exploited, have been worth millions of pounds. I have known other people, in a much smaller way, who have suffered from the same disadvantage. Everybody of that kind who has made an invention wants to get it patented at once, and he can obtain, very cheaply, provisional protection. I am not sure whether your Lordships are aware that if such a man makes, say, £5 worth of goods by the use of his invention, and those goods are sold by a chemist or by an engineering shop anywhere in the country, that is a publication in law of his patent, and after that date he cannot obtain for it a valid patent. The result is that it is absolutely essential for anyone in this country who invents something to secure protection for it.
All these people who are covered by the phrase:
"…and of any other invention as to which it appears to the Corporation that it is not being developed or exploited…."
will, with very few exceptions, if they have any sense at all, obtain either a provisional or a complete protection for their patent. If they go to Whitehall or elsewhere, and tell many people about this invention, there is always a chance of its being published in some form or other, or of the matter leaking out in such a way that the patent will become useless. The great value of this Bill is that people who are with or without any protection can apply for assistance from the Corporation; otherwise, they may be totally unable to have their patent exploited. Those are the people who have to be helped. Their whole future, in many cases, may depend on the assistance of the Corporation in the exploitation of the invention.
The result of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be a tremendous infusion of courage into people who are engaged in any form of industry, if they have an inventive mind. At present they are told: "It is no good making your invention, because it will cost you perhaps £10,000 or £100,000 to get it on the market." Under the terms of this Bill, if the invention is really good, the inventor will be able to complete it in a form in which it is capable of being understood by third
590
parties and will take it round to the Corporation. I am a wholehearted supporter of this measure, and your Lord-ships need not think that anything I say is intended as in any way "crabbing" the importance of the Bill. I do feel, however, that it is quite wrong in a Bill of this sort, which is chiefly dealing with patents, to omit the word "patent" from the Bill. I believe that laymen who read this Bill for the first time will think that it has nothing to do with patents, whereas the whole Bill is really devoted to the matter of patents. It does not say so; it calls them "inventions." But inventions are the subject matter of patents, and cannot be safeguarded with out patents.
It is for that reason that I earnestly urge the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill to see whether there cannot be some elucidation of what he said in the latter part of his speech in introducing the measure. I cannot find in the Bill the matter to which the noble Viscount referred in the latter part of his speech, when he was explaining the provisions of subsection (1). Perhaps he could put the matter right by some Amendment. If so I shall be satisfied. At present, I am inclined to think that, perhaps because of a desire to economise in paper, the real object of the Bill is to be found in the speech of the noble Viscount rather than in the Bill itself. I am unwilling to put down any Amendment to this Bill, but I hope the noble Viscount will take advice and make the Bill a little more intelligible to the ordinary layman.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
6.0 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:
Palestine,
Army and Air Force (Annual).
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL.
6.14 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, we are very gratified at the welcome which has been given to this Bill, and for the recognition of its importance. The speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was perhaps not quite so enthusiastic as one had hoped, but I think that the reason for that was, not because he did not really welcome the objects of the Bill, but because he had some doubts as to some of the phraseology employed and was not quite sure that the objectives which were so lucidly and charmingly put before your Lordships by my noble friend were being carried into effect by the words of the Bill. I hope I may be able to satisfy him on that point, and that he will feel able to go away from your Lordships' House with a song in his heart.
I do not propose to follow the noble Viscount into the history of Sir William Perkins and the aniline dye industry, much as I should like to do so. I would assure him that I am not so closely associated with the completely laissez-faire views which are worshipped by some of my colleagues at a place which he mentioned. Then he referred to the problem of suppressed industries, about which, undoubtedly, a good deal of uninformed nonsense has been talked from time to time. There can be no doubt that there have been a number of cases—much more so in the United States than in this country—of patents having been purchased by concerns for the purpose of suppressing them. But there is certainly no widespread buying up of patents in that way. I think everybody who has taken the trouble to make a real investigation into this matter, at any rate in this country, has been satisfied of that fact.
The real problem, of course, is that to which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, referred—namely, the problem of the man who, for one reason or another, having had a brilliant idea and having performed a considerable amount of work upon it, does not possess the financial backing which, particularly in the conditions of modern industry, is required to get it exploited, and who is not able to find a business concern which is prepared to put up that financial support. In connection with this problem
592
of patents and inventions, the noble Viscount also referred to the question of Section 27, of the existing Patents and Designs Acts, The Patents and Designs Acts, of course, deal with patents, but the wide problem is one in relation to the efficient and successful exploitation of the inventions themselves.
As your Lordships are aware, the Swan Committee devoted a great deal of attention to that problem. Their recommendations cover a substantial part of their Report. They made careful investigation into the whole matter, and it is quite clear from what they say, and from the history of this section (which, in rather different terms, has been on the Statute Book, I think, for over thirty years), that the section is quite ineffective. I understand that there have been only four cases in which it has actually been brought into operation. The matter is receiving very close attention from my right honourable friend, the President of the Board of Trade, but, in the words used from time to time by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, it would be as much as my place is worth to give an undertaking that legislation will be introduced in the next Session. However, the noble Viscount can be quite sure that it will not be so far distant, and that real and active attention is being given to this difficult problem.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Perhaps it is on the far horizon.
LORD STRABOLGI: Perhaps in the middle distance.
LORD CHORLEY: I should hope that perhaps it is in the middle distance. But the noble Viscount must not tempt me to forfeit my place by leading me up the garden path. The problem of Section 27 of the Patents and Designs Acts has nothing to do with the Bill which is before your Lordships' House to-day. The Corporation which it sets up will have exactly the same rights as anybody else to make use of the rather ineffective procedure which is in Section 27. Lord Strabolgi raised this question. They will certainly be in a position to apply to the Comptroller for a compulsory licence to work a patent which has not been effectively used for the reason set out in Section 27; but they will have no other rights than those of any other person. Indeed, as has been pointed out, that is the general position under this Bill. I think

593
the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, really gave the answer to the most important question which was asked by Viscount Swinton, who wanted to be quite certain that the Bill confers no powers of compulsory acquisition of patents upon the Corporation. He kindly gave me notice of that beforehand. I have taken advice, and I am satisfied that that is so. Of course, I admit that what I say carries very little weight, compared with the opinion of one of the greatest authorities in the land, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham.
The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, raised the question of "public interest." The Bill says, "where the public interest so requires." Of course, this part of the Bill is concerned with the sort of case which may easily arise in connection with inventions in the domain of medicine, particularly cases in which it might well be that the financial return would not warrant the expenditure by an ordinary commercial concern of the money necessary to exploit the invention, but where clearly it might be in the public interest—as was, in fact, the case during the war years—that inventions of that kind should be exploited. That is the sort of case that is particularly envisaged by these words in the Bill. The noble Viscount asked for an assurance that, so far as possible, the exploitation would take place through existing industry. I think that that assurance has already been given to him by my noble friend Lord Hall. I am glad to repeat it, but whether it would be possible to put into the Bill words which would provide for that I very much doubt. However, I shall be pleased to look at this matter with the noble Viscount. It is obviously exceedingly difficult, and it would not be right to lay down as a matter of statutory obligation that in every single case there should be, so to speak, the first right in an industry to exploit an invention. I am sure that the noble Viscount himself would hardly ask for that.
Lord Swinton referred—and very properly referred—to the fact, which is of great importance, that in those cases which involve the subsidisation of outside interests, or the setting up of works for the purpose of exploiting these inventions, the sanction of the Board of Trade must first be obtained. That, of course, is an essential element in the whole scheme con-
594
tained in the Bill. The noble Viscount, I gather, was not altogether satisfied with the Board of Trade. I think he said that their directions were not necessarily inspired writ. That of course is so. I am sure that when he himself was President—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: They were not inspired writ, even then!
LORD CHORLEY: I was not going to say that they were completely inspired then, but perhaps they were more inspired than they have been at some other times. I am sure that the noble Viscount will appreciate that very great care and attention will always be given to these cases by the present President of the Board of Trade and by any other occupant of that high and honourable office.
The noble Viscount also referred to the question of public research, and asked about its definition. The matter is dealt with in Clause 1 (2) of the Bill. The noble Viscount was anxious to have an assurance that other public bodies would not be deprived of rights which they had acquired by the financing and carrying out of work upon inventions in connection with industry.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that what I really asked was: What is the right definition of "public body"? Does that cover every research institution set up by an industry?
LORD CHORLEY: Yes, that is so, I was coming to that. I think the reason the noble Viscount asked the question was that he wanted to be assured that the work done by such associations would not be, so to speak, stolen from them by the Corporation. That, of course, is part of the same question that he put when he spoke of compulsory powers. An association like the Shirley Institute, or whoever else it may be, is in the same position as anyone else, and if the Corporation wish to make use of some invention which the association has, the Corporation can do so only after bargaining and by paying a proper consideration. I think that that is clear. The point is that in cases where an invention is a result of research of this kind, public research, the intention is that the Corporation shall do their best to enter the field. In a case where they are hoping to exploit the patent of an individual they will enter

595
the field only when industry has not first done so. In other words, the idea is to protect ordinary industry, to give ordinary industry the first opportunity of exploiting a non-Government patent. Putting it in another form, we are going a long way to meet the outlook which noble Lords opposite represent. I am sorry the noble Viscount should be a little suspicious. I suppose he says, Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: NO, I am not at all suspicious of the noble Lord. I did not appreciate that he was offering me a gift. What I should like to know is what he means by "entering the field." If he means that in all those cases where the Government have been concerned in the research, or even if he limits it to where the invention is the result of work in a Government Department, the Corporation should engage in the process of manufacture, then I think that we shall be poles apart. I leave aside the question of whether something should be done by a Royal dockyard or a Government establishment of that sort. What I think would be very wrong would be for this Corporation to set up a competing industry in order to exploit an invention, whether the invention was found in a Government workshop, in a mixed laboratory—if I may use that term—or in private enterprise. I am not now speaking of Socialism and private enterprise. What I am thinking of is the expenditure of Government money. I feel that the right thing to do would be to see wehther one of the existing industries would carry on the development of the invention. If that cannot be done, then, and then only, should the Corporation start in the business and set up manufacturing on an industrial scale.
LORD CHORLEY: I am glad to assure the noble Viscount that, in carrying out the powers conferred by this Bill, it is the general intention that the Corporation shall be in the closest touch with industry. If it appears that there are facilities in industry which can efficiently exploit a patent, whether it is obtained from a Government Department or from a trade association, the course that will be taken will be to entrust the patent to that industry.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then I think we are very near together.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, stressed the tremendous importance of this Bill. Clearly, if it is operated efficiently and with good will between the Corporation and industry it can be of tremendous importance. I was very gratified that the noble and learned Viscount, who has had so much experience both at the Chancery Bar and as a Judge in the Chancery Court in connection with patent litigation, should have felt himself able to take just as strong a line in favour of the essential importance of this Bill as my noble friend, Lord Strabolgi. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked for an assurance in respect of the qualifications of the chairman of the Corporation and asked that he should be a full-time chairman. I do not think any final decision has been taken on that point. There is a great deal in the arguments he placed before your Lordships' House. On the other hand, it may well be, particularly in the earlier stages, that it will not be necessary to have a full-time chairman, or it may be that the ideal chairman will be a man not in a position to give whole-time service. But I assure the noble Lord that his arguments will receive careful consideration. The personnel of the Corporation will be of great importance to the effective administration of the Bill. I assure the noble Lord that the object which my right honourable friend has in view is to bring the experts into one team to carry out the intentions of the Bill.
The noble Lord, referred to the inventive genius of our people. It is undoubtedly the case that we possess that inventive genius. The patenting system itself was invented in this country. Our patenting legislation dates from the reign of James I and has been copied in many parts of the world. The isolated invention is giving way to the type of team work to which the noble Viscount referred. In many industries the isolated invention is of no importance. Invention is a matter of building up an immense expertise and "know-how" and that is a matter the Corporation will have closely in mind. The noble Viscount asked for an assurance in respect of the drafting of the Bill, particularly of Clause I, which is the most important clause in the Bill and sets out its purpose. The noble Viscount considered it was not sufficiently explicit. He said that some of the activities to which my noble friend referred in his opening

597
speech were not set out in the words of the Bill. That is so, but they are derived from the "memorandum of association," as it were. The noble Viscount knows from his own experience that it is sometimes unwise to try to set out every single thing a trading or manufacturing company is to do. But we shall be glad to look at those words and, I hope, with his assistance, if he may be persuaded to help us, to find more satisfactory words. I assure the noble Viscount that when he says that many poor inventors have failed to receive the fruits of their efforts, we on this side of the House are very much with him. Indeed, it is one of the main objects of this Bill that inventors shall in future have a real run for their money. I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BILL.
6.32 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
Clause 16 [Re-establishment Centres]:
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 15, after ("case") insert ("may").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Accommodation in reception centres in special cases]:
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 8, leave out ("should") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Transitional provisions]:
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this Amendment is also a drafting one. It is necessitated by the insertion of the new Clause 18. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 36, leave out ("Section seventeen") and insert ("Sections seventeen and eighteen").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
ANIMALS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, before we adjourn, I would remind the House that there will be a formal silting at four o'clock to-morrow.
BEVERLEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.

ELECTORAL REGISTRATION REGULATIONS, 1948.
Regulations, dated April 28, 1948, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Parliamentary Electors (War-time Registration) Act, 1943, the Representation of the People Act, 1945, and the Elections and Jurors Act, 1945:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CHARGE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1948.
Regulations, dated April 28, 1948, made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.