HL Deb 06 May 1948 vol 155 cc685-90

4.11 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Chorley.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

The National Research Development Corporation.

(2) In this Act— the expression "invention" includes any new process or new technique;

VISCOUNT SWINTON had given Notice to move, in subsection (2), after "technique" to insert: whether patented or not, including inventions not capable of being patented.

The noble Viscount said: I am sorry to say that my noble and learned friend Viscount Maugham, who was to have moved this Amendment, is not well, and in his absence I will do my best with these legal Amendments. With your Lordships' permission, I would move the first Amendment in the following form: Page 2, line 3, at end insert (" and shall be construed without regard to whether or not a patent has been or could be granted ").

The object of this Amendment, as my learned and noble friend said last time, is to make it plain not only that the Bill deals with patents to the limited extent which he indicated, but, what is more important, that the Corporation will be able to deal with an invention whether it is patentable or not. There are cases where, because of some anticipation, a person is not entitled to patent a perfectly good invention. At the same time, it may be greatly in the national interest that that invention should be developed here. Obviously, the Corporation ought to have power to deal with such a case. I am advised that the words I have proposed cover both those points, and with your Lordships' permission I will therefore move the Amendment in that form.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 3, at end insert ("and shall be construed without regard to whether or not a patent has been or could be granted").—(Viscount Swinton.)

LORD CHORLEY

I am glad to say that we can accept this Amendment. The noble and learned Viscount, whose absence we all regret, put the first point clearly in his speech on the Second Reading. There is also the second and more important point, and with exquisite mark-manship he has killed the two birds with one shot.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to add to the clause: (4) Nothing in this section shall authorise the Corporation to do or cause to be done anything which would involve an infringement of the patent rights of any person.

The noble Viscount said: The noble Viscount, the First Lord of the Admiralty, said on Second Reading that there was no intention under the Bill of infringing any patent right. If our legal advisers tell us that this matter is also provided for sufficiently in the Bill, and that there is no possibility under the terms of the Bill of the patent right being infringed, then I think I may properly be advised that it would be undesirable to insert these words. I have in mind the point that if the Bill states that one thing if, not to be done, it may be assumed that various other things can be done. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who is a more experienced lawyer than I am, could advise me whether this is or is not a sound Amendment, and I will act as the Government advise. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 15, at end insert the said subsection."—(Viscount Swinton.)

LORD CHORLEY

As the noble Viscount has indicated, there are technical difficulties attaching to the form in which this Amendment is moved. I feel flattered at his suggestion that I am more capable of advising the House than he is himself, but I am myself advised that the difficulty which he has indicated is a real one. We have, of course, no intention that the Corporation shall have powers of compulsory acquisition on the lines suggested, but it is true that the insertion of these words might raise the difficulty which the noble Viscount has indicated.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

And there is no power of infringement under the Bill as drafted?

LORD CHORLEY

Under the Bill as drafted there is no such power.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

In that case I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to add to the clause: (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section the Corporation shall not engage in manufacture in connection with an invention unless they are satisfied that it is impracticable to arrange for such manufacture by a suitable person or organisation.

The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment of more substance, but one upon which I am equally sure the Government will be prepared to meet what I know is the general intention on both sides of the House. The object of the Amendment is to limit the power of manufacture, and it is drafted in order to carry out the policy laid down by the noble Viscount the First Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, on the Second Reading. Your Lordships may recollect that when the Bill was before us on Second Reading, the noble Viscount, the First Lord of the Admiralty, said (column 574 of Hansard): 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. That undertaking was entirely satisfactory to me as an expression of intention, but, as I said on Second Reading, I thought it would be wise that we should make that intention plain when we came to the Committee stage of the Bill.

The common intention was made still clearer by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, when he replied. I had said: 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. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, replied: 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. I said: Then I think we are very near together. I am quite sure we are not only near together but in complete agreement that the common intention ought to find its place in the Bill. As the Bill is drafted, this new Corporation—to which I wish every success in its proper sphere—would have an almost unlimited power of manufacture. I am quite sure that that is not intended. It would be limited only to the extent of a revolving credit of £5,000,000—and you can do a lot with a revolving credit of £5,000,000. I am equally sure that when the First Lord gives an undertaking as to what is going to be done, that undertaking will be honoured to the full, and not only in the letter but in the spirit.

The Corporation will, I hope, have a long and beneficial life, and the noble Viscount will be the first to agree that an undertaking which is given and accepted across the floor of this House binds both parties to it, but that of course it has no binding force at all upon a subsequent Parliament. No question arises of a breach of faith. Any Government which comes into power is entitled to change a policy. When we come into power next time we shall change the policy in quite a number of ways, though I think we shall carry on with this Bill. There is, as I said, no possible question of a breach of faith. I have made changes, and the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has done so. I can recollect ways in which we were constantly chopping and changing. For instance, I operated one thing one way and then the late Lord Snowden came in and operated it in quite another way; then he went out and we came in and it was changed once again, until in 1931 we came together—and, I almost said, lived happily ever afterwards. Any Government is absolutely entitled to say to Parliament: "We want to carry on a different policy" in cases where there are no limiting words in an Act, and no one will accuse them of any breach of faith.

What I want are words in this Bill—I am not wedded to my own particular wording—which will not limit the Corporation when they cannot get something done outside. Both noble Lords on the Government Front Bench have said that they will work through ordinary industry. It has been said to me—and I am grateful to the Government for making the comment—that the words I have drafted might be unduly narrowing and might be construed so as to limit the purely experimental work on the part of the Corporation or the making of a thing such as a prototype—though I think they would naturally get a prototype made by someone in industry or in a Government workshop. There is no limitation on the placing of orders; they can place any number of orders. What I am concerned to do here is to carry out in terms of the Bill what is our common intention, and if the Government can meet me on the principle I am not in the least wedded to these particular words. I think there are two possible alternatives. Either we can have general words, though better drafted than mine—I think probably that is the better way—or there is an alternative way, and that is to put in a financial limitation on manufacture, but I like that rather less than the other way. What I would like to do, if we are in complete agreement in principle, as I think we are, would be to leave it over to Report stage and for the Government to find words suitable and convenient. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 15, at end insert the said sub-section.—(Viscount Swinton.)

LORD CHORLEY

I think I can assure the noble Viscount that the noble Viscount the First Lord and myself are gratified by his touching confidence in our integrity. We quite appreciate that such a "tontine" arrangement between himself and the First Lord does not give him that statutory assurance which he would like to have. While, as the noble Viscount says, the words of the Amendment which he has moved do not satisfactorily achieve his object and might, as he suggested, be rather hampering, we appreciate his desire and the desire of other noble Lords to have something in the Bill that will achieve what he has in mind. I can promise him that by the Report stage we will find some form of words which will give him what he wants.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and in view of that assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Accounts and audit]:

VISCOUNT HALL moved to omit the proviso to subsection (5). The noble Viscount said: On the Second Reading I promised to move an Amendment to this effect. This part of Clause 10 provides for censorship in the national interests of the reports of the auditors of the Corporation. The reason for deletion is that it is now felt that the circumstances requiring censorship of this kind are unlikely to arise. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, leave out lines 29 to 33.—(Viscount Hall.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am much obliged. I think this is a definite improvement.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.

House resumed.