Lords Sitting of 30 May 1949

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

  THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS
  3.5 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I have to read to your Lordships' House a letter, dated May 17, which I have received from Sir Henry Badeley. The letter is as follows:
  "MY DEAR LORD CHANCELLOR,
  It is with very great regret that, in accordance with precedent. I write to ask your Lordship to announce to the House that the time has come for me to resign from the Office of Clerk of the Parliaments.
  It has been my privilege and honour to hold a post at the Table of the House for nineteen years, for the last fifteen of which I have held the post of Clerk of the Parliaments, and I would ask you to be good enough to express to their Lordships my deep appreciation of the kindness and consideration which I have invariably received from all quarters of the House.
  Yours very sincerely,
  HENRY J. F. BADELEY."
  I beg to move, that this letter be considered to-morrow.
  Moved, That the letter from Sir Henry Badeley be considered to-morrow.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONWEALTH TELEGRAPHS BILL
  3.8 p.m.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL [H.L.]
  3.9 p.m.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 4 [Priority date of claims of complete specification]:
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 26, leave out the third ("the").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6:
  Additional powers of comptroller in relation to applications
  (4) No amendment of a complete specification shall be made in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection, and no such amendment shall be made in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section after the acceptance of the specification—

  (a) otherwise than by way of disclaimer, correction or explanation; or

  (b) so as to make the specification as amended claim an invention larger than, or substantially different from, the invention claimed by the specification without the amendment.

  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendment is down in my name as a result of collaboration between the experts of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and mine. This affects the most technical part of the Bill, and I am assured by those who advise me that it meets the points which the noble and learned Viscount made and my objection to them on the Committee stage. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 5, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
  ("(b) (except for the purpose of correcting an obvious mistake) so that the specification as amended would claim or describe subject matter not in substance disclosed in the specification before the amendment or that any claim of the specification as amended would not fall wholly within the scope of a claim of the specification before the amendment.")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord opposite has said. When I moved the Amendment to this clause as it was in the Bill, I said that it was one of the most technical matters which arose, and after taking advice I proposed a change. I think that those who have considered the matter on behalf of the Government agree that a change was necessary. This is, in substance, the change which was suggested.

  1205
  I believe that the present words effect the purpose of us all, and I am glad to say that we agree to the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 14:
  Revocation of patent by court
  14.—(1) The following section shall be substituted for section twenty-five of the principal Act:—
  25.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a patent may, on the petition of any person interested, he revoked by the court on any of the following grounds, that is to say—
  (i) that the subject matter for which protection is claimed is not sufficiently defined in the claim or claims of the complete specification, or that any such claim is not fairly based on the matter disclosed in the specification;
  VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in the proposed new subsection (1) (i) to omit all words from "the" down to, and including, "claim," and to insert:
  "scope of any claim of the complete specification is not sufficiently and clearly ascertained, or that any claim of the complete specification."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, unfortunately this is another technical matter. On page 10 of the printed Bill, at line 3, there is a phrase which runs:
  "that the subject matter for which protection is claimed is not sufficiently defined in the claim or claims of the complete specification, or that any such claim is not fairly based on the matter disclosed in the specification."
  I will not detain your Lordships by endeavouring to expound the particular difficulties of that phraseology, but the substance of what I suggested in Committee was that perhaps it is not the best form of language to speak of "the subject matter for which protection is claimed." The real question is the scope of the claim. I think those who advise my noble friend have considered this point also, and I move these substituted words in the belief that the Government will accept them. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 3, leave out from ("the") to ("is") in line 6, and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Simon.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the facts are as the noble and learned Viscount has stated them, and
  1206
  therefore I have much pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 16:
  Compulsory licences
  (2) The grounds upon which application may be made for an order under this section are as follows, that is to say:—
  (d) that by reason of the refusal of the patentee to grant a liccnce or licences on reasonable terms—

  (i) a market for the export of the patented article manufactured in the United Kingdom is not being supplied; or

  (ii) the working or efficient working in the United Kingdom of any other patented invention which makes a substantial contribution to the art is prevented or hindered; or

  (iii) the establishment or development of commercial or industrial activities in the United Kingdom is otherwise prevented or hindered;

  (e) that by reason of conditions imposed by the patentee upon the grant of licences under the patent, or upon the purchase, hire or use of the patented article or process—

  (i) the manufacture, use or sale of materials not protected by the patent is unfairly prejudiced; or

  (ii) the establishment or development of commercial or industrial activities in the United Kingdom is otherwise prevented or hindered.

  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2) (d) (iii) to leave out "otherwise prevented or hindered" and insert "unfairly prejudiced." The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the indulgence of the House to deal at the same time with this Amendment and the Amendments to page 11, line 41 and page 11, line 44. On the Committee stage the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, moved an Amendment to insert the word "unfairly" after the words "prevented or hindered" in line 32 of page 11. This Amendment was withdrawn, and although no undertaking was given to consider it, I have reconsidered the whole of paragraphs (d) and (e). The insertion of the word "unfairly" is unnecessary, because it is through the unreasonableness of the patentee that the invention is prevented or hindered—unfairly or otherwise matters not. I think, however, that a little cleaning up makes the whole of these two subsections more plain, and probably the

  1207
  noble and learned Viscount will agree with the Amendment I have put down.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 35, leave out ("otherwise prevented or hindered") and insert ("unfairly prejudiced").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I agree that we can deal with these three Amendments together; they all involve a certain change of phraseology. The Bill as presented to the House had at this point the words "prevented or hindered" and it was pointed out from this side that there was no qualification to those words. Earlier legislation had, in fact, used the words "unfairly prejudiced." I think the noble Lord is well advised in saying, in effect, "Let us strike out 'otherwise prevented or hindered' and substitute 'unfairly prejudiced.'" That is what he has done. I am grateful to him and I agree with the course he has followed.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 41, leave out ("is unfairly prejudiced").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 44, leave out ("otherwise prevented or hindered") and insert ("unfairly prejudiced").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 15, leave out ("under this section").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 19:
  Indorsement of patent on application of Government department
  (2) Where according to a report of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission as laid before Parliament under section nine of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, conditions to which that Act applies prevail in respect of the supply of goods of any description which consist of or include patented
  1208
  articles, or in respect of exports of such goods, or in respect of the application to goods of any description of any process which consists of or includes a patented process, and either—

  (a) according to the report, as laid before Parliament, those conditions or any things done by the parties concerned as a result of or for the purpose of preserving those conditions, operate or may be expected to operate against the public interest; or

  (b) not earlier than three months from the date on which the report was laid before the Commons House of Parliament, a resolution has been passed by that House declaring that those conditions or any things which, according to the report as laid before Parliament are done by the parties concerned, as a result of or for the purpose of preserving those conditions, operate or may be expected to operate as aforesaid;

  a competent authority within the meaning of the said Act of 1948 may apply to the comptroller for an order under the next following subsection in respect of the patent.
  (3) If upon an application under the last foregoing subsection it appears to the comptroller that the matters which, according to the report or resolution mentioned in that subsection, operate or may be expected to operate against the public interest include—

  (a) any conditions in a licence or licences granted by the patentee under the patent restricting the use of the invention by the licensee or the right of the patentee to grant other licences under the patent; or

  (b) a refusal by the patentee to grant licences under the patent on reasonable terms,

  he may by order cancel or modify any such condition as aforesaid or may, if he thinks fit, instead of making such an order or in addition to making such an order, order the patent to be indorsed with the words "licences of right".
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHhad given notice of a number of Amendments to subsection (1), of which the first was, after the word "after," to insert "the expiration of three years from the date of."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to provide that an application for an order under this clause shall not be made until at least three years after a patent has been sealed. This falls into line with the Amendment which was moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and which we accepted. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 3, after ("after") insert ("the expiration of three years from the date of").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I quite agree.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, perhaps I may again have your permission to deal with several Amendments together—in this instance, lines 4, 7, and 8, of page 14. The first and third of these are consequential on the second, and the second is merely to give the Government the right to apply for a licence to be granted to a third party. I beg to move the first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 4, leave out from ("comptroller") to end of line 5.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 7, after ("Act") insert ("for the indorsement of the patent with the words 'licences of right' or for the grant to any person specified in the application of a licence under the patent").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, may ask the noble Lord a question? Does not the Bill as printed refer in this clause to "section fifteen"?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is a misprint.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: And the clause will be re-numbered?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, that is right.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to move this consequential Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 8, leave out from ("established") to end of line 9, and insert ("make an order in accordance with the application").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  3.18 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved to delete paragraph (a) of subsection (2). The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is the first and perhaps the only fundamental alteration proposed to this Bill, and I must explain rather more fully than has been necessary on any earlier Amendment what this Amendment seeks to do. Clause 19, in subsections (2) and (3), endeavours to establish
  1210
  what shall be the relations between a report of the Monopolies Commission and the exercise of jurisdiction by the comptroller for the purpose of ordering a modification in the terms of a licence granted by a patentee. As the Bill was drawn it appeared to me (and I think that my argument has now been largely accepted) that what was proposed was not really right. On the Second Reading I pointed that out with some vigour. Since that time there has been a good deal of discussion with the advisers of my noble friend Lord Lucas, who have throughout shown a most reasonable spirit. It is now agreed that as the Bill is printed these clauses are not right, and that they must be altered; and the alteration will be achieved by the Amendment which, together with the next two Amendments, I am moving.
  May I just state the position briefly? Last year we carried an Act which authorised the setting-up of a Monopolies Commission. The Monopolies Commission is set up by the President of the Board of Trade with a reference which he prescribes, and the duty of that Commission is to make an inquiry to see whether or not in some particular branch of a trade or industry a monopoly is operating in such a way as to be injurious to the public interest. Very prudently, the Government introduced into the Monopolies Act of last year an exception by which they secure that no industry that has been nationalised by the State can be the subject of such an inquiry. They are immune from these irritating investigations, but other people may have to put up with them. When the Monopolies Commission have investigated a matter, which involves inquiries, questionnaires, statistics, visits to works and obtaining all sort of information, they produce a report. In some cases, the report will merely state the facts which they consider they have ascertained. In other cases, it will not only do that but will also say that, in the opinion of the Commission, what they have ascertained constitutes in some respect or another a situation which is contrary to the public interest.
  In either event, so far as the Monopolies Act of last year is concerned, no consequence follows without some form of Parliamentary sanction. Either, as is set out in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) a report must have been laid

  1211
  before the Commons House of Parliament and
  "a resolution … passed by that House declaring that those conditions or any things which, according to the report as laid before Parliament are done by the parties concerned, as a result of or for the purpose of preserving those conditions, operate or may be expected to operate"
  against the public interest; or, if that statement is not included in the report of the Monopolies Commission, nothing can be done under the Act of last year until an Order has been made by the President of the Board of Trade which has to come before both Houses of Parliament and be supported by an affirmative Resolution. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that, so far as last year's legislation is concerned, useful as the investigations of the Monopolies Commission may be, no result can follow from those investigations unless there is in one form or another a Parliamentary sanction—in one case a Resolution of another place, in the other case an affirmative Resolution of both Houses. As this clause is drafted, it would be possible for the comptroller to exercise the jurisdiction here given without having to produce Parliamentary authority at all. It seemed to me and to others that that was wrong, because, after all, the Monopolies Commission are a body with very wide terms of reference. They conduct their own procedure as they think fit. They are not obliged to hear evidence on oath. They are not obliged to give notice to people who may be affected. Like many other similar bodies, they make inquiries as best they can; but it is not a judicial proceeding of any sort.
  There is one other feature I should like to mention now. In the Monopolies Act of last year an exception was introduced, rather curiously, I think, because it was thought well to wait for this Patents and Designs Bill which is now before the House—that is to say, that an order, which might be made as I have described, could not include any direction which would modify the way in which a patentee had granted licences to this person or that. It was thought proper to keep that until the introduction of this Bill. Obviously, a patent stands rather apart from other practices in business, because, in the nature of things, a patent begins by being a monopoly, and the extent to which other people may use it is most
  1212
  properly controlled. Therefore, I have proposed that the scheme should be modified in this way. By this clause the comptroller is given a new power, and it is right that he should be given a new power. His power is to be found at page 14, line 32, of the Bill. When certain conditions have been fulfilled, then—
  "a competent authority."
  that means that a number of Government Departments of State, including the Board of Trade—
  "… may apply to the comptroller for an order under the next following subsection."
  Then, under the next following subsection, on an application to the comptroller, if it appears to him that the matters which are mentioned in the report
  "may be expected to operate against the public interest."
  he may, after hearing the parties, modify the conditions of a licence granted by the patentee.
  That seems to me to be perfectly right, provided that the whole foundation of the comptroller's jurisdiction is based on this condition precedent—namely, that there has been a Resolution of another place such as is described in paragraph (b). The other House, having considered the report of the Commission, may resolve that there is a question of public interest which is involved and that, as things are, there is a prejudice which ought to be removed. The comptroller will then have jurisdiction—it may be quite an incidental case; it may be considered, after evidence, to be not a desirable way in which to restrict the use of the patent—and may modify the conditions which the patentee has hitherto attached to the grant of the licence. That appears to me to be perfectly right, and that is the effect of the Amendments which I move.
  The consequence will be that, in the first instance, there is to be a Resolution of another place such as I have described. Once that has been passed, neither House of Parliament would have anything more to do with the matter. The comptroller will thereupon acquire a new jurisdiction under this clause. I think that is perfectly right. Thenceforward it is not a Parliamentary process but a judicial process. The comptroller may well be trusted to administer his duty judicially and, if there is any difference of opinion as to whether or not he has decided rightly, then there

  1213
  is an appeal to what is called, I think, the Appeal Tribunal, presided over by a High Court Judge. What the comptroller may do is to say: "After hearing all this evidence, I think you ought to be ordered to modify the conditions attached to the licence of your patent." That is quite right.
  There is one further point I should like to mention at once, although, as a matter of fact, it comes in on page 16, line 34. If your Lordships will turn to that page for a moment, you will see that, as the Bill was drawn, when the comptroller exercised this new jurisdiction he was to be entitled to use any statement which was made in the report of the Monopolies Commission as "conclusive evidence" of the matters there stated. That was defended on the Second Reading as being the only way in which to avoid an undesirable duplication of proceedings. Certainly, none of us wants to have anything done twice over, but it was pointed out from this side that it is not really a duplication of proceedings. The proceedings of the Monopolies Commission are in the nature of collecting material about which they ultimately make a report. The later proceedings do not involve collecting that material all over again; they merely result in presenting to the Tribunal, the comptroller, the evidence which they have found as the result of this inquiry. But sometimes there may be in the report of the Monopolies Commission a statement of fact that on such and such a day the patentee refused to grant this licence or that, and other concrete statements on facts of that kind, possibly quite incidental to the main inquiry. I think it is perfectly right to say that the comptroller may, in deciding the matter, have regard to those statements, not indeed as being conclusively correct, but as being prima facie correct, so that, if anybody says that that is not really what happened, he must come before the comptroller and prove the contrary.
  I know that this has been a rather long explanation, but I can assure your Lordships that this is as nothing compared to the hours that have been consumed in considering it. This is one of the most important provisions in the Bill. We were greatly assisted by the Lord Chancellor himself, who managed to find time from all his other duties to act as a kind of benevolent arbitrator; and, as often
  1214
  happens, he greatly assisted in securing what I believe is complete agreement. I am perfectly content now that the Bill is altered in this way, and so, I believe, are others who communicated with me in the first place. I hope that Lord Lucas will be able to say that he is content too. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 18, leave out from ("and") to the end of line 23.—(Viscount Simon.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for giving such a fair outline of the conclusions at which we have arrived. As he has rightly said, this matter has taken up hours of careful thought. Both of us were actuated with one desire—namely, to secure the best possible Bill we could. I would join him in thanking the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for his great help in this matter. I hope that Lord Simon will forgive me if I say that I still have my doubts as to whether this is right, but time will prove. The balance of argument is on the side of the noble and learned Viscount, so I accept his Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 31, leave out ("as aforesaid") and insert ("against the public interest").—(Viscount Simon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 37, leave out ("report or").—(Viscount Simon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 22 [Procedure and evidence on application under ss. 16 to 21]:
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 16, line 5, after ("interest") insert ("(if any)").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (6) to to leave out "conclusive" and insert "prima facie." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is

  1215
  the Amendment to which I referred by anticipation: it is to substitute "prima facie" for "conclusive." I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 16, line 34, leave out ("conclusive") and insert ("prima facie").—(Viscount Simon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 27 [Use of patented inventions for services of the Crown]:
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2) to omit "subject matter of any claim of the complete specification" and to insert "invention." The noble Lord said: My Lords, if your Lordships will permit me I would like to deal with this and the next two Amendments together. They are really of a drafting nature. When discussing this clause in Committee upon an Amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, raised the point whether or not in subsections (2) and (3) of this clause, the words "subject matter" would conform to the best use of English. The noble and learned Viscount has mentioned it once before this afternoon. I readily looked into this, as I have done all the suggestions of the noble and learned Viscount, whether they have been contained in an Amendment or have been put forward as suggestions, and whether they have been proved or not, and I think that the two subsections are better drafted as I now propose. Therefore, I hope the noble and learned Viscount will agree that my effort in this matter conforms to his idea of correct English in these two subsections. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 18, line 6, leave out from the first ("the") to ("has") in line 7 and insert ("invention").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I quite agree. I do not wish to be a purist in this matter. Indeed, I doubt whether in the whole of the law on patents classical English, as it is ordinarily understood, is to be found. But there is a practice in these cases, and I think the noble Lord is right when he says as a result of his inquiry, that "subject matter" is not the phrase usually employed. I think the expression he has substituted conforms to the best English of patent experts.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 18, line 7, leave out ("that claim") and insert ("the relevant claim of the complete specification").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 18, line 14, leave out from the first ("the") to ("has") in line 15, and insert ("invention").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  3.35 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
  "(5) Where any use of an invention is made by or with the authority of a Government department under this section, then, unless it appears to the department that it would be contrary to the public interest so to do, the department shall notify the patentee as soon as practicable after the use is begun, and furnish him with such information as to the extent of the use as he may from time to time require."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to cover the substance of one of two Amendments moved during the Committee stage by Lord Simon, on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Munster. The first referred to the marking with a patent number of articles made for Crown use. The second was in connection with the notification to the patentee of the intention and the extent of Crown use. At the time that the noble and learned Viscount moved this Amendment I expressed my sympathy, but doubted whether it would be possible to give practical expression to it. I have looked into this point very carefully but I have completely failed to find anything that would be worth inserting in the Bill to cover the point of marking.
  This is an exceedingly intricate subject. May I just illustrate one point in regard to the difficulties? At the present moment a Service sparking plug is manufactured by all the manufacturers making sparking plugs and is the subject of three or four patents, some of disputed validity. So even if it were possible to put all the numbers of the patent on the plug, would it be possible to ask a rival manufacturer to put the patent number of another manufacturer on the plug, the patent validity of which is disputed? I could go on and cite other similar examples. During the Committee stage I said that I would give an undertaking that the Service Departments would see that the

  1217
  patent number was put on every manufacture where it was reasonable and practical, and was not contrary to the public interest. To-day I will repeat that undertaking, and I sincerely trust that it will be acceptable to the noble and learned Viscount. I am sorry that I cannot go further on this particular point.
  But when it comes to notification I think I have had a little more success, which is reflected in the Amendment put down in my name. I would like, however, to make it clear to noble Lords that what the noble Earl, Lord Munster, wanted in the first place was that the Government Department should notify intention to use. The noble and learned Viscount will see that we have not inserted a provision to that effect, because we thought that the important point was to notify the intention to use when such use started, and the extent of use after it had started. To notify the intention to use may be pointless, since we may intend to use it but may never do so. I hope that with those words I have explained how I have tried to meet the noble and learned Viscount. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 18, line 30, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has acted most reasonably in this matter, and I thank him. The Amendment before the House does not deal with marking at all. Appreciating the difficulties, we did not seek to press that at this stage, but none the less it is useful and acceptable to have a repetition of the assurance which has been given—namely, that a Government Department will cause the patent number to be put on the article where it is practicable to do so and where there is no reason to the contrary. Unless that is done when it can be done, there is a danger that the article will get into the hands of other manufacturers who will not know that it is the subject of a patent and will proceed to manufacture it. Nobody wants to see that happen. But at this stage it is impossible to do more than the noble Lord has indicated, and I accept with much gratitude what he has said about it.
  The other matter in this Amendment is very important indeed. In some cases where a Government Department claim to use a patent they use it very often; but in other
  1218
  cases they may use it much more seldom. But as the law stands at the present time, if I understand it rightly, in no case is there any requirement on a Government Department to tell the patentee that his invention is being used; and there may be cases where the patentee does not know. Since his remuneration will be settled—if necessary by arbitration—in proportion to the amount of use, it must be right to give him information so that he may know what has been done with his patent. The object of this Amendment is that, unless the public interest dictates otherwise, the Government Department that use a patent shall notify the patentee of the use and shall, from time to time, inform him of the extent of it. That puts him in a position to know the sort of claim he ought to make. I think everyone will agree that that is reasonable, and I am sure that patentees will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I have no axe to grind in this matter, of course, except to contribute any assistance in so far as lies in my power. I think that the noble Lord has put the matter most fairly, and I accept his Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 28 [Rights: of third parties in respect of use for services of the Crown]:
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 15, after ("person") insert ("who derives title from him or").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential to an Amendment which I am going to move to page 31, line 18. That is the interpretation clause and we are inserting in the interpretation clause definitions of "exclusive licence" and "exclusive licensee." I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("then") in line 29, an I insert ("Where an exclusive licence granted otherwise than for royalties or other benefits determined by reference to the use of the invention is in force under the patent").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendment remedies an omission in the Bill by providing for the case where the patentee has acquired the right to apply for or obtain the patent before the patent is granted. At present, Clause 28 (3), applies only where the assignment to the patentee was made after the patent was granted. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 41, after ("patent") insert ("or the right to apply for or obtain the patent").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit subsection (4) and to insert in its place:
  "(4) Where, under subsection (3) of section twenty-seven of this Act, payments are required to be made by a Government department to a patentee in respect of any use of an invention, any person being the holder of an exclusive licence under the patent (not being such a licence as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section) authorising him to make that use of the invention shall be entitled to recover from the patentee such part (if any) of those payments as may be agreed upon between that person and the patentee, or as may in default of agreement be determined by the court under the next following section to be just having regard to any expenditure incurred by that person—

  (a) in developing the said invention; or

  (b) in making payments to the patentee, other than royalties or other payments determined by reference to the use of the invention, in consideration of the licence;

  and if, at any time before the amount of any such payment has been agreed upon between the Government department and the patentee, that person gives notice in writing of his interest to the department, any agreement as to the amount of that payment shall be of no effect unless it is made with his consent."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to an Amendment which is an attempt to meet the case put very eloquently by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, during the Committee stage. This covers what I believe Lord Swinton himself called his "third horse." That is the case of the exclusive licensee who had acquired an exclusive licence under some arrangement with the patentee which involved the exclusive licensee in investing a considerable sum of money for development purposes. It did not fall under any of the other clauses. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, asked why this man was not entitled to be joined with the patentee in a share of any monies the Crown paid out under
  1220
  their obligation to pay royalties, and also to be joined with the patentee in any negotiations with the Government. Though this looks rather a long subsection, we have tried to draft it in such a way—as the noble Viscount will see—as will cover his point. If such a licensee makes to the Department a notification in writing of his interest, he can be joined in these negotiations with the patentee. I do not think I need go further into this matter, and I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 20, line 14, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, so far as my third horse is concerned, I think it has run in an entirely satisfactory manner. I ran other horses for first and second places but they did not come in anything like so well. I am bound to say that the third horse was, probably, considerably the best horse in the stable. I have no doubt that the patentee will make pretty good terms when he comes to make a contract. Looking back on my own experience—and I have made a good many contracts of this kind—I feel satisfied that that will be so. I will drop horses one and two and be content with a win on number three. I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 30:
  Special provisions as to Crown user during emergency
  (2) In this section the expression "period of emergency" means the period ending with the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty, and any other period approved by resolution of each House of Parliament for that purpose.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2) to omit all words after "fifty" and to insert:
  "or such later date as may be prescribed by Order in Council, and any other period beginning on such date as may be declared by Order in Council to be the commencement, and ending on such date as may be so declared to be the termination of a period of emergency for the purposes of this section.
  (2) A draft of any Order in Council under this section shall be laid before Parliament; and the draft shall not be submitted to His Majesty except in pursuance of an Address presented by each House of Parliament praying that the order be made."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment relates to the period of emergency. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will remember that when I accepted his Amendment in principle, I said it might be necessary for me to have second thoughts about the wording. These are the second thoughts, and I think the wording will be quite clear to the noble Viscount. The objects of this Amendment are, first, to cover conveniently the possibility that the existing Defence Regulations relating to the matters covered by Clause 30 may be extended for a further year beyond December 10, 1950, by an Order in Council, under Section 7 of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Which would of course require an affirmative Resolution of Parliament.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is so. The second object of the Amendment is to make more convenient provision for securing that the clause shall apply only when there is a grave emergency. It is now proposed that the beginning and end of any new periods of emergency should be defined by Orders in Council, drafts of which must be laid before Parliament and will not be submitted to His Majesty except upon a request of both Houses. That, I think the noble Viscount will find, meets the aim of his Amendment completely. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 22, line 6, leave out from ("fifty") to end of line 7, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I think this Amendment is quite right. It must be apparent that as the Bill was drafted it was quite wrong in this regard. I pointed out during the Second Reading debate that, as the Bill was drafted, an emergency might go on for ever. A reasonable limit has now been put to it, and I quite agree to the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 31:
  Provisions for ensuring secrecy in respect of inventions relevant for defence purposes
  (3) Where a complete specification filed in pursuance of an application for a patent for an invention in respect of which directions have been given under this section or under section twelve of the Atomic Energy Act, 1946,
  1222
  is accepted during the continuance in force of the directions, the provisions of sections twenty-seven to thirty of this Act shall apply in relation to any use of the invention made during the continuance in force of the directions by or on behalf of or to the order of a Government department as if the patent had been granted for the invention.
  (5) No person resident in the United Kingdom shall, except under the authority of a written permit granted by or on behalf of the comptroller, make or cause to be made any application outside the United Kingdom for the grant of a patent for an invention unless—

  (a) an application for a patent for the same invention has been made in the United Kingdom not less than six weeks before the application outside the United Kingdom; and

  (b) either no directions have been given under subsection (1) of this section or under section twelve of the Atomic Energy Act, 1946, in relation to the application in the United Kingdom, or all such directions have been revoked.

  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this and the following Amendments are designed to meet the very eloquent plea of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. They are really drafting Amendments and they are intended to meet the case where secrecy has been terminated under paragraph (c) before the expiration of nine months from the date of the application for the patent. Obviously, in such a case, reconsideration of the secrecy order is unnecessary. The Amendment merely makes it clear that reconsideration is necessary only so long as the prohibition is in force. If the prohibition has been lifted it is not necessary for the application to be made. I think that is perfectly clear, and I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 22, line 26, leave out from ("notice") to ("consider") in line 29.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the previous one; the two go together. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 22, line 31, at end insert ("and unless a notice under paragraph (c) of this subsection has previously been given by that authority to the comptroller, shall reconsider that question before the expiration of nine months from the date of filing of the application for the patent and at least once in every subsequent year").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (3) to leave out "the provisions of sections twenty-seven to thirty of this Act shall apply in relation to any use of the invention" and to insert:
  "then—
  (a) if any use of the invention is."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I now come to the Amendment which seeks to satisfy the point made on Committee stage by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I think it would be as well if I read its substance. It is proposed by a subsequent Amendment to insert:
  "(b) if it appears to a competent authority that the applicant for the patent has suffered hardship by reason of the continuance in force of the directions, that authority may, with the consent of the Treasury, make to him such payment by way of compensation (if any) as appears to them to be reasonable having regard to the novelty and utility of the invention and the purpose for which it is designed, and to any other relevant circumstances."
  Under the clause as it stands, an invention on the secret list is paid for by the Crown only if it is used. The noble Viscount wanted some compensation to be paid for the sterilisation of an invention. We could not admit the bringing of such a claim against the Crown, as I think the noble Viscount will agree; but we have gone so far as to make it a statutory obligation for a competent authority to consider making an ex gratia payment if all these considerations are met. I am sure I shall carry with me not only the noble Viscount but the whole of your Lordships' House when I say that the Government could not entertain the suggestion that any case of hardship can arise in prohibiting a British subject from selling to a foreign Power an invention which has been placed upon the Secret List in the interests of the safety of the Realm. I think that is in agreement with the noble Viscount's view on this subject, and I need say no more. We have done our best to meet the noble Viscount, and I think we have met him very well.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 8, leave out from ("directions") to ("made") in line 10 and insert—
  "then—
  (a) if any use of the invention is").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. I think this is probably the best and most reasonable solution that can be obtained. It is very important that the power to make an ex gratia payment for a sterilised invention should be there, and I say that, not primarily in the interests of the inventor, but in the interests of security and of defence. Obviously, the Government must have power to put any class of invention on the secret list. That has always been important, and to-day it is more important than ever. It is also very important that that should be universally accepted and readily acted upon by every inventor. But it may well be that, although an invention is one of great moment and great value, the Government do not wish to use it either at the present time or possibly ever. We can all imagine that certain things may very well be invented, but there are enough horrors in the world to-day, and obviously we do not want to add to them.
  At the same time, those inventions must be within the knowledge and under the control of the Government. If a man has his invention sterilised by the State, it is just as important that the State should be in a position, if it is right to do so, to make a payment for it as for an invention which they use. I am sure that is the right way of dealing with it, and not by the review of the secret list by a tribunal. That was a suggestion the noble Lord was good enough to throw out at one time, when we were pooling our ideas on this matter. I am sure that that would not do, because the Government, and the Government alone, can and must be the judges of whether inventions should be on the secret list. I do not think it would be at all suitable to send them before a tribunal. This is the right method and I am sure that the Government, having this power, while not throwing biscuits about wherever there is a worthless dog, will not hesitate to make a just and fair payment in a right and proper case. I accept this Amendment fully as the best solution.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to say I am grateful for what the noble Viscount has said. He realises that this is a new departure and we are glad to have his observations.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 12, after ("department") insert ("the provisions of sections twenty-seven to thirty of this Act shall apply in relation to that use").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is also consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 12, at end insert—
  "and
  (b) if it appears to a competent authority that the applicant for the patent has suffered hardship by reason of the continuance in force of the directions, that authority may, with the consent of the Treasury, make to him such payment by way of compensation (if any) as appears to them to be reasonable halving regard to the novelty and utility of the invention and the purpose for which it is designed, and to any other relevant circumstinces."—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved to add to subsection (5):
  "Provided that this subsection shall not apply in relation to an invention for which an application for protection has first been filed in a country outside the United Kingdom by a person resident outside the United Kingdom."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment carries out a suggestion made on Committee stage, and I think it is manifestly right to introduce this proviso. I am in hopes that the noble Lord will agree with me.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 31, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Simon.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, as the noble and learned Viscount will realise, when a similar Amendment was moved on Committee stage, we did not like it, on grounds of security. The object of the Amendment is to protect patent agents in this country who receive instructions from applicants in other countries to file applications in a third country. This work by patent agents is a source of some revenue to this country, and although we did not at first think the Amendment warranted our acceptance, for security reasons, we have now come to the conclusion that it is for the country
  1226
  in which the first application is filed to suppress information that is of real importance. Therefore we accept the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 35 [Proceedings by licensee for infringement]:
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment in Clause 49 inserting a general definition of the term "exclusive licence," to which I have already referred. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 7, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 36 [Threats of legal proceedings and additional power to make declaration as to non-infringement]:
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, on Committee stage we agreed in principle with the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, but said that on extended consideration we might have some drafting Amendments. The effect of this group of Amendments is to make it clear that a manufacturer who asks either a patentee or an exclusive licensee for the necessary permission to use a patent, can bring an action for a declaratory judgment only against those who refuse. I think that both the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will appreciate the point. This and the following Amendments are consequent upon the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount which we accepted.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 18, after ("a") insert ("claim of a").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment: agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 20, leave out from ("or") to the first ("the") in line 21.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 21, leave out from ("patent") to ("notwithstanding") in line 22.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 23, leave out ("any exclusive").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 26, leave out ("and to any exclusive") and insert ("or").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 28, leave out ("or them").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 30, leave out ("any exclusive").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this was the point, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, will remember, where we agreed in principle but withdrew Amendments on Committee so that we could have second thoughts. This Amendment makes it clear that the making of a declaration will not imply that the patent is valid, and thus renders it unnecessary for a statement to that effect to be included in the declaration.
  I think the noble and learned Viscount will agree that that is the short point. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 34, at end insert—
  ("(4) The validity of a claim of the specification of a patent shall not be called in question in proceedings for a declaration brought by virtue of this section and accordingly the making or refusal of such a declaration in the case of a patent shall not be deemed to imply that the patent is valid.").—Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 37 [Reference to comptroller of disputes as to infringement]:
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 41, leave out from ("licensee") to ("and").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  4.4 p.m.
  Clause 43 [Effects of copyright and legal proceedings]:
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
  1228
  With the permission of your Lordships, perhaps I may also deal with the Amendment to page 29, line 10. This is a revised wording of an Amendment which I moved upon the Committee stage, which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, queried. We have now discussed this very thoroughly, and have come to the conclusion that the Amendment I now have down upon the Marshalled List is correct. I need not say very much about it, except to point out that the only alteration is the substitution of the words, "to make anything" for "to do anything." As this clause deals with the making of anything which infringes a design, the words "to make anything" are to be preferred. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 29, line 7, leave out from ("which") to ("being") in line 8, and insert ("the design is registered").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 29, line 10, at end insert ("and to make anything for enabling any such article to be made as aforesaid, whether in the United Kingdom or the Isle of Man or elsewhere").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 49 [Interpretation and construction]:
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause:
  "'exclusive licence' means a licence from a patentee which confers on the licensee, or on the licensee and persons authorised by him, to the exclusion of all other persons (including the patentee), any right in respect of the patented invention, and "exclusive licensee" shall be construed accordingly;"
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now arrive at the definition of the term "exclusive licence" about which I have been talking for quite a long time. I think it is clear that this Amendment defines the term "exclusive licence" where that term appears in the clauses of the Bill relating to patents and that, by implication, it also includes the term "exclusive licensee." We thought it better to have this definition in the interpretation clause. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 31, line 18, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, under Clause 41 (1) a design may be registered in respect of an article or a set of articles. The new subsection is proposed to avoid reference to a set of articles in each case where the expression "article in respect of which a design is registered" is used. It is purely interpretation. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 31, line 34, at end insert—
  ("( ) Any reference in this Act to an article in respect of which a design is registered shall, in the case of a design registered in respect of a set of articles, he construed as a reference to any article of that set").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  First Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments of principal Act]:
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is the first of three Amendments which are all consequential upon the Amendment I moved to page 5, line 5. In all cases we are dealing with the conditions under which an accepted complete specification can be amended, and it is necessary to set out those conditions consistently throughout. I may mention that in the consolidation Bill which will follow this Bill, the matter may be dealt with in a single clause; but as the Bill is at present drafted we must be consistent right the way through the Bill. That is the reason for this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 37, line 6, leave out from ("or") to end of line 9 and insert ("(except for the purpose of correcting an obvious mistake) so that the specification as amended would claim or describe subject matter not in substance disclosed in the specification before the amendment or that any claim of the specification as amended would not fall wholly within the scope of a claim of the specification before the amendment").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 44, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
  ("For subsection (6) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
  "(6) No amendment shall be allowed, except for the purpose of correcting an obvious mistake, the effect of which would be that the specification as amended would claim or describe subject matter not in substance disclosed in the specification before the amendment or that any claim of the specification
  1230
  as amended would not fall wholly within the scope of a claim of the specification before the amendment."").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 44, line 41, leave out lines 41 to 44 and insert—
  ("In the proviso for the words from the beginning to before the amendment' there shall be substituted the words Provided that (except for the purpose of correcting an obvious mistake) no amendment shall be so allowed the effect of which would be that the specification as amended would claim or describe subject matter not in substance disclosed in the specification before the amendment or that any claim of the specification as amended would not fall wholly within the scope of a claim of the specification before the amendment.'")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is in substance the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, on Committee. It seeks also to cover the point which was raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, on the Second Reading of the Bill—namely, the case of prior uses. The only important alteration which we have made to the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, is a stipulation that the prior working must have taken place within one year before the priority date of the claim relating to the worked invention. The result of the Amendment would be to give protection to the inventor who must, by the nature of his invention, make some experiments in public. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, will agree that we have effected some slight improvement. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 49, line 26, at beginning insert—
  ("(3) An invention claimed in any claim of a complete specification shall not be deemed to have been anticipated by reason only that, at any time within year before the priority date of the claim, the invention was publicly worked in the United Kingdom—

  (a) by the patentee or applicant for the patent or any person from whom he derives title; or

  (b) by any other person with the consent of the patentee or applicant for the patent or any person from whom he derives title,

  if the working was effected for the purpose of reasonable trial only and if it was reasonably necessary, having regard to the nature

  1231
  of the invention, that the working for that purpose should be effected in public").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHhad given Notice to move three Amendments to the amendment to Section 93 of the principal Act, the third of which was to leave out the definition of "invention" and insert:
  "In the definition of 'invention,' after the word 'Monopolies' there shall be inserted the words 'and any new method of process of testing applicable to the improvement or control of manufacture.'"
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would like to take the Amendments to page 61, lines 11, 12 and 14 together, because the first two are consequential upon the third. These are the last Amendments to this Bill, and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not mind my saying that, even though I have to move them, I do not like them. This affects the contentious point of the definition of "invention." We have studied very carefully and closely what the noble and learned Viscount said on the Committee stage, but we much prefer what is in the Bill. This Bill will never have separate life; it will go to consolidation, and we may be consolidating the law of patents for a number of years. Therefore we thought it was perhaps time to shed the old and make an attempt at the new. However, the noble and learned Viscount did not agree with us, and the Swan Committee did not agree with us. We have tried to carry out the suggestions made by the noble and learned Viscount to find the best of both worlds—namely, to have the old definition (if definition one can call it; I have heard it called something very different !) and to tack on to it something of a new character. As I have said, we do not like it, but again the balance of argument was in favour of the noble and learned Viscount and so we accept his Amendment. We have tried to put it down as best we can, and I hope it will be acceptable to the noble and learned Viscount. I also hope that posterity will not call curses upon our heads for so doing. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 61, line 11, after ("design") insert ("and").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, these are the last Amendments, and that at least ought to
  1232
  be a subject of satisfaction. As the noble Lord has put this particular charge upon me, may I say that I am completely indifferent as to the manner in which this word is defined. I had only one objection of substance to take at an earlier stage of the Bill. If I may say so, I greatly admire the extraordinary command of this subject which the noble Lord opposite has acquired—it is most extraordinary. But we all sometimes make mistakes, and I think he will admit that it was a mistake when he said that what was originally in the Bill was "100 per cent. Swan." It is not. For good or evil, the Swan Committee recommended something quite different. It was excusable that that mistake should be made, and I was concerned only that we should not accept the original proposal under the impression that we were thereby carrying out what Mr. Kenneth Swan and his comrades, after great labour, had recommended. They in fact recommended that we should make the change which will now appear in the Bill. With the noble Lord, I hope that posterity may regard us as having been wise. If, by any chance, posterity should ever consider my part in the business, I wish to say that the fault is entirely that of Lord Lucas!
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, as everybody objects to the Amendment which is now before the House, I wish to say that although I do not like it very much, it is better than anything else I have yet seen defining what an invention is. Therefore, as there is nothing better to put forward, I welcome it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, adopts the tactics of saying that he does not like Amendments which he is moving, he will get into the same trouble as I have myself! I must say that I would like to pay my tribute to the noble Lord for the amazing grasp he has shown of this subject. After practising the law for nearly forty years, if I should want lessons in the law of patents I will ask Lord Lucas.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, as bouquets are being thrown, may I add mine? I came into the discussions on this Bill most unwillingly. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, taught me a great deal about it, and the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Simon have taught

  1233
  me more. I confined myself to questions of principle and policy, which are very easy to argue. I was four times President of the Department which has to deal with patents, and I certainly never knew so much about the subject as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, does now. I think we may all be satisfied that all our "geese" have become "swans."
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 61, line 12, leave out from ("scale") to ("shall").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 61, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 20, and insert ("In the definition of 'invention,' after the word 'Monopolies' there shall be inserted the words 'and any new method of process of testing applicable to the improvement or control of manufacture'").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  IRELAND BILL
  4.15 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House again to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, before the House goes into Committee, may I ask the indulgence of your Lordships in order to make a short personal explanation? On the Second Reading I made some remarks about His Majesty's Government advising the Sovereign to use His clemency for Irish Republican prisoners in our prisons in this country, and I made an appeal to the North of Ireland Government as an act of faith to try to show the same clemency. I want to say, and to place on record, that I did the North of Ireland Government a great injustice, because I find that since 1945 the North of Ireland Government have recommended the Sovereign to release well over 100 prisoners convicted for serious crimes during the troubled periods in the North of Ireland. I find that at the present time there are only ten prisoners left in the North of Ireland prison, and that five of these were committed for capital offences. His Majesty showed clemency in their case by granting reprieves. I want to say quite specifically that I pay my tribute to the humanity of
  1234
  the Government of Northern Ireland, and I regret it if I created a false impression by what I said earlier.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 3:
  Other provisions as to operation of United Kingdom and colonial laws in relation to Republic of Ireland
  (2) Until provision to the contrary is made by Parliament or by some other authority having power in that behalf, the following provisions shall have effect as respects any Act of Parliament or other enactment or instrument whatsoever passed or made before the passing of this Act, so far as it operates as part of the law of, or of any part of, the United Kingdom or any colony, protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory, that is to say—
  (a) if it contains a reference to His Majesty's dominions, or to any parts thereof, which would have extended so as in any way to include the Republic of Ireland had that part of Ireland remained part of His Majesty's dominions, it shall have effect, with any necessary adaptations, as if that reference did extend so as in that way to include the Republic of Ireland, notwithstanding that that part of Ireland is no longer part of His Majesty's dominions; and
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: May I remind the Committee that the Amendment before the House at the moment is that which was before us when we adjourned the other day—namely, Lord Simon's Amendment to page 3, line 13. Perhaps before the noble Viscount deals with his new Amendment he will formally withdraw the Amendment he moved the other day.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment which I moved the other day.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, after subsection (1) to insert as a new subsection:
  "( ) Notwithstanding the foregoing subsection a person born within His Majesty's allegiance before the 6th December, 1922, in the part of Ireland referred to in this Act as the Republic of Ireland, who has not had his ordinary residence in the Republic of Ireland since that date and who has not caused himself to be registered as a citizen of Eire, is not to be deemed to have ceased and does not cease to be a British subject by reason of anything contained in the law of the Republic of Ireland or by reason of anything contained in the British Nationality Act, 1948."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: I am sorry that I should seem to be occupying so much time this afternoon. The present subject is a difficult one, but I am sure that everybody will agree that it ought to be possible to meet the difficulty which has been pointed out in the proposed legislation of the Ireland Bill by language which is clear and easily understood. The position to which I call attention must, I think, be illustrated briefly by two facts which have come to my notice. The question which I raised was: Can it be that citizens who have never lived anywhere except in the United Kingdom, and who are ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland, ought to be regarded as citizens of Eire within the meaning of that phrase in the British Nationality Act, 1948, with the result that they are, by Section 1 of that Act, denied the status of British subjects?
  I will not go through the stages of the argument again, because it will not be denied that Section 1 of the British Nationality Act does provide that the status of being British subjects does not attach to persons who are citizens of Eire. Therefore the question at once arises: Who is a citizen of Eire? In that connection, there has without any question been some considerable dubiety, if not confusion. I have before me a letter written on April 12 from a Home Office official to a gentleman (whose name I can supply if the Lord Chancellor desires it) to inquire whether or not he was a citizen of Eire or whether he was entitled to a British passport. He wrote on March 27, and this is the answer he received, dated April 12:
  "Sir,
  With reference to your letter of the 27th March, I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that on the information furnished it seems possible that you are not a citizen of Eire in the law of Eire. This, as you will appreciate, is a matter which only the Eire authorities can decide and in the first place the Secretary of State would suggest that you should consult the High Commissioner for Eire, 33, Regent Street. London, W.1, on this point.
  If you are not a citizen of Eire you will already have become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under the provisions of Section 12 (4) of the British Nationality Act, 1948.
  If the High Commissioner informs you that you are a citizen of Eire you should write to this Department again and information on how to become a citizen of the United Kingdom
  1236
  and Colonies, or to preserve British nationality, will be sent to you."
  I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in authorising that letter to be sent, was doing his best to help the applicant. But I think it is entirely wrong that the question whether or not a man is of British nationality should depend upon an opinion expressed by the High Commissioner for Eire. As I pointed out the other day, this sort of thing has been happening for some little time, and I venture to submit that the situation thus disclosed is plainly one which requires clearing up.
  The other fact of which I must remind the Committee is this. Many people were much surprised, I think, when I ventured to suggest in the debate last Thursday that, at least in the view of the authorities of Eire, "citizen of Eire" was a phrase that extended to the whole of the Island of Ireland. I am sure that that idea took a great many people by surprise. Since then the matter has been looked into by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who, if I may say so, has done everything possible to help. He was good enough to show me what I really knew already—namely, the actual decision, the view taken in the courts in Ireland. Here was a case of a man born in the city of Derry. Now, if you were to tell a citizen of Derry that he was within the jurisdiction of Mr. Costello, he would be considerably surprised. This man was born in the city of Derry, and from his birth in 1898 down to this date has lived in that city. You could not have a clearer example of a man who throughout his life has lived in Northern Ireland. Yet here is the judgment, right or wrong, given in the Dublin courts. I will read two passages. Here is the first:
  "Held, … that at the time of the coming into operation of the Constitution Act"—
  that means, in 1922—
  "all Ireland was within the 'area of the jurisdiction' of Saorstat Eireann, and that all persons domiciled in Ireland on sixth December, 1922, who possess the other necessary qualifications are citizens of the Saorstat with the power of election not to accept the citizenship given by Article 2 of the Constitution."
  The other passage is this. It is an extract from a judgment (whether right or wrong I do not know) which argues the matter at great length:

  1237
  "I hold therefore that at the time of the coming into operation of the Constitution all Ireland was within the 'area of the jurisdiction' of Saorstat Eireann and that all persons domiciled in Ireland on December 6, 1922, who possess the other necessary qualifications are citizens of the Saorstat.…
  I feel that in coming to this decision I am interpreting truly the intentions of the framers of the Constitution. I am convinced that they never intended to exclude from citizenship of the Saorstat, solely because they had resided beyond an artificial and generally invisible border."
  Your Lordships will see that I was perfectly right, if I may say so, when I said that in the view of the Eire authorities and of those who expound the Eire law, a man who throughout his life has been resident in Northern Ireland is none the less a citizen of Eire; and secondly, that by our own legislation which we passed last year he is deprived, so far as Section 1 goes, of his British citizenship. I am certain that nobody in Parliament would desire that situation to continue. We want to do everything that is right and friendly with the Government of the Republic of Ireland; but that is no excuse for allowing the Ireland Bill to pass in a form which, by the exposition of the Home Office, leads to this result. I am sure that everyone, including the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, will agree that this is a situation which must be remedied.
  The object of my Amendment is to make that clear. I do not say that the Amendment does not need any correction; very likely it does, and I am sure the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will help me in the matter. Perhaps we can help one another, if I may say so. This is the Amendment that I have put down:
  "Notwithstanding the foregoing subsection a person born within His Majesty's allegiance before the 6th December, 1922, in the part of Ireland referred to in this Act as the Republic of Ireland, who has not had his ordinary residence in the Republic of Ireland since that date and who has not caused himself to be registered as a citizen of Eire, is not to be deemed to have ceased and does not cease to be a British subject by reason of anything contained in the law of the Republic of Ireland or by reason of anything contained in the British Nationality Act, 1948."
  I claim that if there is a man in Northern Ireland who has a genuine doubt as to whether or not the result of our legislation leaves him without British citizenship, he can read that subsection and apply it without having to go to
  1238
  lawyers. He has, of course, to know the date of his birth, where he was born, and where he was ordinarily resident at the relevant dates. If he knows those things, this subsection will show what his position is.
  I admit at once that there is a defect in my Amendment which ought to be corrected. I have failed to observe that there is another class of person who has to be covered. An example is the man who, though he was born in the Southern counties, was born of people who had no permanent residence there, who were Northern -Ireland people. Such a man, at a subsequent date, for some reason may establish himself at a permanent residence in Eire; then again at a later date for a third time he may have a different permanent residence in Northern Ireland. I quite agree that that case has to be provided for. I had some words to suggest. But, subject to that and subject to the fact that I have taken advantage of what the Lord Chancellor pointed out on Thursday, that we must deal with the case of a person who caused himself to be registered as a citizen of Eire, I claim that this Amendment has the advantage that "he who runs may read." I am quite ready to receive any alternative suggestions, so long as they satisfy that test, but it does not seem to me to be right that a man who has done nothing in the world to justify the claim that he has forfeited his British nationality should have to say: "I must see what the British Nationality Act of 1948 says." He would be a clever man if he were able to interpret everything it says. But it ought to be simple.
  I am asking for the help of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the Lord Chancellor to find a better way of doing it. I do not think that, on reflection, the Government would seriously say this Bill does not require amendment. It was natural, of course, to try to avoid amendment, if it could be avoided, and I sympathise with that effort, because we do not want any further fuss about it. But it must be amended in order to make this point clear. Therefore I do not expect the Government to say otherwise. As the Lord Chancellor observed on Thursday, it is true that my first Amendment does nothing for what some people call the "Loyalists" in Southern Ireland,

  1239
  but my second Amendment is meant to do something for them.
  I do not know whether everybody appreciates it, but down to the beginning of this year a man who was resident in Southern Ireland had two nationalities. On the one hand by the law of Eire in which he lived he was a citizen of Eire; on the other hand, by our law he was a British subject. The effect of this Bill, combined with our Act of last year, is to take away from that man one of his two nationalities, to say that he is no longer a British subject at all, but he must get along with being a citizen of Eire and nothing else. Perhaps we cannot avoid that. But it seems to me that if the time comes when he chooses to apply to keep his British nationality, he should be able to do so in a form which will show everybody, if he is challenged, that that is his position. That is the purpose of my second Amendment.
  I have raised this matter, not for the purpose of starting a controversy, but solely for the purpose of reminding your Lordships that this is a most complicated issue. I have studied it with such experience and skill as I have and, within the limits of my powers, I have endeavoured to state it clearly to your Lordships. I say that this situation must be made clear by some Amendment in the Bill now before the Committee. I have put forward my proposal for what it is worth, imperfect as it is, because at least that would give a clear statement of the position. All I ask is that we should have the same consideration which the Lord Chancellor always gives, because I am sure that his object is the same as ours—namely, that without arousing any animosities or acerbities we should do what we can to make it plain to people who hitherto have been British subjects that we are not here doing anything to alter that position.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 12, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Simon.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had the experience on Saturday of meeting a very intelligent man who had sat here as a visitor through all our debate on Thursday, and he told me that it was one of the bleakest days of his life. He had not understood one word that either the noble and learned Viscount opposite or I had uttered. The first thing he did understand
  1240
  was when the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition got up and said, "My brain is reeling."
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Is he here now?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the long and short of the matter is that this is an exceedingly complicated question. I agree very largely with the view of the noble and learned Viscount that we have to do something in this matter. A great amount of detail has been raised, but what we have got to do does not arise under this Bill—I would like to stress that. What the noble and learned Viscount has done is to point out a defect in the British Nationality Act of 1948, arising from the fact (about which, I confess, I did not know) that the Eire Government—or the Government of the Republic of Ireland, as it now is—takes a fundamentally different view on this question from the view that we take. I do not want to argue the point now at great length, but I do not think that the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount is technically satisfactory. I have prepared an Amendment, which I have shown him and which I think would be adequate to meet the point; but I concede that my Amendment is a complicated one, and if it is possible to do this in a simple form then manifestly it is desirable so to do it. But it does not, of course, follow that one can find a short cut and do a very complicated thing in a very simple form.
  I do not know what the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition or the noble Viscount the Leader of the House think, but I am wondering whether it would be convenient to your Lordships that, before discussing these two Amendments or coming to a final conclusion on the matter, you should have the opportunity of reading and considering the Amendment which I have put down. I am sorry to say that I could not put it down before now because I had to obtain authority so to do. It may be convenient, if the Leaders of both sides and the Leader of the Liberal Party think it desirable, that we should have an opportunity of considering these two Amendments together, and deciding what is the right thing to do.
  May I once more attempt, if I can, to make this matter plain? Of course we are not in any way concerned with, nor should we have any desire to make any

  1241
  alteration in, the laws of the Republic of Ireland. We are entitled, however, to make what alterations we like in our own law, though we should be most reluctant to make an alteration in our own law if it involved a breach of any understanding that we have come to with the Government of Eire. The difficulty is one which arises in the main under Section 12 (4) of the British Nationality Act, which has nothing whatever to do with this Bill. Section 12 (4) says this:
  "A person who was a British subject immediately before the date of the commencement of this Act and does not become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of any of the foregoing provisions of this section shall on that date become such a citizen unless—
  (a) he is then a citizen … of Eire."
  That was the trouble. That was what we used to refer to as the "mopping up" section, which brought in everybody who had been a British subject unless he was a citizen of Eire.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Surely, then, the whole trouble arises because we are invited in this Bill to say that a citizen of Eire is a citizen of the independent Republic of Eire. That is the cause of it. If "citizen of Eire" meant a "citizen of the Dominion of Eire," no difficulty at all would arise.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Exactly the same difficulty would arise, if I may say so with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Viscount. If you are considering just a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, exactly the same difficulty arises whether or not we pass this Bill. There is no argument about it. It is plainly the fact that what we have to do here is to amend the British Nationality Act because of what has been revealed as a defect in that Act which is quite independent of this Bill. So much for the British Nationality Act of 1948.
  I then come to this question because, when you say, "unless he is a citizen of Eire," that would depend primarily on Eire law—or the Republic of Ireland law, as it is now. So we looked at the Eire law and we found this—I read the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1935. The relevant section is Section 24, which is in these words:
  1242
  "Every person who is not a citizen of Saorstat Eireann by virtue of Article 3 of the Constitution but was born before the 6 December, 1922"—
  and then they go on to expound that. So you are driven back to consider who was a citizen of the Free State by Article 3 of the Constitution. I now turn—and everything turns on this—to Article 3 of the Constitution of 1922. I call your Lordships' attention to these words of the Constitution, which is scheduled to the Act:
  "Article 3, Every person, without distinction of sex, domiciled in the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State … at the time of the coming into operation of this Constitution who was born in Ireland or either of whose parents was born in Ireland or who has been ordinarily reside it in the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State … for not less than seven years, is a citizen of the Irish Free State."
  I read those words as I think any lawyer would read them, and I came at once to the conclusion that as a mere matter of construction and, I should have thought, common sense, where you are dealing with a clause which refers to these two concepts (one is Ireland and the other is the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State), you would assume they were two different things, otherwise all you would have to say is "domiciled and born in Ireland." May I read the words again in order that I may make that point clear?
  "Every person, without distinction of sex, domiciled in the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State … at the time of the coming into operation of this Constitution, who was born in Ireland.…"
  It now turns out that this very ingenious argument has been put forward.
  Without my going into back history the Committee may remember that at the time there was a period called the "Ulster month." during which Ulster had the right to contract out, or Northern Ireland had the right to contract out. The relevant law was passed on December 5; the Constitution came into force on December 6, and Northern Ireland, I think by a unanimous Resolution, contracted out on the morning of December 7. But on December 6—which was the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution—the position was that the law of the Free State was not exercisable as respects Northern Ireland, and the provisions of the Government of Northern Ireland Act, 1920, continued. When

  1243
  under Section 12 of the Treaty the Northern Ireland Parliament presented a Resolution, it was provided that the power should no longer extend to Northern Ireland. So the very ingenious theory has been adopted—and perfectly honestly adopted: I am not for a moment suggesting the contrary—that on December 6, the day of the coming into force of the Constitution, theoretically, rather in a metaphysical sense, the powers of the Free State, the area of jurisdiction of the Free State, embraced the whole of Ireland, although their powers were not exercisable. There they were, though possibly dormant. It was on December 7, when the Northern Ireland Resolution was passed, that they finally ceased. That is the proposition.
  The noble and learned Viscount gave us the information which he derived from Mr. Ellison on Thursday, and I noticed that he then said:
  "I am bound to say that I had not clearly apprehended all the aspects of this matter until I received this information this morning."
  I referred to it as rather surprising information, and I advised the Committee not necessarily to accept it as correct. I say frankly that I hoped I should be able to obtain some statement from the Government of the Republic of Ireland or some authority for the statement that anybody born and living in Northern Ireland was not regarded as being domiciled in the area of jurisdiction of the Free State. But I discovered that that is not the Eire Government's view. They would say that Mr. Ellison's view is right, and they would say that on December 6, at any rate, the area of jurisdiction was all one over the whole country. That being so, I can say this quite sincerely. When we agreed to the various clauses of the British Nationality Act, it is I think (and I hope I have satisfied the Committee of this) not in the least surprising that we did not understand that conception. And certainly when we agreed to Section 12 (4), by the phrase "unless he is a citizen of Eire" we meant a citizen of Eire in the real sense—that he really was a person born and bred and living, and so on, within the twenty-six counties. If that was so, then it was right to put such a person in the pigeon-hole which called him a citizen of Eire, and not right to put him into the other pigeon-hole which called him a citizen
  1244
  of the United Kingdom and Colonies. That was our intention, and I very much regret that there was this difference of view.
  We must put that right. We must have a clause—and it is not easy to draft—which amends the British Nationality Act. I have drafted such a clause and the Committee will see it on the Order Paper to-morrow morning. There are some copies here now in manuscript which the Committee can see. I should like guidance from my noble friend the Leader of the House and from the Leader of the Opposition as to whether they would like me to expound the clause now, or whether they think it would be better that we should discuss this matter to-morrow. The Committee are entitled and indeed bound to look into this matter and consider it. It may be more convenient to leave it until to-morrow. I do not know what view the noble Leaders take. My noble friend tells me he is inclined to think it might be better to leave it until to-morrow, but I am quite willing to take the view of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to what he would like me to do.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We are extremely grateful both to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor for their brilliant exposition of the very difficult position which exists, and which I may say for about two minutes made it clear to me. I understand that two Amendments have now been drafted: there is the Amendment which was put down by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and there is this new manuscript Amendment of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor was good enough to send me a copy of his Amendment before the Committee met. I have read it, but I still find it very difficult to understand. My impression is that the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, is the clearer to a layman, but I understand that there are points which the legal draftsmen feel are not covered by it. In the circumstances, and in view of the fact that most noble Lords in the House have not even seen the Lord Chancellor's manuscript Amendment, I think it would not be possible for us to go much further with it to-day. Indeed, if we have not the text it would be rather hopeless for the Lord

  1245
  Chancellor even to attempt to expound it to us.
  What I would suggest is that we might postpone the Committee stage until tomorrow, when I hope it may be possible to take it early in the afternoon, because I know the Government wish to make as much progress with the Bill as they can. It might be possible for us on this side of the House to have some talks with the Lord Chancellor even before that time and, in the light of such talks, we might be able to find an agreed solution, which would be the happiest solution of all. Obviously we all want the same thing, and it is only a question of how it should be put. Therefore what I would suggest, with all deference, is that we should adjourn the Committee stage and then perhaps we can consider the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, and whatever Amendment emerges from our discussions should be put upon the Paper for to-morrow. We might hope then to clear up the whole matter. That is the proposal I put forward.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that that would be a convenient course to follow. If the noble Marquess will give me time to put on my appropriate garments, and to move that the House be resumed, the effect of that, I think, will be that we can have our discussion to-morrow.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would like to have this clear. Is it the intention of the Lord Chancellor to put down his Amendment in any case to-night as one of the subjects for discussion, or do we try to obtain the new draft?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Unless we get a new draft on which we can all agree, I think I had better put down my Amendment. The House will then be able to decide as between the two. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  4.52 p.m.
  LORD MACDERMOTT: My Lords, may I say a word or two about the Ireland Bill, as one who mentioned the problem which we have been considering on the occasion of the Second Reading? I feel that I am only expressing the views of many who have been much perturbed about this matter when I say that we are
  1246
  grateful for the way in which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has realised the difficulties and has expressed the Government's willingness to meet them here. I also wish to acknowledge with gratitude the great pains, labour and research which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has devoted to investigating this matter for the guidance of the House. There is just one question which I would like to mention now, so that regard may be paid to it when the two Amendments are being considered by those who will be responsible for the final form of the Amendment to be submitted to the House.
  As I understand them—I have had only a very short time to look at them—the Amendments deal primarily with those who are still resident in Northern Ireland. Undoubtedly, the majority of those concerned are resident there. If the view expressed in the Southern Ireland courts be correct—and I do lot for a moment suggest that it is—practically all those still living in Northern Ireland, including myself, would be citizens of Eire. Apart from them, there were many people who were born in Southern Ireland but eventually settled in other parts of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and many of them have felt a good deal of doubt about the official attitude as indicated by the rulings of the Passport Office and the Home Office. I had a letter the other day from a retired captain of the Royal. Navy who was born in Southern Ireland in 1897, who joined the Royal Navy when he came of age and who has never been back in Southern Ireland since. On his application to the Home Office for clarification of the matter, it was suggested that he should sign a form saying that he was a citizen of Eire. That he refused to do.
  I mention that class because, though, as I understand it, they are not claimed as citizens of Eire by the Eire authorities, they have been caught lip in the confusion which has been engendered by the rulings of the Passport Office. If their case can be met in the draft which is to be submitted to the House, well and good. I fully appreciate that the matter is different so far as they are concerned. It may be that an assurance by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, that in no event will such persons be regarded as coming within the category, will suffice. I thought it right to

  1247
  draw attention to the fact that those who had been perturbed by the rulings of the Passport Office are not entirely those now resident in Northern Ireland. There are, I am given to understand, a good number resident elsewhere in the United Kingdom and the Colonies who are affected.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very sorry if my premature Motion prevented the noble Lord, Lord MacDermott, saying earlier what he wanted to say on the Ireland Bill and I express my humble apologies to him. What he says will be fully borne in mind. I agree that we have so to frame our Amendment as to parcel out these people. They will not all necessarily become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Some may become citizens of Canada, citizens of Australia, citizens of India, or whatever it may be. We must take care of that fact in our Amendment.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, before the House adjourns, may I say that part of the understanding is that the business with respect to the Ireland Bill will be taken first to-morrow? We have already passed an omnibus Resolution which entitles us so to take it.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY CONVENTION) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.
  GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BOARD ORDER CONFIRMATION (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL
  Committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  POLICE PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1949
  Draft Regulations proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Police Pensions Act, 1948: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
  House adjourned at three minutes before five o'clock.