PATENTS BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 5 March 1957)

§ LORD MANCROFT
My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.

§ LORD MANCROFT
My Lords, the first Amendment to the Patents Bill which was made in another place and to which your Lordships' agreement is now sought is very similar to one which was moved in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Cawley. It is some time since your Lordships considered the Patents Bill and some of the more technical provisions may not, therefore, be completely fresh in your Lordships' minds. Perhaps I may briefly remind the House why the 211 Government found themselves unable at that time to accept the Amendment to which the House is now asked to agree.
First, I thought that it was unlikely in practice to achieve the early publication of Ian invention, since it seemed to me that an applicant could ensure postponement by neglecting to put his application in order. Secondly, an applicant has, since 1939, been allowed to make a request to postpone acceptance, and hence publication of his patent specification, until the end of the statutory maximum period. I suggested then to your Lordships that Parliament ought not to make what would amount to a change in the law on this second point without an inquiry amongst the interested parties.
I still feel that my first argument was a valid one. Bearing in mind, however, the views expressed in your Lordships' House during the Committee stage of this Bill, Her Majesty's Government took an early opportunity to consult the various bodies interested in this matter—the F.B.I., the Chartered Institute, and so on. This, then, is what happened. It turned cut that their opinions, the opinions of the experts concerned, strongly favoured the making of the Amendment. This Amendment was further pressed by both sides during the Committee stage in another place, and the Government accordingly thought it their duty to put down this Amendment at the Report stage of the Bill. I offer this explanation because I particularly do not want the House to think that our acceptance now of an Amendment which was originally unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government is in any way intended as a discourtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, or, indeed, to the House. I think your Lordships will now appreciate exactly what happened. Accordingly, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, is going to say, if anything, and I do not know whether to take at its face value what the noble 212 Lord, Lord Mancroft, has said—that he has now offered your Lordships an explanation. I lam not sure whether he has not offered your Lordships an apology. His words were that an Amendment was put down in your Lordships' House very similar to that which now appears upon the Order Paper and which was accepted by the Government in another place after the Government turned it down in your Lordships' House. "Very similar" really should read "precisely the same". The noble Lord, Lord Cawley, put down an Amendment to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 1. That is precisely the Amendment, now made in another place, to which your Lordships are now asked to agree.
I remember that the noble Lord said at the time that he was surprised that I did not put down the Amendment. I explained to him then why I did not put it down, and I was only too happy to support my noble friend, Lord Cawley. I thought the argument that the noble Lord advanced to your Lordships, and—if I may be so immodest as to say so—the argument that I advanced, was unanswerable. I had not heard any better argument advanced anywhere. But now we appear to have the Amendment upon the Order Paper. One of the reasons the noble Lord advanced for rejecting, on behalf of the Government, this same Amendment was—and I quote from Column 737 of Vol. 200 (No. 13), of the OFFICIAL REPORT for December 4, 1956: We considered this matter carefully at the time. We discussed it with patent agents. We consulted the Federation of British Industries, the National Union of Manufacturers, The Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents and The Trade Marks, Patents and Designs Federation. We came to the conclusion that the effect would not achieve what the noble Lord has in mind", intimating that the decision of the Government was influenced by the opinion of those bodies. I think I understood the noble Lord aright: that the self-same bodies were consulted before the Amendment was accepted in another place and it was upon their recommendation that the Government agreed to it. It appears to me to be somewhat mysterious.
However, I am going to suggest to the noble Lord that the reason why the Government accepted this Amendment was because they were so impressed with the arguments that were advanced in your 213 Lordships' House—and I will give a great deal of credit to the noble Lord that the Government did accept the Amendment, because, if he will recall his last words, they were that he would consider very carefully what had been said, he would discuss it with the President of the Board of Trade and, if they came to the conclusion that the fears that we advanced were substantial, then something would have to be done. Well, something has been done and we are grateful for it.
There is one thing I would point out to the House—that is, that at the time when this Bill was going through your Lordships' House the procedure was most handicapping. If your Lordships will remember, we in this House could not have a Report stage unless on the Committee stage there was an Amendment to report. The procedure has now been altered, in my view with great advantage to the House. Immediately after the Committee stage of this Bill I had a letter from an eminent member of the Patent Bar, who pointed out how right we were in the fears we had expressed and how wrong the Government were in not accepting the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cawley. I replied to this eminent Queen's Counsel saying, "I am sorry that we cannot do anything about it now in this House. You will have to prosecute the matter in another place." I have shrewd suspicions that that was the reason why another eminent Queen's Counsel in another place put down the noble Lord's Amendment and got it carried. I personally thank the noble Lord for bringing forward this Amendment and I am grateful to the Government for having accepted it. I do not think that my modest word of protest is uncalled for, because the Government might have saved themselves a lot of time and trouble if they had elected to accept the wisdom of this House, which, in many cases, is far superior to the guidance that they get from anywhere else.

§ LORD CAWLEY
My Lords, I had not intended to say anything on this matter, out I feel I must say a word of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Mancroft that this Amendment has now been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who has been so assiduous in assisting me in getting it passed. In conclusion, 214 I must say that I am sorry that the Government did not accept my first Amendment too.

§ LORD MANCROFT
My Lords, this Amendment is of rather minor importance. It is nothing more than a drafting Amendment. Its purpose is to improve the provisions of Clause 2. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.