COMMONS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 27 July 1977)

Lord ORAM

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 and 33. May we also take into consideration Amendments Nos. 36, 38, 114, 172, 1053 205 and 230? Amendment No. 33 is purely drafting. Amendments Nos. 32 and 36 are paving Amendments for the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 38. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, is in his place. In view of his interest in this matter, perhaps I should say a few words of explanation. Noble Lords will recall that the clause dealing with the publication of information prejudicial to the defence of the Realm or to the safety of the public was deleted from the Bill in this House. The new clause reinstates unchanged the provision in the Bill relating to patent applications containing information prejudicial to the safety of the Realm or safety of the public.

In this connection, perhaps I may be allowed to say that most other countries have analogous provisions for the review of newly filed patent applications from the security point of view. The United Kingdom have arrangements with NATO countries and some others in this respect. I make this point because I recall that the noble Earl suggested at one point in his argument on the earlier occasion that other countries do not have legislation comparable to ours. I assure the noble Earl that we have given the deepest thought to the consequences of the Amendments that he moved, and we believe that the restoration of this clause is essential from the point of view of national security.