Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Dec 1949

Vol. 118 No. 16

Committee on Finance. - Industrial and Commercial Property (Protection) (Amendment) Bill, 1949 (Seanad)—Second and Subsequent Stages.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This is a small measure designed to amend the Industrial and Commercial Property (Protection) Act, 1927, by deleting from Section 9 (1) certain words and repealing the Second Schedule.

The section makes provision for the fees to be charged by the Controller of Industrial and Commercial Property in respect of matters dealt with by the Industrial and Commercial Property Register Office under his control. The office, which is commonly called the Patents Office, was established under Section 5 of the Act and deals with the grant of patents and the registration of designs and trade marks.

Most of the activities under the control of the office involved the payment of fees by applicants and interested parties. These fees are prescribed by the Industrial Property Rules, 1927, and the Register of Patents Rules, 1927. The fees prescribed then have remained unaltered since that year. In view of the change in the value of money, and in view of the alteration which has taken place in fees of other kinds under other Departments, it has been decided that there is a need for the revision of these fees by way of increase. It is proposed, if this Bill is passed, to revise the fees upwards.

Normally, fees of this character are variable by Order and the Order can be revoked or amended by a Deputy bringing it before the Dáil for discussion. Under this Act fees were prescribed and Section 9 provides, in respect of certain actions, the maximum fees which may be prescribed, and the 1927 Rules prescribe these fees as maximum fees.

In effecting this amendment, it is proposed to remove from the Statute the provision enacting maximum fees, so that fees may in the future be prescribed and varied by statutory Order. Consequently, if Deputies require to discuss a particular fee or a variation in the fees, the Order can be brought before the Dáil.

It is probably correct enough that the fees fixed by the 1927 Act now require revision, but I think I am correct in saying that, when the 1927 Act was before the Dáil, there was considerable importance attached to the principle of having maximum fees prescribed in the legislation. What this amending Bill does is to take the lid off, not merely to authorise an increase, but to remove statutory control over the fees. In future, the fees will be prescribed by Order, but there is no provision for its annulment by the Dáil.

Any Order can be annulled by the Dáil. It may mean that a Deputy may have to bring it up himself.

Normally, I would prefer to argue this matter more fully, but in view of the limited time at my disposal, I shall not do so now. These fees in the past usually produced about enough to meet the cost of running the office. If the Parliamentary Secretary will give an assurance that they will be fixed on that basis, at whatever level will cover the cost of running the office and no more, I will be satisfied. I hope the Minister for Finance is not looking to these fees to meet his budgetary difficulties. If he is satisfied to meet the cost of the Patents Office from the fees, and fix them on that basis, we will not argue any further.

What the Deputy says is a fact. The fees received showed some profit until last year, when there was a slight loss. The number of applications now coming in, and the variety, have increased considerably. I think I can give an assurance that the fees prescribed will bear relation to present-day values.

Question agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining stages to-day.

Bill put through Committee without amendment and reported, received for final consideration, and passed.

Top
Share