Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Dec 1949

Vol. 37 No. 6

Industrial and Commercial Property (Protection) (Amendment) Bill, 1949—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Cosgrave)

This is a small measure, designed to amend the Industrial and Commercial (Protection) Act of 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 Registration 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 of the office involve the payment of fees by applicants or interested parties, and these fees are prescribed by the Industrial Property Rules, 1927, and the Register of Patent Agents and Clerks Rules, 1927. They have remained unaltered since that year. In view of the present-day values, it has been decided that there is need for revision of these fees by way of increase and it is proposed to do so at an early date, if this Bill is passed.

Section 9 provides in respect of certain actions the maximum fees which may be prescribed, and the 1927 rules prescribed those as maximum fees. In order to enable these particular fees to be increased, it is necessary that the section should be amended and the present Bill has this object in view. In effecting this amendment, it is proposed to remove from the statute the provision enacting maximum fees, so that the fees may in future be prescribed and varied by statutory Order rather than by statute.

Consequently, if this Bill is passed, and if in the future Deputies or Senators want to raise any matter, the Order can be reviewed after it has been laid on the Table of the House. This is a small measure and I do not think it requires any further explanation.

Mr. Hawkins

I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could give us any information as to the reason for the departure, for having these fees fixed by statutory Order rather than by statute. My own approach to it would be that it would be better for interested parties to know well in advance what fees they would be called upon to pay. If the new proposal is put into legislation, a person anxious to avail of the offices of this Department may awake one morning to find that the fees have been increased overnight by 50 or 75 per cent., and he may not have made provision for such an increase. Does the Parliamentary Secretary feel that it would have any bad effect?

Mr. Cosgrave

I do not think it will. I understand that the greater number of cases in which fees are payable are regulated by rules and that the largest amount of money is involved in those cases that are covered by statute. As the Seanad is aware, most Departmental fees are variable by Order—as, for instance, in the case of the Post Office fees for wireless licences. That does not preclude discussion subsequently or the tabling of a motion to rescind the Order. In this case, when the Act was framed it was laid down that alteration could be made only by statute. It is a rather cumbersome method and it is now 22 years since there was any change, though there has been a very big alteration in values since 1927.

Mr. Hawkins

The Parliamentary Secretary and the Seanad can quite understand that probably a case can be made for the increase, but in this House we, and particularly the members who now occupy the other side of the House, have always voiced our opinion on legislation by Order. Are we not now making an entirely new departure in an entirely new Bill to carry out by Order what was up to this carried out by legislation?

Mr. Cosgrave

These Orders will come before the House and, consequently, Senators will have ample opportunity to discuss them. Looking at what happened over the last 22 years, it is not likely that there will be any changes for a number of years. In the event of changes being considered desirable, where fees are concerned, I think the Senator will agree that amending legislation is a rather cumbersome method. An Order can be implemented with greater speed and Senators still have the opportunity of discussion and amendment—or, if necessary, they can rescind it.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining stages now.

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