The point I am raising now in connection with Section 7 I might have raised under Section 3. I want to ask the Minister if it is desirable to continue the spelling of the word "comptroller" in this rather old-fashioned style. He has nothing to do with accounts, and he is really a "controller," and I would urge on the Minister, unless there is some necessity which I cannot understand, that he should revise the spelling and describe this officer as Controller, inasmuch as he has nothing to do with any accounts, and that there is not even an etymological justification for this spelling, which goes right through the Bill.
ADDITIONAL ESTIMATE. - INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY (PROTECTION) BILL, 1926—THIRD STAGE.
The Dáil went into Committee.
Sections 1 to 6 inclusive put and agreed to.
Take out the "mp" and substitute "n."
Sections 7, 8 and 9 put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
(1) The Comptroller shall issue periodically an illustrated journal of patented inventions, registered designs, and registered trade marks to be called the Official Journal of Industrial and Commercial Property, and shall publish therein all such matters as are directed by this Act or otherwise by law to be published therein, and such other matters and information as the Comptroller may deem to be useful or important to proprietors of patents, designs, trade marks, or copyright granted, registered, or subsisting in Saorstát Eireann.
(2) The Comptroller may issue periodically, either in or as a supplement to the Journal or as a separate publication, as may appear expedient, reports of—
(a) cases relating to patents, designs, trade marks or copyright decided by courts of law in Saorstát Eireann, and
(b) such cases relating to patents, designs, trade marks, or copyright decided by courts of law outside Saorstát Eireann as the comptroller may consider to be useful or important to proprietors of patents, designs, trade marks, or copyright granted, registered, or subsisting in Saorstát Eireann.
(3) The comptroller may prepare and publish such indexes, abridgements of specifications, catalogues and other works relating to inventions, patents, designs and trade marks as he shall think fit.
(4) The comptroller shall make provision for keeping on sale copies of all documents which he is by this section directed or authorised to issue or publish, and also of all complete specifications (together with any accompanying drawings) of patents in force other than British Patents which by virtue of this Act are deemed to be patents granted under this Act.
I move:—
"In sub-section (1), lines 14 and 15, to delete the words `the comptroller may deem' and substitute the words `may appear.' "
The effect of this amendment is that the comptroller may not incur any expense without the prior approval of the Minister.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
"In sub-section (2), lines 19 and 20, to delete the words `As may appear expedient.' "
This amendment is intended to have a similar effect to the previous one.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
"In sub-section (3), line 30, to delete the word `such,' and in lines 32 and 33 to delete the words `as he shall think fit.' "
This amendment is on the same principle as the others.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 11 put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Sub-sections 5 and 6.
(5) The term limited in a patent granted pursuant to an application made under the provisions of this section for the duration of such patent shall be sixteen years from the date of the commencement of this Act.
(6) For the purposes of the application of the Second Schedule to this Act to a patent granted pursuant to an application made under the provisions of this section the date of the patent shall be deemed to be the date of the commencement of this Part of this Act.
I move:—
To delete sub-sections (5) and (6), page 9, and substitute two new sub-sections as follows:—
"(5) The term limited in a patent granted pursuant to an application made under the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section for the duration of such patent shall be sixteen years from the date of the commencement of this Part of this Act, and for the purpose of the application of the Second Schedule to this Act to such patent the date of such patent shall be deemed to be the date of such commencement.
(6) No fees shall be payable under this Act on any patent granted pursuant to an application made under the provisions of sub-section (2) of this section in respect of anything done or any period of time expired before the commencement of this part of this Act."
This amendment provides that persons who have obtained protection for an invention in a foreign country shall not be enabled to obtain a corresponding patent in Saorstát Eireann for a period of sixteen years from the commencement of the Act, but from the date of the patent in the foreign country. This is in conformity with the international Convention. Such persons are put in the same position with regard to relief from renewal fees as British patentees whose patents are extended to Saorstát Eireann under Section 29.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
Sections 13 to 16 inclusive put and agreed to.
There is a matter in connection with Section 17, and three or four other sections, which I would like the Minister to deal with. I am referring to sub-section (4), which says that "An appeal shall lie from the decision of the comptroller under this section to the law officer." I am not dealing with the subject of the appeal in this case. There are three or four other sections, and some one, particularly, which deals with an appeal from the comptroller to the law officer on the question of law as to the morality of a design or trade-mark. My point is as to whether it is not undesirable to have an appeal to the Attorney-General, who may be a political officer at some time, and may be a contestant in a case in the courts. I am not sure, but I think this is probably an adaptation from the Lord Chancellor in England. I suggest that it is undesirable to have an appeal from the comptroller to the law officer, who is an advisor of the Government, and who may be required to appear in the courts on behalf of the State on a matter on which he would perhaps be giving judgment. The idea runs right through the Bill that the appeal from the comptroller is to the Attorney-General. It seems that some defence is required of that provision, and I would like to have some views from the Minister in defence of that line of policy.
I do not think it is right to say it runs through the Bill that the appeal is always to the law officer. There is a distinction. There is an appeal to the law officer in cases which fall more or less under two heads: one, the question of a matter of fact to be determined; and (2) the question of office administration; but where there are the rights of parties in conflict then there should be an appeal to the court and not to the law officer. This is a pretty definite translation to our conditions to what is in the corresponding British legislation, where the appeal is to the Attorney-General and not to the Lord Chancellor. One specific point has been brought forward which I am fairly well inclined to accept, that is where it does not appear to be a matter of office administration or a discussion of facts, but something more than that, and where it would be invidious to leave it to the Attorney-General to decide. The distinction we have tried to keep throughout is that where it is on a matter of office administration, or on a matter of ascertaining facts, then it is for the law officer to decide, otherwise it is for the Court.
Sections 17 and 18 put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
SUB-SECTION 7.
Where—
(a) a complete specification contains a statement that a British patent for the invention has been applied for and that such application is still pending, and
(b) such application is refused, the applicant shall give notice of such refusal to the comptroller and thereupon the comptroller shall refuse to accept the application unless and until the applicant satisfies him—
(i) by the prescribed evidence that such refusal was made on grounds other than that the invention claimed in the complete specification has been wholly or in part claimed or described in any specification (other than a provisional specification not followed by a complete specification) published before the date of the application and left in the Patent Office in London pursuant to an application for a patent in the late United Kingdom made during the period commencing fifty years before the application and ending on the date of the commencement of this Part of this Act, and
(ii) by such statutory declaration as is mentioned in sub-section (3) of this section, that the invention has not been wholly or in part claimed in any such specification as is mentioned in the foregoing paragraph (i).
I move:—
"In sub-section (7), page 12, line 37, to delete the words `satisfies him' and substitute the word `proves.'
The reason for this amendment is it is considered advisable to provide an appeal to the law officer.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
"To add at the end of the section on page 12 a new sub-section as follows: (8) A refusal by the Comptroller under the foregoing sub-section to accept an application shall be subject to appeal to the law officer."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 19 as amended stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sections 20 to 23 inclusive put and agreed to.
SECTION 24.
(1) Any person may at any time within two months from the date of the advertisement of the acceptance of a complete specification give notice at the Office of opposition to the grant of the patent on any of the following grounds:—
(a) that the applicant obtained the invention from the opponent, or from a person of whom he is the legal representative; or
(b) that the invention was published in any complete specification, or in any provisional specification followed by a complete specification, deposited in the Patent Office in London pursuant to an application made in that Office within a period commencing fifty years before the date of the application for the patent the grant of which is being opposed and ending on the date of the commencement of this Part of this Act; or
(c) that the invention was before the date of the application published in any complete specification, or in any provisional specification followed by a complete specification, deposited in the Office pursuant to an application made under this Act or has been made available to the public by publication before the date of the application in any document (other than any such specification as is mentioned in this clause or any British specification published before the commencement of this Part of this Act) published in Saorstát Eireann or published prior to the establishment of Saorstát Eireann in the late United Kingdom; or
(d) that the invention has been claimed in any complete specification for a patent in Saorstát Eireann which though not published at the date of the application for the patent the grant of which is opposed was deposited pursuant to an application for a patent which is or will be of prior date to such patent; or
(e) that the nature of the invention or the manner in which it is to be performed is not sufficiently or fairly described and ascertained in the complete specification; or
(f) that the complete specification describes or claims an invention other than that described in the provisional specification, and that such other invention forms the subject of an application made by the opponent in the interval between the leaving of the provisional specification and the leaving of the complete specification; or
(g) that in the case of an application under the provisions of this Act relating to foreign and British dominion patents the specification describes or claims an invention other than that for which protection has been applied for in the foreign state or British dominion and that such other invention forms the subject of an application made by the opponent in the interval between the leaving of the application in the foreign state or British dominion and the leaving of the application in Saorstát Eireann,
but on no other ground.
(2) Where such notice is given the comptroller shall give notice of the opposition to the applicant, and shall, on the expiration of those two months, after hearing the applicant and the opponent, if desirous of being heard, decide the case.
(3) The decision of the comptroller shall be subject to appeal to the law officer, who shall, if required, hear the applicant and the opponent, if the opponent is, in his opinion, a person entitled to be heard in opposition to the grant of the patent, and shall decide the case; and the law officer may, if he thinks fit, obtain the assistance of an expert, who shall be paid such remuneration as the law officer with the consent of the Minister for Finance may determine.
I move:—
In sub-section (1), page 14, to insert before paragraph (g) a new paragraph as follows:—
"(g) that in the case of an application for a patent made under the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 12 (which relates to applications for patents in certain cases) of this Act, the invention claimed or described in the complete specification is not the same invention as the invention which was the subject of the application to the Minister for Economic Affairs of the late Provisional Government of Ireland or the Minister for Industry and Commerce of Saorstát Eireann or was the subject of the protection in the British dominion or foreign state (as the case may be) or."
It is possible that a person applying for a patent under Section 12, sub-sections (1) or (2), might include in his complete specification an invention different from that originally applied for and obtain priority, to the prejudice of the true inventor. The amendment provides that such a difference between the original application and the complete specification may be a ground of opposition to the grant of the patent.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, put and agreed to.
Section 25 put and agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Where an application for a patent has been abandoned, or become void, the specifications and drawings (if any) accompanying or left in connection with such application, shall not, save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, at any time be open to public inspection or be published by the comptroller.
I move on behalf of Deputy O'Connell:—
In line 49, page 15, after the word "time" to insert the words "before the expiration of twenty years from the date of application."
The section provides that when a patent which has become abandoned or void the specification and drawings accompanying it shall not be open at any time to public inspection or be published save as otherwise provided. I am not referring to the other provisions. The proposition is that there shall be a time limit of twenty years to that prohibition. I suggest that there ought to be a time limit, that, provided the idea has been submitted by drawings and left to the patentee to work upon for twenty years and he has failed to do so, there may be in that idea something that is of use and value to the community, and humanity as a whole, perhaps, and it should then become available for other minds to work upon, that it should not be hidden and absolutely lost to the world. The period is not material. I only mention twenty years because it seems to give a fairly long interval between the deposit of the drawings and specifications and the time when it might be reasonably expected to be worked up. But it ought not to be absolutely lost to humanity, simply because the particular inventor had failed in some way to take advantage of what was a sound valuable idea in its germ. I cannot think that there is any objection to it. I am quite prepared to modify the period to any number of years, but I say that we should not preclude the possibility that some bright thought may be absolutely lost to the world.
There does not seem to be any great objection to this. The relative sections with regard to abandoning and voiding are Sections 16 and 18. You cannot say at the start that there is any objection to stating that twenty years after the date of the application in a case where the matter is deemed to be abandoned or has become void, it should not be open to public inspection. The only difficulty I can see—the only hint of even a difficulty—is this, that if some valuable idea, contained in some original application, made and not proceeded with, is not published at all, it might thereafter be taken up by somebody and would not be voided for prior publication, whereas if after twenty years from the date of the application it were not merely open to public inspection but happened to be published by the Comptroller, the point might arise that that would prevent any further publication. I would like to get a little time to look into that more deeply. I cannot see any objection to it at the moment; it does seem to be reasonable that matters of this kind should be open to public inspection at some specified time. I would like the Deputy to leave it over so that I could have the matter I refer to looked into.
I am satisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 26, 27 and 28 put and agreed to.
On Section 29, a point which has been raised before and which can fall to be dealt with on many sections can be more properly raised than anywhere else, the point in connection with what are described as enemy patents. The effect of Section 29 is, briefly, that existing British patents prior to the commencement of the Bill are taken over into this country. They come over subject to anything that might apply to them on the other side. Now, it must be recognised and definitely stated that that includes, say, such German patents as were confiscated under war legislation in England and licences to work these patents granted by the Board of Trade in England to somebody in the late United Kingdom. Those are definitely coming over. In addition, however, this has to be said, that an order was made by the Board of Trade in, I think, July, 1920—the month is not material— which gave power to the Board of Trade to modify or to make any disposal of these patents, confiscated under war legislation, for which licences had been granted. Whatever power was granted to the Board of Trade by that order of 1920 lies under the Adaptation of Enactments Acts with the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Free State, and whatever power was given to the Board of Trade and the President of the Board of Trade comes over under the Adaptations of Enactments Acts to me. So that whatever power there is in the Board of Trade at the moment with regard to the control of it, or modification of it, or in dealing with confiscated patents, that will lie now in the hands of a Minister of this State. I am not very clear what variety of dealings I may have with these patents in case any original owner of such German patents, confiscated under war legislation, should make application here.
To whom are these patents confiscated?
I may have used rather inaccurate language about that. The patent still remains with the original holder, but a licence to use has been granted by the Board of Trade in England to British nationals.
Are you proposing that such a licence to the British national will include the right to use that patent in Ireland?
Yes, at the moment. That is the situation. If you take one of the normal cases, a British inventor who obtains a patent for some idea, and he parts with that patent right to somebody for a good consideration, we take over that person here under Section 29. Of course that is all subject to revocation if it is found that any application for a similar type of patent had been filed here in the interim, from 1921 to the date of the commencement of the Bill. But leaving that out of consideration for the moment, we take over any licence-holder who holds for a good consideration from the holder of the patent in the first instance, and his rights operate here. We do the same with the licence-holder where that licence has been granted by the Board of Trade in respect of a patent which was originally German-owned, but which had been confiscated under war legislation. I have, then, the powers of the Board of Trade with regard to the modification and disposal of that licence here. Just exactly as to what those powers are and as to how far I can go, I am not quite clear, and I mention it here so as to make my position, dubious as it is, clear to the Dáil. If later on I find there are certain things that I want to do with these patents and am precluded from doing by the Board of Trade order or the war legislation, I will make an announcement of that position to the Dáil, have the case discussed on the merits, and see if any further legislation on the matter is required. I am moving simply to adopt the present powers, with the proviso that if they are found to work inequitably there will be a further statement and a further search for powers, if powers are necessary.
I am glad to have that explanation from the Minister. It gives me an opportunity to say that the position, as far as I can follow it, is that any act of the Board of Trade in issuing licences before the 6th December, 1921, might well, in equity, be retained, so far as it affects the territory of the Free State. I cannot see any justification for maintaining that since 6th December, 1921. I think any licence that has been issued since that date ought, automatically, be revoked. There was a reference earlier in the day to the revocation of claims under war reparations. This is the other side. I do not think it is reasonable to say, on the one hand, that we are cancelling any claim we might have ever had in regard to war reparations, and then to say that the value of patents, which were held by German or other belligerents, had been handed over to somebody in England, and that they should have freedom to exercise their monopoly in Ireland for patents, to which they have really no equitable claim. I hope that matter will have some consideration before we lose this Bill entirely, and that we shall have some kind of assurance, at any rate, that the holder of a patent, which is not the result of any active brain or even monetary expenditure on the part of the holder, shall not have special privileges in this country.
As I say, I can understand the arguments and the equities up to the 6th December, 1921—one might say up to February, 1919. I can understand a date being fixed where it might be said that there was a United Kingdom, and that the patent law ran freely by consent of the people of the Free State, but I cannot see the justification of allowing confiscated patents, confiscated property in ideas of Germans, Austrians, or Turks, being handed over to a British manufacturer, and of giving him monopoly rights within the Free State for how many years I do not know—whatever limits the patent laws might impose. It is, I think, an unfair discrimination against manufacturers in this country, and the people of the country, and in favour of persons who have certainly no valid rights in the matter. I think I would not be far wrong in saying that when a licence had been granted to a manufacturer to work a German patent in England, it was with the object of seeing that the patent was worked in England, that there was actual industrial development, that there was some value to the community out of it. We are proposing, unless some further modifications arise in the course of the Bill, that the freedom will be absolute, and will give no value to this community. That, I think, is quite an unfair discrimination against the people of this country, in favour of recipients of favours from the British Government, at the expense of the German inventor.
I would like to clear up a certain number of difficulties. First of all, there has been no confiscation, no extra confiscations, in regard to what is described as enemy-owned property since 1921. In fact, there has been none since the period that marked the closing of the war.
I was not misled in that way. I understand though that the licences may have been issued later than 1921.
I do not think so. If there has been any movement since 1921 in regard to these things, it has been in the handing back of licences. Any movement since 1921 has been in the direction of getting rid of these German-owned patents, taking them out of the hands of the licensee, to whom power was given to work the patents, and giving them back to the original owner. The Deputy rather mixed two points. If a licence were cancelled so that the patent lapsed with all its rights, or were returned with all these rights into the hands of the original owner, the German or whoever it might be in the particular case, that would be always subject to whatever was ordinary legislation, say, with regard to working on a commercial scale in a particular number of years in the country, and if the English national holder of a licence of German confiscated patent comes into this country with that, he comes subject to our legislation. If he does not work that in this country on a commercial scale within whatever the period be in the Bill then we have power to take that licence from him, so that that matter is apart entirely from the question I am at, at the moment, which is, the man who has a licence, not with the goodwill of the original owner, but who has got it through war legislation. Definitely the tendency has been, in England, to return this enemy property. I had a list of patents confiscated, patents under which licences had been granted without the goodwill of the owner at a certain period. That is about two years ago. That ran to something over 400 cases. The most recent list—I got one about a fortnight ago—shows that the number has decreased to 88. Of course, a number of them have lapsed. If you take the position of patents taken over at the beginning of the war, in 1914, and suppose that they were just new then, that the ordinary life of the patent had to run, and that it was doing that all through 1915, 1916 and the years of the war, it can be seen that with the ordinary life of these patents they would lapse quite soon. As most of them were not new, not in their first stages on the date on which they were held to be taken over, at the outbreak of the war, naturally a lot of this difference between the 400 and the present 88 is due not to the handing back but to the lapsing of the patents. The position is that the tendency in England is along the lines of getting rid of this type of enemy property, and there are 88 outstanding cases. They are the only material we have to deal with in the matter I am speaking of.
Deputy Johnson also said that a holder might get his licence, not by reason of his brain-work or of any sacrifice of money on his account. It should be remembered that the licence-holder of a confiscated German patent has to pay royalties, and that such licence-holder gets every consideration. The only difference between him and the normal case is that in a normal case the owner parts for good consideration, and he is the judge of whether the consideration is good or not. In this case the Board of Trade intervened, came in compulsorily and asked whether there were any offers for the licence, and they handed it out on such terms as they thought reasonable. They still retain that power. If it is merely a matter of deciding whether the royalty is too much or too little it could be adjusted. All that power is in the Board of Trade and will, in future, be in my power. It is a difficult question and one on which I am not prepared to be definite in regard to any of its aspects: (1) whether it is proper that this should be taken over at all, and (2) what exactly can I do if the original inventor makes application that Saorstát Eireann should no longer be regarded as an area in which the Board of Trade in England should be allowed to operate. I am not promising that before this legislation goes further I will have that question so far examined that I will look for further powers if I think they are desirable. All I am doing is to state my doubts here, and to say that we will leave it until a test case arises. If I find on examination of a particular case that the circumstances are such that I am forbidden to act, in the way I would be inclined to act, I will lay the whole matter before the Dáil, and let the Dáil decide whether I should get further powers. I could not do that before this Bill passes, and I think we will have to wait until a definite case is taken and tried.
Question put and agreed to.
Question—"That Sections 30 to 42, inclusive, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 43.
(1) Any person interested may at any time apply to the comptroller alleging in the case of any patent that there has been an abuse of the monopoly rights thereunder and asking for relief under this section.
(2) The monopoly rights under a patent shall be deemed to have been abused in any of the following circumstances:—
(a) ......
(b) ......
(c) if the demand for the patented article in Saorstát Eireann is not being met to an adequate extent and on reasonable terms.
I move:—
In sub-section (2) (c), page 23, line 53, after the word "terms" to add the words—"regard being had amongst other circumstances, to the potential demand that might be evoked if the patented article were sold at a lower price."
This section deals with the prevention of abuses of monopoly rights, and what I desire is that, in the consideration of the terms and general facts regarding the article, some regard will be had as to whether proper advantage to the community is being given by the holders of the patent. It may be said, for instance, that a firm is charging a price per article, which has more or less a luxury demand, and is making just as much profit over the sale of one thousand articles at a certain price as might be made over the sale of ten thousand articles at a quarter of the price; that they prefer to do a small, select trade rather than a larger trade at a lower price. My proposition is that some consideration should be given to that aspect of the matter, so that the patentee will not be using his monopoly rights to deprive the community of some of the advantages of the idea if the community is prepared to pay. You not only have the patentee in the matter to take into account but also the exploiters of the patent. I ask that some consideration be given to that question as to whether the patented article could not be sold at a lower price which would lead to a bigger demand. It is really, in fact, stimulating the activity of the firm which is working and selling the patent.
I think the amendment stops a gap which there might otherwise be—that a person who is abusing his monopoly rights might allege that there was not an adequate demand, that demand being stopped by the high price. I am prepared to agree to this, but it has been suggested by one who is a purist in language that the word "evoked" might be changed to "created." I do not know whether the Deputy has any choice between the two words.
I am not particular, but I think "evoked" is better.
Very well.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In sub-section (2), before paragraph (d), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
"(d) if the price at which the patented article is sold is, having regard to all the circumstances. unreasonably high in comparison with that at which the article or an equivalent article embodying the same patent is sold in other countries."
This is the same idea as that in the previous amendment.
I have only one objection to this. All this is to be dealt with on application to the comptroller, who is to be the judge. It seems to me that he is going to be given very difficult points to determine if, for instance, he has to decide "if the price at which the patented article is sold is, having regard to all the circumstances, unreasonably high in comparison with that at which the article or an equivalent article embodying the same patent is sold in other countries." There will then arise a discussion as to what is in a particular case "an equivalent article." There would be no objection if the words "equivalent article embodying the same patent" were left out.
There is on record a law case in connection, I think, with Dunlop tyres, and the evidence showed that goods which were being sold in England, let us say, at £2, were being sold in France at £1 10s. The goods were exported from England and sold by the same firm in France for 30/-. Under the monopoly secured by the patent they were getting a larger price in England than in France. The price was lower in France because they were meeting a not dissimilar competitor. My point is that we ought to get what might be called most favoured nation treatment. If a firm can export a patented article to the Continent of Europe from England where it has been manufactured, they can afford to send it to Ireland, and only ask the Continental price, subject to variations in carriage and the like. At least we ought not to be subject to every limitation that is imposed on the English buyer. We ought to get the advantage that the English patent holder or seller gives to the French, Germans, Dutch, or wherever the goods may be sold.
Before this amendment is accepted, I would like to have the principle Deputy Johnson enunciated more carefully considered. Business conditions in many countries are altogether different and, if one is to continue doing business in some countries, one has to adopt tactics of a certain character. May I explain what I mean. Say that the articles in question are tyres and that competition has to be met in France, if the company adopted the usual method, cut the price, so as to keep trade, the danger would be that under Deputy Johnson's proposal it would be compelled to give a similar concession in this country. I, for one, would not be prepared to support that principle. Another thing that has to be taken into account is the difference in the value of coinage in the different countries.
The Deputy has to consider the amendment rather than my speech. I say "having regard to all the circumstances," including the currency.
I only want to point out that these are very serious problems, particularly in business, to-day. On behalf of the business community I would be slow to accept a principle of the character embodied in Deputy Johnson's proposal. I would stress the point that if the Minister is disposed to accept the amendment in its present form he should have some inquiry made into it between this and the Report Stage. On the face of it, it appears to me to be a dangerous principle.
It seems to me that Deputy Johnson has met the point that Deputy Good speaks of by the words "having regard to all the circumstances." Taking the words as they occur, if someone interested applies to the comptroller alleging that there had been abuse of monopoly rights, by Deputy Johnson's amendment, the Comptroller is given a right to consider the price at which a patented article is sold, and if "having regard to all the circumstances" it is unreasonably high. He also has the right to find out at what price it is sold in other countries. The Patent Comptroller will indicate at some stage if he is disposed to agree that the price is unreasonably high, "having regard to all the circumstances," and it is for the person who is given a monopolistic privilege to put up a concrete case, and show that he is not abusing that privilege. It is for him to disprove when the Comptroller sets out what the circumstances are. That will be taken into consideration when a decision is being given.
Do I understand the Minister to suggest the deletion of the words "the article or an equivalent article embodying the same patent"? If so, I am prepared to meet that.
That can be gone into in detail. I think the Comptroller would rather if the burden of deciding if an article was sold, "having regard to all the circumstances," at an unreasonably high price, was put on someone else's shoulders. If the Deputy leaves the matter that way, I would indicate acceptance of the amendment, omitting the phrase referred to, which I will further have reconsidered on the Report Stage.
Has the Minister considered that if the words which he complains of in the amendment were omitted the proposed new sub-section becomes no more than an amplification of the last words in sub-section (c)?
I think if that is so it is only making it explicit. I think the amendment explains itself fully, and that it is adding something as it directs the attention of interested parties to certain things which can be brought before the Comptroller. I think the amendment has its use. I am leaving over for consideration the adoption even, of the phrase that I have asked the Deputy to omit at this stage.
I did not understand that. I think the words have their value. In another country it would be possible by them for the patentee here to compete with rivals. With some modification he might meet competition. If he could do that it would be indicative of the possibilities of producing an article here at a cheaper rate. I saw value in Deputy Johnson's proposal.
I would still stress my argument that there is more behind this, from the business point of view, than appears on the surface. I will give an instance of what I mean. In this country we have, occasionally, what is known as "dumping." Opinions differ as to whether that is a desirable state of affairs or not. "Dumping" is essential to mass production and to get down costs. If "dumping" took place in connection with the manufacture of some item, in order to get down prices, and get a larger output, then it might be sought under this particular amendment to get a reduction of price in this country corresponding to that prevailing where the article is dumped. That is interfering with the manufacturer. The ramifications of an amendment such as this are very wide, and I suggest that they should be carefully considered before adopting it.
I would point out that this is a Bill dealing with patents in the Saorstát. It is not concerned primarily, at any rate, with manufacturers in other countries. When we give monopoly rights in patents we give a privilege to the patentee, and I think we are entitled to look for some conditions attaching to that privilege.
We are giving the patentee certain monopoly rights to sell his article, and to preclude any other person copying that article for sale in this country. We surely have a right to say: "You have no liberty to abuse those monopoly rights; if you, in the course of your business arrangements, manufacture that article in England or in France, as the case may be, and sell your manufactured article to some other country at a lower price than you are prepared to sell to us, surely we have a right to say that your privileges are being abused." At least we have a right to question the matter, and that is all we are proposing to do in this section. We are entitled to ask: "Are you abusing your privileges," and to say: "We think you can sell, and ought to sell, your goods in this country at as low a price as you are selling them in France or in England. It is for you to answer that contention." That is all we are seeking to have done in this section. It seems to me to be the simplest form of protection in the interest of the people who are giving the privilege to the patent-holder.
The Deputy can see that underlying this proposal is the question of the selling price of a particular commodity. Can the Deputy give me a corresponding clause in any legislation that we have passed in which we circumscribed the selling price of an article? The Deputy can see the effect of this proposal. If, owing to the fluctuation in the coinage, or to some particular difficulty in trading, an article was being sold at a lower price in Germany than it was being sold here, that would give rise to a question here as to whether a similar advantage should not be conferred on this country.
Does the Deputy think that that would be something harmful?
It raises a trading question that is somewhat new. Can the Deputy give precedents?
Deputy Good has used the phrase "circumscribed as regards price." If Deputy Johnson's proposal provided for a case where an article was sold at a higher price here than it was sold at in other countries, there might be a definite limitation of the price. But the phrase is tricked out with a certain number of conditions. The phrase used is, "if the price is, having regard to all the circumstances, unreasonably high in comparison ..." I think that that involves a very slight circumscription of price. Deputy Johnson is perfectly sound in contending that he is merely asking that inquiry shall be made as to whether the price is unreasonably high. The Comptroller is to decide whether the price, having regard to all the circumstances, is so unreasonable that it may be described as an abuse of monopolistic rights.
Is the Minister accepting the amendment?
Yes, but I am holding over for consideration the adoption of the amendment in full. At the moment, I am accepting it without the phrase "or an equivalent article embodying the same patent is sold in other countries."
Amendment (with omission) agreed to.
Would the Minister make some inquiry between this Stage and Report Stage as to the effect of this proposal? Would a deflated currency come into consideration here?
It would form the subject matter of consideration by the Comptroller afterwards.
Section 43, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 44 and 45 agreed to.
SECTION 46.
I move:—
Before Section 46 to insert a new section as follows:—
"(1) Any inventor or patentee may (either for or without valuable consideration) assign to a Minister on behalf of the State all the benefit of an invention and of any patent obtained or to be obtained for the invention.
(2) In this section the word "Minister" means a Minister head of a Department of State established under the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924 (No. 16 of 1924)."
I should like to say a few words on this amendment in order to give credit where credit is due. There is a gap in the Bill. The proposal here is to allow the Minister to take over an invention offered as a gift. The Minister accepts the amendment, which is satisfactory. I want to give an illustration which may surprise some Deputies, particularly Deputies from Cork.
I know of a case where a man believed he had a very sound and valuable idea, which he endeavoured to work up. He made a promise to certain people who had helped him in his experiments—experiments which failed. unfortunately—that if his experiment should prove fruitful and valuable, it would go to the State. I think that is a manifestation of public spirit that might well be encouraged. We certainly ought to provide machinery within the Act whereby the Minister could receive a gift of that kind, and the Minister has promised to accept this amendment, which will permit of such acceptance.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 46, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sections 47 to 61, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 62.
Sub-section (3) The Minister may by order make rules for the management of the register of patent agents and may by such rules prescribe any matters or thing referred to in this section as prescribed, and in particular may so prescribe the educational and professional qualifications and the conditions for eligibility for registration in that register.
I move Amendment 12 on behalf of Deputy Davin:—
"To add at the end of sub-section (3) the words `and the maximum fees which may be charged by any person registered in the register of patent agents or by any solicitor for such services in connection with the application for or the obtaining of patents as may be specified in such rules.' "
This is a proposal to give the Minister certain control over the patent agents. It seems to me reasonable that there should be some check upon the patent agents who are registered and who have certain privileges under this Bill. There should be some check upon the amount of fees to be charged by them, inasmuch as, in the majority of cases, inventors are bound to make use of agents.
This is quite a valuable amendment. Take, for instance, the Institute of Patent Agents in Great Britain. The fees are regulated by them, but they are subject to the control of the Board of Trade. This amendment is simply introducing something to the same effect. The question as to solicitors would be a little more delicate, but as the phrase is "may" make regulations, I do not see that there is any harm in the proposal.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That Section 62, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sections 63 to 77, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 78.
Where an application for a design has been abandoned or refused, the application and any drawings, photographs, tracings, representations, or specimens left in connection with the application shall not at any time be open to public inspection or be published by the comptroller.
I move:—
In line 57, after the word "time" to insert the words:—"before the expiration of twenty years from the date of the application."
This is a corresponding amendment to that referring to designs, previously accepted in respect of Section 26 in regard to patents.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That Section 78, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sections 79 to 87, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 88.
Sub-section (2) For the purposes of the duration and renewal of the registration of a trade mark registered pursuant to this section, such trade mark shall be deemed to have been first registered under this Act on the date on which such trade mark was first registered in the Patent Office in London notwithstanding that such date is prior to the passing of this Act or to the commencement of this Part of this Act and (whenever appropriate) the registration of such trade mark shall be deemed to have been renewed under this Act on the date or respective dates and for the period or respective periods on and for which the registration of such trade mark in the Patent Office in London was renewed in that Office before the registration of such trade mark pursuant to this section whether such date or dates was or respectively were prior or subsequent to the passing of this Act or to the commencement of this Part of this Act.
I move:—
"In sub-section (2), page 40, lines 62 and 63, to delete the words `the purposes of the duration and renewal of the registration of' and substitute the words `all purposes under this Act,' and in line 64 to delete the words `such trade mark.' "
Difficulties might arise if a British trade mark extended to Saorstát Eireann were deemed to be registered under the Act for the purposes only of its duration or renewal. The amendment provides that such a trade mark, on registration here shall be deemed to have been registered for all purposes under the Act.
If the Deputies want an example in addition I will refer them to Section 115 (1), where there is a provision for registration to be conclusive after seven years. This amendment is to put the thing on a general footing instead of having it only applicable at one point.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 88, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
Question—"That Sections 89 to 136 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 137.
Sub-section (2) An appeal shall lie from the decision of the comptroller under this section to the law officer.
I move:—
In sub-section (2), line 25, to delete the words "law officer" and substitute therefor the word "court."
This is the case I referred to at an earlier stage, and I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment.
From the point of view of the matter on which an appeal might lie, a thing which is contrary to law or morality is more a matter for an appeal to the court than to the Comptroller, and I am agreeable on that ground. I should like to point out that there will be more delay in an appeal to the court. This is a very important section, because it is a section which may be regarded as giving definite protection in lieu of two clauses which appeared in the previous Bill and which were cut out—such a thing as having trade-marks or designs which, from their very appearance, might be taken as indicative of Irish origin, whereas in fact they are not. That seems to me a point for an appeal to a court, and I would agree to it.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 137, as amended, and Sections 138 to 150, inclusive, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 151.
Sub-section (1) If any arrangement binding on Saorstát Eireann (whether by reason of its having been made by the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Council or for any other reason) has been or shall be made with the government of any foreign state for mutual protection of inventions, or designs, or trade marks, then any person who has applied for protection for any invention, design, or trade mark in that state, or the legal representative or assignee of such person shall be entitled to a patent for his invention or to registration of his design or trade mark under this Act in priority to other applicants; and the patent or registration shall have the same date as the date of the application in the foreign state, provided whichever of the following conditions is applicable be duly complied with, that is to say:—
(a) In the case of a patent, the application for protection in Saorstát Eireann shall be made within twelve months after whichever of the following dates is the later, that is to say, the date of the commencement of Part II. of this Act or the date of the application for protection in the foreign state, and
(b) in the case of a design, the application for protection in Saorstát Eireann shall be made within four months after whichever of the following dates is the later, that is to say, the date of the commencement of Part III of this Act or the date of the application for protection in the foreign state, and
(c) in the case of a trade mark, the application for protection in Saorstát Eireann shall be made within four months after whichever of the following dates is the later, that is to say, the date of the commencement of Part IV of this Act or the date of the application for protection in the foreign state.
I move:—
In sub-section (1), page 54, to delete paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and substitute therefor new paragraphs as follows:—
(a) in the case of a patent, the application for protection in Saorstát Eireann shall be made within twelve months after the date of the application for protection in the foreign state or, where such last-mentioned application was pending at the commencement of Part II. of this Act, within twelve months after the date of such commencement, and
(b) in the case of a design, the application for protection in Saorstát Eireann shall be made within four months after the date of the application for protection in the foreign state or, where such last-mentioned application was pending at the commencement of Part III. of this Act, within four months after the date of such commencement, and
(c) in the case of a trade mark, the application for protection in Saorstát Eireann shall be made within four months after the date of the application for protection in the foreign state or, where such last-mentioned application was pending at the commencement of Part IV. of this Act, within four months after the date of such commencement."
As sub-section (1) (a) is at present drafted, it would be possible for a person who has obtained a patent in a foreign country to obtain (without regard to its date) a similar patent in Saorstát Eireann on application within twelve months after the commencement of the Act.
The intention, however, is, in conformity with the International Convention, that the application should be made here within twelve months after the application for the patent in the foreign state, with a special provision for the case where the application in the foreign country happened to be pending at the date of the commencement of the Act. The amendment makes this clear. Similar amendments are made of sub-section (1) (b) and (c) in the cases of designs and trade marks.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 151, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 152.
The Minister may make such general rules and do such things as he thinks expedient, subject to the provisions of this Act—
(a) for regulating the practice of registration under this Act;
(b) for classifying goods for the purposes of designs and for the purposes of trade marks;
(c) for making or requiring duplicates of specifications, designs, trade marks, drawings, and other documents;
(d) for securing and regulating the publishing and selling of copies, at such prices and in such manner as he thinks fit, of specifications, designs, trade marks, drawings, and other documents;
(e) for securing and regulating the making, printing, publishing, and selling of indexes to, and abridgments of, specifications, designs, trade marks, and other documents in the office, and providing for the inspection of such indexes and abridgments and other documents.
I move:—
In sub-section (1), page 55, line 55, before paragraph (e) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
"(e) for regulating the publication, issue, and sale of the journal and all supplements thereto, reports, and other documents which the comptroller is by this Act required or authorised to publish or issue, and for regulating the matters to be published in the journal and such supplements, reports, and other documents respectively."
This is merely a drafting amendment.
This is a small matter, but with the agreement of the House I should like to have inserted in the amendment as on the Paper the words "with the consent of the Minister for Finance." This is a financial matter and I think the Minister for Finance should be referred to. I should like to put the words in this way: "For regulating, with the consent of the Minister for Finance."
Would it not be better to have it in conformity with (f) and say "with the approval" instead of "with the consent."
Yes, I am in a difficulty as to where exactly that phrase should come in. I shall accept the amendment in its present form, and I shall indicate on Report Stage where I desire the words I want introduced inserted.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 152 as amended stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 153.
PART VI—COPYRIGHT.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, copyright shall subsist in Saorstát Eireann for the term hereinafter mentioned in every original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic work, if—
(a) in the case of a published work, the work was first published within Saorstát Eireann or a part of the British dominions to which the benefit of this Part of this Act extends; and
(b) in the case of an unpublished work, the author was at the date of the making of the work a citizen of Saorstát Eireann or a British subject or resident within Saorstát Eireann or any such part of the British dominions as aforesaid;
but in no other works, except so far as the protection conferred by this Act is extended by Orders thereunder relating to self-governing British dominions to which the benefit of this Part of this Act does not extend, and to foreign countries.
I move Amendment 18:
In sub-section (1) before paragraph (a) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
"(a) in the case of any work in the production of which printing is involved, the printing was done in Saorstát Eireann; and."
The Section as it stands in Part VI., dealing with copyright, is taken from the English Act of 1911. That Act, as you are aware, consolidated a great many English Acts conferring copyright, more particularly amending the Act of 1842. The object of my amendment is to make this an Irish Act. If the amendment is accepted, the copyright law will be copyright law for the Saorstát and in the interests of Irish trade.
The section unamended sets out that, "Subject to the provisions of this Act, copyright shall subsist in Saorstát Eireann ... in every original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work, if—(a) in the case of a published work, the work was first published within Saorstát Eireann or a part of the British Dominions to which the benefit of this part of this Act extends; and (b) in the case of an unpublished work, the author was, at the date of the making of the work, a citizen of Saorstát Eireann or a British subject, or resident within Saorstát Eireann or any such part of the British Dominions as aforesaid.”
AN CEANN COMHAIRLE
resumed the Chair.
My amendment introduces under the "if" limitation a third limitation, that where such original literary and artistic work involves in its production the process of printing, that the printing shall be done in Saorstát Eireann. I am expressly limiting my recommendation to printing, which does not include setting-up. It is merely that where the production of the work in question involves being put through the printing machine that the plates, if it is a case of engraving, for example, or the stereo-plates in the case of the printing of a book, shall be done here. That would provide an enormous amount of additional work in a department where work is very badly required, and where unemployment at the present moment is so rife.
It really does not interfere with the freedom of the author. Naturally, when one considers the question of copyright, one's mind turns to the originator. Suppose an Irish author or an Irish engraver, an Irish draughtsman or artist, thinks he will command a better market, and will do better on the whole by employing an English publisher, the amendment does not interfere with his liberty or discretion in that regard; it merely insists that the work should be printed here. He may employ an English or foreign publisher.
As a matter of fact, in the book-producing trade in England a very small percentage of publishers are likewise printers. There was a time, of course, when the printer was a book-producer and a bookseller. The book trade practically was covered by the publisher, printer and seller all in one: but specialisation has gone on here as elsewhere and now, in Great Britain particularly, the practice is that a publisher does not trouble to be a printer, and he is not a bookseller except in the sense in which the published work involves a wholesale distribution.
Now, the English publisher is quite indifferent, has always been indifferent, as to the place where his book is printed so long as the price is satisfactory. We are all familiar with that remarkably cheap and excellent series of books known as Everyman's Library. The publishers of that are good business men. When a fresh item is to be added to their library list, they inquire in which town in Great Britain printing is slack, get an estimate from a printing works there, and that particular work is printed in that locality. It does not matter to the publisher whether the book is printed in Southampton, Liverpool or Manchester, so long as it is done within the time to meet the market and at, of course, a reasonable price.
Such work as that is done in Dublin, but not upon the scale that we would all like to see it done. I suggest, in fact I am confident from my knowledge of this business, in which I have an immediate and direct and long experience, that if an amendment were passed which prescribes as a condition precedent to the granting of copyright that the work should be printed here, British publishers would be very glad to do as they sometimes do in the case of America and Canada—to send their stereo-plates here to be printed. It would add enormously to employment in that occupation. The quid pro quo, the gain they would have for that, would be worth while, because they would secure at once copyright in Saorstát Eireann as well as copyright in Great Britain.
Unfortunately, the Irish population is not remarkable as a book-buying population. Many of the great works that are produced abroad would not have a large market here, and therefore it would not be worth the while of an Irish publisher to have the type set up here. There is a reason why I am distinguishing between setting-up and printing. If we could secure the setting up, so much the better; but what I want to point out to the Minister is that, under the amended section, it would be possible for the practice to continue that is already in vogue; that is, A.B., say an author, gets his book printed in Germany or Belgium, more particularly in Germany, where the printing is remarkably good, and as cheap as it is good. He would then bring his book, printed and produced in fact in Germany, and claim to have copyright here.
It is not requiring too much from an Irishman who is publishing his work that his fellow-countrymen, who give him a monopoly, for a copyright is a monopoly just as a patent right is a monopoly, should have a corresponding advantage. He should give that advantage to his own people employed in the printing trade. The amendment is a very little one, but it means a great deal. It hurts nobody. I contend it is an injury neither to the author nor to the publisher. It simply means securing for the Irish printing trade, in return for a copyright monopoly, a wider and a better occupation.
I think there is every reason to support this amendment. It is simpler than the later amendments and more direct, and I think it will cover, perhaps, a wider range of works. However, the principle that is involved might be discussed, and I agree with Deputy Professor Magennis in saying that no harm can come to any Irish national by the adoption of this, and no author will suffer, and there will possibly be very little cost to the publisher. There might be the cost of transferring from an English machine to an Irish machine and a little handicap, perhaps, in the change over from the English house to the Irish printing house. That is the utmost. That is a small price to pay for the privilege of having a monopoly in the Saorstát for books and works published in the Saorstát. It may be said that the effect of the amendment would be to prevent reading and even prevent printing in Ireland. I think that that is wrong. The probabilities are that unless there was a fair expectation of a sale of, say, three thousand copies of the work, no copyright would be taken out and no copyright would be sought, and no Irish publisher or printer would attempt to issue a copyrighted work unless he saw the chances of the sale of 3,000 copies. The result of that would be that only in cases where there is considerable sale expected in Ireland any copyright need be sought, or if there was to be such sale that there would be no obligation upon the publisher to get his work printed in this country.
If there is a considerable sale for printed matter, then it is right that we should do what we can in exchange for the monopoly to ensure that the work should be carried out in this country. There is no restriction by this amendment or by any of these amendments upon the sale and distribution of literature. It is, in effect, a protective measure and without any cost to the consumer. Perhaps Deputy Heffernan is prepared to accept this form of protection in view of the assurances I can give him that it is not going to be an imposition upon the consumer.
What proof have we got of that?
What about the writer?
The writer is going to be exactly in the same position.
Query.
If you are thinking of the Irish writer, and, I presume, you are thinking of the Irish writer, the position is this—he goes to the English publishing house and he is expecting a royalty on all copies that are sold in Ireland, he is not going to be a loser if you oblige that publisher to get the Irish sale printed in Ireland; if he is going to expect only a small sale in Ireland, then no Irish printer is going to go to the expense of copying his work in Ireland. So that I do not see where the author is going to suffer any disadvantage. I think if there is any disadvantage of any kind, and I cannot see it, it is overwhelmingly smothered by the advantages, and I, therefore, ask the Dáil to support this amendment, and I hope the Dáil will approve of the principle embodied in it.
Will the amendments be taken together?
AN CEANN COMHAIRLE
Amendments 18, 19 and 20 are the same in principle—not quite the same, but we will take them together.
This amendment is something similar to the amendment in my name and to the amendment in Deputy Johnson's. I would like to say a few words in support of it. A good deal has been said already by Deputy Magennis and Deputy Johnson that I had intended to say on this amendment. I think the Bill before us is one that would be improved by the inclusion of this, or an amendment of a similar kind, with a view to bringing back a substantial amount of the printing that is being lost to this country at present. It has been stated as an argument against a duty or tariff on printed books or literature that it would considerably increase the cost of the book to the purchaser in this country. But in this case, where the printing and binding is done in Ireland, it would not increase the cost of the book in any way. The book published in London would cost no more to buy in Ireland than if printed and bound here. It is well to realise what the state of the printing trade is at the moment. The printing and binding of such works here would help to a great extent to relieve the unemployment that unfortunately exists in the printing and bookbinding trade at present. If the passing of this Bill with the inclusion of this amendment would bring compulsion on publishers to have their books printed here it would help the trade. It ought, also, to bring compulsion on the Irish authors to do something for their country, and that something they could do by getting their books printed here. It is not too much to ask the Irish author, who draws his inspiration from his native country, to give some return to his country by having his books produced here. In the Bill the publishers are compelled to supply free copies to each of the following:—Trinity College Library, the National Library, Oxford Library, University Library Cambridge, Edinburgh University, the National Library Wales, and the National Museum. I consider that these are not a fair tax on their business. No benefit is given in return. In Canada three copies are asked for, in England six, and in Germany one. I do consider that this is an imposition on the trade here, and on the people affected by it. At any rate, I support the amendment, and trust it will receive the support of the House, and will meet the point that has been advanced.
This has been described as a little amendment, but as a little amendment it appears to require a great deal to be said in its support. It has been urged that if this amendment is carried it will make this Bill really a Free State Bill, and that it is going to do good to the publishing trade here. Deputy Johnson has used the three-thousand figure which has been put before me in a certain letter I got recently. I do not know whether he is quoting from that letter or not, or whether he has got his information from the same source.
I got my information from the printers.
The printers say that not five per cent. of the books published in England have a sale of 3,000 in the Irish Free State. It is only when you get a sale of three thousand that the production of a book is profitable, so that we are bartering it for—if we take England the country from which most of the books in this country come—five per cent. The publication in this country of five per cent. of the books that come in. That is one side of the account. What is the other? I notice that the printers refer to Canadian legislation, and I notice that Deputy Magennis spoke of English authors sending their "stereos" to the States and to Canada. I presume that has reference to the Canadian legislation.
Not merely a reference, but the practice—it has gone on for years.
Gone on for years! I wonder why? Was it simply because they thought it was a good thing to send the "stereos" across or was it because they thought it was necessary to get the works printed in Canada if they wanted to have the copyright in Canada? I do not know what is the opinion held by Deputy Magennis with regard to that, but the printers are decidedly and definitely wrong in what they have said in this matter. They speak of Canadian legislation. The Canadians passed an Act in 1921, expressed not to come into effect until 1924. In that they had a clause 13, that "Any person may apply to the Minister for a licence to print and publish in Canada any book wherein copyright subsists, if at any time after publication and within the duration of the copyright the owner of the copyright fails: (a) to print the said book or cause the same to be printed in Canada; (b) to supply by means of copies so printed the reasonable demands of the Canadian market for such book." That was passed in 1921, but not to come into effect until 1924, and in 1923 they passed an amending Act saying that section 13 and some other sections "shall not apply to any work the author of which is a British subject other than a Canadian citizen or the subject or citizen of a country which has adhered to the Convention and the additional Protocol thereto set out in the second schedule to the said Act." That was the Convention modified by the 1908 additions, and I think known thereafter as the Berlin Convention. Canada did that. I should like to give a quotation here as to why Canada acted in that way. This is a gentleman writing on "Imperial Unity and the Dominions," Mr. Berriedale Keith, of whom the House has heard before. He says:
"This solution of the question was, however, temporarily only, for more acute questions developed with the coming into operation of the Berne Copyright Convention, and the anxiety of the Imperial Government to secure some measure of protection for foreign copyright in the United States of America, a country whose policy of blackmail in copyright matters was then at its most perfect stage. The Dominion was consulted and definitely agreed of its own will to join the Berne Convention, and thus it bound itself, so long as it should be a member of that Convention, to refrain from passing any law which made the recognition of copyright in foreign works protected by the Convention dependent on the printing of the work in the Dominion."
If you pass this amendment, you leave the Berne Convention. That is the effect of this "little" amendment. If you do leave the Berne Convention, is that any harm? The peculiar tendency of the civilised world in copyright matters has been rather in a direction contrary to that which it has taken in regard to patents—in regard to patented articles. The tendency recently has been to give patents the monopolistic privilege that is conferred by the grant of the patent, and to say that if the article is not worked on a commercial scale in a particular country within a certain period of years then a licence will be given to someone who will work in that country the article which the patent covers. The tendency with regard to copyright has been exactly the opposite. The Berne Convention in 1886 was adhered to by a certain number of people. It aimed at certain uniformities. It was adapted ten years later, and further brought up to date in 1908 at Berlin, and the whole tendency has been away from what has occurred in regard to patents. The tendency is to give a copyright, but not to have anything of this sort with regard to the requirement of printing in the country before the copyright is given in a particular country. It may be said that at this moment the only country of any importance outside the Berne Convention is the United States of America, and the United States is coming in. A Bill appeared about two years ago—I cannot say what has happened to that Bill since; it certainly has not become law—but a Bill was promoted with the object of bringing America within the ambit of the Berne Convention, and so taking out this requirement of printing in the country before copyright would be given to any work. Canada at one time had legislation of that sort. It was simply a retaliation to the American system and Canada dropped it.
I am not going to say that the House should not make up its mind for itself if it likes, and should not decide to go contrary to what is the world opinion, but I should like the House to understand just exactly what is being done— that we are going definitely back upon the whole line with regard to copyright matter. We are going to be the only country in the last ten years which has taken this step towards the United States law and away from all the countries that are inside the Berne Convention. Apart from that, getting away from tendencies, what position are you going to put authors in? You are going to provide that in order that books may be copyright here they must be printed in this country. The author has to make up his mind: Is the sale in that country worth getting copyright there at all? We are told by the printers—of course their evidence on this point may be just as bad as that with reference to Canadian legislation—that not five per cent. of the books published in England have a sale of 3,000 copies in this country, and that only a sale of 3,000 copies makes a profitable business.
For setting up.
They say that not five per cent. of the books published in England have a sale of 3,000 copies in the Irish Free State.
The Minister went on from the statement of five per cent. of the books published in England not having a sale of 3,000 in the Saorstát, to speak of the cost. He forgets that the cost in the case of the amendment that I proposed is merely printing—setting up is a far different thing.
I wonder could the Minister say whether five per cent. of the books printed in England have a sale of 3,000 in England?
If they have not, of course, that is a matter for the author there to decide on his own whether it is worth while to get copyright in England or not.
I happen to have the document here to which the Minister has referred and from which he read a portion just now: "In very few cases would it be profitable for an Irish publisher to go to the expense of setting up a book for sale in Ireland only. The minimum sale for the profitable production of a book is 3,000 copies and not five per cent. of the books published in England have a sale of 3,000 in the Saorstát." In the very sentence from which the Minister quotes, the words are used "the production," the setting up. The amendment refers to printing only.
That is the Deputy's amendment, but the three amendments are being dealt with together. I am not sufficiently expert to go into this matter to decide as between setting up and printing and one thing or another. At any rate, there is the case, that you have to balance the two sides of your account. You are going to get a certain amount of printing done here by reason of this. On the other side, you are going to have that difference, that no Irish author is going to come within the Berne Convention. That is to say, that you are not going to have any copyright in any country for any work published here unless this State is able to enter into a treaty with individual countries with regard to copyright in these other countries.
What are the terms upon which copyright is generally given? Let me take the British 1911 Act with its international copyright section as an example. They will give copyright to authors of countries who are not either within their own copyright union or within the Berne Convention if they find that those other countries give their authors adequate protection. They describe it later: "If there is reciprocity in the matter." If we put in this, what reciprocity can we look for? We are going to have Irish authors denied copyright in America, under the present conditions unless it is printed in America—printed, set up, produced and everything in America. when it is produced in English. We then come to Germany. There is not going to be any copyright for an Irish author there unless we can get terms from Germany, and the terms will naturally be the same as we give to German authors. At any rate we start off with this: that we cut ourselves clean out of the Berne Convention, and as far as Section 6 of this Act is concerned we might as well scrap the whole thing. That will only mean a little delay to get the matter re-adjusted, if we decide on the amendment. This whole Section 6 has been drafted on the assumption that it was desirable and that it was profitable that we should become, or, at least, should remain, a member of the Berne Convention. We are not going to be allowed to remain a member of that Convention if we put in this amendment, and it is for people to decide whether or not in the long run that is going to be profitable. You have to set off the harm to Irish authors against the small amount of printing that is going to be done here through the acceptance of the amendment. I think it should be considered also that we are definitely going back, upon the whole tendency of the world at the moment. We are going back to the position that America alone of reputable nations occupies at present, and the position from which it is understood America is anxious to remove herself.
There is no proof of that.
I cannot give the proof at the moment. I can simply say that a Bill was introduced two years ago and one of the leverages put upon Canada was that America was definitely coming into line with the Berne Convention, and it is definitely the opinion of many of the people with whom I was able to get into touch recently that America would shortly be within the Berne Convention. The position in America is something corresponding to what Deputy Magennis's amendment would establish here. It is not exactly the same. They include the reproduction of plates and binding and they make a difference the other way, that in the case of a foreign author that only applies to a work published in the English language.
And residents?
I am speaking of the two sections—citizens of the United States or residents in the States. They must be published no matter what language the book is produced in. But when you get to the foreigner, nonresident, then it is only with regard to books published in English that that requirement of printing holds. That requirement of printing has been described in the words I read to you as "blackmail in copyright matters." That is the position this amendment would put us into if accepted.
My amendment is identical in principle with the others on the Paper, but in point of the operation that it has in view it is not the same. I have expressly limited the amendment to the requirement of printing. The Minister spoke all the time of books; but the machining applies to other work besides books, such as magazines, newspapers, music and certain artistic works that are capable of mechanical production. I have no hesitation in declaring myself in this, as in many other matters, a "little Irelander." My first consideration is this country and its interests. The great world outside can mind its own business very well. There are other countries with big established works and great capital to draw upon, and Ireland, I suppose, is to join in that glorious race at the heels of the rest going to manufacturing perdition.
The Irish author would be hurt, we are told, by not being protected by the Berne Convention. The Minister who said that admitted he knew very little about printing or the publication business in Ireland. I admit I am arguing for a business in which I am financially interested, but I would take the same ground even if I were not. I know very well how small is the percentage of Irish authors who publish, much less print, through Irish publishing houses. They take their work to Macmillan, Longmans, Hodder and Stoughton, the firms which can afford to give them a great advertisement. How few will be affected by the operation of the Berne Convention? They will have their protection through their own publisher.
Here is an opportunity of coming to the aid of an industry that is perishing. We know that, at the present moment, there are men and women unemployed, particularly here in this city, for whom there would be ample employment if this amendment were adopted. We are asked to doom these people to unemployment, and to doom this side of Irish industry to failure, merely because some Irish author would not have the Berne Convention's protection. I think if that were put to the Irish people they would very easily make their choice. It is not true that America has gone into this Convention, or has shown any desire to go into it. Years and years ago America protected herself in all her industrial production. And now other countries are protecting themselves against her, so well has she prospered under protection.
I remember well the time when Mr. Bryce produced his monumental work upon the American Constitution, and to protect himself the chapters had to be set up in America. It is not correct to say that under my amendment the situation as regards copyright would in the Saorstát be the same as in America, for in America the whole production must be American—the setting-up, the printing, the binding, the sending out the total work of printing in all its branches and publication. All that is asked for here is that the printing and machining of the plates shall be done within the Saorstát. In the case of a published work, when the work is first published, there is a variety of choice given. No author is really injured except the author who is willing to have his work printed, published, and produced for Irish circulation within our own shores. He may be injured theoretically by being shut out from the Berne Convention, but how many of our school books produced for boys and girls in Irish primary or secondary schools are going to have a sale in Germany or Italy?
Some of the things said recently are surprising and are not true. I hope there is no desire to deceive. I think that eliminates the charge of untruth, but it is quite hysterical and absurd to say that the printing industry is doomed —doomed was the word used—if this amendment is not accepted. It is utter nonsense to have any such phrase used with regard to this amendment.
That comes from a Minister who admitted that he knew little or nothing about the industry.
I ask the House, which knows as much about the industry as I do, to consider the term that has been used. This industry is to be doomed if this amendment is not accepted? Deputy Magennis has not attempted to deny, no matter what I may have said with regard to the amendment, that he definitely excludes this country from the scope of the Berne Convention. That is the outstanding feature of it. It means that we become, with the United States, outcasts as far as that is concerned: that we move backwards as far as world progress is concerned in this matter. and that we enter upon a course which I personally think is a dishonourable one, and all on the hysterical plea that something is doomed if something which the Deputy puts up is not accepted. The choice here is a very simple one. It is a matter of where does this country take its stand in copyright matters. Is it going, to use the phrase used with regard to the United States, to take the place of Canada? Canada was moved by its closeness to America to adopt a certain retaliatory measure as against America, but even though close to America, on seeing the harm that her authors were suffering by reason of this, Canada withdrew and came within the Berne Convention. We are asked to simply turn in the opposite direction, and to walk with Deputy Magennis towards dishonouring ourselves in this way.
The Minister has not shown in what way there is dishonour involved. No author is injured and no publisher is injured, but an Irish industry that needs help is helped. Where is the dishonour? The Minister talks of hysterical pronouncements, but will he say whether or not he is free to depart in any detail from the English Act of 1911?
In every particular.
This is an English Act of 1911, and I beg the House to recollect that it is not to be altered one tittle, one iota, in this regard in the interests of an Irish industry because, forsooth, we would be dishonoured—a fine phrase—and no proof given. Is America dishonoured? Will the Minister dare to say that America in protecting her industries against the foreigner, dishonours herself? Are we fools to be fooled with a phrase of this type? It is easy to talk out of ignorance as the Minister admitted about an industry and form of occupation about which he knows nothing. I cannot be silent in regard to a business about which I know a great deal. Every statement that I have made is fact. I have stated that there are very few Irish authors, except those who are willing to be penalised, who would be injured by being shut out from the Berne Convention, but there are a great many working men and women and youths who will be tremendously injured if we put into operation an English statute where we might have had an Irish statute. I did not at all allege that there will be no printing left in the Free State if this amendment is not accepted, but I do say that in rejecting it we will have doomed men and women to continual unemployment. We shall be restricting the scope of employment in this particular industry and that with our eyes open. It is not so long ago as to be outside the recollection of Ministers that a meeting was held here in Dublin on behalf of the printing trade. The facts of the odious situation were made clear by those within that industry who knew all about its details and working. If the Minister will say that he dare not depart from the English Act of 1911, then he may find those who will follow him into the Lobby to support him in the division who believe that our liberties are to be for ever restricted because of some arrangement made elsewhere. But if we are free to make laws for ourselves, as I contend we are, there is no use in quoting to us restrictions on our liberty in aid of our own industries as is done in other countries.
No one has a greater facility for raising bogey-men to his own luxurious excitement than Deputy Magennis. There is no hindrance to this country leaving the 1911 Act, but I propose to leave it in a few amendments that come on later. I speak only of the Berne Convention, which has nothing to do with England or an English Act. Bogies of that sort raised here are not going to frighten anyone except those from whom they come.
Would the Minister tell us more about the Berne Convention. I know very little about it.
May I put the matter in this way—that, as between the Berne Convention and what is called the Commonwealth Union, the Berne Convention laid down certain things which countries must follow in order to get copyright in all countries attached to that Convention. The Berne Convention was modified at Berlin in 1908. A certain number of signatures were put to it, and it has come to be known to-day as the revised Berne Convention. When the Imperial Conference met in 1910, the British Government, with the aim of seeing that the uniformity desired by the Berne Convention should be achieved as completely as possible, said: "Let us have, within the Commonwealth, uniformity; let us aim at the uniformity which is desired in the terms of the Berlin Convention or the revised Berne Convention." Agreement was come to, and the 1911 Copyright Act was drawn up. You may say that the distinction between the 1911 Act and what was really entailed in the Berne Convention was simply this: that the 1911 Act made more rigid and approached more closely to the uniformity desired by the Berne Convention. Let me take one or two points. With regard to the term or date of copyright, the Berne Convention stated that they thought it ought to be more or less a headline that people would aim at a term of copyright which would be the life of the author and fifty years thereafter, but they stated that this was a matter which could in special detail be regulated by domestic legislation. The 1911 Act simply set out and said, as far as those people who are to come within the Commonwealth Union are concerned, that the terms shall be rigidly the life of the author and for fifty years after. Another point dealt with, on which I shall have to speak later, was the question of excerpts for educational books. The Berne Convention laid down certain things and certain provisions, and spoke of works not intended for educational purposes wherein copyright existed. Speaking of taking excerpts from these educational books, it went on to say that that was left in the main to domestic legislation, or to any agreement that there might be between countries in that regard. The Commonwealth Union made that more rigid, and simply laid down a specific thing, that within a period of five years there could not appear in a book designed for educational work more than two quotations or two passages from a single author.
The Convention set up certain standards which it laid down for a country adhering to that Convention. The English Act of 1911, which gave legislative force to what is called the Commonwealth Union, had the effect of tightening up some of the rather loose points of the Berne Convention and making them more rigid. The Berne Convention, or its revised form, the Berlin Convention, is a wider thing and is signed by many more nations than the Commonwealth Union. The principle is that once an author gets copyright in any of the countries adhering to the Berne Convention he, ipso facto, gets copyright in every other country, and prohibition against the setting up of certain formalities before copyright went wrong. America is definitely outside the Berne Convention by reason of the fact of this requirement about printing. This country will leave the Berne Convention if this amendment is put in. After all, it is not that our authors are without the possibility of gaining copyright. It means that if we are prepared to remain without the Berne Convention and the Commonwealth Union we would have to seek from every individual country to make terms with regard to mutual recognition of copyright as between the two countries. That must be set about. If we do not do that, it means that Irish authors, nationals of our own, or people who produce for the first time in this country, have no copyright secured to them in any other country. It is a matter for Treaty making then. If we come within the Berne Convention there is a particular circle of the Convention which we join, and this is what the amendment destroys. It is simply a matter of deciding whether you are going to decide for some vague benefit to be derived by the trade here, you are going to put yourself outside that Union. In doing that you are going contrary to the whole tendency of the world at the moment—a tendency which has been to get more adhesions to the Berne Convention and the Commonwealth Union. Another point, we being more or less in it would be the only country to go over to the American side.
I entered this discussion with a somewhat open mind, though emphatically and clearly supporting the general proposition. With regard to the argument with respect to the Berne Convention, I listened carefully with the desire to understand the ill-effect, as alleged, of the adoption of this amendment. As far as I have heard and learned it seems to me the case is something like this: we are now on the point of either adhering to or conforming our legislation to, the Berne Convention, and by that fact adhering to it, or we may depart from that Convention. I imagine that considering these pros and cons we have to weigh the advantages as against the disadvantages. I am quite at a loss to understand where there is any question of honour. I think we must consider the question from the point of view of weighing up the advantages or disadvantages, and in fact material advantages as against material disadvantages. I do not think any question of honour or morality arises. I assume that if after a few years' experience we thought it desirable we should enter into this Convention it would be quite possible to do so, and in the meantime we may level up into a position of equality with other countries which are within the Berne Convention. That is to say, in exchange for some of the restrictions we are going to get certain advantages, and that there is going to be some reciprocity amongst equals.
But our position to-day is, and from that we have to move, that a certain number of Irish authors are looking in the main to the world outside Ireland for the sale of their books and products. The great majority of those do not get their works published in Ireland. In so far as they continue that they are not going to be disadvantaged. They are going to be disadvantaged, if at all, only by virtue of any possible loss within this country. I do not see where that is coming. Those who are encouraged, and have made it their practice to have their books published in Ireland, may be at a disadvantage unless there are new compacts entered upon. I wonder what proportion of authors who have published books within the last ten, fifteen or twenty years, have had them published in Ireland? I think it would be very small. A great number of them, I think, have not only their books not published here but they follow the trade. They go out of the country to the publishing country. I wonder then if the disadvantage which would arise by the loss of the printing trade is worth undergoing for the sake of the minority of authors who have been true to their national feelings and have had their books published in Ireland at the cost of their material wealth.
I think the advantages distinctly lie with risking the Berne Convention penalties for the sake of the printing trade in the country. If that trade develops, and with it there is a general development of the country culturally, you have an encouragement to publication. Once you have re-established your publishing business then would be the time to seek entry into the Berne pact, and possibly to re-consider the whole question of the abrogation of this amendment if it were passed.
It seems to me that we have to start the discussion from the point of view as to how it affects the printers and authors to-day, and not from what might eventuate in fifteen or twenty years time. I think if we consider the number of authors, and the reputation of the authors which we have every right to consider, we ought to give every encouragement to them. Having regard to the fact that in the great majority of cases they do not get their books published here, I think there is no great disadvantage to existing authors at any rate, in keeping free from their running the risk of being expelled by the Berne Convention. That is how it seems to me, and on the argument adduced by the Minister on his explanation of the Berne Convention, the obligations and advantages do not weigh in the balance with the advantage that is going to be given to the printing trade in the country by the adoption of the amendment.
I want to put this point: No matter how few Irish authors get their works printed in this country at the moment, if this amendment is accepted no Irish author will get his books printed here, because you may take it definitely that the sale of any Irish book is bigger in England than it is here.
I think that is the risk.
If we put this on we will have left the whole circle— we will have to make a treaty with England with regard to getting copyright for our authors in England, and we will get it more or less on the terms we set up here with English authors, certainly with a condition that the book is printed in England. Whether that condition were put on or not, I suggest that at any rate there would be a very definite temptation put in the way of Irish authors to get their works printed in England, because by publishing for the first time in England they would come again within the Berne Convention. So that for the future there would be no work of any Irish author published here. I have spoken of honour. I think honour is involved. What would happen if this amendment is carried—"In the case of any work in the production of which printing is involved, the printing was done in Saorstát Eireann?" But if the printing is not done there will be no copyright. This would become a land of literary pirates. You could certainly increase your printing trade that way, but I simply ask you to consider if it is a proper thing to do.
There are two sorts of Irish authors to be taken into account. There are the Irish authors whose appeal is to the wider world outside. They have always followed the practice of publishing in Great Britain. Now, the author in Great Britain has, for the most part, followed the practice of getting work printed in Great Britain. The effect of my amendment would be that, if that author wanted to have copyright in the Free State secured to him, his publishers should have the work printed here. That author would still be within the Berne Convention. As regards the other class of authors— those who are satisfied to have their work published by an Irish publisher— their appeal is to the Irish, distinctively and immediately to the Irish. Their sales are mostly here, or with the Irish in Great Britain and in America. From my own experience with regard to a series of books, I know that it only paid to produce them here on account of their sale in America. If such books were limited to the home market, the price would be more or less prohibitive. So that the authors whom I will call distinctively Irish, and of Irish appeal, write for buyers here, and for buyers in America particularly. America is outside the Berne Convention; the Berne Convention question does not affect that class of author in the slightest degree.
Again, on the point of honour, theoretically, we should be a land of literary pirates as the Minister called it. Let me put it more accurately, because I am afraid that the hysteria which we hear occasionally breaks out in that quarter of the House. Theoretically piracy would be possible, as it was in the eighteenth century. Of course the Minister does not pretend to know anything about Irish history. His concern with Ireland now is as part of the Imperial connection, and he forgets its past. There was a time when Ireland was outside the copyright Act of Great Britain, and when important works were published in England they were immediately pirated in Dublin. Some of the finest specimens of typographical work and of superb bookbinding dated from these times under these conditions. Strange to say, those who write about book production never blush about that. They admit that it was good business for the country. But let us take the scrupulous and delicate honour sense of the Minister. The desire for piracy will find its natural corrective in the fact that the pirated book will have to be set up. I am sorry to have to harp on this point so often, but it is the cardinal point in this whole argument— the difference between the cost of production where a book has to be set up from manuscript by a compositor or a composing machine, and the whole process of production carried through. That would be prohibitive here. The type of work that the Irish publisher might want to pirate would be such that it would not pay him to pirate it. Furthermore, it would always be possible to enter into an arrangement with regard to later or cheaper editions, or editions of an inferior type of paper. The fact is this, that the Minister is afraid to depart from the English Act of 1911.
I might as well say, in answer to that, that the Deputy is afraid to sacrifice his financial interests. One is as true as the other.
Quite. I pleaded guilty, to put my position clear before the House, to having a financial interest in the matter. But I also declared that if I had not one farthing of financial interest in the matter I would take the decision I take on this, because this is a question of a little-Irelander position and the interests of the Irish people, the interests of the Irish worker.
I see no glory in standing among the nations of the world under the Berne Convention or any other Convention, call it by any name you please, if it is not going to have as its reaction the advantage of the people of Ireland. I see dwindling industries; I see people walking the streets unemployed. I know what they are up against. I know the tremendous advantage that prevails in Great Britain alongside us and across the border in Belfast. Belfast to-day is one of the finest printing centres in the world. The finest class of printing work can be done there. We are ringed around with all that competition, and yet we bring in a Copyright Act, an Act to confer monopoly rights upon certain people. We are asked to hold our hands and have no consideration for the Irish printers. That is a most extraordinary attitude for a so-called Irish Minister to take up.
AN CEANN COMHAIRLE
There are three amendments—18, 19 and 20. I shall put the question on No. 18.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided. Tá, 8; Níl, 34.
Tá
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Burca.
- John J. Cole.
- Máirghréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- James Dwyer.
- John Good.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
- Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Máirtín O Connalláin.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraigh O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Liam Thrift.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies P. O hOgáin (An Clár) and T. O Murchadha. Níl: Deputies S. O Doláin and P. Shaw.
Amendment declared lost.
Progress reported, the Committee to sit again on 8th December.
Can the President tell us anything—
The Minister for External Affairs will make a statement to-morrow week.
I want to suggest that we have a discussion before that. This matter was raised before, and there was a tentative agreement, at least a proposition, that the discussion should take place to-day, and after a discussion with the Minister for External Affairs, I got an understanding that it would be taken on Thursday. I think that the matter is one of importance and urgency, inasmuch as there is being developed in the public mind an assumption that the whole country is unanimous in applauding this agreement. I would like an opportunity to have the matter discussed at an early date, Thursday if possible.
AN CEANN COMHAIRLE
Can this matter be raised after questions tomorrow?
If you wish, sir, but I cannot give an earlier date than to-morrow week for discussion.
I will consider raising it on Friday by motion.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 till Wednesday, 8th December.