Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 4 May 1928

Vol. 23 No. 9

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 69—INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION OFFICE.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £13,351, chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí na hOifige Clárathachta Maoine Tionnscail agus Tráchtála (Uimh. 16 de 1927).

That a sum not exceeding £13,351, be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Industrial and Commercial Property Registration Office (No. 16 of 1927).

The details of this Vote are set out. The staff provision in the Estimates for 1928-29 is abnormal. A very large number of applications have been received pending the passage of legislation and extra staff that was required to deal with these applications, and has to be continued for a little bit inasmuch as the work has not been completed yet. Normally, the cost of the salaries in this office should be in the region of £10,000, and the receipts from fees set down for the current year are only an estimate. It is not yet possible to point out how many of the applications that have been received are abnormal and what would be the normal flow of applications. In consequence the fees of the office and the travelling and incidental expenses are an estimate only. We have not yet had a full year to go on in order to get a proper basis on which to estimate our necessary incidental expenses. In connection with sub-head (c) this is mainly in connection with examinations to be held, and the expenses will be met by fees. In the fourth item there are subscriptions to two international unions. It is really two subscriptions to the Berno Union in its two different parts, one in connection with copyright and the other commercial and industrial property.

I found some little difficulty in hearing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and that is possibly due to the emptiness of the Chamber at the moment, and that the qualities of the building from an acoustic point of view possibly are not very good in the early morning, and we might be induced to raise our voices a little for the benefit of those who want to hear. I would like to have heard a good deal more on the administrative side of this Department. It is a new department and one which undoubtedly has possibilities. I think, having regard to the fact that it is a new Department, and probably by now it has a certain amount of experience, it would be well that we should have a little more information about it than is given in the bald statement we have received. One thing we have been told is that the actual revenue which we have received this year is abnormal. I take it that is common ground due to the accumulation of British registration patents which are carried over here. I think it would be very valuable and a really significant thing if the Minister's Department would take some opportunity later of analysing the actual nature of the 13,000 or 14,000 applications which have come as a result of that, and the amount that has actually been registered. From that some very significant information would be got as to what foreign patents and foreign activities are regarded as valuable within the somewhat narrow ambit of the Free State. We have been told that as the income is abnormal in this year so the expenses have been artificially inflated as a result of the attempt to collect the revenue. Just as the revenue, at least from the patent branch, is likely to fall considerably in the next year, so the expenses of the auxiliary staff for getting it are likely to fall also.

We have on previous occasions expressed strong objection to this Department on certain grounds—that it was more expensive than was necessary, and that the cost of it as a revenue department was higher than the minimum cost of collecting that revenue with due regard to the interest both of the State, as one party to the contract, and the patentee on the other. Into that question I do not propose to enter at any particular length now further than to say that my objection on that ground is entirely undissolved. We have had very little knowledge of what has actually been done by the Department. Every information I have had in relation to its staff is entirely to the credit of that staff, and I think there is in charge of it a man who is thoroughly competent to do the work, and thoroughly anxious to do it from the point of view of the public service. The only public activity we have seen of that Department was the attempt to enforce and put some real meaning into one of the sections of the Act which said that applications to the Department should come through the patent agents who were registered in this country—I mean who have a definite location here. If we can judge of the action of the Department in that matter, in which they did attempt to give a real meaning to that, we have reason to believe that the Department is anxious to do its work on these lines. On the last occasion we divided against this Vote on the ground that it was a revenue Department which had been set up on a scale of elaboration which was going to cost a great deal more money than the minimum which was absolutely necessary in the present circumstances to collect the revenue. On that ground we oppose this motion again, but we do not propose to divide again. While we know that you cannot, on estimates or things of this kind, alter the law, but you can make it quite clear by a vote what you want done. Shylock, I think it was, said "He who takes the means by which I live takes my life." I think it is a thing which should be very clearly understood by any Minister as to what was wanted to be done in relation to the Department—I mean as to the basis upon which the Department is worked. If the Minister means to carry on that Department on that scale we are opposed to it, and it is only in that spirit we oppose the motion.

I support the motion. I think that for the short time the Department has been in existence, and in view of the income that has already accrued, there can be no doubt whatever in the minds of Deputies that the setting up of this Department is a step in the right direction. For the short time the Department has been in existence the fees paid to the Patent Office amounted to £28,300; fees for trade marks to £28,800; and fees for designs amounted to £300. That would go to show there is a very large volume of work to be dealt with by this particular Department, and it is work of great importance for the welfare of the country. In the estimate for 1927-8 there is on the expenditure side a figure of £20,616 and on the income side £22,200, so that even for the year that now lies before us it is estimated that at a minimum the Department will be self supporting, and possibly will bring in a revenue to the State. It must be remembered that the office was established under rather abnormal conditions. There was no organisation as to the mode of search. It was necessary to make a search through the Office of another country, and the only thing arising from those abnormal conditions was that a search through London was adopted, as the principle on which the Office should be worked.

England was the adjoining country, and it was a most natural thing to expect that most of the patents worked in the Saorstát would operate also in England. With Deputy Flinn, I think that some improvement is possible in this Office and, now that this abnormal period is passed, the actual work of the Office should be based on somewhat different lines. I think the time has come when we should abandon this method which we have incorporated into the Office for the moment. In contradistinction to the views held by Deputy Flinn as to the capability of the staff in charge of the Office, I think we have a highly efficient staff. I had the pleasure of meeting the Controller recently, and was absolutely amazed at the grasp and knowledge he had of this particular subject. I found that he was familiar with practically every patent system in the world; that he had been to Germany and France and had experience of the systems there, and so far as efficiency is concerned under his control, there can be no fear that the money which the House is asked to vote will not be well and efficiently spent. When we have said all these things, however, I suggest that the time has come when we should make these searches for ourselves, independently of the English system. We should not be subsidiary to the English system. Although Deputy Flinn and I do not see eye to eye on all points, I agree that something might be done, and I suggest that it should be done at a later stage, to improve this method. The first thing I suggest is that we should search independently and issue patents independently of England.

Where do you suggest we should search?

There are many places. There is London. There is the National Museum in Dublin, and there are other places.

Is the Deputy suggesting that we should ourselves search in the British Registry or that we should have a wider ambit than fifty years?

And is Deputy Byrne suggesting an amendment to the Act?

I am afraid if I make that admission the Ceann Comhairle will rule me out of order.

Is the Deputy suggesting an amendment to the Act?

I am not, but I would suggest setting up a Commission to inquire into the actual working of the Act.

And to amend it—the same thing.

I will go so far as to say that so far as the efficiency of the Office, as now constituted, is concerned, and considering the short time it has been in existence under its present head, it undoubtedly shows efficiency. If we take the classifications of trade marks under the English system and that under the Irish system there is clear proof that the Irish Office is much in advance of the English Office. That is one of the reasons that I suggest that the Irish Office should stand on its own footing and be independent. The system of classification in England, if I may use the term with all respect and without derogation to the English Office, is rather ancient, whereas the Irish system is entirely modern. I can only explain my meaning by pointing out that the classification of trade marks in England comes under fifty different heads, each one of which means a fee to the patentee, or the person registering the trade mark, of £3. Large firms may, in order to get a trade mark properly protected, require to use each and every one of these various classes so that under the English system the complete protection of a trade mark might cost £150. Under the Irish system the number of classifications has been reduced to nine, so that at the outside the highest possible cost for the complete protection of an Irish trade mark would mean a sum of £27. That, I think, is a great tribute to the efficiency of the Irish Office, in view of the short time it has been in existence. Take, for instance, the patenting of a thermos flask. If that has to be registered in England it has to go through five different classes before registration is complete. That would mean that registering in England would cost £15 but under the modern system which we have adopted and under the head of a very efficient Controller, the registration of a thermos flask would only cost the sum of £3.

These things go to show that the Irish Office is, at least, efficient and compares favourably with the English Office. I agree with Deputy Flinn when he suggests that the employment of an Irish patent agent to help an Irish patentee to complete his patent is a blot upon the existing methods of the Office. I want to keep as far as I can from the Act, for I know the Ceann Comhairle will watch me very closely, but I suggest that the administrative methods of the Office may be improved. I suggest that in England a man who is capable of dealing with a patent himself, perfecting his design and submitting it, can obtain a patent for £5. Since the last discussion on the subject in this House it came under my notice that a man was patenting a little invention and I, like him at the time, was of opinion that he, being a perfectly competent man, could carry out all the processes necessary to deal with the patenting of that invention. The fees appear to be very moderate but there is a section in the Act which says that the services of an Irish patent agent must be used to complete that patent. I do not think that that is a fair mode of procedure as it means that a man in the Free State carrying out a patent is at a disadvantage compared with a man who is carrying one out in England. I am sure that Deputy Flinn has some idea of the amount to which a patent agent's fee runs.

They would exceed the fee charged for registration by the Patent Office. That is one mode in which the present administrative system in regard to patents in this country could be improved. I was glad to see the manner in which Deputy Flinn approached this subject this morning. It appeared to me that on this occasion he, like myself, was anxious to improve defects in the present system, and I do not think that anyone would refuse to recognise that help when given in that particular way. The present system of administration is not perfect and, if a man who is capable of obtaining a patent in England can do so for £5, I do not see why an Irish patentee should not be placed on a similar footing. Moreover, there is the question of reciprocity of obtaining a patent in England in the Irish Office, but I am not aware that there is similar reciprocity for an Irish patentee obtaining his patent in the Saorstát and then endeavouring to get the patent in Great Britain. These are matters in which, in common with Deputy Flinn, I think the present mode of administration could be considerably improved, and I would ask the Minister when replying to this particular Vote to give us some hope that he will look into this matter of improving the present administrative system now existing in the Saorstát for, if he does, I have no doubt that Irish patentees and the country generally will benefit considerably.

In answer to the remarks made, I would say that while I have stated that the provision for the staff in this Estimate is abnormal, the receipts and fees are estimated approximately to what we expect to get in a normal year. The fees are expected to be the normal fees. The provision for the staff is definitely abnormal. I am glad to have it recognised by both Deputies who have spoken that the staff in the office are definitely efficient and have what has been described as a proper attitude towards the whole question of industrial property controlled in this country. I feel that I will have to adopt Deputy Byrne's suggestion of a small committee to consider this matter from another point of view so that people would get to know what the law is before they begin to promote changes in it. From what I gathered this morning, the law has apparently not yet been understood. The provisions for search that we put into the Act take into consideration the facts which Deputy Byrne stated that most of the applicants who have already made application here will have already made or intend to make application for patents in Great Britain. Consequently it was thought that it would save expense, and it does save expense on the part of any prospective patentee to take out a search on the other side, but there is provision made for exceptional cases. As to searches, Deputy Byrne referred to the National Museum, but all the National Library documents have been transferred to the Patent Office, and whatever documents were available for search—we knew there were some when the Bill was being put through— are now under the control of the Patent Office. It is well established now that the documents are sufficient to enable a complete search to be made in this country. No patent agent could, in fact, except by the expenditure of more time and energy than the matter would be worth, go through these documents as there is a mass of stuff that has not been co-ordinated, referenced, or indexed. So, while we would move on to that eventually and while we had that intention when putting through the Bill, we are not in a position just now to move on. There has been no criticism of this Estimate. I gather that Deputy Flinn will object to vote money to people who are described as efficient because he does not like the law as it now stands. That is not an intelligent way of dealing with the matter.

The Minister is wrong. I am going to vote against it for the purpose of indicating, in the only way possible on the Estimates, our opinion that there has been set up an unnecessarily expensive way of collecting revenue.

If unnecessary expense arises under the Act the Deputy has other ways of remedying it. He can introduce a Bill to change the Act, and he can change the fees by legislative proposals, but it is not intelligent to vote against charges which will have to be incurred because the Deputy is not satisfied with the law.

It is not a question of my intelligence. I quoted a great friend of mine, Shylock—"He takes my life who takes the means by which I live." The one means we have on this and every other Estimate that comes up for taking away the life of the thing which is evil is to take away the means by which it lives. We are objecting to an unnecessarily expensive Department for the collection of revenue in an unnecessarily expensive way, which is not required for the benefit of the State or the individual.

I would like to point out to Deputy Flinn that he is rather exaggerating the point which he is making in regard to Shylock.

Shylock is too far away.

I would like to ask the Minister a question in connection with the salaries paid to the officials of this office. It is a new office. It was only set up last year, and yet it is proposed not merely to pay a substantial basic salary to each of the chief officers, but to pay them a cost-of-living bonus. I would like to know why that decision was arrived at. Would it not be a better decision to have fixed a basic salary which the Minister might think adequate for the position, and pay that without placing a cost-of-living bonus on it as well? Some arguments might be put forward for continuing the cost-of-living bonus in the case of officers who were in the service when the Government took over, but I do not think that argument could apply to new offices such as this.

I do not get the Deputy's idea of economy. He suggests that when we establish an office we should pay a man a fixed salary into which the cost-of-living figure would have to come, and preclude ourselves from getting any advantage of any future reduction in the cost-of-living figure. I do not like that idea.

The point I want to make is that for the Controller of this office a sum of £750 should be adequate.

That is a different thing.

Why give a cost-of-living bonus of £200 or £250? The same applies to each of the principal officers here who I take it are permanent and are not part of the extra staff who are being taken on to deal with this particularly busy period. They will be occupying these positions as long as they are in existence and it is possible that at some time or another the cost-of-living bonus will be abolished. I would like to ask the Minister if he considers that if there were no cost-of-living bonus, the basic salary which should be paid to the officials is the amount they are actually receiving or does he hope that in the course of time the cost of living will be reduced to such an extent that the cost-of-living bonus will disappear?

That is the whole thing. The Deputy is now on a somewhat different point to that he raised at first. He asked why we should have a bonus. Very well then. Instead of having a salary of £700 or £800 and bonus, you would have a salary of £900 or £1,000, and there would be no chance of reducing that salary if the cost-of-living figure did fall. As explained before, there is a very big difference between the cost of living and the cost of living index figures. On the other side is the Controller overpaid at a salary of £900? I think he is not. If the Deputy wishes to get an idea of that I would ask him to walk through the office, get an idea of a day in the Controller's life, see the applications that come in, and the decisions that have to be taken, the technical skill that is required in taking a decision on any of the subjects that come before the Controller, and he will realise that a salary of £900 is not too much, if he has any idea of the value of ability.

How does the Minister reconcile the payment of a cost-of-living bonus on a salary of £750, with the fixing of a wage of 27/- or 29/- a week for workmen? Does he think that an official with a salary of £900 requires a cost-of-living bonus while a worker with 27/- a week does not, to rear his family and will he put the cost-of-living bonus into operation as regards workers?

The Deputy must understand that there is a distinction. For instance, a Minister gets a big salary and is worth it, and a Deputy only gets £360 a year.

I think that such a situation is outrageous. I think that when you put a farthing per pound on sugar in order to pay a bonus of £200 to officials with big salaries such as these, it is scandalous.

Bring it up at the Cork County Council.

I will be there too.

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn