HC Deb 07 November 1916 vol 87 cc139-48

(1) As from the commencement of this Act it shall not be lawful to use in connection with any trade, business, calling, or profession the word "Anzac," or any word closely resembling that word, without the authority of a Secretary of State, and this prohibition shall apply notwithstanding that such word forms part of any trade mark, or of the name of any company or society or other body, which has been registered before the passing of this Act.

(2) If any person acts in contravention of this Act he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding £10, or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction not exceeding £100; and when a company or society is guilty of any such contravention, without prejudice to the liability of the company or society, every director, manager, secretary, or other officer of the company or society who is knowingly a party to the contravention, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and liable to the like penalty.

Sir H. DALZIEL

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "As from the commencement of this Act."

The Committee is aware of the purpose of this Clause. It is to prevent a company from continuing trading, although it has been authorised by the Government for the most part of a year. It is a company which has paid its registration fees, which has been accepted by the Government, and it has a turnover of something like £1,000,000 in the course of a year. The Government now practically say that they have made a blunder in registering this company. They say, "We have had a representation made to us since this company was registered that it ought not to be allowed to continue to trade, and we ask the House of Commons to step in and pass a retrospective measure preventing this company from really having any existence." What I wish to point out to the Government is that if this Bill is passed with these words in, this company will only have one month to wind up all its affairs, pay all its liabilities, and get rid of all the guarantees which it has had. Under these circumstances, I cannot but contrast the manner in which this company is being dealt with and the two years allowed to German companies. I submit that the month provided for in this Bill is altogether too short, because there are enormous assets to be realised. I am informed that considerable guarantees have been given, and the company has got about 20,000 agents all over the country, and it would be almost impossible to deal with all these matters if the business of this company is brought to an end all at once. I think the whole thing is a measure of confiscation, and there can be no denial of that fact having once allowed the company to be formed. I submit to the representative of the Board of Trade that if it is intended to continue with this measure there should be inserted a provision to provide fair compensation in regard to the taking away of this particular business. I submit respectfully that the time is too short, and that it ought to be extended to some considerable extent.

Sir CHARLES HENRY

With much of what my right hon. Friend has said I am in full agreement. With the main object of the Bill I am in complete sympathy. Its object is to prevent the word "Anzac" being used for trading or other purposes, and if the Bill was confined to that I should give it my hearty support. If, however, the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, this motor company is being dealt with very hardly. I ask my hon. Friend if it is possible not to make this Bill retrospective, and whether the object which he has in view would not be attained if he prevented anyone using the word "Anzac" for trade purposes in future. As this motor company has now established itself, and as it is a very large organisation, registered with the approval of the Board of Trade, the hon. Gentleman must own that it is rather hard lines to come down drastically upon this concern in this way by closing it up and withdrawing registraton from it. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will maintain that this company can trade under another name with the same organisation. That is quite right, but I am sure he will appreciate the difficulties with which this firm will be confronted and the enormous expense they will be put to. What this Bill does is practically to take away the goodwill of this company, because they have established their trade under the name of the Anzac Motor Company. As this is the only concern trading under that name, perhaps some exceptional consideration ought to be shown to them. The Bill need not be made retrospective, or, at any rate, six or nine months should be given to them to make their arrangements, so as to alter their name and let the trade and their customers know the reason why they are obliged to do this. In legislation of this kind every attempt ought to be made to see that no undue hardship is inflicted upon any concern of this kind.

Sir W. ESSEX

As far as this Bill is concerned, I am in hearty sympathy with it. My only objection is that it is piecemeal legislation, to which exception may very fairly be taken. I think the number of those trading under pseudonyms ought to be reduced, and men ought to be compelled to get permission to use any pseudonym they choose, whether it is Anzac or anything else, from the Board of Trade or some properly qualified person, who should give sanction for operating as a trading concern under these imaginary pseudonyms. Under such names everybody knows how all sorts of imaginary claims of a misleading character are put forward. They are quite unnecessary and are occasionally dishonest, and I think a review of the whole circumstances will show that this Bill is desirable in order to preserve the use of this word to which all those from our Colonies attach very great importance. Even if one trading company has been led into a mistake, I think we should put this matter right now and make the whole thing retrospective. Even if we do make this small inroad upon the privilege of this particular company, we ought to do it in order to defend and maintain fully the desirability of the State controlling all trade pseudonyms whatever.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I need hardly say that the Board of Trade, in asking the assent of the House to this Bill. desire to inflict the least possible hardship upon anyone concerned. We perfectly recognise that some little hardship is imposed upon those firms who are trading under the name of "Anzac," but I really do not think that their case is aided, and they might very well say, "Save me from my friends" when the right hon. Gentleman gets up and uses exaggerated language, telling the House that the Government have committed a blunder, and that this firm, of which he constituted himself the champion, was not to be allowed to trade, but would have to wind up its affairs, realise its assets, and bring its business to an end. There is not a single one of those statements which is really in accordance with the facts. We are neither going to prevent the company trading nor will it have to wind up its affairs, realise its assets, or bring its business to an end.

Sir H. DALZIEL

Will the "Anzac" Company be allowed to trade?

Mr. PRETYMAN

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to state what I have to say. None of those statements are accurate, and I do not think the case is aided by making them to the Committee. In the ordinary way, not by special permission of the Board of Trade, but under the existing law, this company and another company registered themselves under the "Anzac" title and paid the ordinary capital duty upon their capital. I do not think that the Board of Trade or any other Government Department committed any blunder in not intervening; in fact, they had no right or power to intervene unless a Bill were brought in at once. At a later date the Commonwealth Government, for reasons which I dealt with on the Second Reading, and which obviously commands the sympathy of the House and of every hon. Gentleman who has spoken, including the right hon. Gentleman himself, asked us to prevent this name which was to them a sacred name, and not only to them, but, I think, to the whole Empire, from being used for trade or business purposes, and on receipt of that letter we at once acted. We did not wish to take compulsory measures if we could avoid them, and we wrote the following letter to this firm and other firms as well: The Australian Government have drawn attention to certain instances of the employment in this country for trading purposes of the word 'Anzac.' In view of the association attached to this name, its use in connection with trade and industry has been entirely prohibited in the Commonwealth of Australia., and the Board of Trade trusts that in the circumstances the traders and public in the United Kingdom will respect Australia's wishes by abstaining from the use of the word for such purposes. That letter was written to this firm on 7th July last, so they have already had considerable time in which to consider the matter. They replied on 8th July, declining to comply with the request of the Board of Trade, but saying that they might go into the matter at a later date. One of the suggestions which they made in their letter was that they might consider it if the Government would purchase all their stock-in-trade. I hardly think the right hon. Gentleman would desire the Government to accept that suggestion. We were obliged, because the firm would not agree to our request, to bring in this Bill, but we desire to give them every possible time, and certainly not to deprive them of any money so far as it can be avoided. They will be allowed to re-register under any other name without any extra charge whatever. They will not have to pay again for registering, and, needless to say, the duty which was paid on the capital when registering under the name of "Anzac" will not be re-exacted from them. I am perfectly prepared, if it will meet the wishes of the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, to extend the time within which the Bill will come into operation to three months instead of one month. We warned this company on 7th July, and the Committee will see, if the Bill comes into force some time towards the end of this month or the middle of this month, that they will have till February next to change their name. I may say that the motor cars which this company sells are not called "Anzac," but, I believe, the "Oakland" motor cars. Therefore, the name of the cars will not have to be changed. All that will happen will be that within the period allowed they will have to inform their clients and customers that their name is no longer "Anzac," but some other name that they will have to take. I do not think that it would be very gracious for us to cavil about the matter. I feel that who ought not, if possible, to question too closely a request of this kind coming from the Commonwealth Government. We desire, I am sure, to act upon it heartily, but at the same time to minimise the hardship to any British firm. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken will accept my suggestion that we allow three months instead of one month. It will give these firms ample time. I really could not consider any question of compensating them for their advertising.

Sir H. DALZIEL

The hon. Gentleman has used rather strong language, as he generally does when he tries to get a Bill through the House, and I think his experience is that it does not facilitate the passage of the Bill. He took upon himself to say that this company would be in no way inconvenienced if the Bill passed as it stood. As a matter of fact, if the company is to be wound up—

Mr. PRETYMAN

I must really ask the right hon. Gentleman not to misquote me. I admitted that the company would be inconvenienced, and I regretted it, but now the right hon. Gentleman gets up and says that I said that the company would not be inconvenienced.

Sir H. DALZIEL

I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman in the slightest. It is quite unnecessary, because he says enough without any misrepresentation. He says that it is not true to say that this company will have to be wound up. That will be absolutely necessary. The company must be wound up. The mere statement that they are going to have free registration proves that the hon. Gentleman's original statement was wrong. The company will have to be wound up, and it will cost them a great deal of money. Not only so, but if they are so minded they can get rid of obligations they have entered into all over the country. It will be an entirely new company, and the new company may or may not take over the obligations of the former company. It is by no way bound to do so. The new company can repudiate the obligations of the old company made all over the country. There are obligations, I understand, to renew cars for several years. The new company may or may not take over these obligations. There are obligations to about 20,000 customers all over the country. The hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says that there will be no necessity to wind up. Then every contract made to buy from the "Anzac" Company is not necessarily binding on the new company, and when the new company is created it does not necessarily follow that the bad business of the existing company will be taken over. If they desire to repudiate certain obligations, the Government have given them every facility to do so. When the Government takes their money and gives them a licence to trade, now nearly over a year ago, and when they have spent thousands of pounds in advertising, I say that it is a very tall order for the Government to come down say, "We have decided, at the request of a Colonial Government, that you must stop trading and get out of it as best you can." In face of the request of the Colonial Government we have no other course, although, by the way, the word "Anzac" is not the peculiar property of any particular Government. I do not think that the Government can refuse the request; the Colonial Government having made it, we have nothing to do but to accede to it, but the Government ought to make some allowance for the goodwill created and the money expended. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the extension to three months. It is certainly a concession. I have gone into it, and I am satisfied that it could not have been done in a month. I understand, with regard to registration in future, that the new company will be allowed to have free registration, and that the money they paid for registration of the word "Anzac" will be refunded to them.

Mr. PRETYMAN indicated dissent.

Sir H. DALZIEL

I know. I understand what the hon. Gentleman means. Any surplus there may be on the amount paid will not be charged. They are to register the new company without any expense to themselves. That is a considerable concession. The hon. Gentleman will allow me to point out that these provisions are not in the Bill at all. It passed its Second Reading probably in an empty House and without any opposition, and these provisions were not in it. If it had been passed into law as it stood, a great injustice would have been done. I have no interest in the matter at all, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will again consider the advisability of setting a precedent which may be dangerous.

Sir W. ESSEX

I should like to know if I rightly understand the bargain which has been offered to this company. If this company propose, under the new registration to enlarge its capital, they will pay on the increased amount?

Mr. PRETYMAN

Certainly.

Sir W. ESSEX

On the other hand, in view of the concession, if they decide to register with a smaller capital, the old registration will stand?

Mr. PRETYMAN

I have not admitted that any winding up is necessary at all, and I do not believe that it is. All they will have to do will be to apply that the name under which they are registered shall be changed from "Anzac" to something else.

Sir C. HENRY

I would like the point cleared up.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil)

Can you [referring to Sir E. Carson] change the name of a company without winding up?

Sir E. CARSON

I am not a Law Officer of the Crown.

Sir C. HENRY

I regret that there is no Law Officer of the Crown present to give us advice. It is rather important whether the company can change its name without going into liquidation.

Mr. BRUNNER

Perhaps I may be able to enlighten the Committee. I happen to have been a director of a company which changed its name and did nothing else. Will the hon. Gentleman take into account the question whether these trade marks which have been registered can be reregistered without further fee?

Mr. PRETYMAN

Certainly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir H. DALZIEL

I beg to move to leave out the words "without the authority of a Secretary of State."

7.0 P.M.

This is rather an important matter, because this Bill as it stands provides that you can take away the power of trading by this Anzac Company, but that any Secretary of State can give it to any firm or trade combination which he desires. If this Committee is going to declare that the word "Anzac" is not to be used in trading we ought to do it thoroughly and completely, and we ought not to leave it in the power of the Home Secretary to give it to any other firm or any other combination. As the Bill stands, it has undoubtedly that power. Why should the Secretary of State have authority practically to veto the legislation we are passing? Any Secretary of State can write on a piece of parchment, "I authorise you to trade as the Anzac Company." It does not help the Bill. I do not know why it is put in. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree to take it up.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I need hardly tell the Committee that there could foe no possible question of the Secretary of State giving permission to anyone to use this word for a trade purpose, but it seemed to us that there might foe some purpose, which might be desired by the Commonwealth, for which this name could be used which might be held as coming within the definition of the Bill. We did not think it was desirable to have to bring in another Bill in order to get such a case sanctioned merely for that purpose. I am in the hands of the Committee in the matter. I think it is a wise precaution. Any Secretary of State who used this power for the kind of purpose that has been feared by the right hon. Gentleman would have to answer to the House, and I cannot conceive such a thing as possible. No one would be fit to be a Secretary of State who used his powers in such a way.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

Why does not the hon. Gentleman make clear to the Committee that which he has just said in his speech by inserting the words "at the re quest of the Dominion Government"? That would probably meet the whole difficulty.

Sir H. DALZIEL

Will the hon. Gentleman make it "at the request of the Colonial Government"?

Mr. PRETYMAN

I have no objection.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir H. DALZIEL

I want to make a final protest against the position taken up by the Government. They have treated us fairly in regard to the details of the measure, but I think they ought to have taken into account to a certain extent the vast expenditure that has been incurred by their authority.

Question put, and agreed to.