CLAUSE 4: (Application to Isle of Man.)

HC Deb 29 March 1920 vol 127 cc1037-46

Where any enactment or regulation continued by this Act has by Order in Council

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Enactment.	Nature and Extent of Limitation.	Nature and Extent of Extension.
Lords Amendment:
At beginning, insert the following new paragraph,
Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Temporary Rules) Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 27).	Limited to the continuance of the present state of war in Europe and for a period of six mouths thereafter.	To continue, so far as it relates to the extension of the time within which acts or things may or are required to be done under the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, or the Trade Marks Act, 1905, until the tenth day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, as if in Section Three thereof for the words "during "the continuance of the present "state of war in Europe and for "a period of six months there-"after" there were substituted the words "until the tenth day "of January, nineteen hundred "and twenty-one."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock)

I beg to Move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

11.0 P.M.

I may mention that this was inserted in the Schedule of the Bill in another place in order to comply with a request that has been made on behalf of the neutral signatories to the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Under the Peace Treaty, Articles 307 and 308, a period of one year after the coming into force of the Treaty was allowed for the signatories to put themselves straight, to use a comprehensive phrase, and this power already exists in the case of all the countries with whom we were lately at war, but the neutrals are asking to be

made under the Isle of Man (War Legislation) Act, 1914, been extended to the Isle of Man, the continuance effected by this Act shall apply to the enactment or regulation as so extended.

Lords Amendment:

At the end of Clause insert the following new Sub-section, () For removing doubts it is hereby declared that any Order in Council made under the said Act extending any enactment or regulation to the Isle of Man may be revoked by Order in Council.

Agreed to.

placed in the same position and to have the same privileges granted to them. There is no reason for granting privileges to our late enemies which should not be granted to the neutrals, and the simple way of doing it is to allow the latitude granted to the Controller of Patents under the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (Temporary Rules) Act, 1914, with regard to enemy countries to be granted to the neutrals. Under the two sections which are referred to in the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, and the Trade Marks Act, 1905, the Controller has power to give an adequate amount of time for the completion of any act, or the payment of any fee, or the application for registration, and under the War legis- lation, where the necessities of the War required it, he could give latitude. These privileges have been asked for by the neutrals, and for that purpose this alteration has been made in the Schedule of the Bill.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS

The extension is rather a surprise, because it appears to me that the action of the Government is outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill is to continue temporarily certain emergency enactments und regulations, and to make provision with respect to the expiration of emergency enactments and instruments made thereunder. Under the original Act the Controller has power to deal with enemy countries, but I take it that under that Act he has no power to deal with neutral countries, and therefore I hardly think it is possible for the Government at this late period of the Bill to extend its scope so as to cover people who were outside the scope of the original Act. I therefore submit to you, Sir, for your ruling, that this is an attempt which is out of order.

Sir E. POLLOCK

I think the hon. and gallant Member has overlooked the fact that the Act which is extended, the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (Temporary Rules) Act, 1914, applies to all persons in all cases, and did apply to neutrals, as well as to countries with which we were at war. It gave the Controller a discretion to extend the time that was given in the Statutes passed before the War, namely, 1905 and 1907, under which the Controller of Patents had the power to grant privileges to all countries. Then came this Statute in 1914, and continued these powers in respect of all countries. The only difference between neutrals and the countries with whom we were at war is that, in respect of the latter, under the terms of the Treaty, the provision is made that the extension of time is to last not less than one year after the coming into force of the Treaty. It is possible that powers in this Statute of 1914, which did cover, and do still cover neutrals, might lapse before the powers under the Treaty had been exhausted, and therefore, in order to give neutrals the same power, it is a simple method to continue the War legislation which did cover neutrals, although my hon. and gallant Friend seems to think it did not. It is merely extending War legislation which did cover neutrals, for the purpose of not prejudicing them as against enemy countries. The real point of divergence on which the hon. Member was not quite clear was that the Temporary Rules Act did give power to the Controller to deal with neutrals as well as enemy countries.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS

Of course I accept the learned Solicitor-General's explanation, but I really do not think it is quite fair that this should be sprung upon us at such a late period of the Bill. The Lord Chancellor in another place pointed out that this was made for the first time in the other House because, by a curious accident, it was forgotten in the House of Commons, and the proposal would ordinarily have been made here. It goes to prove that this Bill has really been passed without due consideration by either this House or perhaps by another place. I do not think there is really any objection to extending this to neutral countries. At the same time I think it would be very much better if the Government had told us so in the House of Commons.

Sir E. POLLOCK

Perhaps I may explain again that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not quite right in the last point he has made. At the time the Bill was introduced in this House we had not agreed to the terms of the Convention; otherwise, of course, the provision would have been made in the original draft of the Bill. As the matter was not ripe at that time for introducing it into the Bill, it had to be introduced at a later stage.

Captain W. BENN

I want to read the words of the Lord Chancellor, because it shows that my hon. and gallant Friend is right and the Solicitor-General wrong— The only reason that the Motion is made for the first time in your Lordships' House is that by a curious accident, which I will not detail, it was forgotten in the House of Commons.

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Regulations continued.
Number of Regulation.	Subject Matter.	Limitations, Qualifications, and Modifications subject to which extension is made.
2AB	Power to take possession of premises for purposes of the Ministry of Pensions or the Ministry of Labour.	So far as relates to the power of taking possession of land, including the buildings thereon, certified to be required for carrying into effect the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915: Provided that such power shall not be exercised unless after due inquiry the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Pensions (as the case may be) is satisfied that the premises cannot otherwise be reasonably obtained.
11A	Power to restrict lighting with a view to increased supply of light and power for purpose of production.	As if the words "necessary for "the successful prosecution of "the War" were omitted.

Lords Amendment:

In Regulation 2AB in column 3, at end, insert the words, and has laid a report stating the circumstances of the ease and particulars of the proposed exercise of the power before both Houses of Parliament, and if either House within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat after the report has been laid before it passes a resolution against the exercise of the power proposed, no further action shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new proposal.

Sir E. POLLOCK

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is an additional safeguard to that suggested by this House, and is put in to meet the misgivings of some hon. Members in this House and in another place as to the power of the Minister of Pensions and the Minister of Labour in taking possession of premises.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD

I should like the House to be quite clear as to the effect of this Amendment. The point I wish to make is that it seems to me there is no provision made if the 21 days referred to should elapse before the exercise of the powers. If you have the Ministry of Pensions making up its mind to take action under the Act on the 1st September they would have a whole month to carry out their decision and it would be the middle of October before the House met. It would only be after the House met that we should have the opportunity of objecting and by that time the mischief would have been done. If the Amendment is to be of any use at all it should provide that 21 clear days should have elapsed before the powers which they are going to exercise should be actually put into force. If my reading of the Amendment is correct I should like to ask the Solicitor-General whether he might not put in a further Amendment giving the real protection which I have no doubt it is intended to give.

Sir E. POLLOCK

This Amendment is to allow power to proceed before the Report has, in fact, been laid before this House, but it follows the precedent which is now the common form in use. An analogous clause has been put into the Peace Treaty Act, under which Orders in Council will be made and will be laid before this House. The practice of not being able to take any active steps at all until this House has signified, so to speak, its assent, is not followed in this case. What it does is to give this House power to exercise control by saying whether or not they approve what has been done, and if they do not approve no further action can be taken in accordance with the report. Inasmuch as it is necessary in many of these cases to take action without delay power is given to act.

Major M. WOOD

But it will be too late to act when the thing is done.

Sir E. POLLOCK

The matter has been discussed in this House over and over again, and Amendments have been made for the purpose of carrying out the scheme which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. More recently the precedent in this Amendment has been adopted. I would remind the House also that the necessity for this is only or almost only in respect to meeting the difficulties of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Pensions in their work for the demobilised men. It is a limited power, but owing to the necessities of the case it is necessary to move with the least possible delay. I ask the House to accept this further limitation imposed in another place and not go back upon its decision to grant these powers to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Pensions in the form in which the Bill originally left this House.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS

We ought to have a clearer explanation of what is going to happen under this Amendment. I will recall to the House our fears in this matter. During the Committee stage some of us had a genuine feeling that the provision for commandeering premises was that the local authorities were pressing for the return of their municipal buildings now occupied as local pension committee offices. We pressed the Government as far as we could and we received from the Solicitor-General an assurance that it was intended to allow the municipal authorities to retake possession of their Town Hall, and request the Ministry of Pensions to commandeer some outside buildings. The Attorney-General said that this was not an attempt to give back the municipal halls in order to secure accommodation at a cost that was very satisfactory, and I would like to know whether that assurance still applies. When this Bill was discussed in another place the Lord Chancellor said that this Amendment was on behalf of Municipal Authorities and had insisted that they must provide some other premises. He further said that they only took the municipal premises for the time of the War, and now that the War is over they must go and get offices for themselves, and the time had come when it was imperatively necessary to find premises for these Committees. Under these circumstances it appears that the Government has yielded to the pressure of the municipal authorities and intends to give them back their municipal buildings now occupied as Pensions Committee offices and Labour Exchanges, and commandeer outside premises. It is not quite fair to commandeer church and chapel halls.

Mr. SPEAKER

That does not seem to arise on this Amendment. The original proposal of the Bill was to put some qualifications on the action of the two Ministries. This Amendment puts a further qualification. The two Ministries are the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of Labour, and this adds another restriction, but it does not raise the whole question.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS

I should be satisfied with this further restriction if I were assured that this House would have an opportunity, during the 21 days while the House is sitting, of raising a protest against any action taken by the Minister of Pensions or the Minister of Labour, but I rather gathered from what my hon. Friend elicited just now, that that is not so. If the House is to sit on only one of those 21 days and then, after the lapse of the 21 days, the Government is to take necessary action to commandeer premises, there will be no chance of this House objecting to the action being taken. If the Solicitor-General will assure me that during the 21 days while the House is sitting they can object, I shall be content.

Sir E. POLLOCK

If the hon. and gallant Member prefers that the additional safeguard proposed to be given should not be given, but that the Bill should be restored to its original form, I shall be prepared to accept his view. This House did not ask for this alteration. It has been put in in another place. It limits the powers of the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of Transport, and I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Member would welcome the additional limitations, but if he desires that it should not be inserted—well and good. We are anxious that the matter should be open to Debate in the House, but if hon. Members prefer that it should not be open to Debate, then it is quite easy to disagree with the action of the other place.

Captain W. BENN

The hon. and learned Gentleman has mistaken the point put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend. We fully accept this additional safeguard, but we want to know whether, in case the House sits on only one day in the 21 days fixed upon, the Order will become effective.

Sir E. POLLOCK

I am sorry I have not made myself quite clear. I thought the words in themselves were clear enough. Either House within the 21 days will have an opportunity of discussing the matter. I can say no more than that.

Lords Amendment:

In Regulation 11A, in column 3 at beginning, insert the words, "So far as relates to lights used solely or mainly for the purposes of advertisement and ".

Sir E. POLLOCK

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This restricts the power of control over lights to stopping the use of lights solely or mostly for advertisement purposes. It limits the power of control given by Parliament, and I think it will probably be acceptable to the House.

Earl WINTERTON

It has been generally understood that several of our Allies have complained bitterly that, at a time when coal is almost impossible to obtain, there is such a large amount of street and other lighting in this country. I think the Government should retain the power, in times of scarcity, at any rate for the next two years, to restrict lighting to what is necessary for purposes of production. I consider that the Lords' Amendment is distinctly reactionary. It limits this Regulation to lights used solely or mainly for the purpose of advertisement. I think the House should retain the power to stop street lighting in times of scarcity. I regret that the Lords put this in, and that the Solicitor-General has not made some protest against their action.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir R. Sander.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes after Eleven of the Clock.