HL Deb 08 December 1936 vol 103 cc655-6

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Erne.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Prohibition of use of certain designs and words]:


A very small point arises on Clause 1. It was only brought to my notice yesterday. The mark here condemned has been used for many years by a most respectable and long-established insurance company, but it has not been registered. I cannot expect the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill at this short notice to accept any Amendment, but I suggest that on the Third Reading he might insert the words or page 2, line 22, "or proved to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade to have been in use." I just commend that to his attention.


I will look into it.

On Question, Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Provision as to Australia]:


Might I ask a question on Clause 2? I have not given notice of this, but my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and I are a little interested. Why in this case do we legislate for the Commonwealth of Australia? I dare say there is some explanation, but it would be interesting to have it.


I am afraid I am not completely able to answer the technical question raised by the noble Lord and I apologise for my hesitation. I am advised that this is one of the consequences of the precise way in which the Statute of West-minster was drawn, but I have not got it immediately before me. If the noble Lord cares to repeat his question on the Third Reading I shall, I hope, be seized completely of the information he desires.

On Question, Clause 2 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.