Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Nov 1931

Vol. 40 No. 8

Merchandise Marks Bill, 1931—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be read a Second Time. I would like to get the Second Reading concluded to-night for the reason that I think that discussion of any value that is likely to arise on it will take place in Committee rather than on the Second Reading Stage. I am assuming that the principle of this measure is one that is going to be accepted by all parties in the House. The details are the things that will probably require a certain amount of modification. I would invite very serious attention to the various sections and would even invite the putting down of a great number of amendments, because there is considerable argument to be had on details of this measure. I do not at all hold that the Bill is in its last or best form as it is at the moment. This measure, if it is passed, will supplement the existing legislation on the subject of merchandise marks. The existing legislation is mainly the Act of 1887, the Act referred to here as the Principal Act. In addition to that there are three Acts: the Act of 1891, one of 1909, and a third of 1911. Those three have to deal mainly with prosecutions and with enforcement of the Principal Act. Difficulty was experienced in the matter of enforcing the 1887 Act. These Acts, though they were not completely satisfactory, brought some improvement in the matter of prosecutions. The 1887 Act is deficient in at least three respects: first, in regard to enforcement, and the method of prosecution; and secondly, its scope is very limited. It has reference only to false indication of origin. If goods come into this country, say, without any indication of origin whatsover, there is no possibility of an offence under the 1887 Act. That Act refers only to false descriptions, to misdescriptions. The third limitation is this: where there is a false description or a misdescription it is only an offence under the Act if it is, as the words run, "applied to" certain articles, and by decision the word "applied" has come to have the meaning of actual physical application. Consequently an advertisement of goods which was not actually and physically attached to the goods could be as false as can well be imagined and yet might not form an offence under the Act of 1887. However, prosecution and enforcement and the actual physical application are two rather minor points.

The main defect of the 1887 Act was that it had reference only to misdescription and that goods that came into this country without any description whatever passed. That position was even recognised as being an unsatisfactory one as early as 1926 in England, and an amending Bill was introduced there and passed into law. Our Bill takes up all of the amendment which was carried into the 1926 Act, which does not apply here, of course. It goes further. This Bill has reference not merely to a false description of origin, but it goes further, and in certain cases requires a description of origin to be attached to certain goods on their entry into this country, and with regard to every other class of goods allows an application to be made to a Commission to be established under this legislation that certain goods shall not be allowed in, or that no goods should be allowed in unless a definite indication of origin is given.

The first class of goods to which I made reference is that referred to in Section 20 of the Bill—a certain classification of goods which once the Act is passed cannot be allowed into the country unless there is an indication of origin—the class of goods to which there is applied either the name of a manufacturer, trader or dealer in Saorstát Eireann or the trade mark of any such person as is previously mentioned, or a mark, emblem or device so closely resembling such trade mark as to be calculated to deceive; or, thirdly, the name of any place, district or area in Saorstát Eireann.

Goods marked in any of these three ways cannot come into the country unless, in addition to those markings, there is an indication of origin. With regard to any other classification of goods, it is open to any body of people substantially interested to make an application. That application goes through a certain procedure. It goes before the Commission, who consider it and report their consideration and recommendation to the Executive Council. The Executive Council may then act. If the Executive Council does act on the report, and that report is in favour of indication of origin being applied, then to such goods as those to which the order would apply there must be attached some indication of origin. There is given further power to the Commission, and consequently through them to the Executive Council, to determine the way in which the indication of origin must be given—the type of lettering, the size, space, where the letters are to be affixed, and so on. All these are matters of detail, and can be dealt with afterwards.

The Bill definitely betters the position with regard to enforcement and prosecution in a variety of clauses. Under Section 21 the Bill makes better provision with regard to what I mentioned as the third defect in the 1887 Act. Under Section 21 a false representation with regard to origin is interpreted to mean "any representation, direct or indirect, and whether verbal or in writing, and if in writing whether used in any advertisement or in any catalogue, billhead or other document, relating to the goods, or implied in the use of any trade name, or style.'— I need only glance at the machinery now. There is to be provision made for people substantially interested making representations to a Commission which is to be established. The Commission considers the application, and reports to the Executive Council. The Executive Council may act upon the report. If it does act and establishes a restriction order— either restriction with regard to sale or restriction with regard to importation—then that order comes before the Dáil, and unless negatived holds, and of course holds until negatived.

I should have mentioned earlier that the Bill also meets a further point in which there was a defect in the 1887 Act—that it not merely applies to importation, but can be made apply to sale also. Under the 1887 Act, goods might have been brought in properly described and whatever description was on them could be obliterated or removed before sale, so that, on sale, there was no chance of anybody even discriminating as between goods, because whatever indication of origin might have been applied—though there was no necessity to apply it— that indication might have been removed before time of sale. The Executive Council which has the power to make restriction orders has also power to grant exemptions. There is a special section dealing with that— Section 11, which is rather an emergency section. It would only apply in a case in which a restriction order was made and it was established later to the satisfaction of the Executive Council that the restriction either of importation or of sale was doing harm to a body of people interested in the country. Thereupon, an exemption order might be made. But if an exemption order is made, the Executive Council refers to the Merchandise Marks Commission the question whether or not the original restriction order should be amended to bring it into relation with the exemption order. There is also provision made for revocation and amendment of restriction orders on previous application to the Merchandise Marks Commission.

I said that there were certain points that would have to be argued in much greater detail in Committee. I want to refer to one or two of these. I call special attention to Section 20, which I read before—the section which refers to the sale of imported goods bearing the name or trade mark of a Saorstát Eireann manufacturer or trader or bearing the name of a place in Saorstát Eireann. Representations have been made to us by some Departments and by outside people that there should be a complete prohibition of, say, Irish place names or Irish trade marks on goods that are to be sold here—that if goods are found coming into this country bearing a name which is an Irish place name or a mark which is a trade mark or a colourable imitation of a trade mark of a particular person manufacturing here, those goods should be prohibited entirely and not, as suggested in the Bill, allowed in if, but only if, accompanied by indication of foreign origin. Even those who make that suggestion admit that there are certain designations which previously had their roots in, say, a place in this country or places elsewhere and that have, by custom and usage of trade, lost the old local significance. They are now simply classifications of quality. They are used as descriptions of goods and have no longer any application to the places referred to. There are instances in the use of the word "Balbriggan" and certain terms used in connection with lace which previously had their origin here. They have definitely, by Court decisions, come to be accepted as trade descriptions and no longer have any local significance. Those who have made representations that goods bearing what are called Irish names should be prohibited entirely and not merely allowed in if accompanied by indications of origin always say that you must exempt such Irish names as have become generic—that is to say, have lost their local signification and are trade names. I have put one suggestion in the Bill. The other suggestion—a very obvious amendment—can be argued and the two points of view will have to be met in this House. We will see which will commend itself to the Dáil. There is difficulty in connection with this suggestion. There would be difficulty in connection with the other suggestion. From the point of view of the home consumer, I think it can be argued that the suggestion in the Bill is the better one. From the point of view of the consumer abroad, from the point of view of holding on to an Irish place name for goods which are not going to be sold here, possibly there is something to be said for complete prohibition. Under this provision, of course, it is possible that a manufacturer may begin to use an Irish name, accompany that by an indication of origin, and drop the indication of origin if he comes to sell the goods in a market other than in this country. It is a matter that we can argue more in detail on a specific amendment in Committee.

A second point, and one akin to that, is the suggestion made that certain emblems and devices which are historically connected with this country should also be prohibited on goods. I have no objection to including a list and saying either that these shall be prohibited entirely on foreign goods sought to be imported into the country, or else allowed in only if there is a definite indication of origin. The difficulty is to get a list. That is either a lengthy list, a list that will commend itself to people, or an exhaustive list. One's mind turns immediately to the shamrock, the harp, and other devices like that. The difficulty is that in the course of trade these things have become attached to certain manufactures outside this country entirely. There is also the difficulty that people have got into the habit of attaching to goods produced here certain other devices not related to this country, and there is the definite likelihood of conflict of an international type being created on this matter. However, the emblem matter can be dealt with. If the Dáil decides that, it can draw up a list that is suitable and is nearly as exhaustive as we want it to be; then that list can be incorporated.

The third thing on which there is a certain amount of divergence of opinion, even amongst Departments, is in connection with Section 21. Section 21 is the section which enlarges false representation in the single matter of misdescription of origin, and enlarges it to representation, whether direct or indirect, whether verbally or in writing, whether by way of advertisement or physically applied, or even verbal representation. It has been urged that that section should be made to extend to a variety of other matters. In the 1887 Act, trade descriptions, if false, are made an offence, and the term "false trade description" is defined in this way: any description, statement or other indication, direct or indirect, as to the number, quantity, measure, gauge, or weight of any goods; as to the place or country in which goods were made or produced; as to the mode of manufacturing or producing any goods; as to the material of which any goods are composed; and as to any goods being subject to existing patent, privilege, or copyright. Let me take out two. The 1887 Act applies to the number, quantity, measure, gauge, or weight of any goods, and to the material of which the goods are composed, in this limited way: that if a false description is given with regard to these things and it is physically applied to the article, then there is an offence. Now we are taking false description or misrepresentation, and, keeping it still inside a framework of false description of origin, we extend the representation so as to include representation not merely physically applied to the goods, but also if it is verbal or in writing, or used in any advertisement. It has been urged upon us that that enlargement should be applied also to, say, misdescription with regard to material. The suggestion even has been made that we should really enlarge the criminal offences under the 1887 Act as amended by this Bill, and make it an offence for an assistant in a shop verbally to say that goods were woollen when, in fact, they were a mixture of wool and something else. That, I think, is pushing the verbal representation too far. That is the only guiding line I can throw out in relation to this matter, that it is impossible in a Bill of this sort to multiply in any very large way the number of criminal offences until one has got an indication that the practice which it is intended to render a criminal one is widespread and doing harm to consumers of any type. We leave for the moment the enlargement at verbal representation on the matter of false representation with regard to origin, and that only.

These are the main matters on which I wish to speak. As I say, I think the Bill is an important one, on which there can be a more valuable discussion in Committee, because, as I said, I take it that the principle of the extension of the merchandise marks idea to the marking of the country of origin is one likely to be readily accepted by the House, and it is only a matter of how far it should be extended. I have mentioned three points in which certain good arguments, but not sufficiently weighty arguments, to my mind, have been put forward in favour of extension. We shall leave it at this stage for the moment. I even invite amendments on the three points mentioned, so that specific amendments can be discussed.

I do not know if there is much left for me to say. The Minister has made a much more effective speech in criticism of this measure than I could attempt. He has indicated quite a number of sections in which the measure can be deemed to be ineffective, and has suggested that amendments might be attempted in the Committee Stage. The Bill was only circulated last Tuesday, and we have not had much time to consider it and no time to discuss it amongst ourselves. Speaking for myself, I regard it as a most disappointing measure. There has for a long time been a public demand for the introduction of a Merchandise Marks Bill, first of all for the protection of Irish industries and the consuming public by requiring imported goods to be marked with the country of origin; and, secondly, to protect the consuming public against false descriptions by a tightening up of the law in that respect. The Bill goes some distance towards doing that, but I suggest that it does not go nearly far enough. The Minister has explained that there are two classes of goods to which it relates, and he has dealt at considerable length with those covered by Part IV of the Bill. He also suggested what the alternative policy to that embodied in Part IV is. Having heard that policy, and having read the Bill, I think Deputies can only conclude that the alternative is much better than the proposal.

It is suggested to me that it should be made illegal and an offence to sell imported goods bearing the name of a manufacturer or a trader in the Free State, or a trade mark or Irish place name likely to be calculated to deceive as to the origin of the goods unless there is a clear indication of the place of origin. I think it would be much better for the Dáil to take up the attitude that the importation of goods bearing Irish place names or devices calculated to deceive as to the place of origin, or any mark or description which might have the same effect, should be definitely prohibited. It would, of course, probably be difficult to prevent the importation of goods bearing the name of a manufacturer or a trader, but in such cases the manner in which the indication of origin is to be applied would have to be very clearly determined. Cases have been known for example where the indication of origin was given in the Irish language, which is, of course, the official language here, and presumably no objection could be raised. If goods were imported here with a clear indication on them that they were made in England or Czecho Slovakia or Russia, or somewhere else; if that indication were printed in the Irish language, it would be taken as an indication of Irish origin by the majority of Irish purchasers.

The clear course I think for us to take is to make it as difficult as possible for any one to deceive the in tending purchaser as to the place of origin of any class of goods. We should definitely bar out these imports with shamrock emblems or harp emblems, or any other such like emblems on them. I see that Deputy Byrne laughs at that, but I was not referring particularly to him.

I think also the Minister was not correct in stating that those who have been demanding the adoption of that are all prepared to make the exception he suggests in favour of such trade descriptions as Balbriggan hosiery, or Limerick lace or anything of that kind. The organisations that exist for the development of Irish industry, and the exploitation of the national trade mark have always contended, and endeavoured by legal action to secure, that these descriptions should apply only to goods produced in the places indicated. I think the State should take up the attitude and provide so far as it is possible to provide that these descriptions shall only be applied now to the cases in which they were applied originally, that is, to goods produced in these places. If we took that action here it would have some effect abroad as well.

We will, of course, as the Minister stated, have opportunities for discussing these things in greater detail in Committee, and it will be our concern to see that amendments are submitted which will make that possible. Before leaving that section I would like to deal with the other aspect of the matter, that is, the necessity to protect purchasers against false descriptions, not necessarily false descriptions of origin, but false descriptions of any kind in relation to articles offered for sale. There is a provision, as the Minister stated, dealing with such descriptions in the Act of 1887. He also informed us that that particular Act was defective in the method of enforcement contained in it. Any one engaged in business in Dublin or in any part of this country knows that misleading descriptions are frequently applied to particular classes of goods—descriptions which might be from one angle considered accurate, but which in effect do mislead the public, particularly as to the materials contained in the goods they are purchasing. I think that Section 21 of this measure, which makes it an offence to give a false representation, either verbally or in writing or in any way, as to the country of origin of particular goods, should be extended to apply also to a false representation in respect of the nature of the goods themselves.

However, in my opinion, the principal defect in this Bill is in the earlier parts of it. Part IV does impose certain restrictions upon the sale—not the importation, but the sale—of goods bearing the name of a trader or an Irish trade mark or an Irish place-name. But there are a large number of varieties of goods imported which do not bear the traders' names or the place-names or the trade marks, and which should be stamped with the place of origin, for the purpose of protecting the home producers. It is, I think, generally believed that if the indication of origin was put clearly upon such goods the sale of them would be restricted here and a measure of assistance given to home producers. Part III of the Bill does purport to deal with that situation, but it deals with it in a most ineffective manner. It would be much better if the Minister had taken to himself the right to impose these restrictions upon the importation or the sale of those goods by order, subject subsequently to the approval of the Dáil, rather than this elaborate and ineffective measure of a Merchandise Marks Commission to be set up.

It is impossible to avoid making comparisons between this Commission and the Tariff Commission. The procedure here for establishing the Merchandise Marks Commission is similar to that in the original Tariff Commission, although in respect of the Tariff Commission the procedure has been modified since. There must be application by persons who are representatives of persons engaged in the production, manufacture, or sale of the goods concerned. An organisation like the Industrial Development Association or an organisation of a similar kind cannot, apparently, act in the matter and bring the case to the notice of the Commission. It must be persons engaged in the manufacture or sale of the goods who are prepared to organise themselves for the purpose and pay a fee, which may be a substantial fee, up to £100. If it is possible to get persons concerned to organise themselves and that they are willing to make the application and that they are willing to pay a fee and that they are willing to bear the legal expenses involved, then the Merchandise Marks Commission will consider their case. And when they have considered their case they will report to the Executive Council, which may or may not act upon their recommendation. It is noticeable that it is much easier, as this part of the Bill now stands, to secure a modification or annulment of an order than to secure its enforcement or enactment. The Executive has taken to itself the power to refer to the Merchandise Marks Commission the question of modifying or revoking an order, but it has not the power to refer to the Merchandise Marks Commission the question of applying the order. It seems to me it would be much better if the Merchandise Marks Commission is to be retained at all that the procedure should be turned round and that the Executive should have it in its power to take the initiative and should be prepared to bring particular cases to the notice of the Commission and get them to report on them. But the alternative procedure, which would be to abolish this Commission altogether and to get the effective power into the possession of the Department of Industry and Commerce, is the one that appeals to me. I do not know whether it would be possible for a private Deputy to draft amendments to the Bill which would have that effect. It would require very considerable amendments to produce that result, and I certainly think the Dáil should be given the opportunity to consider that particular matter as distinct from all the other matters affected by the Bill.

In that connection, I notice that there is a description in Section 1 of imported goods which appears to me to be unsatisfactory. The section says: "The expression ‘imported goods' does not include goods produced or manufactured in Saorstát Eireann which after exportation were brought into Saorstát Eireann, including any such goods which have undergone outside Saorstát Eireann any treatment or process not resulting in a substantial change in the goods." There is a certain looseness of phrasing there which may permit some of the most serious abuses now existing to continue. An example was given in one of the daily newspapers within the last couple of days. Deputy Doherty may be able to confirm this. A short time ago there was a very considerable industry in Donegal in the embroidering of Irish linen. In certain parts of West Donegal a large number of families were maintained almost entirely from the income derived from work done in the household in the embroidering of Irish linen. Recently, however, a practice has de-developed of sending bales of linen out to the Far East, particularly to China, to be embroidered there. These are sent back and sold in this country under the description of "Irish linen, hand-embroidered," which is a perfectly accurate description, although likely to mislead some people. In the definition of imported goods contained in this section, if that definition is adopted, it would seem possible for that practice to be continued. Linen embroidered in China would be still sold here under that description, and the prospect of reviving the industry delayed, if not killed. I know that those engaged in it are anxiously awaiting the production of this measure in the hope that it will give them the opportunity that they want to revive the industry. Its revival would be of very great importance in the districts affected.

There is one other matter that I would like to mention at this stage. The Minister stated that the 1887 Act was defective in a number of matters, and particularly in that it did not contain within itself adequate machinery for the enforcement of its provisions. I think that to some extent that criticism would apply to this Bill as well. There is machinery provided for the enforcement of restriction orders in respect of foodstuffs. Apparently the machinery in that respect is quite adequate, but it is not at all clear what machinery there will be for enforcing such restriction orders in respect of other classes of goods. Section 24 provides that upon information received a district justice may issue an order authorising a member of the Civic Guard to enter premises and seize any goods found there which are contrary to the restriction order, but there is nothing to indicate how the information regarding a breach of the order is to be brought to the notice of the district justice. It seems to me that the Bill requires substantial improvement in that respect. Apparently the intention is that private individuals will inform when breaches of the regulations are brought to their notice, but I think it is not at all satisfactory that we should have to rely upon private individuals to act in the matter. A special officer of the Minister should be appointed to enforce such orders, or some such power should be given to the Civic Guard in the matter. It is not desirable, I agree, that members of the Civic Guard should at all times have power to enter a business establishment and inspect the stock, but some other machinery, other than that provided in the Bill, would seem to be necessary if restriction orders are to be made effective in respect of the sale of goods. Of course, orders made in respect of the importation of goods are easily enforceable.

It is in relation to the sale of goods that the abuses arise. I know one particular case that came under my notice where goods bearing an Irish place-name, as well as the name and address of a trader, were imported with adhesive labels attached indicating that they were made in England. The importer of the goods merely detached the labels and was enabled to sell the goods without any label, and possibly to so represent them as having been produced within this country. These are the main matters arising out of the Bill that occur to me at this stage as a result of the brief examination that it was possible to give the Bill; but I would ask that the Committee Stage should not be rushed, so that we will have ample time to prepare the many amendments which we think will be necessary.

I do not propose to say very much at this stage in connection with this Bill, except to compliment the Minister upon at least having made an effort to make up for most if not all of the defects of the Act of 1887. A good deal has been said about trade descriptions. I am at one with Deputy Lemass when he suggests that certain trade names such as "Shamrock,""Harp," or "Colleen," which are well-known Irish trade names, are being applied to commodities of foreign origin. I realise that one of the chief difficulties the Minister will be up against will arise on the section dealing with trade names. I am interested in many ways in this Bill. I am not at all satisfied that Section 9, which deals with the contents of restriction orders, goes far enough. Sub-section (1) (a) of Section 9 suggests that at least one form of indication of origin should be borne by such goods, meaning imported goods. I will be anxious to hear from the Minister at a later stage, after I have had a little more leisure to study the Bill, what the position will be with regard to imported printed stationery. There is absolutely no doubt that a good deal of the imported printed stationery comes here bearing no imprint or other indication to show its place of origin. Some of the greatest offenders in that respect are the Church people in this country. We have a number of prayer-books circulating here that do not show their place of origin very clearly. For instance, it will be stated on the first page that the book is published by a publisher in Saorstát Eireann, but in very small type in some other part you will find the legend, "Printed in Saxony" or "Printed in Germany." I suggest that the work of Irish craftsmen should be good enough for Irish Christians. I do not care whether they are Catholics, Protestant or any other religion.

I have examined the Bill cursorily, and I do not feel that the position I have indicated is fully met by it. Part IV deals with other restrictions in relation to imported goods. Amongst other things it is suggested that the name of the manufacturer, trader or dealer in Saorstát Eireann should be attached to them. I feel that the Minister's attention should be drawn to the custom which has hitherto prevailed, particularly in regard to what I consider to be an evasion of the old Merchandise Marks Act of 1887. A box, bale, or other container of books or commercial printing is imported, and on the outside of the box would be painted in pretty large letters the place of origin, but inside there would be no indication whatever of the place of origin.

I admit that this Bill as drafted goes some way to meet that complaint, but I feel also, with Deputy Lemass, that the Minister here has not shown the courage that he usually shows in other matters. I feel that this Commission which he proposes to set up under Part II of the Bill is quite unnecessary, and that the Minister should be invested with all the powers which he suggests should be given to this Commission. One can easily envisage what may happen in such circumstances. A complaint is lodged with the Commission. It takes some time to get the Commission to deal with that particular complaint. In the meantime further stuff is coming in. Possibly the Minister will reply, that it will be held up by the machinery at the Custom House, but in any case the machinery will be unwieldy and, above all things, the principal defect I see is that it will be slow. I suggest that we have machinery enough in the State to deal with matters of this kind. We have Customs Depots without establishing any further State Departments in Saorstát Eireann.

Has the Deputy any experience of the delay in getting goods through the Customs?

Mr. Byrne

Do you think it would be practicable to have the Customs deal with this matter, in view of traders' experience?

I have no doubt it would have to be speeded up. If Deputy Byrne, who preaches the doctrine of economy in this House so often, wants another State Department brought into being, he is welcome to it, but I hope that in future, when it is proposed to set up some further Department of State with inspectors, etc., that he will not attack the Government for following a similar policy. I feel that the Minister has in some way met many of the objections raised from time to time in the printing industry against imported printing. It is not at all times true to say that non-printing importers are the chief importers, because it is the experience of printers in this country that many persons are touting for orders. Even employing printers themselves are importing a good deal of their stuff. If this Bill did nothing else but to put a stop to that sort of practice it will have done good and useful work. I may have something to say at a later stage on the Bill, and I only desire to say now that I am pleased that the Minister has introduced it.

I am inclined to agree with Deputy Lemass that it would be far better for the Minister to take through the Department of Industry and Commerce, the line of total prohibition against certain methods adopted in the importation and sale of goods rather than by a development of this Bill. I would like to ask the Minister if he has thought of the difficulties that may arise if his invitation to other members to introduce amendments to enlarge the scope of the Bill were taken advantage of. It struck me that the Minister rightly said that it was wrong to permit foreign goods to come into this country with Irish trade marks in the sense of being trade marks showing Irish places or particulars peculiarly adaptable to Ireland, which might mislead and give people the idea that the goods were made in Ireland. On the other hand, side by side with that, is the Minister going to take power to prohibit foreign firms registering trade marks in the Free State—Irish trade marks. If he is, how is he going to deal with it? Supposing, at the present time, in the trade department, foreign firms have registered their articles with a trade mark such as the Shamrock or Killarney, are they going to be allowed to continue the use of that trade mark and, if so, has anybody else the right to use that trade mark? It may not be as difficult as I think, but I would like the Minister to consider that to see what he has to say about it. I do not know whether I understood the Minister properly in stating that, distinct from the misrepresentation in regard to a trade mark on the article, a section of the Bill deals with misrepresentation which is not physically attached to the article itself. I want to know does the Minister mean by that, that in the ordinary advertising sense, even in conjuction with Irish goods, any misrepresentation in an advertisement will be criminal under the Bill. That can be developed very far, because a lot may depend upon opinion. Is the Minister going to say that if a tram ticket says that somebody's hat will fit well and will wear well, that that might be construed as misrepresentation because that is a matter of opinion? It might not be the opinion of somebody who is wearing it.

Against that again you have certain articles sold here, and they may be imported, such as electrical commodities. It may be the Electricity Supply Board that imports them, They may advertise electric irons. They may say that the electric iron can be used at such and such a cost, and we may find that the number of hours for which they state that that particular iron can be used at a certain cost, is exaggerated. Can they be dealt with? Is that the particular class of misrepresentation that the Minister wants to stop? You deal with the sale of goods as well as with the importation of goods. You may be able to deal with the shopkeeper in regard to certain articles that come under the Bill, but what about the restaurants? Are you going to make the restaurants put on the table a menu stating that certain articles are Irish produce, and other articles are not Irish produce? I foresee that if you allow the Bill to be developed too far you will have to go into every detail.

The Deputy ought to try to convert Deputy Lemass on that point.

I agree with Deputy Lemass.

The Deputy is arguing against him.

What the Minister is trying to do cannot be done. I want something that will be done.

I do not intend to do it.

That is the trouble. What we want is that something should be done to stop certain practices that the Bill pretends to stop. The Minister has got into such a condition that he invites us to make it so big in many principles that the whole thing becomes impossible.

What Deputy Lemass wants is that you should confine yourself to certain things rather than take on an unwieldy commission. His point is that you should prohibit certain things as being wrong, and definitely stand over that. Let us take the question of bacon as an example. We have described as "home cured" bacon what is really foreign bacon. Deputy Lemass referred to the embroidered articles that come from China. Is the Minister going to insist that such goods when placed on sale will have their country of origin stamped upon them? You may find that after half of the goods have been sold the other half will not bear any mark. How are you going to regulate that? Will you make any effort to stop concerns outside the Free State from registering here or using Irish trade marks? We want to see that Irish produced goods will have proper protection, and that foreign goods will not be sold as Irish goods by misleading marks or misleading references to them when they are advertised in the Press.

The main point that was made by Deputy Lemass had reference to Section 20 of the Bill. I take it what he was seeking to cover was the question of deception. In the mere matter of deception, this Bill is a one hundred per cent. proposition. There may be tedious machinery to be gone through, but as far as deception is concerned it can be completely and entirely prohibited. The Deputy, in conjunction with the word deception, talked about the harp device on some goods. Surely if there is a harp and if there is around it in such a way that no person even of the most illiterate type can fail to see them, symbols of another type, an indication which a person able to read can certainly not fail to understand, made somewhere else, one cannot complain of deception. There may be complaint about the use of an Irish emblem, but as far as deception is concerned, if the Merchandise Marks Commission finds a particular class of goods coming in with a harp device, it can make a regulation that if there is the harp device there must be printed round it some words bearing relation to the device which completely overshadows it. There may be a complaint about the prostitution of the Irish emblem, but there can be no complaint about deception. This Bill gives the means to get 100 per cent. proof against any deception.

On the other point, as to the use of these terms, Deputy Lemass holds that we should be thoroughgoing, that we should really not bother very much about the processes of trade, the delicate machinery or the interruptions there may be in it. Let us just prohibit. Prohibit what? Irish place-names, devices that indicate Irish origin? I understood the Deputy by implication to refer to the use of Irish characters or Irish phrases. Where is this going to stop? If we do advance along these lines and act in a thoroughgoing way on that suggestion, adopted in its entirety, where are we going to stop? What is going to be the result if there is something attempted in the way of rationalisation? How many things are there in common use the names of which can be derived back to some locality? We use the words "Irish tweeds." What about the word "tweeds"? Has it any local significance? The word "mackintosh" used to be familiar. I do not know whether it is completely gone out of use. The word "ulster" used to be used, and "cheviots" used to be used. I think even the word "linen" can be brought back to a town; certainly "damask" can. Are all these going to be prohibited? Suppose we prohibit such names as Carrickmacross, or Balbriggan or Limerick. Limerick as far as England and the Continent are concerned has been nowhere regarded as having any significance in relation to the town that we know by that name. I should say that every time you get ham served to you as Limerick, it is a thousand to one that it comes from somewhere in Yorkshire. There is another side to this. You can go ruthlessly ahead on that course and leave the results to follow. I think it would be much better to confine ourselves to a number of devices which have not yet lost their local significance and which have not gone into the generic class. Let us concentrate on such things. There is a manufactory in this country established in the last ten years, and it is doing quite a good business, a Belgian lingerie business. Is the use of the French term to be prohibited? If we make a prohibition against the French for using Irish names or Irish characters there may be retaliation. These and other points will have to be considered on specific amendments when they are put up in Committee.

Similarly with regard to the extension of Section 21. Again the simple, blunt and straight-forward thing to do is to let us have this extension and deal with misrepresentation with regard to quality and everything else verbally and otherwise. You will then get into the dilemma that Deputy Briscoe got into. What about the hat he has described as being so easy to wear? Who is to judge? Deputy Lemass wants my Department to be the judge. The Department is going to be set up as the arbiter of taste and fashion and what should be easy to wear for Deputy Briscoe. The Deputy might not consider easy to wear what we would suggest.

The machinery is objected to. That is a matter that can be attended to in the Committee Stage. I do not mind the implications cast upon the Executive Council. I want to point out difficulties. Deputy Anthony talked of stationery. A thing that occurs to my mind in connection with stationery is such a thing as a bag of nails. Is it believed that my Department has within its personnel people who are able not merely to decide whether there ought to be an indication of origin, but what is the proper way in which to apply it? Are we to have something in regard to origin applied to every sheet? When we get the nails what is going to happen?

I said printed stationery.

I am extending it. The Deputy did not refer to nails at all. Unless we can get expert people, people knowledgeable in the trade who can understand the difficulties, I do not think we can get anywhere. We will merely blunder in and do fatuous things by way of making regulations. We will not get the regulations properly associated with the difficulties in a particular trade unless we have people expert in that trade. It seems to me if there will be exceptional cases of a simple type in which the Department will of itself know that they ought to be stopped we will refer these on our own to the Commission and we will get the Commission to look into them at once.

Ordinarily speaking, the Department or the Merchandise Marks Commission will not be able to decide unless they can get people expert in the trade to warn them as to the difficulties with regard to the method of marking, the type of marking, the characters and so forth. There are an enormous lot of details which will have to be dealt with if the Commission is to do its work properly and you can only have these details attended to when you have people expert in the trade concerned with the application.

Deputy Lemass referred to a loose piece of drafting. I think it must be loose reading or reasoning on his part with regard to the particular example he gave. He said that the expression "imported goods" does not include a piece of linen manufactured here, possibly cut out into certain squares and sent to China for certain embroidery, and coming back here. Surely that does not follow. This is the definition of "imported goods": "goods produced or manufactured in Saorstát Eireann which after exportation were brought into Saorstát Eireann, including any such goods which have undergone outside Saorstát Eireann any treatment or process not resulting in a substantial change in the goods." When you consider a piece of linen sent out, and the stitching, hemming and embroidery done outside, taking it on the mere question of value, on its return it would come within this definition. It has undergone a treatment or process resulting in a substantial change, and that would bring it within the category of imported goods.

As to penalties and endorsements, we decided to abolish the older Acts, the 1891 and the 1909 Acts. We have Sections 30 and 31, which allow for prosecutions either by myself or the Minister for Agriculture. As to whom we will get to inform us, that is surely a matter for departmental regulation. The Trade Board inspectors or inspectors of the Department of Agriculture might easily be utilised for the purpose of finding out what is happening and laying information which we would have to have before a prosecution takes place. We give to two Ministers the power to prosecute "in respect of any offences under the Principal Act or any offence under this Act," in cases which appear to affect the general interests of the country.

These were the main points that were dealt with. I am prepared to open up a discussion and have quite a lengthy discussion on the matter of the emblems, the devices, the use of place-names, and so on. I would not like the impression to get abroad that the simple thing to do is to prohibit absolutely goods with Irish emblems on them. I simply want to indicate some of the difficulties that would flow from that practice. I am not at all sure that there is not some intermediate stage between what is contained here and the complete prohibition suggested. If Deputy Lemass puts down a specific amendment we can whittle down one against the other and arrive at some solution. Having heard the arguments, I think that although there is a danger in Section 22 as it stands, it will be found to be more serviceable to the whole Irish community. It may not do all the good wanted, but it will avoid unnecessary harm to goods produced here and sent outside.

Question—"That the Bill be read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.
Committee Stage to be taken on Wednesday, 18th November.
Top
Share