The Second Reading debate on this Bill was opened yesterday by Senator Connolly and was then adjourned for the attendance of the Minister.
Merchandise Marks Bill, 1931—Second Stage (resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Cathaoirleach
It would be well if the Minister made a statement explaining the purpose of the Bill. It will be remembered that it was in order to accommodate Senator Connolly that the discussion was opened yesterday, but I think it was understood that the Minister would make a statement introducing the Bill to-day.
We expect a statement from the Minister.
The principle of the Bill can be very briefly stated. Its purpose is to amend the Principal Act of 1887 in which there have been found defects in at least three particulars. The first defect that occurred in the working of the 1887 Act arose on the question of enforcement and prosecution. We are making certain extensions in this Bill. We are giving better facilities for bringing offenders to book in this Amending Act. The second point is that the 1887 Act was found to be useful only in regard to misdescription or false description of goods. The part of it that has been found effective, if any part of the Act can be said to be effective, was in relation to misdescription as to the place or country in which goods had been manufactured. Under the Act of 1887 misdescription might relate to a great deal more than the country where the goods were produced. Under that Act the expression "trade description" means "any description, statement or other indication, direct or indirect (a) as to the number, quantity, measure, gauge or weight of any goods, or (b) as to the place or country in which any goods were made or produced or (c) as to the mode of manufacturing or producing any goods, or (d) as to the material of which any goods are composed, or (e) as to any goods being the subject of an existing patent, privilege or copyright." Even though the scope of that is more extensive than most people imagine, it is entirely limited by this fact that there had to be misdescription. There had to be what amounted to false description in relation to any of these particular goods which were not marked in any way and which did not give any description of themselves either in regard to the country of manufacture or the country of origin. We are seeking to amend that. Section 20 of the Bill covers the sale of imported goods bearing name or trademark of Saorstát Eireann manufacturer or trader or place or name in Saorstát Eireann. Goods coming under this section must bear either on importation or on sale a description of the country of origin. With regard to all other goods, on an application being made to the Merchandise Marks Commission which we propose to establish under the Act an obligation may be put upon those who import or sell goods to affix to them a description saying that the goods are simply not manufactured here or specifically saying that they are manufactured in some named place.
The third point in which the old Act was found to be defective was that before it could be established that a false description applied it had to be by way of actual physical attachment to the goods. An advertisement which was not connected with the goods did not count as a misdescription of a particular type of goods coming into the country. We are taking false description or misrepresentation and extending the representation so as to include representation, not merely physically aplied to the goods, but also if it is verbal or in writing or used in any advertisement. Those who make false description in that way so long as it relates to the country of origin are brought within the scope of this Bill and render themselves liable to penalties. The Bill has reference not merely to 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 entering into the country, and with regard to every other class of goods allows an application to be made to the Commission that certain goods shall not be allowed in or that no goods shall be allowed in unless a definite indication of origin is given. All that has to be done by the machinery to be provided. We have enlarged the scope of the old Act by making it apply not merely to misdescription but in certain circumstances by imposing an obligation to mark the goods properly so as not to have goods coming in either on importation or when they are being sold without any description whatever. In the case of the sale of imported goods bearing the name or trademark of Saorstát Eireann manufacturer or trader or place name in Saorstát Eireann these automatically without reference to the Merchandise Marks Commission cannot be brought in or sold unless accompanied at the same time by a particular mark indicating origin.
In connection with the machinery of the Bill I would point out, although it has not yet been determined, that the Merchandise Marks Commission shall in personnel be the same as the Tariff Commission. It will be our object to have the double functions carried out by the same body. I think that the work that the Tariff Commission does fits it to take the rather rapid decisions arising under this Act. There will be no necessity, I think, to duplicate that Commission. We are leaving ourselves liberty to meet peculiar circumstances that may arise. It may be that in the beginning when the Bill passes into law there may be such a rush of applications that the Tariff Commission may not be able to deal speedily enough with them. Under these circumstances it might be necessary for a short period of time to appoint somebody other than the Tariff Commission, but in the main the idea would be to occupy the Tariff Commission with the task that is outlined in this Bill. We do not believe that there will be the same necessity for prolonged enquiry as to whether or not goods should be marked in a particular way. If that is considered necessary expert evidence may have to be given as to the type of mark that ought to be affixed to special classes of goods, the way it ought to be affixed and so on. The details will require more consideration, but I think the general principle of the Bill ought to be acceptable.
A Bill of this character is long overdue. The last Merchandise Marks Act of any consequence was passed in the year 1891. The year 1891 represents an old world. Trade has changed very considerably since then. Countries are anxious to press forward and to sell their goods in other countries. They have resorted to various devices for the purpose of inducing the inhabitants of one country to buy the products of another country. Some of these devices are fair, but some of them verge very closely on fraud. I will give one example. I believe it is a fact that foreign goods imported into this country have these two words on them, "Madin Irelande." To the ordinary person that would convey "Made in Ireland," but these words mean no such thing. It is right that a matter of that kind should be stopped. I welcome the Bill as showing that the Ministry have some information as to the course and the development of foreign commerce and foreign competition. I hope they are alive to other features of that, including its financial features. This Bill shows that the Ministry have been considering this question.
My objection to the Bill is that it seeks to establish another board, another commission. If a person objects to a foreign manufactured article coming in in competition with the article that he is making himself, he has first to organise his trade and then his trade has to go before a commission. The commission will then have to consider it just as if it were an application for a tariff, and after argument on one side and the other the decision may go against him. It seems to me that a provision of that kind is not sufficiently vigorous to meet the situation existing at the present time. I think all goods coming from foreign countries should have either on the article itself or on the package in which it is contained the country of origin. I think that by a general rule of that character the Minister could get rid perhaps of his commission. Perhaps he might not be able to get rid of this commission, but it seems to me that he could and that the simpler the regulations made the better. The Minister is going to have a commission for trade marks and he is going to have a board for mines and minerals.
I remember in former times, before the Minister came into public life, that we used to have a tremendous complaint about the number of boards that were being established. I think that boards are like animals of low organism: they seem to have the faculty of multiplying rapidly. The Minister has said that anything that is to be said on this Bill can best be said on Committee. If I were in order on the Committee Stage I would move that the section relating to the commission should be deleted and that we should take a decision that no articles imported from foreign countries should be sold here unless they set forth the country of origin. Perhaps as a compromise in respect to some commodities we might be inclined to agree that they should be represented as foreign. In any case I think this Bill will prevent the kind of fraud to which I have alluded, the fraud which suggests that articles of foreign manufacture are made in Ireland. I would not have given that example unless I had it on a most reliable authority. I have confirmed the information that has been supplied to me. It shows to Senators and ought to show the Ministry that international trade is in such a position now and competition is so severe that the utmost vigilance and promptness are necessary. In my opinion there is no necessity for the expense and the delay of having to make an application to a commission.
I want to support the statement that has been made by Senator Comyn. I believe it was always desirable and that it is now absolutely necessary that all goods coming into this country should be marked with the country of origin. There may be some few things, animals and the like, that it need not apply to. Speaking generally, I am strongly of the opinion that goods coming into this country for sale should be marked with the country of origin. That has been done in other countries, and I do not see why it should not be done here. It is being done in England.
It is not done at all.
It has been done in America.
They are marked foreign.
Not until they have appeared before a commission.
Will the Minister accept "foreign"?
Under the English conditions, yes.
I do not know what they are.
And the Senator introduces that without knowing.
I will accept "foreign" temporarily if the Minister will not go any further. His Department and himself are reluctant to adopt anything except what is according to his own temperament and that of his officials. Perhaps he is reluctant that English articles should be stamped. I do not know, but that is my opinion, and I believe the opinion of practically every one in the Seanad.
On a point of order, I hope the Minister will explain his interruption during Senator Colonel Moore's speech.
Cathaoirleach
That does not constitute a point of order.
Are there any safeguards in the Bill to ensure that the brand will be allowed to remain on various articles? After they are imported, articles are produced for sale in the shops. I could instance a particular article which is heavily and severely branded when it is coming into the country, but when it is placed on the counter for sale the brand disappears and very often the article is represented as Irish produce. I have heard great complaints about activities in this direction. I would like to know if there is any power given by this measure to prevent that taking place.
What steps, for instance, will be taken to ensure that Chinese bacon is not sold as Irish produce? That sort of practice goes on to a very considerable extent, and if this Bill will do anything to prevent or limit that activity it is certainly well worth while. I think it will be very difficult to prevent activities of that type. Placing marks upon an article in order to show its country of origin is important enough in its way, but another important aspect of the question is that every purchaser should be entitled to get the home-produced article if he pays for it; in other words, foreign produce should not be passed over to the purchaser as Irish.
Senator Comyn desires to delete the sections in this Bill which relate to the establishment of a Commission. The Senator can move to delete these sections if he thinks he can convince the Seanad that it is wise to do so; but by deleting the sections he does not change the system very much, because somebody has to decide. If, for instance, the Senator substitutes my Department as the Department which should decide whether a mark is to be put on, and, if so, how it is to be affixed and what type of mark it shall be, I would be put to the very same trouble as the Commission to gather together those expert in the matter, and the only people expert in such a matter are the traders concerned. I would have to have evidence from sundry people with regard to specific articles. The mark that will be affixed to a piece of bacon might be slightly different to the mark on, say, a bag of nails.
It is easy enough for Senators to say in a casual, haphazard way: "Mark everything and let the trade take the consequences." Even if you decide to mark everything there is an enormous amount of work still to be done requiring the attendance of expert witnesses, namely, the people interested in the trade, in order to find out even such small points of detail as what type the mark is to be, what is to be the degree that will be called conspicuous, and how is the mark to be attached to specific articles.
With regard to the matter to which Senator Foran referred, we have importation restriction orders and orders relating to the restriction of sale. We allow for both cases. It may be that a restriction order with regard to importation without mark will be sufficient— in other words, it may be clearly seen that a mark put on during importation will have to be so indelibly attached that there will be no necessity to bother about it any further from the point of view of sale. There may be other articles upon which the mark might be put in order to pass the Customs, and it could be easily removed before the point of sale. That can be dealt with under this legislation by a special sale restriction order.
Senator Comyn, who spoke with a little knowledge on this matter, and Senator Colonel Moore, who spoke with none, have urged that we shall just mark the article. Senator Comyn complains that this legislation is not vigorous enough. It is not vigour we want; a little bit of sanity is welcome now and again. In the case of the bull that is being led away from a china shop after destroying all the beautiful china, it could not very well be complained that he was not vigorous enough.
An effort should have been made to keep him out of it.
The effort in this instance should be directed to keeping the delicate china shop of trade out of the melée. Just a little bit of order and sanity is required in attaching these restrictions on trade. What is the good of attaching marks with regard to foreign origin on goods not produced here? There is going to be no protective effect. There is nothing to protect. Someone has to pay for the cost incurred in putting on these things. There is going to be a definite restriction on trade in some way. The point of principle is quite simple; the point of detail is the difficult one.
I have been asked by a Senator, who apparently does not understand what the English conditions are, if I would be prepared to accept the English conditions. I do not think they are so restricted as this. They have the 1887 Act in England, and that Act was amended in 1926, and they established this system of a Commission to which application will be made. Inquiries will then be instituted and a decision eventually given.
Senator Comyn welcomes this Bill because he thinks it will enable us to meet such a case as he speaks of—an article coming in with the two words "made in" together, and then the word "Ireland" or some corruption of the word "Ireland" put after that. You do not require the present Bill to get after that. The Senator says that he has reliable authority for saying that such articles come in. I would like to have instances of such articles coming in. It might involve a dereliction of duty on the part of the Customs authorities if there are such articles admitted. I do not believe there are.
I do not think the Minister ought to doubt my word.
I am sure the Senator has made a very accurate statement regarding what has been said to him; it is the representations made to the Senator that I would like some information about. The Act of 1887 allows for the prevention of the importation of articles bearing a false trade description. The practice of the Revenue Commissioners is that goods marked in the way the Senator describes would be forfeited on any attempt being made to bring them into the country.
Question—"That the Merchandise Marks Bill, 1931 be now read a Second Time"—agreed to. Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 16th December.