Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jun 1970

Vol. 68 No. 5

Merchandise Marks (No. 2) Bill, 1969: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lalor)

The object of this Bill is to provide additional protection for the consumer by enabling me to make orders requiring that prepacked goods should carry an indication of the quantity of contents and that, goods should be packed in standard quantities.

There is, of course, already in existence a wide range of legislation designed to protect the consumer. The principal measures administered by my Department which provide safeguards for the consumer are those relating to weights and measures, merchandise marks, restrictive trade practices, hire-purchase and credit-sales and industrial research and standards. In addition, Statutes administered by the Ministers for Health and Agriculture and Fisheries provide for the maintenance of standards of quality for medical preparations and agricultural produce and for the control of poisons. A number of these measures date back almost a century while others belong to recent decades and reflect the changing commercial conditions and to some extent the changing attitudes of our own times. The need for the present Bill arises similarly from altered trading practices.

This Bill is made necessary by the phenomenal growth of pre-packaging in recent years. In the days when the customer could watch his purchases being weighed or measured with the scales or measuring equipment on the shop counter, it was sufficient to provide that the scales and weights and measures should be accurate, leaving it to the purchaser to see that they were correctly and honestly used. This is just what the Weights and Measures Acts sought to do. But nowadays, when goods are so often pre-packed, either in a back-room of the shop or much more often in the manufacturer's or packer's premises, it is no longer practicable for the customer to check the quantity of what he is buying by simply watching the weighing or measuring operation as it takes place. New forms of protection are thus necessary.

The minimum requirement is that the consumer should know what quantity of goods is in each package so that he or she may have a basis for assessing the comparative values of competing products. The simplest and most effective way of securing this is to require that each package should carry a statement clearly setting out the quantity of its contents. Such information would not of itself, however, enable an assessment of relative values to be readily made if goods are packed in a wide variety of sizes. A shopper would have to be very good at mental arithmetic to compare the prices of 1 lb packages with others which contained 15 ozs. or 17 ozs. Clearly, it should be possible to fix standard sizes such as ½ lb and 1 lb which would take into account the characteristics of individual products and the amount of each which it is convenient to buy or sell in a package.

The Bill now before the House provides that I should have the power to make orders, subject to the over-riding authority of the Oireachtas, which would enable me to achieve these objectives on behalf of the consumer. This method has been chosen as the practicable one. It would, in my opinion, be impossible to frame an Act requiring that packages carry an indication of quantity of contents which would apply to all goods and which would, at the same time, take into account the different requirements of the wide variety of products which are available to-day. Such an Act would give rise to difficulties, some of them unforeseeable at this stage, for manufacturers and distributors.

It is obvious that the marking of quantity on packages of tea or sugar is a straightforward operation as compared with the marking of tins of fruit or vegetables which contain, in addition to these commodities, liquids and preservatives. There may be technical difficulties operating in regard to the packaging of certain commodities which would render it impossible to ensure that an exact quantity was put into a package and, in these cases, it would be necessary to provide for tolerance. The Bill provides that orders may deal with matters such as these, and, in my opinion, they could only be dealt with satisfactorily after full consultation with manufacturers, distributors and consumer representatives.

The Bill also provides that orders may require that the name and address of the packer or importer of the goods be marked on the package to facilitate enforcement and to encourage packers and importers to comply with the other provisions of an order.

The Bill does not apply to pre-packed goods intended for export because, if the requirements prescribed by an order differed from those in any export market, an exporter could find himself faced with additional costs and might even be faced with the choice of breaking the law or foregoing export. This dilemma could occur if an order specified that the notice on a container should be in a form which was not acceptable in the export market.

It will be necessary when drafting orders to determine the extent to which provision should be made for the use of metric units of measurement. Clearly, the standard quantities prescribed in the initial orders would have to be in imperial units and will be in metric units when that system is in general use. Even when the initial orders are being drafted, consideration will have to be given to the requirements of packers who may wish to pack in round metric quantities or exact metric equivalents of imperial quantities.

Before I conclude, I should like to make it quite clear that the Bill is aimed only at the very small minority of manufacturers or traders who either deliberately or through negligence mislead or defraud the public. Certain safeguards are included in the Bill to protect the trader who in all good faith, and despite reasonable precautions, may occasionally handle underweight packages. At the Committee Stage in Dáil Éireann I accepted an Opposition amendment designed to provide safeguards for a packer prosecuted for inadvertent breach of the legislation.

I am glad to say that representatives of industrialists and distributors have welcomed the principle of this Bill, rightly regarding it as a protection for the conscientious manufacturer or trader as well as for the consumer. Following consideration of representations by the manufacturing interests, I introduced an amendment at the Committee Stage in Dáil Éireann which has the effect of making it obligatory for me to consult the interests concerned before I make any Order under the Bill. At the same time, it is my intention when the Bill is passed to press forward vigorously with the making of Orders, and I am sure I can count on the co-operation of all trading interests in doing this.

In conclusion, I should say that I have in the course of preparation a further Bill to provide a code of protection for the consumer generally. I commend this Bill to the House.

Mr. Russell

As this is the Minister's first appearance in the Seanad I should like to take the opportunity of welcoming him here and wishing him a peaceful, successful and short term in office. As the Minister indicated in his concluding remarks, this Bill is a limited measure. If one has reference to the Acts of 1887 and 1931 one will realise that the measure we are considering this afternoon will give only limited protection to the consumer. Nevertheless, it is a useful and necessary Bill and the Minister is to be complimented on bringing the previous legislation reasonably up to date. As the Minister has emphasised in his speech, the aim of this Bill is to protect both the consumer and, what is very important, to protect the bona fide manufacturers, wholesalers and importers. From his own knowledge of business, the Minister will agree with me when I say that nowadays the conscientious trader is experiencing very severe competition from large traders whose methods of trading are not, to say the least of it, either fair or completely honest.

The Bill is limited in its objectives and is concerned only that on the container as such there is a notice which is easily visible and which states clearly the quantity of the goods in the container by weight, measure or number, as may be specified in the order. It is clear that a greater measure of protection relative to the actual quality of the goods in the container is required and it is hoped that the Minister will push this legislation that was promised by his predecessor. It is hoped that the Minister will bring comprehensive legislation before the Oireachtas to protect consumers' interests.

As the Minister has said, packaging of all types and sizes of products has been expanded enormously in recent years and with the increasing tempo of life and the necessity to save labour and ease the drudgery of the housewife, it will increase even further in the years ahead.

In the Bill a container is described as something in which goods are packed at any time before being offered for sale and include a bag, bottle, box, can, carton, envelope, net, sack or wrapper. It is interesting at this stage to refer to the 1887 Act in which a container was described as a cover which included any casket, bottle, vessel, cover, capsule, case, frame or wrapper. The House will note that there have been certain deletions. For instance, the words "frame, case" have been deleted and I am wondering that if the word "box" as referred to in the present Bill, is intended to cover a case or frame.

The Act of 1887 was specifically intended to prohibit the forging of trade marks. To an extent, it was a negative provision. Its sole purpose was to ensure that a manufacturer or trader did not forge a mark on a bag or wrapper or some such container. The Act of 1931 updated the 1887 Act to some extent but did not cover the necessary protection of the consumer. Therefore, what the Minister is doing in this Bill is updating the Merchandise Marks Bills of 1887 and 1931 without dealing comprehensively or widely enough with the problem as it affects the buying public today.

The Bill defines goods as anything which is the subject of trade, manufacture or merchandise. This is a very wide description and I trust that when he is replying the Minister will cover this point. Is it intended that the Bill will cover such goods as imported grain that is now largely handled in bulk, as well as other feedstuffs such as oil cakes and so on? Does it cover such goods as shirts and other articles which are now offered for sale in cellophane containers? Does it cover hardware items such as nails? Does it cover bacon which is now often packed in cellophane wrappers? Does it cover newspapers and magazines which come in wrappers? Is it intended to cover the import of cars, CKD — completely knocked down? I hope the Minister will clear this point when he is replying.

A further difficulty which was mentioned during the Dáil debate and which was appreciated by both the Minister and his predecessor was that of the small size of the Irish market. Are exporters from foreign countries who deal with a vast home public likely to conform to the Minister's quantity and sizes to conform with our legislation? It is most unlikely that they would. Perhaps the Minister has already considered this point and made provision for it in the Bill.

The Bill contains a number of sections permitting the Minister to make orders in certain circumstances. I foresee a difficulty in making such orders particularly if the goods in question are perishable. I am thinking of the possible delays that could occur if the procedure in making the order were to be held up in regard to the importation of articles of a perishable nature. I notice that the Bill provides for the publication of Ministerial orders in at least one daily newspaper. Why not in at least two daily newspapers?

Further on in the Bill there is reference to prior consultation with such persons as appear to the Minister to be substantially interested in the general subject matter of the order. That section was discussed at some length in the Dáil and I should like the Minister to clarify the expression in the section which says persons who appear to him to be substantially interested. Does this mean groups of traders or does it mean traders' associations, or bodies like the Confederation of Irish Manufacturers? Would the Minister elaborate on the phrase "substantially interested"? What does "interested" mean? Does it mean the interest of the manufacturer or of the importer or does it mean the interest of the public?

The Bill goes on, in section 3 (1), to refer to an authorised officer and confines the officer to mean a person authorised in writing by the Minister or by the council of a county or corporation of a county or other borough. What qualifications will such an officer require? It is not stated in the Bill. I wonder if the Minister has any specific officer in mind, such as a health officer. Would the Minister, having regard to recent legislation bringing the new health authorities into existence, not consider an officer attached to a health authority would be a more appropriate officer, or at least as appropriate an officer as an officer employed by a corporation or county council, to deal with those matters?

The Bill goes on, in section 4 (1), to refer to a person who contravenes, or is deemed to contravene. What does the expression "deemed to contravene" mean? Deemed by whom? Those are specific points in the Bill that I should be grateful if the Minister would advert to in his reply.

Generally, on a wider basis, I should like to refer again to the urgent necessity for bringing in comprehensive legislation. As the Minister is aware, this is an age of gimmicks, impulse buying, price saving, real or alleged, lost leaders et cetera, all calculated to make the consumer buy more than he or she wants. In the rat race, which a large section of the retail trade has become, the big operator, often foreign-owned and controlled, is spreading rapidly at the expense of the smaller trader who cannot afford the costly ballyhoo of TV and press advertising which the big companies indulge in.

That is an aspect of the unfair trading and unfair competition which I referred to at the outset. I hope the comprehensive legislation which the Minister has in mind will deal with that. Furthermore, the small man cannot afford to produce his own packs in non-standard weights and sizes which are part and parcel of the highpowered campaign to persuade "Mrs. Citizen" that she is getting better value for money. In this regard the Bill has done a good service to the small trader in that a 1b pot of jam is a 1b pot of jam and it is not just good value because it happens to be 12 ozs at the same price or slightly less. Those unfair and near fraudulent practices can be stopped only by comprehensive legislation in the interests of the consumer, the honest manufacturer, importer and packer.

The Bill should also put a stop to the practice of offering certain commodities, such as butter, at an under-cost price to entice the consumer in to pay more for other goods, possibly non-food lines. In the final analysis every business, every corporation, every trader, however large or small, must make a profit. It is obvious, even if they sell certain everyday commodities such as butter, bread, tea or sugar at under-cost prices, "Mrs. Citizen" will pay something more for something else. Those generally are the points I have to make on this Bill.

The Bill, as I said, and I do not think the Minister claims anything more for it, is a limited measure. It brings the preceding legislation on merchandise marks up to date but I suggest to the Minister that what is required in this country today, having regard to the enormous development in trading of all types, particularly the new type of gimmick trading, what the consumer needs for his or her protection more than anything else is a measure which will guarantee not only the size of the package, the weight of the contents or the number of items in a package but more than that the quality of the article in the package. Until such time as we have comprehensive legislation covering this particular aspect of packaged goods we cannot guarantee a fair deal to the consumer or indeed to the bona fide manufacturer and trader.

Professor Quinlan

Like Senator Russell, I begin by welcoming the Minister to the House, but unlike Senator Russell I would not hope his stay would be a short one. Neither does the country hope that his stay will be a short one.

We can all welcome the Bill before us as giving a certain measure of protection to the consumer. Indeed it is something which is largely overdue in view of the many gimmicks that are at present being used in merchandise. The Minister's idea of standard packages is a good one if it can be workable, where he has taken the power to lay down by order standards which will suit different commodities. This becomes of urgent importance now when we are faced with changing over to the metric system because once we start on grammes, kilogrammes and so on it is God help the poor housewife where she sees that a 1b will no longer be a 1b but will be 454 grammes. You would not miss a few grammes out of a package with that amount on a label.

I suggest to the Minister that the preparation for the change-over is of course now urgent and he should go a bit further than he goes in the Bill before the House, and if he could see that all packages for at least some eight or ten years after the change-over date carry, as well as having the price displayed as so much for this tin or this package, also on the same tag the cost per 1b of the commodity.

The lb is the only yardstick that the housewife will understand for at least the next eight or ten years. She can appreciate what a 1b means, whether it be tea or sugar, and consequently when we are having packages labelled in various sizes like a ¼ 1b, maybe some packages might be 10 ozs or when the metric system comes in we will have 200 grammes, 300 grammes and maybe 500 grammes. Those are the standard sizes you will find displayed in continental shops, so obviously we will have those displayed quite quickly after the metric system comes in. The labels should have on the packages, say, 300 grammes so much, 1 1b so much, so that the housewife can look at the standard and make her judgment based on that.

There is, of course, the necessity for quality control. I know that is not difficult but surely the quality that we are most interested in, or should be most interested in, is the place of origin of the product, because it is very noticeable at present that Irish goods are played down in all merchandising, especially in the super stores which are in many cases controlled largely from outside Ireland. One finds that the foreign product is put in the best selling position and our own products are jumbled together so that no longer is it possible to be confronted with the fact that one product is Irish and another is not Irish.

Our future survival depends on getting that confrontation to the buyers. Let us face facts. The Buy Irish campaign has been a dismal failure during the past three or four years. The methods used have been completely ineffective. They have been pitched at too high a key. In new legislation the Minister should see that above all else the origin of the goods is made clear and that the Irish language is not used to conceal a Danish product—that the origin of the product is marked clearly. I suggest it is urgently necessary for the Minister to look again at our position in this respect and see what he can do to revitalise the Buy Irish campaign for the days ahead.

I do not think there is anything else I wish to say except that allied to the metric system is the use of the decimal coinage. An advertisement which states "Interest at 5½ per cent" does not attract, but the use of 5.5 per cent seems to mean an enormous amount. Everybody knows that 5½ is between five and six but if an article carries on the outside the information that its weight is 5.5 ounces, the housewife is confused by it. I wish the Minister well when he comes to tackle both the transition to the metric system and the restoring of the Buy Irish campaign to its rightful place.

Mrs. Farrell

I wish to join in the welcome to the Minister and I wish him well in his new position. He has a heavy and onerous task as Minister for Industry and Commerce. I hope he will be there, I am sure he will be there, for many years to give us the service of the legislation we want in this country. I speak as one of the few housewives in the Seanad and I welcome the Bill, narrow as it is. I have one objection to it but the Minister has promised us much wider legislation which I suggest will not come before its time.

One of the points I should like made clear is how the weights of tinned food will be displayed. I do not consider the present method sufficient in relation to tins or packages. Tinned fruit is a commodity which has enjoyed a boom period in this country. As we get more affluent we are inclined to use these foods more. The weights vary enormously and I should like to see some system introduced to show us the volume of liquid contained in tins. This may seem to be an impossible task but if the weight of the fruit in the tin could be displayed it would be a good thing because a little bit of subtraction would then ascertain the weight of the liquid. Housewives are not always as gullible as people lead us to believe.

There is one practice which I have noted. Frequently I pick up a packet and see "threepence off" or "sixpence off". The price at a number of shillings is mentioned and when I ask the attendant if there is threepence off the packet I am blandly told no. I suggest that the price should be displayed without any gimmickly. This "threepence off" and "sixpence off" is being used unfairly more and more in the sale of products. It is something the Minister should note and if he cannot do anything about it under this legislation he should do it in the comprehensive legislation he will be introducing in the near future. If this were a comprehensive piece of legislation I could talk for a very long time on many of the problems we are faced with.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator is not confined to what is in the Bill. On the Second Stage she is entitled to talk about matters not in the Bill, if she wishes to do so.

Mrs. Farrell

Thank you, but I have not a great deal prepared. I will not enlarge on what I intend to say. I should like, however, to refer to the surfeit of misleading advertisements and to the gimmicks being used. Not alone should the Minister investigate the matter of weights on packets and tins but he should also look at the advertising being done in publications and on television and radio to sell articles. If you follow manufacturers' instructions on some things—I am not referring to anything specific—you find that the product does not bear out the claims of the manufacturers. The best that can be said for this practice is that it is misleading and some broad comprehensive Bill is necessary to do something about it. Such a measure was brought in in England two years ago but we need our own type of legislation here. I understand that in England it has not been too easy to get convictions under the Act in spite of the care being taken.

For too long consumers have been exploited. This has not been done by every manufacturer but as it goes on more and more and women in particular are subjected to great pressures to buy products. Something should be done about pressure advertising in this country. A lot of women will say they are not subject to this but if we listen often enough to an advertisement we are inclined in the end to say there is something in it.

I should like to refer to clothing, particularly. A lot of clothing is being sold in packets, packed, and when one goes to look at a garment one is told not to remove the garment from the packet. One is told: "There is one open for your inspection". This is tantamount to buying a pig in a poke. Although it is hygienic, it makes it easier to sell merchandise when it is in polythene packs and some written guarantee should be given that such garments will be taken back if something is wrong with them. One can come up against a situation where a garment is sold packed in a polythene bag. One buys it in good faith, takes it home and opens it and finds it is soiled. It is very difficult to persuade any shopkeeper that one did not soil the garment.

In the package there should be some declaration of intent on the part of the manufacturer of the merchandise to replace goods to be found not to be up to standard and which are returned within a specified time. I welcome this Bill but I feel it is a bit narrow. As far as it goes it is very good. We hope we will have the broader legislation which is required for the protection not alone of the consumer but also of the honest trader. We hope this legislation will come along shortly.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I join with the other Senators in congratulating the Minister on his appointment and I wish him every success while he continues as Minister.

There are four main points which I wish to make on the Bill before the House, before I take advantage of the ruling of the Leas-Chathaoirleach with regard to the general matter of merchandise marks legislation. My first point has been pretty well made. It was written in 1952 when the first report of the well-known Moloney Committee on Consumer Protection was published. The report stated with regard to the matter which is in this Bill:

After undesirable advertising and door to door sales practices, the most common source of our representers' complaints was the use of deceptive containers for prepacked goods.

Since 1952, 18 years ago, the Minister, his predecessors and their advisers have had the opportunity of considering that report among others, and among other literature published on this subject. The report found that a high proportion of the housewives' weekly purchases were prepackaged. It drew attention to the various forms of deception which resulted from the lack of control.

In this Bill it is now proposed to impose such necessary control. One form of deception was to have a non-transparent jar or box which contained less than the full quantity but which was marked "3d off". The 3d was well covered by what was not in the non-transparent jar. The second deception was where the container was so designed and had such thickness that it would seem capable of holding more than it did hold.

Our colleagues across the sea sometimes do not move fast either. It took them 11 years to adopt the particular recommendation of the Moloney Report on this matter. They adopted the recommendation having regard to the words of that report with regard to this matter which were:

We are bound to regard the problem as one of weights and measures.

In fact, the legislation which provides for this matter in Britain, enacted in 1963, is not merchandise marks legislation at all. It is weights and measures legislation. If Senator Farrell wants to know how they treated fruit she will find it in their 1963 Act. It may be expected that this is how fruit will be treated here.

We have delayed enacting legislation. This form of the legislation does not seem suitable. Why was this introduced as merchandise marks legislation? This may be because of the personnel available to enforce it. I do not wish to make a technical point about this. I am merely curious to know why this legislation has the form of a merchandise marks Bill when it would seem to be a weights and measures Bill.

The third point is that the Bill is lacking in one matter which is important. I propose to put down an amendment on the Committee Stage. There is no provision in this Bill for any civil remedy. There is no provision whereby anybody damaged personally, by reason of the fact that somebody committed a crime for which he can be prosecuted under this Bill, can seek a civil remedy. There is no provision whereby such a person can recover damages. I do not think there is any general law which would give a litigant any right civilly to recover damages if he lost a considerable sum of money as a result of a crime. We may be talking about considerable sums. Perhaps one might order a large quantity. I do not know who might be packaging or who might be buying. This information is available to the Minister.

The Minister might feel disposed to accept an amendment on those lines, but I should prefer if he drafted it rather than I did. The effect of the existing merchandise marks legislation would certainly need to be provided for. Under the existing legislation if one bought goods under a particular trade description and was handed an appropriate piece of paper, whereby the seller chose to do so, the seller could opt out of the obligations of the Act. In fact, under the Merchandise Marks Act there were provisions for civil remedies but persons with those civil remedies were summarily deprived of them because the vendor sometimes handed a piece of paper, which was never looked at, which would mean that the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act were being excluded. If there is to be a civil remedy under this Bill to be given to the purchaser of goods which are being sold in breach of this Act there should be a provision to the further effect that nobody selling would be entitled to oblige the other chap to contract out of it. There should be no right in a purchaser to contract out of his remedies.

The fourth general point is by way of preface to very strong urging on my part on the Minister and the Department to expedite, even at the risk of making wrong decisions in relation to what might be enacted, the enactment of the comprehensive codification of the merchandise marks code which has been notoriously deficient in the extent to which it has been enforced.

We will have to become very shrewd about our own affairs. The increasing freedom of trade will mean that our producers and manufacturers will be faced with more competition from large international units.

We could protect our home market not by tariffs which are prohibited but either by closing the back door or by making it more difficult to get inside it. One of the ways to make it more difficult for foreign producers and manufacturers to compete with home producers and manufacturers would be to have a very stiff merchandise marks code which they would not be in the habit of complying with. The merchandise marks code in Britain is in the same need of revision, codification and improvement as our own.

Firstly there is a provision in existing legislation whereby a vendor can warrant the accuracy of the trade description yet can in fact contract out of his liability. I think this should be provided against in any new legislation. Secondly, a retailer who incurs a liability to a customer in respect of a breach of the merchandise marks code and is found guilty should be in a position to pass back the liability to the person who originally broke the code so that the true offender can be punished, because under the existing code the final retailer is responsible. Thirdly, the definition of trade description in the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, states that—

a trade description means any description as to the number, quantity, measure, gauge or weight of any goods.

It does not include any description of the size of any goods. It does not include any description as to the newness or otherwise of the goods. Those goods may have been bought at a CIE auction yet they can be described without breach of the merchandise marks code as "new". It does not include giving a wrong date of manufacture An old date may be good if one is selling an antique and likewise a new date may be good if one is selling an up-to-date product. It does not include any description as to who the previous owners were or its history whether, for example, it was bought from a sale of bankrupt stock. It does not include any description which would involve a claim that there was a genuine marking down of the goods. A shop can, without being in breach of the merchandise marks code, sell at the same or at a higher price goods which it has previously had on offer at the same or at a lower price.

I think the question of advertising should be made a subject of the merchandise marks code so that an advertiser when he is advertising his product would be aware that the language he is using may be applied as a language for a trade description of the goods he is selling and he may become liable, because of his application of that language under this code, for an offence.

It has been suggested, and this is the sort of matter which Senator Farrell would be particularly interested in, that care should be a general legal requirement. That is to say goods could not be sold without saying whether or not they were washable, at which temperature they should be washed and at what temperature they should be ironed, what tolerance or shrinking would be. Statutory definition should be given to words such as "pre-shrunk" or "shrink resistance". These matters are of considerable importance to consumers and necessary for their protection. There are a whole range of new fibres and established terms are applied to them whereas they require entirely different consideration. Statutory powers should be conferred so as to promulgate definitions of textile terms which could not be used without the parties using them being in breach. The Moloney Report stated that worsted which has always been closely associated with wool technically means arranging the strands of the fibre in a particular fashion. If manufacturers do not give a particular definition they are not in breach of the code.

I think the whole question of labelling should be considered. The requirement to give in words a full description of what the consumer is getting should be extended so as to give legal protection to the public.

Mr. McElgunn

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire, ar a theacht anseo in a phost nua mar Aire Thionscail agus Tráchtála. Tá súil agam go mbeidh toradh fónta ar a shaothar.

I welcome this Bill which, as the Minister said in his opening speech, is for the protection of the consumers. Although I feel the Bill is rather narrow, it is a step in the right direction. For far too long the public have been exposed to advertising abuses and false competition. I know one particular produce where approximately one-fifth of the cost goes towards the contents of the package and the rest is spent on advertising, packaging and merchandising.

The Minister mentioned in his speech the change in the methods of merchandising from the days when one watched the assistant weigh everything on the scales to the present days of pre-packaged food. I think the Bill is trying to get back to the old sense of values. I do not know what the benefit will be. Other Senators have mentioned Irish goods offered for sale in supermarkets. I should like to comment on this because I have noticed that in most supermarkets, especially those belonging to big chains, very often Irish goods are pushed into the background while British manufactured goods are kept at the forefront. I am glad that Senator FitzGerald referred to the necessity for a strict measure of control as regards honesty in packaging and so on.

The last point I wish to make is that in this country, in which by and large there are large families, food still plays a large part in the budget of the average housewife. I cannot understand why the housewife cannot buy goods in bulk when such goods are available in large quantities to hotels and institutions. Since hotels and institutions can buy in catering packs I take it that those packs are available but they are not available in our shops or supermarkets.

Another commodity about which I should like to comment is baby foods. These baby foods are available only in tiny packages. Many families who live in my district have twins—one have triplets—and when these parents, as well as those having only one healthy child, go along to purchase baby food they find that they must take home a separate basketful of these small packets. I cannot see why these foods cannot be purchased in larger and more economic packs. A lot of what I had intended to say has already been said by other Senators.

Mr. Nash

Ba mhaith liom fíorchian fáilte a chur roimh an Aire ina phost nua. Táim cinnte go nobróchaí sé go dian diachallach agus táim cinnte go néireochaí leis.

I welcome this Bill. I should have liked to have seen it presented on a much wider basis but I hope that in the near future it will be followed by much more comprehensive legislation. There are a few comments that I should like to make on the Bill. Section 2 (1) (c) provides that the goods will bear a notice which states specifically the quantity of the goods in the container by weight, measure or number and, if the Minister thinks fit, the name and address of the importer of the goods. That provision may help to cut out the practice of goods being offered for sale as having being manufactured in Ireland while, in fact, they were manufactured abroad. If the Minister could see his way to putting an addition to that subsection to the effect that if the goods are imported it should be specified that they have been manufactured abroad. This, to some extent, would mitigate against the practice of many supermarket owners who import vast quantities of goods from factories which they own abroad. It would mitigate against the damage which those supermarkets do to Irish manufactured goods which are at least equal to and sometimes better than the quality of the imported ones.

Reference was made to the fact that certain tinned fruits are offered for sale for which the amount of fruit is not specified as distinct from the liquid. From my reading of the Bill that is covered in subsection (2) of section 2 because it is stated in that subsection that the goods shall not include any quantity of liquid or other substance added to the goods at the time at which they were packed in the container.

However, there are other ways in which some of those supermarkets play confidence tricks on the unfortunate purchasers. For instance, a price is quoted for a particular commodity and the purchaser may believe that that is the net price, but when he goes to the check-out he will find that he must pay turnover tax. This tax has now been increased to 5 per cent so that on goods amounting to £5 he will have to pay £5 5s. It is my belief that the price quoted should be the net price, to include turnover tax.

In more comprehensive legislation I should like to see a provision inserted whereby the implied convenant under the Sale of Goods Act should be stated very precisely. One of the biggest frauds in the sale of goods in Ireland relates to the motor trade. The average purchaser of any car receives what he considers to be a guarantee. He gets a document on which the word "guarantee" is written in big lettering at the top but in smaller lettering further down he will notice that he forgoes any claim whatsoever which he may have under the Sale of Goods Act. The Sale of Goods Act, by implication, gives to every purchaser a very specific guarantee that what he buys is up to a certain standard and is reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was bought. However, this so-called guarantee merely states that if a complaint is made within six months of purchase the defective part will be supplied free of cost. If, therefore, one purchases a motor car and finds that that car has a defective cylinder or piston, this may mean that the unfortunate man is put to the expense of £50 or £80 for having his entire engine taken down, but under this so-called guarantee all he gets is the price of a new piston, ten shillings or 15/-, and he is at a loss of his £80. This in my view is little better than fraud.

If the protection which a customer has under the Sale of Goods Act is removed from him in the sale of any particular type of goods it should be expressed in no uncertain terms that the purchaser is forfeiting his rights under the Sale of Goods Act and forfeiting the normal guarantee which applies to every purchaser. Time after time and month after month I meet unfortunate people who are put to enormous expense in the purchase of mass manufactured motor cars and mass manufactured motor cycles which many of them can ill afford. They are entitled to compensation of anything from £1 to 30/- and they have been put to an expense of anything from £80 to £100.

There is not very much else I wish to say about this Bill. It is very good in so far as it goes. It is very useful but I should like if the Minister could see his way on Committee Stage of this Bill to introduce an amendment which could very easily be added, as I say, to section 2 (1) (c) which would provide that if goods are manufactured abroad that should be clearly stated on the label or on the notice that is attached to the goods.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lalor)

First of all I must say I am very pleased and happy to find myself welcomed to this House from all sides by all of the Senators who have spoken. I appreciate the welcome extended to me and irrespective of the length of time, I hope as Minister for Industry and Commerce that during my term of office I shall be in a position to live up to the high standards this House might expect from such a Minister.

As I anticipated when speaking earlier, this measure has received the welcome of the House as a whole. I appreciate the fact that the Bill does not go to the extent to which some Members of the House would want it to go. As conveyed in the final part of my statement, there is a further Bill in course of preparation concerned with the protection of the consumer as such.

Senator Russell, the first Senator who spoke, went into a number of details in connection with certain sections of the Bill that might possibly be dealt with more comprehensively on Committee Stage. Senator FitzGerald and Senator Nash mentioned the possibility of amendments in relation to the Bill, so perhaps it might be as well for me to deal with those matters while they are fresh in my mind. Senator FitzGerald said that there is no provision in the Bill for any civil remedy in the event of the purchaser being at a serious loss. Let me say that the Bill specifically deals with the items being offered for sale by retailers.

Senator Russell dealt with definitions as such and dealt pretty extensively with the description "container". In that definition it is pointed out that "container" means a container in which goods are packed at any time before being offered for sale by the retailer. I do not think Senator FitzGerald envisaged a situation whereby some housewife could see herself suing the retailer for any great amount because of the fact that the goods in the container did not measure up to the particular weight or content which was described on it.

I think he visualised a situation where by that retailer, acting as the middleman between the manufacturer or the packer, might find himself very seriously out on a limb and that he might need to take action against the supplier to him arising from a prosecution under this Bill for selling something which was deficient to a consumer.

Senator Nash referred to action it is possible to take under the Sale of Goods Act. My understanding is that a private purchaser can take action under that Act but as I have said I do not think this particular type of private action would arise under this Bill and because of that I do not see the necessity for that particular amendment to the Bill. The Senator might care to follow this matter up or enter into it in a more involved way on the Committee Stage if he so desires. This aspect of the matter which the Senator fears is covered under the Sale of Goods Act.

Senator Nash referred specifically to section 2 (1) (c) and suggested that an addition be added to this subsection indicating that if an importer's name is given it may give the impression that the goods are Irish produced and therefore that it is necessary to have an additional subsection there to indicate that those goods have been imported or are of foreign origin. I refer the Senator to section 20 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1931, which provides that if the name of an Irish manufacturer, trader or dealer appears on an imported article it must be accompanied in a not less conspicuous manner by an indication of the country of origin. That covers the trader or dealer.

Senators Quinlan, McElgunn and others referred to a matter which is not covered in the Bill, the down-playing or apparent down-playing by a number of business people in this country of Irish products. It was also said that foreign produce was upshelved or presented in a more attractive manner — that great emphasis is placed by those people on the selling of foreign products rather than the Irish counterparts. Senator Quinlan appealed to me to re-stimulate, in a more realistic way, in a more productive way, the Buy Irish campaign.

Let me say that any opportunity I have had since I became Minister, when I was contributing by way of speech, I have used to stress the economic need, the economic advantage and the industrial advantage, of purchasing quality Irish goods. I have spelled out the fact that I do not intend to qualify specifically my Buy Irish campaign enthusiasm by simply and solely suggesting that we just buy Irish goods irrespective of their quality. I am satisfied—this has been proved by the expanding exports of many of our manufactured articles—that we have produce which exceeds in many cases and at least equals much of the material being imported here and being sold here in competition with Irish goods.

I will use every opportunity to encourage the purchase of quality Irish goods and I will stress the economic advantages of so doing. I will stress the advantages of buying and selling Irish goods, because both go together. Unfortunately I find there is a degree of justification for the claims made by Senators who condemn or criticise the selling of foreign manufactured articles here against home produced goods. I do not want to be taken as defending any Irish produce which does not measure up to the standard of the equivalent imported, but I have no hesitation in saying that there is need to remind and to encourage people to buy quality Irish goods which are at least equal in quality to the imported article. I assure the House that I do not need any pushing in this respect. On the other hand, I welcome all constructive suggestions as to how I can best effect this. One of the obvious advantages is that it will keep more Irish people employed at home and at the same time improve our balance of payments.

Senator Russell spoke of the goods covered by the Bill. The Bill covers all goods, not specifically groceries. The orders will be applied to specific goods and initially, following the enactment of the Bill, they will probably largely be made in relation to groceries. However, all goods may be covered. Of course an order would not apply to imported grain in bulk because the Bill relates only to goods in packages. If grain came in containers or packages an order could be applied to it.

The Senator mentioned that protection in relation to the quality of goods is required. This was referred to by a number of Senators. The matter of informative labelling of goods will be dealt with in the Consumer Protection Bill which I will be introducing in the near future. I am mindful of the general demands of Senators to have this legislation introduced as soon as possible.

I wish to state that there is no ulterior motive, no peculiar background, to the removal of "case" or "frame" from the definition of containers. The definition is designed to cover all forms of package in general use today. Senator Russell queried whether the Bill could embrace imported articles, whether it could lay down that goods in retail packets might be marked before importation. I have power to admit goods which arrive unmarked at a port subject to condition that the goods be suitably marked immediately on importation.

Senator Russell asked about one section—I thought some of the sections lent themselves more to Committee Stage — and said that insertion of Government notices should be in at least two daily newspapers. This section follows the normal pattern of insertions of this nature. Publication is usually effected in all daily newspapers and there is no specific reason for making provision for at least one. It is the usual form and I do not see any reason why we should make it a provision of the Bill that more than one newspaper be spelled out.

Senator Russell asked what authorised officer we have in mind in relation to the work to be carried on under section 3. That inspector would be an officer of my Department or of a local authority especially selected for the purpose of enforcing the legislation.

Mr. Russell

Would that officer have any special qualifications? Would he be a health officer?

Mr. Lalor

Not specifically. In relation to what Senator FitzGerald mentioned there would be a point of making use to a great extent of local authority officers who at present handle weights and measures. Senator FitzGerald asked why this was a merchandise marks Bill rather than a weights and measures Bill. The reasons are purely technical ones. The Weights and Measures Act deals with weights and measures equipment. The Merchandise Marks Act deals with marking on goods and their containers. The present Bill is more appropriately called the Merchandise Marks Bill. The Senator raised this in relation to the fact that the UK Government brought in a Weights and Measures Act to deal with similar problems. In this country something is to be done which deals with packets such as giving their weight. This legislation deals with goods and their containers. The Senator is welcome to his opinion on the title to be given to the Bill.

I was interested to hear the Senator's observations on the Moloney Committee Report. This was a British Government report. The findings related to Britain. I do not recollect clearly what the position was in 1952 but at the present time there does not seem to be evidence of widespread abuse here. The introduction of this Bill might be regarded as more preventive than curative. The report of 1952 in relation to Britain would not have been applicable here even at that time. Eighteen years ago pre-packed goods were not making any great impact here. At that time consumers could see most of their goods being weighed and balanced on scales. The Moloney Report related to consumer protection in Britain, not to the position here.

Senator Farrell mentioned her problem in relation to tinned foods and expressed the hope I would hasten the introduction of a further Bill in relation to that and further matters. I am conscious of the "3d off" gimmick. Under this Bill I hope to be able to make orders concerning some of the gimmicks. In relation to canned produce I refer Senator Farrell to section 2 (2) of this Bill. I can make an order requiring that the quantity of a container, excluding juice or water, shall be put on the container. I am taking powers under this Bill to deal with that point. One must understand that a great deal of consultation is envisaged in this Bill with consumers, manufacturers and suppliers in order to arrive at a suitable formula for such marking. This is one of the things aimed at under this legislation.

I wish to thank the House for the personal welcome I received and to thank the Senators for the welcome they have given to this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for the next sitting day after tomorrow, 4th June, 1970.

Business suspended at 6.10 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.