If this section were enforced, there would be no need for the Minister for Finance to bring in a Budget at all. It is much more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
SECTION 113.
Question proposed : " That Section 113 stand part of the Bill ".
The obligation has been there for a long time.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 114.
I move amendment No. 46 :
In subsection (1), paragraph (c), page 71, line 5, to delete " circulars, trade catalogues, showcards ".
This is simply a drafting amendment, the purpose being to bring the provisions of subsection (1) (c) of the section into line with subsection (4) (b).
Why are you not saying it has to have its name on showcards, trade catalogues and circulars?
" Other official publications " is mentioned there.
Tautology.
It would be deemed to include all those things.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed : " That Section 114, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
" To affix its name on the outside of every office," what does that mean? Does it mean the outside of the building or does it mean putting it up in the hall of the building? It is a repeat?
It is an exact repeat.
Yes, but I have heard a lot of argument about it from time to time.
I should imagine the outside of every office must, in the modern context, mean what it says. For example, when Carlisle building has been re-built, if there are going to be a lot of undertakings carried on there, the front door would be literally plastered with these things.
I agree.
Surely the modern practice is that it is put in the hall where it can be seen by anybody calling.
Or on the door of the suite of offices occupied by such a company.
What is " carrying on business "? Is the office of a company which writes to people for rents carrying on business?
I believe nobody has ever attempted to define what " carrying on business " means.
In the case of a solicitor and various other people who are agents for companies, would a small name-plate such as is customary just inside the door comply with this?
If it does not, a great many people are guilty of a breach of the law.
I have another small point in regard to subsection (1) (c): " shall have its name mentioned in legible characters in all business letters of the company and in all notices . . . . and other official publications of the company . . . ." Catalogues and these other things have been taken out and I took it to mean a certain loosening but I understand from a remark which has been made that it is intended to capture them specifically. What about newspaper posters ? Take the Dublin newspapers. There is a firm which publishes newspapers under a title which is not the name of the firm. These posters, while clearly displaying the name of the publication, nevertheless do not carry the name of the firm or else do so in very small letters.
They do not even do that. There is nothing to show that the Evening Press is published by the Irish Press. You could be prosecuted at once.
There is a point in that. There is a somewhat similar position in regard to beer. If I see Harp, for instance, or some other beer advertised on a poster, it does not show that it is made by Guinness. It that all right within that?
In other words, is it an official publication?
Yes, requiring the name of the firm. Everybody will agree as a general principle that there must be identification, say, for election literature and for that purpose there is the printer's imprint and there are a great many other documents on which there is supposed to be the printer's imprint. Apart from the two examples I have given, newspaper posters and beer, there is a more general possibility. In bigger companies who are operating different lines of trade, there may be letter-heads adjusted to particular products and heretofore if the identification is clear, for instance, in regard to the Evening Press or Harp Lager, no question so far has been raised. Does this mean that the incorporated name of the company must appear ?
We provided in a section earlier that if a company wants to use a name it must register under the Business Names Act. If it has registered under the Business Names Acts, can it use that name under paragraph (c) of subsection (1)? Is that not another way of putting it ?
Deputy de Valera gave an example not of the same idea but of two different ideas. In the latter case, the publication of something in connection with beer, that would be considered, I take it, as an advertisement.
That letter-head may be actually an advertisement and very frequently is.
Under the 1908 Act, there was a requirement that the proper name of the company should be published in all advertisements but it was ignored in practice and it has been omitted from this Bill deliberately.
An advertisement is not a notice ? I doubt that.
I do not want to delay the Minister or the Committee and perhaps if I gave the Minister some concrete examples, it would be better than arguing here.
I take it the Minister did not want to insist, and neither do I, that if there is a neon light advertising Harp Lager, the name of the company must be there in smaller lettering and that will suffice. The reason why the name of the company is not there is that they should be registered under the Business Names Act.
That is something which is not common practice at the moment.
Under the earlier section mentioned by Deputy Sweetman, it would be a requirement.
So long as it is registered under the Business Names Act, is that not enough for this section also?
If it is so registered, if its name is mentioned in legible characters, I am happy.
I am sure it is. The name can only mean the full name of the company. I think it will have to be its name or the name under which it is registered under section so and so of the Business Names Act. What was the earlier section?
Section 22.
If the company has registered a name under which it trades under Section 22, is it not enough that it mentions that in its notices?
It should be.
Section 114 is intended to impose the requirement that the company's corporate name must be shown on all documents mentioned here. You may show a business name also but you must have the corporate name.
I do not see any necessity for its corporate name when you have provided that it is registered under the other Act.
If there is a hoarding advertisement for a product, I think that is an official notice of the company, no matter what the commodity. In that way, you must put the name there and if you press that interpretation to its logical conclusion, every advertisement in writing must carry those particulars and that certainly is not done at the moment.
It is the law at the moment but the purpose of this is to omit it.
It is the law but it is ignored. What is a notice as distinct from an advertisement, or should I put it the other way round? When is an advertisement not a notice? Surely an advertisement is a notice to all who look at it?
The existing law says : " Every limited company which has its name mentioned in legible characters in all notices, advertisements and other publications of the company " etc. We are dropping the word " advertisements " now.
In dropping it, do you feel " notice " does not include " advertisement "? I think it does, you know.
This is entirely a question of rigid interpretation.
I shall ask the draftsmen. In order to clarify the matter, we might add after the word " notices " the words " but not including advertisements ".
That is a very dangerous way.
It will be there on record and we can come back on it again. That will be at the Recommittal Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 115 and 116 agreed to.