I wish to raise a question. It has a relationship to a previous provision where we discussed business names. Under this Bill, when it becomes law, it will be necessary for a company trading under a business name to have that name registered and to have a letterhead which will be used for it. If the company deals in some brand of commodity, or produces a number of brands, they may be on the letterheads. The salesman's or buyer's name may be on it. It is not always the case that the particulars required are put on such correspondence. As regards correspondence done by the company, the common practice is that directors' names are on it. They must be. It is part of the business of of the company. This means that in this case, apart from having the trading name registered, it will be necessary to put on that sheet the full details of all directors. Is that intended? I quite agree that in all businesses that has to be done with the company's name, but for ordinary routine things, trade advertisements and so one, this will mean that every letter that goes out from the company—because every letter will be a business letter—must carry the names of the directors of the company. I see no great objection to it except the space taken up in the letter and the departure from existing custom.
SECTION 196.
In actual fact, the law does provide for that at the moment.
Yes, in the case of companies and partnerships, and individuals, too.
So that it is no great change.
I shall give a specific case. Deputy Sweetman mentioned it in the case of newspapers. A newspaper has a well-known name. The editor's name goes with the name of the paper. Very frequently, here and elsewhere, the company will publish a number of papers. The name of the paper will be on the sheet with the editor's name and there will be a different one for each paper. I see no great objection to the proposed inclusion except that it takes up space.
If too much space should be taken up, for example, in the case of a company which would have a lot of directors, there is a provision in subsection (2) which provides for the grant of exemption.
I think that meets it.
There is one point. In the previous section, we had this reference to Christian name included. In this subsection we have not.
It is covered by sub-section (6) (b) which refers back to the provisions of subsection (12) of the preceding section.