I beg to move: " In sub-section (1), immediately after the word ‘ butter ' in line 22, to insert the words ‘ sold or.'"
That is correct. That was an oversight. The suggestion of Mr. Matheson is to insert the words " sold or."
Then it would appear that (d) alone would be necessary to indicate any other matter which should be indicated. It would then read " all or any " and then go right down to (d), " matter which in the opinion of the Minister should be indicated on such packets or wrappers." That seems to give him all the necessary powers.
It may be giving too much power.
You have already got it. It is only what you have already got.
I think it would have the same effect if you cut out (a), (b) and (c).
If the Minister will look into it, it could be brought up again on Report.
Yes, it will be brought up on Report.
Amendment withdrawn; to be brought up on Report.
My next amendment is, in sub-section (1) to delete all after the word " any " in line 23 up to and including the word " matter " in line 30. That can also be brought up on Report.
Amendment withdrawn; to be brought up on Report.
I propose to delete sub-section (2). That is only a matter of drafting.
It may be found necessary afterwards to make regulations prescribing that the mark shall be placed on all or any butter sold on or consigned from any premises. That is done by means of flimsy paper in Denmark.
I suggest, immediately before sub-section (4) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—" The Minister may also by order make regulations prohibiting the placing of any particular mark or marks of any particular class or description on all or any classes, grades, or descriptions of butter, or on any packages or wrappers containing any such butter, and where any such regulations have been made and are in force any person who places any mark on any butter or any package or wrapper in contravention of any such regulation shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds."
I would like to be clear about that. Does that mean that any particular creamery which is not given the trade mark will be prevented from putting on the package the name " creamery "?
No. When this Bill is in operation the idea will get abroad in England that all butter is controlled, that every consignment of butter is more or less guaranteed by the Government, and traders may take advantage of the general impression in England that there was butter control in Ireland, and put legends that may be very undesirable on the butter going across. We want to be in a position to stop such a performance as that. They could be got at by the Merchandise Marks Act, but they could keep themselves right, perhaps, from that point of view, and give a false impression as to a guarantee given.
It will not prevent a false use of the trade-mark.
That is what I want to be sure of.
It will prevent the use of a false description which possibly may not come within the Merchandise Marks Act.
It might prevent the use of a description which might not be false but might be misleading. For instance, if a merchant put on a package " shipped by a factory licensed under an inspector," that might be true but it might be misleading.
This would prevent anything of that kind.
I am not satisfied that that goes far enough. It is possible for the Minister under that section to prevent any mark being put on the package, but he is able to prevent a mark being put on the invoice or a document of that kind? I have seen such a document. There is an Act in operation in another country and I saw a document from a big dairy in that country which has not a reputation for selling first-class butter, and it had on it " factory inspected by the Government." That was perfectly correct, but the Government of that country prohibited the use of that. It was just as misleading as the other.
The point is that it should be extended not only to the packages but the invoices.
And to any other letter or document. I know that it is giving the Minister great powers but it is necessary.
That is going very much into domestic affairs I am afraid.
I will discuss the matter with the Senator between now and the Report Stage.
That is representation to the purchaser whom you ought to protect. The dealer on the other side can take care of himself.
The buyer on the other side, when he sees " Inspected by Government Inspector," will believe that it is first-class quality.
You want to prevent it being put on invoices?
Who is to see the invoices? I do not see how you are to catch him.
The invoices will not be shown to everybody, but they can be obtained.
It gives a criminal remedy in addition to the civil action a man would have for false representation.
It is not a false representation. It may be correct but it conveys a false impression.
We will bring it up on Report.
There was an amendment proposed to your amendment to make it extend to invoices, and that stands over for Report. The Minister has asked us to accept this amendment.
And I am suggesting that it be further amended to include invoices.
What words would you use?
I will discuss that question with Senator Butler before the Report Stage and let this amendment go in now.
I think that is the better thing to do.
A man will have to submit all his billheads and everything.
No. Supposing this is put in and invoices are included, and he gets possession of one of them from England, he can get at the creamery and prosecute it.
That is to be brought up on Report, and the amendment to propose the new sub-section between sub-sections three and four is accepted.
I understand that that does not prevent the use of any trade name or trade description.
I am satisfied that it does not.
Amendment accepted and passed.
I move that in line 33, sub-section (2), after the word " or," where it secondly occurs, the words " exported or " be inserted.