§ 13. Dr. SALTERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that substitutes for leather, particularly the leather used for footwear, are being sold under fancy descriptions such as tufhide, itshide, uskhide, durhide, etc., which titles are liable to mislead the public into the belief that, they are purchasing material made from real hides and skins; whether he will consider legislation to compel the marking or stamping of goods to indicate whether the material is genuine leather or an artificial substitute; and, failing legislation, whether he can suggest any other method of protecting the public?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI believe that fancy descriptions of this kind are occasionally used, but I should have doubted whether they were in fact misleading. As at present advised, I do not see my way to propose legislation such as the hon. Member suggests.
§ Dr. SALTERDoes the right hon. Gentleman know that certain of these substitutes are actually being advertised as leather made by an improved process, whereas they contain no leather whatever, or only a small percentage of leather dust made from scrap and refuse?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThere is already, under the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887, a provision which makes a false trade description a criminal offence. I make no pronouncement on the statement that the hon. Gentleman has made, but, if facts were brought to the notice of the Board of Trade which, in the opinion of our legal advisers, constituted a breach of the Act of 1887, we would consider taking action.
§ Mr. MONTAGUEWould not the right hon. Gentleman consider "itshide" a false trade description?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI do not think so. It does not convey to my mind any animal of which I am aware.
§ Mr. THURTLEDoes the right hon. Gentleman agree that these substitutes for leather hear the same relation to real leather that ginger beer bears to beer?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI am not sure of that.