HC Deb 20 November 1952 vol 507 cc2032-4
25. Miss Burton

asked the President of the Board of Trade on what grounds his department has, so far, refused to disclose to the Retail Trading Standards Association the name of the manufacturer of rayon-wool knitwear whose Utility code number was BHJ, some of whose jumpers and cardigans have recently been seen bearing the label Jay Jay Pure Scotch Wool, thereby contravening the Merchandise Marks Act.

Mr. H. Strauss

It is not the practice of the Board to disclose information obtained under the Defence Regulations. My right hon. Friend has asked for advice on whether the special circumstances of this case can justify an exception.

Miss Burton

Surely the Board is responsible for safeguarding the consumer. Is the Minister aware that this information was asked for on 21st October, and would he not agree that the R.T.S.A. is responsible, as a trade association, for making investigations? How can they do that without information from the Board? Does he realise that if this case is taken to court, the Board of Trade will be an accessory after the fact for withholding information?

Mr. Strauss

I do not think that the hon. Lady will expect me to agree with her on the law. My original answer was not intended to be discouraging. Until my right hon. Friend has received the advice for which he has asked, I should prefer not to add to my answer.

Mr. Stokes

Quite apart from the law, in pursuit of general knowledge, and with respect to my hon. Friend, will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me what is Jay Jay Pure Scotch Wool?

Mr. Strauss

I think that if I went into the answer to all that, it would unnecessarily delay the answers to other Questions.

27. Mr. Dodds

asked the President of the Board of Trade in how many cases during the past 12 months his Department has undertaken the prosecution of offences under the Merchandise Marks Acts; and with what result.

Mr. H. Strauss

None, Sir.

Mr. Dodds

Why not? With the dropping of the Utility scheme the public did not have the protection which it had before. Was not a regulation introduced in 1913 to enable the Board of Trade to prosecute on behalf of the public, and, in some cases for the protection of the consumer? What has the Board of Trade been doing during the last 12 months?

Mr. Strauss

The fact that the Board of Trade has not prosecuted does not mean that prosecutions have not taken place. Whether the Board of Trade should prosecute or not depends on the Act of 1891. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to that Act, he will see the conditions which make it proper for the Board of Trade to prosecute, and those conditions have not arisen in this particular period.

Mr. Dodds

Is the Minister aware that his own party introduced a Regulation in 1913 which gives the Board of Trade power to prosecute?