§ 24. Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the instruction issued in his Department on 7th July, 1913, to the effect that the Board of Trade should initiate prosecutions under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, where the Minister considered that such action was in the public interest, has been carried out; and how many such prosecutions have been initiated since the end of the last war.
§ Mr. H. StraussI assume that the hon. Member has in mind Regulations issued in 1913 under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1891. These Regulations remain in force and the Board of Trade have instituted two prosecutions under them since 1945.
§ Mr. SwinglerIs not the hon. and learned Gentleman at present engaged in trying to strengthen the law about merchandise marks? What is the good of doing that unless some attempt is made by the Board of Trade to carry out the law? Do not two prosecutions in 40 years show a disgraceful neglect of the public interest by the Board of Trade?
§ Mr. StraussNo, Sir. It is true that the enforcement of these Acts is important, but it is quite untrue that the Board of Trade are the only people to enforce them. There has been no change of policy between this Government and the last Government as regards what prosecutions are undertaken by the Board of Trade. The fact that there are few prosecutions by the Department does not mean that the Acts are not enforced.
§ Mr. SwinglerIs the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that there have been only two cases in the last 40 years in which it was in the public interest for the Department to prosecute where fraudulent or false trade descriptions were being used?
§ Mr. StraussThe hon. Member is wrong in thinking that 40 years have elapsed since the end of the last war. The Question refers to
… since the end of the last war.The hon. Member should read his own Question. My answer was that there have been two prosecutions since 1945.