§ 22. Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the result of the proceedings taken by his Department under the Merchandise Marks Acts on the matter of the dress purchased by Mrs. Green at Weston-super-Mare, details of which were sup-plied to him by the hon. Member for Coventry, South, on 26th October last.
§ Mr. H. StraussI cannot yet add to my letter to the hon. Member of 31st January, 1955. The case is still sub judice.
§ Miss BurtonI am aware that it would be improper of me to refer to a case which is sub judice, but may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it would not be advisable to ensure that cases are not lost because of insufficient technical information being given to the magistrates? Would it not be a good idea for the Board of Trade to assure the House that they will employ permanent counsel on all these matters wherever the cases are heard? What is the use of our giving cases to the Board of Trade if the Board of Trade lose them?
§ Mr. StraussI do not agree at all with the implications of what the hon. Lady has said. She really must not press me to comment on a case which is sub judice. I appreciate her interest in this case, and I will write to her as soon as I can.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the case is sub judice, I do not see that questions can be asked about it.
§ Miss BurtonWith great respect, Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to this case. I was asking the Parliamentary Secretary if the Board of Trade would give an assurance to the House that they would employ permanent counsel on all these cases which are brought under these Acts, irrespective of where these cases are heard?
§ Mr. StraussIf the hon. Lady wants an answer to that question, she had better put it down on the Order Paper. I do not think the House will suspect me of having any prejudice against the employment of counsel, but I must dissociate myself from the implications of the 178 hon. Lady's original supplementary question.
§ Miss BurtonI will certainly put it down.