§ 8. Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that at the South Western Magistrates' Court on 1st February, when a London company was fined for carpet selling offences as the result of a successful prosecution by his Department, evidence was given that these cotton carpets were imported and marked with metric sizes; that they were then marked with the nearest British standard size; that this was always to the advantage of the wholesaler or retailer; and what steps he proposes to take, under the Merchandise Marks Acts, to deal with such a system of marking.
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftI am aware of the prosecution to which the hon. Lady refers. The Merchandise Marks Acts, under which this prosecution was taken, are adequate for dealing with any similar cases.
§ Miss BurtonWhilst wishing to congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on having won this case, may I ask him if the British carpet manufacturers have not stated that this is a most unfair method of trading because British carpets are all correctly listed? Is he further aware that cotton carpet manufacturers have wondered how the prices of imported carpets have been able to undercut their own? Does he still say that the present Regulations cover that?
§ Mr. ThorneycroftIt seems that the Regulations are satisfactory because the prosecution succeeded.
§ Miss BurtonYes, but why was there any need for a prosecution if the Regulations were satisfactory? I feel that they are not.
§ Mr. ThorneycroftThis was a breach of the Regulations. The translation of the metric into the imperial measure was done in a manner which favoured the seller on every occasion. Under those circumstances the prosecution was brought, and succeeded. That is what the Merchandise Marks Act is for.