Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

Section 20(5)(b) of the National Standards Authority of Ireland Act 1996 states that the standard mark issued by the National Standards Authority of Ireland is a trade mark for the purposes of the Merchandise Marks Acts 1887 to 1978 and the Trade Marks Act 1996. The provisions of the Merchandise Marks Acts relating to the protection of trade marks have long since been superseded by the Trade Marks Acts and the Bill makes no provision for their retention. The reference to the Merchandise Marks Acts in this subsection of the National Standards Authority of Ireland Act is consequently redundant.

Section 52(1)(k) of the Bill provides that it is a prohibited commercial practice for a trader to display a standard mark without having obtained necessary authorisation to do so. This would cover standard marks issued by the National Standards Authority of Ireland.

The new Schedule (2) submitted by this amendment also relates to amendments consequential on the repeal of the Merchandise Marks Act. It adds the repeal of a further four Acts to the Acts repealed in full by the Bill. These are the Anglo-Portuguese Commercial Treaty Acts of 1914 and 1916, which concerned wine importation, the Portuguese Treaty Act 1930 and the Spanish Trade Agreement Act 1936. All four Acts provide that the applications of certain descriptions to Portuguese and Spanish wines, such as port, madeira, sherry, rioja and so on — I know Members are familiar with them — are false trade descriptions within the meaning of the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 unless certain specified conditions are met. These provisions are now obsolete and have been superseded by the European Union wine designation regime. As all four Acts have effectively no provisions other than those relating to the applications of the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 to the wines within their scope, it is appropriate to take the opportunity to repeal them along with that Act. My Department consulted with the Portuguese and Spanish embassies with regard to their repeal, and they agreed the Acts had no contemporary applicability and expressed no objections to their repeal.

The amendments proposed to the Schedule provide for the repeal of specified subsections of a number of other Acts. The relevant provisions in the agricultural produce Acts, the seed production Act and the Road Traffic Acts essentially provide that where marks are prescribed by regulations made under the Acts for the marketing of the goods in question, the application of such marks contrary to the regulations is a false trade description within the meaning of the Merchandise Marks Acts. Regulations giving effect to these provisions were either never made or are no longer applicable. As the provisions of these Acts will fall with the repeal of the Merchandise Marks Acts by this Bill, it is appropriate to provide for their repeal also.

Section 19 of the National Standards Authority of Ireland Act deals with false representations in connection with the specification of standards and section 19(3) provides that nothing in the section will be construed as limiting the operation of section 2 of the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 dealing with the application of false trade descriptions to goods. In my Department's view, there is no need for an equivalent provision in the context of the present Bill. Section 21(7) of the National Standards Authority of Ireland Act provides that the use of licensed standard marks in certain circumstances is deemed not to be a false trade description for the purposes of the Merchandise Marks Acts. In view of the maximum harmonisation nature of the unfair commercial practices directive, we cannot make provisions for exemptions other than those provided for in the directive. I am advised the provision is of little or no practical significance.

Section 12(1) of the Packaged Goods (Quality Control) Act 1980 provides that a statement of quantity on a package in pursuance of section 10(a) of the Act, which deals with the duties of packers and importers as regards the marking of packages, shall not be regarded as a trade description within the meaning of the Merchandise Marks Acts. Again, it is not within the discretion of member states to introduce national exemptions from the scope of those provisions of the unfair commercial practices directive that correspond to the false trade descriptions of the Merchandise Marks Acts.

The Bill represents the consolidation of many older Acts pertaining to consumer issues. There is a lot of tidying up to do.