"MARKET, NOT MARK IT."

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18896, 11 January 1927, Page 10

"MARKET, NOT MARK IT."

MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL. LLOYD GEORGE'S SLOGAN AND HIS CRITICISM. (FROM oca OWN COBRESFONDEKT.) , LONDON, November 27. ' The House of Commons passed the third reading of the Government's Merchandise Mark Act by 223 votes to 103, a majority o£ 120. Even Mr Lloyd George, who invented the slogan, "Market, not mark it," did not enlarge the sparse attendance at the third day of debate by more than a dozen. His gravest charges against the Bill tfas that the imprint of foreign origin on goods would act as au advertisement to foreign'manufacturers at the expense of Great Britain. "The way to deal with the industrial problem is not to mark foreign goods, but to market our own," he declared. In the Keport stage, the President of the Board of Trade moved a new clause, providing that where an Order-in-Council under the Bill had been made with respect to any foods and it had been shown to the satisfaction of the Department that the application of the provisions of the Order to any particular class of. description of the goods was likely to cause injury or hardship the Department might grant exemption from the Order in the case of those goods. He said that the clause gave effect to an undertaking which he gave during the committee stage. Originally it was intended that there should be no discretion to the Department to revoke an Order without reference to the committee which would be set up to deal with the Orders. On the other hand, it was intended that there should not be power to add new articles to the Order without the same procedure being followed. Both contentions were reasonable, but it was felt that when an Order had been made, and it was found that it ought to be varied, it would be for the general convenience that the variation should take effect at once, without 'waiting for the full procedure before the committee. No alteration of an Order could be made without reference to the committee. It would be possible for the Department to give a direction, but they must report to the committee, who would have to approve any variation or amendment. _ Sir Percy Harris said they were thankful for small mercies, and the clause was a small concession to the traders who felt that their interests were likely to be seriously affected by the Bill; but the fact that many amend-* ments had been moved by the President of the Board of Trade in committee, and ' that more were to be proposed by him on the Report stage, showed hov; ill-thought-out and ill-conceived the Bill had been. His Department was becoming far too powerful, largely because of the * ill-considered Bills which were put through Parliament in order to pander to the prejudices of a section of the community, and buy off the disappointed hopes of the protectionists, who had been cheated* of their general tariff. The clause was agreed to and was added to the Bill. Mr Harris moved an amendment to Clause i. (which deals with imported goods bearing the name or trade mark of e British manufacturer or trader which are not to be sold unless accompanied by indication of origin) to exclude articles which are distributed only by way of advertisement. He mentioned, as an example of the goods which he had in mind, the glass jars which were being distributed as an advertisement of mustard in general. The business of carrying on trado was difficult enough at the present time, without being added to by harassing conditions prescribed by the Bill. Sir B. Chadwick, Parliamentary Secretary. Board of Trade, said the Government could not agree to a distinction being mado in tho case of articles distributed by Way of advertisement. Mr Harney said that, in .the caso of bottled beer, if the beer were made in England and the bottle in Czecho-Slovakia, and the bottle were labelled only with'the maker of the beer, then, an offence would be created' for which he presumed the penalty was forfeiture. If they forfeited the bottle, what were they going to do with the beer? (Laughter.). . Mr K. C. Morrison said that if a jam manufacturer distributed free match-boxes with an advertisemnet of his jam on theni, and had to put on the match-boxes "Made in Czecho-Slovakia," it would give tho impression that the jam w&s made in CzechoSovakia. That was not legislation, but simply mischievous interference. When jam was advertised on a match-box it did not imply that the match-box was made by tho jam manufacturer. Sir P, Cunliffe-Lister said . that anyono drinking a bottle of, beer out of . a bottle with tho label of the' beer-maker on it, if the 1 bottle itself wero foreign, could consume it with impunity, and, unless it had been distributed by way of advertisement, the vendor or maker of the beer would not be imperilled either. The clause said that if an article were sent out by way of advertisement and stamped elaborately with the name of a British firm and the article were not a Bri* tish article, then those who sent it out should have to say so. A great many people receiving a match-box with' a British manufacturer's name on it would be under the impression that it was a British article. The Bdard of Trade had received numerous complaints from manufacturers as to the wholesale distribution of goods not made in this country. There was no reason in logic why goods distributed for purposes of advertisement should be differentiated in this manner from goods offered for sale. The amendment was rejected by ,211 votes to 73.

Sir P. G'uhliffe-Lister Baid if there was to be marking of foodstuffs, it. was essential that' there should be discretion to oider the marking of them on importation. Why should ■ there not be . discretion .to order the marking of other articles on importation. It would be wrong to deny the committee an opportunity of making a recommendation on this point. Everybody, including Jho entrepot tirade, would have a right to be heard. If the principle of the Bill were accepted, they ought not to deprive an industry that made an application of the chance of showing that the only effective way of marking was on importation. Amendments had been made providing additional safeguards for the interests of the entrepot trade. ' • Labour Objections. On the third reading, Mr Webb (Labour), moving tho rejection of the Bill, said it was not the measure to which the House gave a second reading some months ago. It had been almost doubled in size, very largely by the enormous number of amendments, amounting to nearly 200, which the Government had felt it ' necessary to add since the Bill was introduced. Some of. the most important clauses laid before the House as necessary to the interests of the trader and tho consunier had been omitted at their request. The policy of the Government had been wavering. He felt that, as an old Civil servant, he. could very warmly congratulate the Board of Trade, as apart fri>m the President and Parliamentary Secretory, on tho assiduity and skill with which- they had surmounted the obstacles that had been put forward against the proposals of'tho Bill in the past seven years. He could! not congratulate the Government on their policy in connexion with the Bill, which be considered was a vicious Bill. Its ostensible objects were " in many respects quite laudable. Insofar as the Bill represented a measure to prevent or punish fraud, no one would object to it, but the ostensible objects of .the Bil' were not the only objects, and perhaps not even the main object*. The Bill had its origin in the desire of manufacturers and 'agriculturists to get rid ; of substitute goods which were offered at lower prices than thoir own, and .the desire of the Dominions for a larger share in the home market. Preference having failed ,to go very far, because it involved the taxation of food, it : was now sought to exploit the sentimental preference for British goods, or British Empire goads, as against foreign goods. He assumed that the Bill would be honestly and reasonably administered, with all the skill and patience which* the. Civil Service customarily displayed. There would lea certain increase of expense to the traders of the country. Tfiere* would be an increase of delay,. and that would be particularly marked in tho case of perishable goods. The Bill would interfere with, and occasionally entirely prevent, commercial firms making advantageous purchases. Perhaps the House did not realise the extent to which the present price levels depended on advantageous bargains made here, there, and everywhere by importers. Tile Bill must necessarily to some extent hamper the British entrepot trade, which ran into about £200,000,000 a year, and was of considerable importance to shippers. It would not fail to interfere with the advantageous use by British firms df the foreign entrepot market. Manufacturers would feel the effect of this measure in the requirements which it would make with regard to their raw material. The end of this policy of trying to exclude foreign good 3 would be that the world would be divided, into self-sufficing countries, and there would be an inevitable diminution in productive capacity and in the standard of life of the whole world. Tho Bill was a retrograde step, which ought not to be taken except for very gravereasons, and then only to the extent that tho pToved evils demanded. Methods of Denmark. Mr Lloyd George looked' on the Bill as a measure for advertising foreign goods at the Measures of this kind had been tried before. The result of the Bill promoted by Sir H. Vincent had proved a great advertisement for German goods. People bought those goods

because they were more attractive, cither in quality, appearance, or priced, ' than 6ome other commodity on,the counter. It was not merely an advertisement . for foreign goods in the Home market, but ■to the foreigners who passed .through this country. There was only one class of goods where the British producer was in an inferior position in the Home, market, and .that was agricultural produce. . . The Government said that they were going to mark the country of origin of the goods that were.coming here to compete. As a matter of fact,, the Danes, who were Britain's most formidable competitors, marked it themselves. They regarded it as part of their methods of advertisement.' They appointed Government inspectors to examine the bacon, cheese, and butter, and if those goods were .passed with the Government stamp on them, that was a guarantee of their quality. Market British Goods. The way for Britain to deal with her difficulties was not to mark foreign goods, but to market her own. The Dane's and the .Dutch were taking no end of trouble, with tho aid of their Governments, to assist in the marketing of their, produce. The British were.not. A caße'was reported to him the other day where Danish bacon was ■ carried from the contre of Denmark to the centre' of Manchester more cheaply than was bacon from Suffolk to Manchester. Again, potatoes were carried from the Black Forest to London more cheaply than from Lincoln to London. ■ , All the other Governments, instead of adopting trumpery and silly and childish methods, were tackling the real problem. They ensured that the transport of the produce was : favourable to agriculture and that the marketing was done.' , • The railway companies in '.this country ought to be' organised to help British produco, instead of foreign goods, on to the markets. Instead of • this Bill, ■ which deluded the. agriculturist and put off real action, the Government ought to grip the problem and take it in hand,'see that the agriculturist got his market, arid'give him every assistance in the way of credit. The Bill would-not help U3 to get' British commodities on to the foreign markets upon more favourable - terms. He was ■■ all for exporting to the Empire and promoting trade in the Empire, but it was folly to talk as if they could look with contempt upon our gigantic trade with European and other foreign countries. His fear with regard to a Bill of this kind was that it diverted the attention of the British manufacturing community from what was really needed to what was not of the slightest use, even if it wa3 not mischievous. In the National Interest. In summing up, the President of the Board of Trade said that Mr Lloyd George had t-u° *> r » u ßht: up' to toe tho line for the Liberal Party, and had said how absurd it waß to give ine#cient manufacturers a chance to-make out a case for marking. Yet-he Him self set .up a Merchandise Marks CommUteT which reported in 1920,.and produced a Bill which was introduced in the House of by Lord Gorell, now a member of the Sorial »t Party. (Laughter.) If a manufacW thought marking would hel D th« tllli he would not apply for ma&ng , going to be such a tremendous assistance to he foreign manufacturer to mark his eoo „ B there was nothing to stop his doing !°tfore his goods came to this countoy T if. agricultural community was hehi»Aii J-,, 6 and it had been keenly sought by the F™' pire and by ndustry. A rescind v J v Em ' passed by tho Association oJom itt J' 8 - 6 ? Councils and the. Association of ChS of Commerce supported it, not only in S but they were asking for it fa 190? &*"' keepers also thought the Bill a. , • i, Shop " the national interest desirable in