682 / 736
Mr. Crowley asked the Minister for Industry
and Commerce if he will set up a commission to
scrutinise false claims in advertising; and when
such a claim now raises, how it is dealt with.
Mr. Lalor: With your permission, a Cheann Com-
hairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 38 and 39
together.
The geneal questions of false claims in adver
tising or otherwise, warranties, and civil remedies
for consumers are under consideration as part of
my Department's programme of consumer pro
tection. The first measure in this programme, the
Merchandise Marks Act,
1970, was enacted
last July, and further legislation is being prepared.
Mr. Crowley: Can the Minister explain the
delay
in introducing this very important legis
lation? In 1966 the Minister's predecessor said
he was about to instigate an investigation into the
whole question of consumer protection.
Mr. Lalor: As the Deputy said, I hope this will
be a very important piece of legislation, and that
may be the reason why I am not inclined to rush
into making decision in the preparation of the
legislation, without having taken a complete look
round to ensure that this consumer protection
legislation will be as comprehensive as possible.
Mr. Cooney: Pending the introduction of this
legislation, will the Minister make it known to the
public that their rights at common law under
statute are already superior to the rights offered
by manufacturers? They should not enter into
any manufacturers's guarantee which excludes
their common law statutory rights.
Mr. Lalor: The Deputy's question indicates
how comprehensive consumer protection is,
the
case he has mentioned is only one facet of it.
Mr. Cooney: I know it is only one facet of it
but I am asking that we make the public aware
of that facet of it.
Mr. Lalor: This will be covered. It is some
thing which is available at the present time.
Mr. Cooney: But the public is not aware of it.
Mr. Colley: An effort was made to make the
public aware of it some time ago.
Mr. Lalor: My problem is to have the enabling
legislation there. I find it difficult to appreciate
that I must continuously be operating on the basis
of making the public aware of all the things to
which they are entitled. The Deputy's raising the
matter today, and the consequential publication,
may help to make it known.
4th February, 1971.
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
The
Rules of the Superior Courts (No.
1.) 1970
(S.I. No. 37 of 1971) amend the existing practice
in certain respects. Rule 1 deletes Rule 4 of Order
22 of
the Rules of the Superior Courts 1962 as
amended by the Rules of the Superior Courts (No.
1) 1964 and replaces it by a new Rule 4 which
permits plaintiff to accept a sum paid into court
within fourteen days (as at present) or within such
further period as may be agreed upon by the
parties. The new rule also allows the plaintiff to
tax his costs incurred to the date of giving notice
to the defendant of acceptance of the sum. Rule
2 deletes Rule 8 Order 41 of the 1962 Rules and
replaces it by a new Rule 8 which exempts orders
for delivery of possession from the penal endorse
ment. Rule 3 lays down the procedure relating to
appeals to the Supreme Court from decisions of
the Circuit Court under the Electoral Act 1963.
The
Rules of the Superior Courts (No.
2) 1970
(S.I. No. 38 of 1971) delete Rule 37 (8) of Order
99 and Part III Appendix W of the Rules of the
Superior Courts 1962 which relate to the allow
ance of fees and expenses of witnesses on party
and party taxation and replace them by a new
rule 37 (8). Appendix W. Part III which provides
a scale of expenses for witnesses is deleted. The
new rule provides that such reasonable charges
and expenses as appear to have been properly in
curred in procuring evidence and the attendance
of witnesses are to be allowed. The Taxing Master
has given
a fairly wide discretion to assess tra
velling expenses including the actual cost of trans
port by hired car and when witnesses travel in
groups. The reasonable expenses and allowances
of witnesses attending consultations and confer
ences properly held prior to the trial are to be
chargeable on taxation as between party and party.
The Circuit Court Rules,
1971 (S.I. No. 41 of
1971). These Rules, which come into operation
222