Vera
Baird: My goodness, that is a shrewd point, and I hardly
know how to deal with it. I believe that Eccles cakes are usually made
in Eccles, but I am not sure where that is. [Interruption.] I am
told that it is near
Salford. Justine
Greening (Putney) (Con): I think that we have a similar
situation with Pontefract cakes. They are made all over Yorkshire and
enjoyed by many people. Perhaps the hon. and learned Lady will consider
that alongside the Eccles cakes.
Vera
Baird: And the Welsh cakes, although I am not sure that I
know what a Welsh cake is. Can anybody
assist?
9.15
am
The
Chairman: Order. We seem to be straying a little away from
the amendment, in that Pontefract cakes are Pontefract cakes and Eccles
cakes are Eccles cakes—they are not companies, they are
products. Let us
return to the amendments—all of which were selected by me, all of
which are in order and all of which appear on the order
paper—and, of course, there will be no
filibustering.
Vera
Baird: I am very grateful. I have indicated already, Mr.
Illsley, how fortunate I am, on my first attempt to present a Bill in
Committee, to have such a fair and firm Chair. Let me return to the
words “English”, “Welsh”,
“Scottish” and “Irish”. Although I do not
want to tempt Opposition Members into too much of a frenzy, I should
have thought that the word “European” might have to be
equally protected. I am not sure whether they would agree with that.
Names that include the word “European” would not normally
be approved if they unjustifiably implied a connection with official
bodies in the European Union. If there is a genuine connection with an
official body, the name might—if the body supports the
application—be a perfectly realistic one to use. It would be a
question of getting support. In that and all other situations, I
envisage that the support from the public body would have to be
expressed rather than deemed, as the amendment would require it to
be. The same can
probably be said about “Great Britain” and “the
United Kingdom”. Presumably, one would use those expressions as
a prefix, although I imagine that “Eccles Cake Company of the
United Kingdom” might add kudos to the manufacturer of such
cakes, as one likes to think that they are made in Britain, even if not
in Eccles; I do not want to be unduly nationalistic. The question is
whether there is a genuine connection with the official body and, if
so, whether that body takes exception to the application to the extent
that it is prevented from actively supporting the applicant or
permitting him to successfully incorporate into his company the name
that he requires.
Mr.
Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. We really are
going to struggle to get through this Bill if we continue at this pace.
Can you give the Committee any
assistance?
The
Chairman: At the moment, no. While the debate is in order
and the Minister is in order, the debate has to continue. I am sure
that the speakers have taken on board what the hon. Gentleman has
said.
Vera
Baird: I was about to give way to my hon. Friend the
Member for Leicester, East (Keith
Vaz).
Keith
Vaz: Presumably, if the term “European” were
to be used to describe a company, it would be the European Commission
that would make the objection. Would it be subject to the same time
limits as a public body in this
country?
Vera
Baird: That is right. My hon. Friend may have put his
finger on why, given that a time limit is probably inappropriate
anyway, 30 days would be too short. We are to look at the list of
possibilities, each of which makes a point against the amendment.
Sending an
application off to the European Commission with a dead time limit of
only 30 days, after which it is deemed to support the application, is
highly likely to produce a lot of litigation and confusion. In respect
of the way in which business is conducted, it will create many of the
problems that we are trying to exclude, because in a period as short as
30 days there will inevitably be non-responses from an organisation as
big and as wide-ranging as the European Commission. The hon. Gentleman
makes a very powerful point against the amendment, and I hope that I
have made one or two myself.
Would the EC be the appropriate
body? I am being given some helpful advice, which suggests that an
application for the word European would not necessarily have to be sent
to the Commission for approval. However, it does seem realistic that
the Secretary of State would be bound to want to consult the European
Commission, and arguably other bodies, if there were a serious
suggestion that somebody’s company was of a sufficient status to
justify calling it “European”. I am grateful to my hon.
Friend for that point, and I am glad that he raised it just as I was
moving on to consider the word
“international”. If
one wants to use the word “international” as a prefix,
one will probably have to show that the major part of the
company’s activities is trading overseas. It is difficult to
imagine what public body or bodies could be consulted to get approval
of the word. There must be a large number of public bodies—I do
not have a specific number in mind—that are international as
part of their way of being and would therefore be able to express a
view. Such bodies might take serious offence at having to give
approval, and they might not want the kudos of the word
“international” to be attached to some embryonic company
dealing in Eccles cakes. The word suggests a major undertaking that
operates across borders and has been working for some time to get such
a status. It gives a false picture if a company is small, not
international and operates only in
Wales. I am helpfully
told that not all the words in the list of sensitive words have an
automatically identifiable body whose views would be required. In a
case such as the word “international” it would be hard to
pin down which were the right bodies; the Secretary of State would
simply have to consider the arguments for and against the registration.
It might be easier, however, to consider the appropriate public bodies
to be approached if the word “national” were used. That
is the next word on the list of sensitive words that would fall under
the provisions of the subsection. The criteria for the use of the word
“national” for a British company would resemble those for
the word “British”. If a British-registered company is
called “National something” it implies heavily that it is
British and has a certain status in the country.
One would hesitate to allow the
use of the word “national” to a company operating in a
small way, perhaps on one of the excellent industrial estates that have
grown up thanks to the stabilising of the economy and the advent of
regional development agencies, for instance in the north-east, where
industry is beginning to take off again after all the years of decline
in the steel and chemical industries. Happily, both of those are now
secure. Such a company, perhaps supported by one of the excellent
regional development grants or
buttressed by EU moneys to help it get off the ground but operating only
in a small way, would have inappropriate kudos attached to it if it
were entitled to use the word “national”. There must be a
careful screening
process. Keith
Vaz: What my hon. and learned Friend is saying is
extremely helpful and will be important to companies wishing to
register such names. Is it likely that officials acting on behalf of
the Secretary of State will have a list of the organisations to which
they will write when such names are proposed, but that the list will
not be exhaustive in case other organisations emerge as needing to be
written
to?
Vera
Baird: I am not sure whether there is likely to be a
comprehensive list: as my hon. Friend suggested, it might be difficult
to formulate one. As he has also observed, such a list would be fixed
in time so that any new developments could not be accounted for. It is
clearly important that the Secretary of State should have a list of
sensitive words and names that need to be protected. I am going through
some now, which, in my view, have a powerful claim to fall into that
category and to be protected by the
subsection. There are
words that probably also imply some business pre-eminence, or a
representative status. I further understand that the regulations
specify bodies in relation to particularly sensitive words; however, in
the case of some sensitive words on a list such as the one referred to
by my hon. Friend there would be no associated body. He is I think
correct in saying that the regulations specify a list of sensitive
words with a link to bodies. Clearly, there is likely to be an
alarm-triggering system for sensitive words that might, without having
an association to a body, still create a false impression in relation
to the status, nature, age, capitalisation or spread of the business of
one of the relevant
companies.
Keith
Vaz: The thing that will really cause people concern is
the use of the word “royal”, or any connotations of
association with the Crown. Many people who set up companies would want
to trade on that name to further their business. Shall we have very
strict criteria for dealing with those important words, which, if
adopted, would confer a great deal of kudos on
companies?
Vera
Baird: Let me just deal quickly with the words
“association”, “federation” or
“society”. A company wanting to use one of them would
normally be limited by
guarantee.
Mr.
Blunt: I know that the hon. and learned Lady will be as
embarrassed as anyone else at what she is having to do. May I suggest,
having done my best to listen to her arguments, that she should accept
the amendments on behalf of the Government and, if the Government then
think that it is appropriate to revisit the matter, return to it on
Report, when there has been a chance to examine it? If we go on
examining it at this length, we shall bring the Committee into serious
disrepute.
Vera
Baird: I am not in a position to accept the amendment. I
think that I have made pretty forceful arguments against it and I hope
that the hon. Gentleman will be persuaded to withdraw it. I must carry
on, to try to meet the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s
argument—although he was able to put it more succinctly than I
can reply to it. I do not feel embarrassed, so the hon. Gentleman is
wrong. As I was
saying before the intervention, a company wanting to use one of the
words in question would normally be limited by guarantee. Each member
would have one vote and the constitution would contain a non-profit
distribution clause. Such protection would be required before words of
the kind in question could be used for a company limited by
guarantee. I have run
through but a few of the many examples on the pages in my hand of words
that might be used that would hit the sensitivity
button.
Mr.
Blunt rose in his place and claimed to move,
That the Question be now put, but The Chairman
withheld his assent, and declined then to put that
Question.
The
Chairman: It is too early in the debate, although it does
not seem like
it.
Vera
Baird: I was grateful for that suggestion. I will take it
and say that I have completed my argument.
9.30
am James
Brokenshire (Hornchurch) (Con): I am grateful to the
Minister for her response. While I was in mind of “Test Match
Special” and the late Brian Johnston on certain occasions during
her contribution, I listened with care to what she said. The main
thrust of her argument is about whether a misleading situation could be
created. I believe that that issue is addressed in clause 76, which
gives the Secretary of State power on that type of provision. Therefore
I want to test the Committee’s view on the amendment and put it
to a vote.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
9.
Division
No.
5]
| 
