Vera
Baird: I am grateful for the clarity with which Opposition
Members have reasoned their amendments. I shall start by separating the
purposes of clauses 67 and 70. I think that that is where the hon.
Member for Hornchurch started.
Clause 67 provides the rules
under which a proposed name is to be compared with existing names to
determine whether it is the same and thus should be prohibited. For
example, “bricks and mortar” would be treated as being
the same as “brick sand mortar”, and therefore the second
name would not be permitted. It would not even make it on to the
register. That is the important
point. Clause 70
provides for objections to a name already registered on the grounds
that it either is the same as the name in which the objector has
goodwill, or is so similar as to suggest a connection between the
company and the objector. I agree that it would be wrong if the rules
under clause 67 restricted the scope of objections under clause 70.
However, the purpose of clause 70 is to provide for objections to names
already permitted—it has got over the hurdles in clause
67—so I think that the drafting is
clear. Amendment No.
130 focuses on a real difficulty with rules on company names regarding
names that should have been on the register, but were not. I was asked
about how that situation could arise. I suppose the subtext could be,
“Was it because of inefficiency?” Perhaps, that was
implied in the
question. It being
twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put,
pursuant to the Standing
Order. Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
