Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 119, in clause 57, page 22, line 43, after ‘received', insert

‘or include a statement that no such response was received within the time period referred to in subsection (2)'.

No. 120, in clause 57, page 23, line 6, after ‘received', insert

‘or must include a statement that no such response was received within the time period referred to in subsection (2)'.

Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)

This is my first opportunity to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley, and to tell you how pleased I am that such an experienced Chairman will be presiding over my first attempt at helping a Bill through Committee.

The. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) had put forward his argument on the amendments. Under the clause, anyone who wishes to use a sensitive name in their company’s name must apply to the Secretary of State, but to support that application he must ask any public body or Department whose sensitive words he wishes to use in his name to comment on his application. The hon. Gentleman feels that if a public body does not reply to such a request within 30 days, the presumption should be that it does not object to its words being used.

I have already said how sympathetic I am to people who get held back by bureaucracy, but the point of the clause is to prevent people from being misled by a company having a name that wrongly suggests a connection with a public body. The amendment would change the balance of the clause. Where a person is looking for exceptional permission to be allowed to use these sensitive words, public protection remains the most important thing. The immediate mischief is that  it would be possible to send in the application for a response in a way that made it unlikely to get one back, perhaps by sending it to the wrong part of the relevant organisation or by couching it in a long letter about something else.

Let me set out what I think is a greater mischief. The process in the clause is in two stages. First, the person who wants the name writes to the body that holds the words he wants to use. Then he sends any response that comes back to the Secretary of State. The words “any response” specifically envisage that there may be no response. That is clear. It is the Secretary of State who is ultimately responsible for approving the name, and although he would be assisted if there were a response from the public body, the lack of response under the terms of the clause is not fatal to the application.

We are talking about words like “charity”, “nurse”, “police”, “Her Majesty”, which it would be extremely advantageous for someone to use in their company title to try to show some connection with totally virtuous organisations. What goes a little further than the mischief I have described is if the application has been with the public body for 30 days, and there is automatically a deeming of no objection and therefore approval, it would be extremely difficult for the Secretary of State to refuse because the public body that the provision was trying to protect would have raised no objection and would have been deemed to approve. How could he differ from that and not be subject to judicial review for being unreasonable?

The consequence, I fear, is that as we are talking about a public body that has had the application for 30 days and not responded, it probably has not considered it and the Secretary of State will not be able to do so. Consequently, public protection from the mischief would be seriously challenged by such a deeming provision.

The other specific difficulty that could be envisaged is that although at the end of the 30 days no response had been received and the body was deemed to have approved, a long and detailed objection might be received the day afterwards from a public body to the proposed use of its name and the Secretary of State would not be entitled to take it into account. That would be most undesirable, bearing in mind that the purpose is to protect the public.

Those are good reasons to invite the hon. Gentleman to think again. We hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I repeat that the Government will not tolerate bureaucratic inefficiency. Public bodies will be expected to respond as quickly as they realistically can. None the less, the emphasis has to be on protecting the public and not on facilitating people skilfully to get around the provision.

Keith Vaz (Leicester East, Labour)

Does the Minister know how long it takes for public bodies to respond? What gave rise to the concern that made the provision necessary?

Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I understand that it is a completely new provision, and I invite the Opposition to comment on it. However, it was not supported or buttressed by any pressure group—not by the Law Society or the  Institute of Directors, the company secretaries of major companies or any list of people who might have been expected to respond if it was likely to be a problem. It is not clear to me where the thrust of the provision is coming from, and we have not received any submissions.

I shall probably serve the Committee better by setting out other words that could be sensitive—words that could imply national or international pre-eminence. For instance, the word “British” will need a significant amount of protection, and I see that Opposition members agree. Approval of that word in a company name would depend on how it was to be used. The Secretary of State would normally expect the company to be British owned—a realistic thing to think—and it would probably be necessary to show that the company was pre-eminent in its field in order to merit that epithet and description. The company would need to show that it was pre-eminent by providing supporting evidence from an independent source, such as a Department or trade association.

The same goes for the words “English” and “England”, and “Scotland” and “Scottish”. “Wales” and “Welsh” would probably fall into the same category. It would be hard it distinguish them in any realistic way from “British.” The same applies to “Ireland” and “Irish”. If a company wanted to use one of those words as a prefix to its name, similar conditions would have to apply as apply to the word “British”, and approval would have to be given for such use. The same would apply if the word were used as a suffix.

It will usually be possible to get approval only if the person can show that the company has its main business in the country concerned. It would be rather odd for a company to call itself “Welsh” if its factory was in my constituency of Redcar. I cannot think of a company in Redcar with “Welsh” or “Wales” in its name; that was just an example of how curious it would be.

One cannot rule out, however, the chance that somebody might want to use the word “Welsh,” perhaps to describe Welsh cakes or something of that kind, even if they are not made in Wales, but I imagine that one would have to go a long way before being able to register “Welsh” in the name of a company, if the business was in Redcar, or in the constituency of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). For instance, in Reigate, it would be odd to call a company “Welsh”.

Crispin Blunt (Whip, Whips; Reigate, Conservative)

I am extremely grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for replying comprehensively to the amendments. However, I am slightly concerned that if Ministers are going to go into such exquisite detail, the Committee will struggle to get through the thousand or so amendments that we are likely to consider, as well as the 925 clauses.

Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)

I know that the hon. Gentleman rightly, and compatibly with his job, has his hands on the accelerator and brakes in the Committee. I can assure him that I am quite succinct sometimes.

Margaret Hodge (Minister of State (Industry and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Barking, Labour)

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that  we would make better progress if so many amendments were not identical to those discussed in another place? They were given considerable airing there, and little value is added by reconsidering them.

Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)

As ever, my right hon. Friend makes a strong and important argument.

Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme, Labour)

I want to welcome the new approach outlined by the Opposition. Will my hon. and learned Friend join me in hoping that, throughout the course of the Committee, Opposition filibustering, nay hair-splitting, will be kept to a minimum?

Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)

Hair-splitting sounds like a cruel sport.

Keith Vaz (Leicester East, Labour)

To take us back to the substance of the Under-Secretary’s comments, she made an important point about names because it causes a great deal of concern. Have Ministers seen any evidence of abuse by a company registering as British, with the word “British” in its name, but which subsequently was discovered not to be British, and to have no such connections, such as the fictional Welsh company in Redcar?

Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)

I hesitate usually to express personal opinions, but it might be an abuse of the term “Welsh” if the company were in Redcar. As I have already mentioned, however, I do not think that there is such a company in Redcar. None of my constituents, or anyone linked with them, bear any responsibility for the misuse of the fine name of Wales. I shall tell you about my Welsh antecedents in a moment.

David Jones (Clwyd West, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for allowing us to discuss the manufacture of Welsh cakes in Redcar. Will she comment on the possibility of a company obtaining registration to manufacture Eccles cakes in my constituency? Would they run into difficulty?

Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)

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, Conservative)

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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)

And the Welsh cakes, although I am not sure that I know what a Welsh cake is. Can anybody assist?

Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)

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.

Crispin Blunt (Whip, Whips; Reigate, Conservative)

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?

Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)

I was about to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz).

Keith Vaz (Leicester East, Labour)

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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)

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 (Leicester East, Labour)

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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)

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 (Leicester East, Labour)

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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)

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.

Crispin Blunt (Whip, Whips; Reigate, Conservative)

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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)

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. Bluntrose 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.

Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

It is too early in the debate, although it does not seem like it.

Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)

I was grateful for that suggestion. I will take it and say that I have completed my argument.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

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.