House of Commons Hansard Debates for 7 May 1999 (pt 1)

Mr. Forth: It falls to me to congratulate, and Ihappily do so, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on having so skilfully steered his Bill to this stage in its passage. It remains for us to give it proper consideration.

Although my current task is to explain the reasoning behind amendment No. 1, I hope that, on Third Reading, at the very least, we shall be able to explore--I was about to say again, but I do not think that we have done it yet--some of the unresolved issues that have arisen during our consideration of the Bill. I should give my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire clear warning that that is my thinking--as I know that, with his eloquence and skill, he will be able easily to persuade me, but I shall require such persuading on one or two matters.

Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire): Although it is a happy instance that the Bill, which I am privileged to promote, is securing support on both sides of the House, if we are not careful, a possible consequence is that each of the Bill's aspects may not be properly

7 May 1999 : Column 1194

considered before the Bill becomes law. I therefore hope that, in the course of today's proceedings, we shall be able to allay my right hon. Friend's concerns.

Mr. Forth: Let us not prejudge anything. Consideration is what we are here for, and those matters will undoubtedly be dealt with properly.

I tabled this group of amendments because, I confess, I have from the outset had a sense of unease about the Bill--its self-evidently regulatory nature immediately put my mind on the alert. Although it is always possible to argue that regulatory measures are not only justifiable but required, surely the burden of proof and of argument always rests on those wishing to introduce a regulatory measure, rather than the opposite.

I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is with us today. I am sure that what I have just said about regulation would meet with nothing but support from him, as those on both sides of theHouse are now at one--certainly in our rhetoric--in disapproving of regulation. The irony is that we are expected today to approve a regulatory measure.

Given the principle that the burden of proof is on those who would regulate--which I do not quite accept, yet--I should like to determine whether the provisions in this group of amendments might make the regulation mechanism as open, even-handed and acceptable as possible.

The Bill states:

"It is the duty of the Secretary of State to secure that the expression 'chamber of commerce' . . . as an expression"

requires registration and the approval of the Secretary of State.

Clause 2 goes on to say:

"Before determining . . . whether to approve the registration of a company name . . . the Secretary of State must consult at least one relevant representative body."

I grew alarmed at that point.

I was quite surprised, knowing him as I do, that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire had included such a phrase in his Bill. I should have thought that he would want to encourage the most open approach possible to the matter, and to ensure that his Bill, in dealing with the process of registration, should be able to demonstrate the widest possible basis of consultation, and therefore of support, for the operation of its provisions. The House will therefore appreciate my surprise when I saw the phrase

"must consult at least one relevant representative body."

My suspicions grew. I thought, "If that one relevant representative body was the chamber of commerce itself, or the umbrella organisation"--which, today, has kindly provided us with some excellent briefing material, to which I suspect many us may refer on Third Reading, if not before, and for which we are very grateful--"what sort of openness would there be?"

I begin, already, to get the impression of an inward-looking and incestuous approach to the whole business, which makes me feel--I must confess--rather unhappy.

Mr. Tony Colman (Putney): At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman eloquently expressed his concerns about the Bill's regulatory nature. However,

7 May 1999 : Column 1195

clause 4 clearly states that it is a self-regulatory measure that will be operated within the British Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. Does he accept that it is a self-regulatory measure, which the chambers of commerce are themselves able to operate?

Mr. Forth: Would that that were so, I should be much happier about it. Today, however, we are regulating and creating statute; and, by doing so, we are involving the Secretary of State. I am sure that we are all very confident with the current incumbent in that post, and that we have every confidence that he will use the most excellent judgment in these matters. However, the trouble with legislation is that it is not only binding on this Secretary of State, but Secretaries of State for ever and ever. I do not know whether we would have been so happy with an immediate predecessor of his or whether we will be so happy with whoever comes after his no doubt long and distinguished period in office. The Bill is not self-regulation, but regulation by statute, with a duty being placed on the Secretary of State to approve registration.

Mr. Colman: I understand that the Bill has been urged on the House by the chambers of commerce. They see it as necessary to enable self-regulation.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman and I may have to disagree. Giving the Secretary of State a duty and various powers, including the power of registration, is not self-regulation. Self-regulation would involve the chambers policing the use of the title, giving their approval--which I understand that they already try to do--and telling the world at large that if something calling itself a chamber of commerce has their stamp of approval, it could be reckoned to be okay, but if not people should be suspicious of it.

I have no problem with that approach. Indeed, I rather favour it and have tried to encourage it for various businesses. However, that is not what the Bill is about. The chambers of commerce want the Secretary of State to be involved by statute with specific powers to ensure that those whom the existing cosy collective disapprove of are not allowed in. We shall have to return to that on Third Reading. I do not want to digress unduly, but it is already clear that the cosy cartel wants to remain as it is and to provide a mechanism to avoid any thrusting, new, exciting, dynamic bodies being allowed in. That is a paraphrase of the process, but it makes me suspicious.

The amendments would make an important difference. The Bill says that

"the Secretary of State must consult at least one relevant representative body."

It would be for the Secretary of State to judge who that relevant representative body was, but we all know who the most likely candidate would be, given the genesis of the Bill. I would be more comfortable with opening the process up in the way that my amendment describes. Indeed, I insist on it. The Secretary of State should consult

"all bodies and persons who appear to him to have an interest".

I started to jot a list more or less off the top of my head to give a flavour of what bodies I have in mind. It did not take me very long and I do not think that it would take

7 May 1999 : Column 1196

the Secretary of State very long. I shall run quickly through the list of bodies that should be consulted. My wording is not prescriptive. I did not want to fall into the trap of putting an exclusive, prescriptive list in the Bill. My wording would leave the choice to the Secretary of State. Let us open the process up and make it inclusive, to use the current jargon. I shall be talking about joined-up things in a moment if I am not careful. Let us stick with an inclusive process for the moment in an attempt to attract the support of the Secretary of State and Labour Members.

Surely the Secretary of State should consult existing adjoining chambers of commerce. Any debate about the registration of one chamber immediately involves a proper discussion about the catchment area of the adjoining chambers. That emerges clearly from the helpful notes that the BCC has sent us in the past day or two. The suggested definition of the essential characteristics of a chamber of commerce, set out on page six of the briefing notes, includes the following requirements:

"owned by the business community

not owned or controlled by a faction or a commercial interest

company limited by guarantee or set up by Royal Charter