| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Colman: Let me first declare an interest in that I was a private-sector director of my local training and enterprise council between 1989 and last year and leader of a local authority--the London borough of Merton. In that capacity I encouraged and enabled the setting up of the Merton chamber of commerce, an excellent body that has done a great deal to enhance and advance the cause of commercial enterprises in the London borough of Merton.
I was concerned by the description by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst of the British Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce as a cosy collective. He may wish to take a different view on that, as I believe that important organisations supporting business should have that soubriquet. The Bill is not attempting to retain the status quo; the status quo is confusion, where the title of chamber of commerce seems to be up for grabs by all and sundry. There must be a statutory basis for the title, and the umbrella organisations--the British Chambers of Commerce and Scottish Chambers of Commerce--should be able to regulate themselves. The Bill will strengthen the confused situation that is outlined in the briefing from the BCC.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of organisations that should be consulted. I hope to convince him that the correct body for consultation is the BCC, as the Bill attempts to ensure the high standards that are insisted upon by that body.
I have mentioned the Merton chamber of commerce, and the London chamber of commerce provides a good range of services, as does the Croydon chamber of commerce. In my constituency, there is the Wandsworth chamber of commerce and--through contacts with the training and enterprise council for Wandsworth, Kingston and Merton--I know of the chambers in Kingston.
Mr. Forth:
I have no doubt that nearly all of the chambers are excellent. However, if an inadequate, tired, old chamber was well connected by the old boy network to the British Chambers of Commerce, and a new thrusting chamber in embryo wanted to establish itself, would not the hon. Gentleman be worried that the provisions of the Bill would protect the tired and old and prevent the new and dynamic from establishing?
Mr. Colman:
The right hon. Gentleman makes my point, although he does so the wrong way round. If there is such a thing as a tired chamber of commerce--a strange adjective--the British Chambers of Commerce can step in and threaten, initially, that if the chamber did not return to the mark, the title could be removed. There are few controls at present.
Mr. Lansley:
Under the Bill, the circumstances in which a title can be removed are those set out in section 32 of the Companies Act 1985, where there is, rightly, a tough test for removal. That test should be whether harm would result from the continuance of an organisation using the title. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not proceed on the basis that that would happen at all lightly.
Mr. Colman:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The representative bodies to be consulted are those named in clause 4--the British Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. I note that others might be added, but the Bill--which has been urged upon us by the British Chambers of Commerce and others--should not be lost by producing a laundry list or organisations, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst did.
Chambers of commerce in my area are happy for the British Chambers of Commerce to act on their behalf, and I urge the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to get the views of his local chambers.
As a member of my local training and enterprise council--and following consultations at national conferences of TECs--I know that TECs have urged the British Chambers of Commerce to sort the matter out; although they may not have understood the complexity of the situation. The BCC has said that it cannot, and has asked Parliament for help in sorting it out.
The London region of the CBI supports the Bill. When I represented retail interests on the CBI, there was concern about the variability of the title of chamber of commerce, and the national council of the CBI will welcome this attempt to sort that out.
Mr. Forth:
Is not the hon. Gentleman giving us a list of the fat cats and the establishment? Where does the small man get his say? When will he look out from that inclusive list, with which he is complacently satisfied, and allow others to be consulted? The Secretary of State always says that he regards small firms as important. I may be pre-empting what the hon. Gentleman is about to say, but his list so far seems to be a depressing list of the good, the great and the well-connected.
Mr. Colman:
The right hon. Gentleman may not realise that he makes my point again, as I was going through his list. I was going to add that, as a life member of the Institute of Directors, I am aware that many smaller companies are urging support for the Bill. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that support; I urge him also to join that body. As someone who has worked for a larger company, I recognise the determination of directors in competitive sectors of the market to achieve their results.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the trade unions. I declare an interest, in that I am a member of the GMB; which, I am pleased to say, is centred in the London borough of Merton. That excellent organisation supports the Bill. The views of the general secretary of the GMB will be shared across the trade union movement.
Local authorities were on the laundry list of the right hon. Gentleman. As a former local authority leader, I was in favour of a similar proposal in 1996 by the hon. Member for Windsor.
Mr. Heald:
Perhaps the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) could be met by adding, after "one relevant representative body" the words, "and the hon. Member for Putney."
Mr. Colman:
I am happy to provide any advice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at any time, but I am sure that he will speak from a considerably more eminent range of interests. I mention my connections only because it is important that we should speak from some point of knowledge or authority. I am gainfully employed in the House and hope that the electors of Putney will return me again and again.
The laundry list of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is far too long, and I would slice it down to what is in clause 4: the British Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, if the Secretary of State, in consultation with those bodies, feels that any other body should be added, that option remains. It would
be wrong to have the all-inclusive formula in the amendment, which is far too wide and would defeat the point of the Bill.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Heald:
It is clearly important to consider the issue of consultation, but we do so against the background of considerable success by the British Chambers of Commerce over recent years. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on promoting the Bill and so effectively piloting it through the House, and I wonder whether that recent success is due to the fact that he was the deputy director of the organisation about 10 years ago.
The British Chambers of Commerce has enhanced the reputation and widened the network of chambers of commerce to the point at which about 95 per cent. of companies and businesses in Britain have reasonable access to their services, which include national and international trade, export supply and support services and information. That widened network and improved quality need to be protected.
The increased integrity and comprehensive character of the chamber of commerce network needs to be supported by the House--I think that all hon. Members would accept that--but it is also important that there should be adequate consultation before a company is barred from using the name "chamber of commerce". It would be wrong, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, if we ended up with a cosy set-up; but although the Bill contains the minimum requirement for the Secretary of State to consult one of the two representative bodies, it does not prevent him from going wider than that if there is cause for concern.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |