HL Deb 23 June 1992 vol 538 cc397-8

4.8 p.m.

Viscount Cranborne rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 20th May be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for the fact that yet again the House has to endure a performance of mine from this Dispatch Box. I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name. The regulations we are considering effect straightforward amendments to the Companies and Business Names Regulations 1981.

The original regulations prescribe words and expressions which require the approval of the Secretary of State before they can be used in a company or business name. We have recently become aware that while the use of the terms as they appear in the schedule to those regulations requires approval that does not apply to their plural or possessive forms. Since the purpose of the regulations is to afford the public protection against the misuse of terms that imply a certain status or specific function, the regulations clearly should apply equally to the plural and possessive forms. The first amendment effected by the regulations before us achieves that.

The second amendment relates to the word "University". Before submitting an application to the Secretary of State for the use of that word in a company or business name applicants had to seek a letter of non-objection from the Department of Education and Science, which was the relevant body responsible for commenting on such applications. As a result of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 that responsibility has been transferred to the Privy Council. The present regulations therefore substitute "The Privy Council" for "Department of Education and Science".

The final amendment is to remove the expression "Building Society" from the schedule. As the use of that expression is already controlled by other legislation, namely the Building Societies Act 1986, there is no need for it to be prescribed as requiring the approval of the Secretary of State.

I hope that your Lordships will feel that the measure effects some minor but nevertheless useful consequential amendments to existing legislation and will feel able to approve the order.

Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 20th May be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Cranborne.)

Lord Carter

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for explaining the regulations. As he said, these are largely drafting points to change the 1981 regulations. There is one small matter which I should like him to clarify. Do regulations 2(2) and 2(3) imply that between 1981 and 1992, if a company or a business had a name in the plural and the possessive forms, that name was not legal according to the 1981 regulations?

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The regulations are not retrospective. It would be unfair to try to impose them on companies or businesses which had lawfully been using a particular name prior to the passing of these regulations. Any enforced change of name for either a company or a business would perhaps be expensive and in certain circumstances even lead to its failure. It would be reasonable to leave sleeping dogs to lie.

On Question, Motion agreed to.