My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is woefully inadequate, and we need to hear some assurances from the Minister before we decide whether we can let this Bill go ahead.
I asked the Minister in an intervention whether she would assure the House that there is no conflict with the European convention on human rights, as the effect of clause 1 is such, in my view, that it might be considered a control on the use of property within the meaning of article 1 of the first protocol of the ECHR. She said that she felt that it was fully compliant and that there was no problem in that respect, but in the light of the cases that I have indicated, where we have a book, a business and a group of musicians all using the name Red Crystal—this is just on the basis of page 1 of my search, as I did not have enough time to do any more research, so there may well be many other companies in the UK and outside it using the same words—I want to know whether, if those bodies are operating in such a way that is quite clear that they are not seeking to pass themselves off as a division of the Red Cross and are not in any way involved in humanitarian aid, they will be allowed to continue to use those words either for a product range or as a trading name.
Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Greg Knight
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 1 April 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
490 c953 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:43:31 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_545688
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_545688
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_545688