---

Royal Warrants of Appointment

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment. Of course, the question of how a British company manages its environmental policy isimportant if it chooses to outsource to another country and is therefore effectively transporting large amounts of goods and services all around the globe. That is an important point, which I shall come to in relation to Burberry. The list of present warrant holders is very long. There are 800 companies, which hold about 1,100 warrants, because it is possible to hold warrants from several members of the royal family. The list includes a taxidermist, a button maker and, of course, the providers of the vacuum cleaners. It is interesting to note that the royal family have purveyors of Angostura bitters, Martini and whisky, as well as several glass manufacturers, so they can make a good Manhattan. Why should Parliament have anything to do with this at all? On the face of it, such decisions are purely for individual members of the royal family. I wholeheartedly support the system of having royal warrants of appointment. However, when someone walks down a street in Japan, where there are 62 Burberry shops, and sees the royal crest above each shop, or sees the crest and the words ““By Appointment”” on any of the shirts or other products made by a royal warrant holder, they may think of the royal family or the individual member of it in question, but they also think of the Britishness of that good. In a sense, a royal warrant is no longer just a royal warrant. It has been so successful around the world because of the prestige associated with our esteemed royal family and it has become effectively a national seal of approval. That is why it is important for us because it is one of the determining factors of what counts as Britishness in trade around the world. Legislation exists that shows that Parliament has taken a role in the matter in the past. The Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act 1883 and the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 both stipulate that it should be illegal for someone to pretend that they have a royal warrant when they do not have one, although the fine is still only £20, which seems rather paltry considering the significant value that a royal warrant provides to anyone who holds it. It is significant that our current system is seen by many as secretive and self-perpetuating; most recommendations for new warrant holders come only from the Royal Warrant Holders Association, a body of people who already hold royal warrants. It is important that there should be no element of unfair competition and that new people coming into the market should have the opportunity to bear that royal and national seal of approval. How should Parliament be involved? There should be a joint House of Commons and House of Lords Committee, which could be chaired by the Lord Chamberlain—who is, after all, a member of the House of Lords. There should be an annual report, laying out current holders and how they perform according to different criteria and making suggestions—I accept that they should be no more than suggestions and advice—to the Lord Chamberlain and his Committee. The final decision should be made by the individual member of the royal family. There should also be new criteria for holding a royal warrant. As I said, the Prince of Wales has a strong environmental policy insistence for everybody who holds one of his warrants, and that stipulation should apply to all royal warrant holders. If we believe, as I do, that the environment and climate change are two of the most important issues facing Britain, and if Britain campaigns on them around the world, it must be right to say to those who hold a royal warrant, that national seal of approval, ““You must adhere to a strong environmental policy.””