Schedule 3 - London Olympics Association Right
London Olympics Bill
4:17 pm

Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 84, in schedule 3, page 35, line 30, leave out ‘visual or verbal’.

Jimmy Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East, Labour)

With this we may discuss the: Amendment No. 99, in schedule 3, page 35, line 31, leave out ‘(of any kind)’ and insert

‘such as the London Olympics indicia’.

Amendment No. 67, in schedule 3, page 35, line 31, leave out ‘likely’ and insert ‘intended’.

Government amendments Nos. 85 to 87.

Amendment No. 100, in schedule 3, page 35, line 38, leave out ‘(of any kind)’ and insert

‘such as the London Olympics indicia’.

Amendment No. 68, in schedule 3, page 35, line 38, leave out ‘likely’ and insert ‘intended’.

Government amendment No. 88.

Amendment No. 18, in schedule 3, page 35, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 36 and insert—

‘(a)an association between the London Olympics and —

(i)goods or services, or

(ii)a person who provides goods or services, or

(b)the impression that he is or was a sponsor of, or is or was the provider of other support for, the London Olympics.’.

Amendment No. 69, in schedule 3, page 35, line 39, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘a false or misleading’.

Amendment No. 101, in schedule 3, page 36, line 3, leave out from beginning to ‘form’ in line 19 and insert—

‘London Olympics indicia 2A(1)For the purposes of paragraph 2 “the London Olympics indicia” means any combination of a word in the first group with any of the words or expressions in the second group. (2)The following words form the first group for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)— (a)“Olympic”, (b)“Olympian”,

2A(1)For the purposes of paragraph 2 “the London Olympics indicia” means any combination of a word in the first group with any of the words or expressions in the second group.

(2)The following words form the first group for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)—

(a)“Olympic”,

(c)“Paralympics”, and

(d)“Paralympian”.

(3)The following words or expressions,’.

Amendment No. 17, in schedule 3, page 36, line 4, leave out paragraph 3.

Amendment No. 102, in schedule 3, page 36, line 26, leave out from ‘sponsor,’ to end of line 27 and insert—

‘(g)Games,

(h)2012, and

(i)Twenty Twelve.’.

Amendment No. 103, in schedule 3, page 36, line 29, at end insert—

‘(5A)A person does not infringe the London Olympics association right by using a potential word in a context which is not likely to suggest an association with the Olympic Games or the Olympic movement.’.

Amendment No. 104, in schedule 3, page 36, line 30, leave out from ‘may’ to end of line 34 and insert

‘, if necessary to secure compliance with obligations imposed by the Host City Contract or in order to comply with a mandatory request from the International Olympic Committee, by order, to be made no later than 30th June 2011, add, remove or vary an entry in either group of words.’.

Amendment No. 70, in schedule 3, page 38, line 39, leave out ‘likely’ and insert ‘intended’.

Amendment No. 71, in schedule 3, page 38, line 40, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘a false or misleading’.

Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

This large group of amendments deals with the concept of the London Olympics association right. It is essential to prevent people from unfairly associating themselves with the London Olympic games, in order both to safeguard the financial viability of the games and to honour our commitment to the International Olympic Committee. The provisions in schedule 3 are crucial to our efforts to prevent that ambush market. I understand the concerns that have been expressed. I hope that my amendments address some of them and that I will be able to reassure hon. Members that our approach is necessary and proportionate.

Amendment No. 86 makes similar changes to the London Olympics association right to those that I have already proposed in relation to the Olympic and Paralympic association right in schedule 2. The amendment is designed to give more clarity to the concept of association and what will therefore constitute an infringement of the right created in schedule 3. The definition of association specifically points to the idea of an unauthorised commercial or contractual relationship, or other demonstration of support between a person, product or service and the London Olympic games. It is such unfair associations that will have the most damaging effect on the Olympic movement and, specifically, on the London games.

We do not want to prevent people from creating an association with the London Olympics if they have a legitimate reason to link their products or services with the games. Amendment No. 86 will make sure that that is the case, but will prevent people from gratuitously associating themselves with, and exploiting the good will of, the games. It is worth putting on the record that the London Organising Committee will seek to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner. Keith Mills, deputy chairman of LOCOG, has already said publicly that LOCOG expects to work with the business sector and the advertising industry.

The Sydney organisation committee, which worked within similar legislative parameters, sought to enter into dialogue with those who infringed their association rights, and only one case was resolved in the Australian courts. We fully expect LOCOG to take a similarly reasonable approach. A process of discussion and engagement with the business community will be crucial to the success of the provisions, not only in explaining the rationale and extent of schedule 3 but in building good will.

We know that, for the most part, people will not want to exploit the games, and that in reality, many infringements can be settled long before they reach the courts. As a further safeguard, we are also proposing in amendment No. 86, as we did in relation to schedule 2, that the Secretary of State should have the power to clarify the concept of association, if needs be. Of course, any change in the London Olympic association right would have to be debated and agreed by Parliament.

Amendments Nos. 84 and 87 remove an anomaly between the provisions of the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995, and contain new provisions in relation to the London Olympic association right. Schedule 3 refers to any visual or verbal representations. By specifying visual or verbal, we are concerned that it will call into question the more general provision of OSPA, with a simple reference to representations of any kind. On reflection, we do not think that we need to refer to visual or verbal representations specifically, as that phrase is unhelpful to the interpretation of the existing law under OSPA. That is why I am suggesting that we remove those references.

Amendments Nos. 85 and 88 slightly alter the drafting of schedule 3 to provide consistency between schedules 2 and 3.

Maria Miller (Basingstoke, Conservative)

My amendments to paragraphs 1 to 6 of schedule 3 would change the approach to ambush marketing restrictions, which are, as I said this morning, unnecessary and restrictive, and which run the risk of not striking the correct balance between the need to protect the value of sponsorship and ensuring that the country as a whole approves the economic and social benefits to offset the £1.1 billion of net public subsidy that the Olympics are receiving.

We support a firm control on ambush marketing, but the Bill goes further than is required by the host city contract or according to the extracts of the International Olympic Committee technical handbooks with which the Minister so kindly supplied members of the Committee this morning. It also ignores legal protections in UK law. The purpose of my amendments is to probe the Government’s thinking.

We had some discussion on the matter this morning, concerning schedule 2, and we heard from the Minister on that. As I said, my amendments are more transparent and therefore preferable. Even with the Government amendment to schedule 2, there would still be an automatic infringement for an organisation such as Sport England to say, “Keep active and play outdoor games this summer.” Perhaps the Minister could help me to understand how his amendment would make that phrase safe. Further, with the phrase “Visit London with us in 2012”, which any hotel or travel industry might use, there would still be an automatic infringement under schedule 3 because it would be more likely than not that the intention of the body that was using that message would be to connect itself with the games by encouraging people to attend.   Perhaps the Minister could help us to understand where the line will be drawn. As the Bill is drafted, that is less than clear.

The Bill’s general list of expressions that would be regarded as an infringement of the London association right is not included in the host city contract between the IOC and the Government; nor is it in the extracts of the technical handbooks that we have seen. The Government have said that the expressions in paragraphs 3(3) and 3(4) of schedule 3 are not significantly different to the projections provided for in the Sydney Olympics. As the Minister said, that was generally regarded as being successful in getting the balance right on ambush marketing.

However, my amendments Nos. 101 and 102 are based specifically on the Sydney Olympics wordings, and they demonstrate that the wording combinations are significantly different from those in the Bill. They would directly link words such as “gold”, “silver”, “bronze” and “London” with what I have described in amendments Nos. 99, 100 and 101 as the London indicia. Those are words such as “Olympic”, “Olympian”, “Paralympic” and “Paralympian”. The problem with any list of words is that ways can always be found around the rules and the direct linking with the Olympics seems to be a much better, clearer solution and entirely consistent with what the IOC wants for brand protection.

I hope that the Minister will respond to those points. I also want to know whether the Government will revisit the list so that we end up with something closer to the Sydney solution, which we thought was a good way forward.

Proposed new sub-paragraph (2) in amendment No. 101 would remove the presumption of guilt created by paragraph 3(1) of the schedule which states that the use of certain expressions

“shall be treated, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, as being likely to create in the public mind an association with the London Olympics.”

Although I have a different approach to the schedule from that of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I share his view that the presumption of guilt provisions are unnecessarily draconian, especially given the existing legal protections in UK law.

Amendment No. 103 addresses the same point that the Government have addressed more long-windedly in proposed new sub-paragraph (2)(b). It is important that infringement of the right is ring-fenced so that use of one of the protected words in another context is not deemed to be an infringement.

Maria Miller (Basingstoke, Conservative)

Amendment No. 104 would limit the Secretary of State’s wide-ranging right to “add, remove or vary” the words and it means that she would be able to do so only if required by the obligations of the host city contract or to comply with a mandatory   request from the IOC. Even with those restrictions, the Secretary of State’s power to vary the list of words would create some uncertainty, particularly in the advertising industry, even though the power could be used only after an order under the affirmative procedure with debates in both Houses. The period required to obtain authorisation for changes is significantly less than it takes to develop some advertising campaigns—I can attest to that from my 20 years in advertising—which is why my amendment would set a cut-off date of 30 June 2011, after which the Secretary of State could not amend the list.

I support some of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bath: amendments Nos. 67, 68, 69, 70 and 71. They would create an offence of intending to create a false or misleading association. Those amendments are not at odds with my amendments and would provide the clarity that the Bill fails to provide with words such as “likely” to “suggest to the public”. Those words are far too open to interpretation. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

It was stressed in earlier discussions today that if the Secretary of State wants us all to be winners at the Olympics, the Minister must give us not just more words and promises but action by accepting the amendments.

Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments about the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and me. Today has been a successful one. First, we have made progress on the Bill, and I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances about newspapers and so on. Secondly, it is good news that, as we heard today, the Olympic bid team has been able to refund £1.4 million. I congratulate it not only on a successful bid, but on doing it under budget. Thirdly, the string of amendments before us is also good news because it is clear that the Government have, as the Minister said in his opening comments, listened to some of the concerns expressed outside the House about schedule 3. I am grateful to him for the progress that we have made. I suspect that he is not likely to go much further today, but I hope that he is willing to listen to the arguments that are being made here and will continue to be made in the outside world during the passage of the Bill. Perhaps there will be a later opportunity to return and consider further amendments. There are some important amendments in the group before us and the Minister would do well to consider them at least.

I say that because, as the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) said, the Minister has been consistent throughout in assuring the Committee that any measures concerning advertising or ambush marketing will be targeted and proportionate. At the moment, with the exception of the Government amendments and notwithstanding our confidence in the Minister, there has not been much of a move to do anything in the Bill to give us confidence in that regard.

One reason why many people are concerned is that the Government’s definitions in respect of ambush marketing are still vague. The IOC’s “Olympic Marks and Imagery Usage Handbook” gives a clear definition of what we are talking about. It states that such marketing is a

“planned attempt by a third party to associate itself directly or indirectly with the Olympic Games to gain the recognition and benefits associated with being an Olympic Partner”.

It is clear from that that the IOC understands that ambush marketing is clearly planned and that there is an attempt to profit from it. That definition is not fairly reflected so far in the Bill, even with the amendments that the Minister has tabled.

It is important that we recognise that there have been a number of examples of ambush marketing. American Express did it in the 1994 winter Olympics; there was a Wendy’s campaign against McDonalds in 1996; and in the previous Olympics in Athens, there was an attempt by Benetton to produce an Olympic clothing range in breach of the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995. We know that it happens. Despite that, there has been a fantastic ability to gain sponsors. It is worth reflecting that Coca-Cola has remained one of the top sponsors since the Amsterdam Olympics in 1928.

We must be careful that we do not go overboard with the Bill and wrap too many things up in it. I note that the Minister is prepared to go even further than he has gone today; I have a copy of a letter sent to the Newspaper Society dated 16 October, which was only a few days ago. It refers to the Bill as being

“scheduled to go into Standing Committee in the next few weeks”.

It had already gone into Committee by the time the letter was sent, but let us not quibble about that—[Interruption.] Well I was pedantic earlier, with great success, and we have changed the legislation as a result of my pedantry, so I will continue.

In that letter, the Minister states:

“You will be interested to know that we intend to table some amendments to Schedules 2 and 3 for consideration at Standing Committee”.

Indeed, the Minister has done so. He continues that that was

“with the aim of further clarifying exactly what we mean by ‘association’ and what would and wouldn’t constitute an infringement.”

He has done that, although he could have gone further.

The letter continues:

“Most forms of critique and review would not form an association with the Games but we will provide that advance reports relating to the Games, for example, in relation to athlete performance and event schedules, are excepted from infringement.”

As far as I can see, that bit has not yet been picked up and covered. If I have got that wrong, it would be helpful for the Minister to intervene and assure me that that is the case. He could also do that in his response.

We could go further in other areas. Based on the definition from the IOC that I read out, we should produce legislation that means that the law will be broken only when it can be demonstrated that there is a clear intention to create a false or misleading association with the games. That would mean that we   would not get down to some of the examples that the hon. Lady gave. We would also not question whether “Bronze yourself in 2012” or any of the examples that we have had sent to us could be deemed to be an infringement. Such a situation would be rather foolish.

We find ourselves in an interesting position. Government amendments Nos. 84 and 87 would widen the scope of what can be covered, whereas the Conservatives’ amendments Nos. 99, 100 and 101 would tighten it by deleting the words “of any kind” and replacing them with various examples. Our amendments Nos. 67 and 68 meet the definition given by the IOC. We make it clear that there has to be an intended association by making a false or misleading association. I would have thought that that is in line with the IOC’s definition, and I hope that the Minister will, if not today but in due course, be prepared to go as far as we propose. I suggest that our definitions are more in line with what the IOC recommends, although I acknowledge that his amendments Nos. 85 and 86 tighten matters up a little. However, I prefer ours.

As to the real difficulty—the list of words that we have already discussed—I was interested to note the comment in a briefing from the Advertising Association that

“despite its length, Paragraph 3 contains absolutely nothing within it to commend it. This is certainly no curate’s egg”.

I was sympathetic to that view, and amendment No. 17 would solve the problem by deleting the whole lot. That strikes me as better than the Conservative amendments Nos. 102 to 104, which would modify the list—although I welcome the fact that, crucially, in that string of amendments amendment No. 103 introduces the issue of the importance of context, and amendment No. 104 would ensure that the list, if we continue to have a list, cannot be altered at the last minute. I consider that important, and will be interested in the Minister’s response.

Amendment No. 18 deals with the question of who is responsible for any infringement. Government amendment No. 86 helps, by reference to contractual and commercial relationships. That is a welcome move in the right direction. However, it is often useful to find out what other people have done. Our amendment No. 18, which I consider preferable to the Minister’s, uses the wording used in Sydney about giving

“the impression that he is or was a sponsor ... or is or was the provider of other support”.

I consider that wording beneficial for two reasons. First, nowhere in the Bill does sponsorship appear. It would be helpful to make the connection with attempts to demonstrate that someone was a sponsor. Secondly—and I should think that the Minister would be delighted to accept at least this tiny detail of the amendment—it brings in the issue of support other than goods or services. One can think of a range of other activities through which people could pretend an association. One would think that the Government would want to tighten an apparent loophole.

I am grateful to the Minister for the progress that has been made, but more progress is needed in this important aspect of the matter. I look forward to his response, but I hope that there will be an opportunity later in the passage of the Bill to return to the matter.

Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I shall try to deal with some of the points that have been made on amendments Nos. 17 and 99 to 104. Amendment No 17 would remove the whole of paragraph 3 of schedule 3. That would remove the list of indicative words and phrases.

Before I go further into the detail of the amendments, I should say that the IOC’s body in this country is LOCOG. The only party that can bring a civil action is LOCOG. When the Bill reaches the statute book, LOCOG’s people will be the ones to trigger the action. There is a daily dialogue between the IOC and LOCOG, because we shall be carrying out what is in the candidate file, and that is what must go on to the statute book. However, it is a matter of civil, not criminal, action, which only LOCOG will be able to institute.

LOCOG is effectively the IOC’s representative in this country for the purpose of 2012. That is the narrow band, as it were, of decision-making and, indeed, prosecution, if any prosecution is brought. We are not dealing, in this context, with the wide sweep of either civil or criminal law, but with a very specific area of work, being done in dialogue with the IOC. It is as well to put on the record the powers that are effectively being given to LOCOG to protect the brand of the Olympics, and indeed to ensure that we have clean stadiums.

Hugh Robertson (Shadow Minister (Sport), The Family & Culture, Media & Sport; Faversham and Mid Kent, Conservative)

This may, I hope, be a helpful intervention. One of the problems that we have been made aware of is the difficulty that the advertising industry has had in putting its case across and getting access to the top people. In view of what the Minister said about Keith Mills’ assurances, will he undertake today to ask Keith Mills for a direct, face-to-face meeting to raise those issues? As LOCOG is the prosecuting authority under this, the industry could put its case to him straight away and get those assurances directly from him?

Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

Yes. I am disappointed that that dialogue has not been taking place. There has been some dialogue but it may not have been as extensive as we would want. I take that point on board. I will raise the matter with Seb Coe and Keith Mills. The applications for chief executive of LOCOG closed on 10 October and I hope that we will get a chief executive in post very quickly. That could well start to resolve some of the problems that we have had with communications. It is right to put this into the context of what powers we are giving to what bodies and what that prosecution would be too.

Amendment No. 17 proposes removing the whole of paragraph 3 of schedule 3. This would remove the lists of indicative words and phrases, which, when used together, would create an evidential presumption that the London Olympics association right had been infringed. The lists of words in paragraph 3 is an important part of the London Olympics association right, as it provides LOCOG and the public with clarity in relation to the sorts of things that might constitute an infringement of the London Olympics association right.

Amendments Nos. 99 to 104, while not removing the idea of an indicative list of words and phrases, alter the way that schedule 3 will work in practice. Amendments Nos. 99 to 102 essentially work from the premise that people have to use Olympic or Paralympic words in order to associate themselves with the London games. We agree that Olympic and Paralympic words need to be protected; that is the purpose of the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995 and the amendments we have made to it in schedule 2.

The changes suggested by amendments Nos. 99 to 102 add little to what we have already provided for in that Act and schedule 2. If one looks back at the Australian model, had they had a similar measure to OSPA, they probably would have approached their list in a slightly different way. They did not have one in place and we have learned from their experience.

Schedule 3 protects against those people who unfairly associate themselves with the London games but do so in a way that does not use Olympic or Paralympic words. We all know that those who seek to profit unfairly from the games will not restrict themselves to using Olympic or Paralympic words. That is why we have drawn the list of words in paragraph 3 of schedule 3 wider than that.

Amendment No. 103 would provide a defence in relation to the London Olympics association right where no association is created with the games. The amendment simply transfers the wording from schedule 2 to schedule 3. I understand its purpose but it is not necessary because of the different ways that the association rights have been created. In schedule 2 someone prime facie infringes if they use an Olympic word. Therefore it is right to have the sort of defence as outlined in amendment No. 103.

For the London Olympics association right, however, there is no prime facie infringement if the words listed in paragraph 3 are used. It simply creates an evidential presumption of an infringement. Therefore the defence created by amendment No. 103 is not necessary. I do, however, understand the premise behind the amendment but the safeguards that are already built into schedule 3 and the amendments I have brought forward today should give hon. Members sufficient comfort as to the practical effect of the provisions.

Amendment No. 104 restricts the Secretary of State’s powers to amend the words and phrases in paragraph 3 only where the IOC has required us to do so. The IOC set the general parameters of what it expects of all host cities—in this case preventing ambush marketing in relation to the games. Schedule 3 is part of our response to that, building on the good practice of the Sydney games, but the IOC has not stipulated every word or had input into every clause of our Bill, nor should it. I am not sure that the IOC would be able to monitor the effect of our legislation so closely that it could suggest adding or removing words from our list.

We want to ensure that the Secretary of State can take appropriate steps if it is necessary to add to that indicative list in schedule 3. I hope that hon. Members will be reassured that, in accordance with sub-paragraph (7), the Secretary of State can make an order only if it is necessary to prevent commercial exploitation of the games.

I believe that a further part of the intent behind the amendment is to give comfort to advertisers who plan their campaigns a long time in advance of a campaign launch. However, even if we could give certainty over the words and phrases that create the evidential presumption in schedule 3, that would not change the fact that they would be infringing the London Olympics association right if they made an unfair association with the London games. That should be the advertisers’ guiding principle, and I am confident that the creation of the London Olympics association right and the existing structure of schedule 3 should give advertisers a clear idea of what they can and cannot do in the lead-up to 2012.

In all circumstances, keeping the Secretary of State’s discretion to add or remove words or phrases after debating such an order in Parliament seems entirely appropriate.

I shall now move on to amendments Nos. 67, 68 and 70, which introduce the concept of intent to any infringement of the London Olympic association right. We believe that that is a step too far. It will make it much harder for LOCOG to prove that an infringement has taken place under schedule 3. By requiring LOCOG to prove intent on behalf of a would-be infringer, we would undermine the effectiveness of the clause.

I hope that some of the other amendments that I have tabled in relation to the definition of association and the practical applications of schedule 3 will mean that these amendments will not be pressed.

Amendments Nos. 18, 69 and 71 are about fairness and the extent of the London Olympics association right. I agree with the broad thrust of those amendments but I hope that the detail contained within Government amendment No. 86, which seeks to address many of the same issues, will satisfy hon. Members’ concerns.

I shall now answer some of the questions that were raised—and some of the slight misconceptions—about Sydney. In Sydney, a list of words was given, which, when used in combination, would suggest an association with the Sydney Olympic games. In Sydney, as in the UK, it was up to the organising committee to seek an injunction and, if appropriate, damages in the courts against offenders. As I said earlier, there was one prosecution.

We believe that our Bill is more proportionate than the Sydney regulations because, in the UK, people will still be able to use the words in the list if they can show that they are not seeking to associate themselves with the games. In Sydney, any use of certain combinations of words, such as “summer games” was banned where used to suggest sponsorship or other support. We wanted to adopt a much more common-sense   approach, and also to learn a little from Sydney. That is why we have suggested the current wording in the Bill.

The hon. Member for Bath made a point about news reporting and current affairs. If he reads amendment No. 93, he will find that it—particularly subsection (b)—covers the points that he made. The hon. Gentleman should be satisfied with that.

Maria Miller (Basingstoke, Conservative)

Will the Minister, for the sake of complete clarity, comment on the two phrases that I used. If I understand him correctly, “Visit London with us in 2012” and “Keep active and play outdoor games this summer” would not contravene the Bill, because they are not directly associating themselves with the Olympics. Am I correct?

Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I have been told not to get into interpretations of words, but all my officers are nodding to say that the hon. Lady is right. I was told not to get into interpretation of words because those interpretations would be quoted back at me afterwards, and I am a good Minister, who listens to his civil servants. However, the answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that she is correct in her interpretation.

May I put one further point on the record? The list will create only an evidential presumption, not a presumption of guilt. People have only to provide evidence to the contrary. It is important to remember that there will be no blanket ban on using particular words or phrases. However, we believe it is also important to have a list, to try to help LOCOG and the public to understand what constitutes an infringement. I ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.

Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 89, in schedule 3, page 37, line 8, at end insert

‘(subject to any direction under section 15 of the Olympic Symbol etc. Protection Act 1995 (c. 32) as applied by paragraph 10 below).’.

Jimmy Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment Nos. 90 to 92.

Government amendment No. 94

Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

Paragraph 5 of schedule 3 requires LOCOG to keep and publish a register of all those people who are authorised to make an association with the London Olympics. Amendments Nos. 90 and 92 allow LOCOG to make authorisations on a class basis. That is designed to allow for the possibility of blanket authorisations. For instance, LOCOG might want to allow schools to associate themselves with the games in some way. By allowing LOCOG to register a blanket exemption, it would not have to register every school in the country as authorised to make an association with the games. That should mean that LOCOG is not weighed down by unnecessary bureaucracy in maintaining the register. It also means in that example that all schools in the United Kingdom can be given the authorisation to associate themselves with the games in a quick and efficient manner, without fear of having contravened the London Olympics association right.

Hugh Robertson (Shadow Minister (Sport), The Family & Culture, Media & Sport; Faversham and Mid Kent, Conservative)

The Minister is talking about one of the matters that has caused the greatest worry among sports clubs that are members of the Olympic body, which wish to promote events to raise money for the London 2012 games. Will the Minister give them an assurance that they will not contravene the Bill?

Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I give that assurance. However, I wish to make sure that I am absolutely right so I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it. Obviously, I wish to give encouragement to as many clubs and organisations as possible. The hon. Member for Bath has listed three good events that have happened this week. I wish to add a fourth to that list. The Olympic lottery is going extremely well. It has just banked its third million pounds into the account. It had to go for another reprint because it sold out of the first set of   scratch cards quicker than it anticipated. It could hand back £1 million. Who knows? However, we shall come to that in about 2011 and onwards.

Amendment No. 91 also makes changes to the way in which the register of approved authorisations works. Specifically, it removes the requirement for LOCOG to publish as part of the register the terms and conditions of any authorisation that it has granted. We are proposing to remove the paragraph because we fear that it may mean that LOCOG would be unwittingly forced to publish commercially confidential details of the contracts that it held with its official sponsors about the nature of its authorisations.

Amendments Nos. 89 and 94 make amendments to the schedule to ensure that the provisions of the Olympic Symbol etc. Protection Act 1995 that are applied under paragraph 10 are applied to the schedule appropriately.

Maria Miller (Basingstoke, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 105, in schedule 3, page 38, line 10, at end insert—

‘7AThe London Olympics association right is not infringed by the use of any representation relating to sponsorship of any past, present of future—

(a)Olympic competitor or team,

(b)venue for the London Olympics, or

(c)sports governing body.’.

Jimmy Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 106, in schedule 3, page 38, line 10, at end insert—

‘7AThe London Olympics association right is not infringed by any non-commercial or voluntary activity associated in any way with the United Kingdom’s role as the host nation of the London Olympics.’.

Maria Miller (Basingstoke, Conservative)

It is our contention that the existing definition of the London Olympics association right is so broad that a reference to any sports team or athlete might be regarded as an infringement of that association right. The Bill would, in effect, prohibit current and future athletes from having individual merchandising deals in 2012 with anyone other than an Olympic sponsor. The appearance of that individual athlete or team could alone be sufficient to create an association in the public mind with the Olympics, thereby infringing the London Olympics association right.

We doubt that it was the Government’s intention to deter individual athletes or teams from the right to enter free-standing sponsorships and advertising ventures, but fear that that is exactly what the Bill will do. Furthermore, clubs might be seeking to raise money on behalf of athletes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) has already said. They fear that they would be contravening the Bill in taking such action.

From a different perspective, many businesses that could not afford to be sponsors of the games but sponsored individual athletes and teams would want to realise the true value of those important sponsorship agreements—important to the businesses and to our sportsmen and women—by using images of and references to their sponsorship in sales literature or other merchandise. If such sponsors achieved no exposure whatsoever, there would be little benefit in continuing their support. Deserving individuals and teams might thereby be deprived of much-needed income.

Let us be realistic. The sponsorship of our athletes is a vital component of their success, and businesses will continue that sponsorship only if there is a demonstrable benefit. Under the Bill, we could see such a benefit evaporate. Will the Minister help me specifically to understand why the legislation will not have the effect that I have outlined? The loss of revenue streams would not be at all helpful to the preparation of individual athletes and teams in the run-up to 2012. I am sure that that is not the Government’s intention, but I fear that it will be the outcome of the legislation as it is drafted.

The objective of amendment No. 105 is to provide clarity so that individuals and teams can continue to benefit from sponsorship. We know that that is important; to deprive them of it could have a significant impact on our ability to compete. The Millennium dome is likely to be an Olympic venue, but is now sponsored by O2. What would be the situation for that structure? The amendment is aimed at addressing such situations as they arise. Sports governing bodies are included so that any funding that they may receive from a non-Olympic sponsor would also not be put at risk as a consequence of the existence of the London Olympics association right.

Amendment No. 106 is vital, although I am a little reassured by the fact that LOCOG can issue blanket exemptions. That has gone some way to making me feel a little easier about the issue. There is an enormous opportunity for our nations as we approach the Olympic games. We have talked about the need to ensure wider economic involvement, but our communities need to get involved more widely as well. Risk-averse organisations could well be put off celebrating and involving themselves in the games, given the Bill’s specific penalties for associating with the games.

I hope that schools in my constituency of Basingstoke will be running events that link in with the Olympic games, perhaps involving students in the history of the event. If blanket exemptions are to be given to schools, other organisations could also be   included. Local town and village fetes might decide to show their pride in Britain by hosting Olympic-themed annual summer fundraising events. We want that to be done, and even encouraged, to ensure that people remain wedded to the idea of making the Olympics a great success.

I am concerned that under the Bill the right of association and the prohibitive list of words would preclude such activities. I know that careful volunteers in my constituency may not want to risk incurring such a hefty fine. Although I have listened to the Minister’s promises today, the provisions in the Bill still make clear that the risk could be there. As I say, organisations staffed by volunteers might well not want to take such risks. We need some clear assurances today on this matter so that we do not deprive our country of the opportunity given by a great British event, which all constituencies throughout the country will want to celebrate.

Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

The hon. Lady has just painted a picture in which the whole of the UK will be shackled and unable to enjoy the Olympics. Having a wet blanket placed over the whole of the UK and saying, “No! You cannot use the word ‘Olympics’; you will not raise funds, but sit on your chair and obey” to every little fete, school and sports club would hardly help the sponsors. The idea is daft. The picture that has just been painted is as far from the truth as one could believe.

What the sponsors want, besides having a fair crack of the whip and protecting that, is for everybody in the country to buy Coca-Cola or whatever and to celebrate 2012. The image that has just been described is of nobody doing that. Well, that is daft. The people who will do the determining are on LOCOG, which is chaired by one of the hon. Lady’s colleagues, Lord Coe. It is daft to argue that the very people on the team that won us the Olympics in 2012 and showed more imagination about winning the games than probably any other bid in the Olympics history will turn into such dragons, and dampen every school and club in the UK. It does not work like that, and it is not going to work like that.

The amendments are daft. Amendment No. 105 creates exemptions to the London Olympic association right in relation to existing or future sponsorship of venues, individuals, teams or governing bodies. Primary legislation is not the place to make such provision, as it cuts across the existing relationships that the British Olympic Association has with members of Team GB and sports governing bodies, and the agreements that LOCOG has reached with venues owners over branding and association rights.

Amendment No. 106 carves out a specific exemption in relation to non-commercial or voluntary activity. I understand the purpose behind the amendment, and I think that I responded to it in the previous group of amendments. It is something that we have also considered in relation to the London Olympic   association right. However, creating such an exemption, especially in this way, could create a very wide defence that might be open to abuse.

I accept that there is an issue to address. We have sought to address the issue by way of LOCOG authorisations, which are provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5 of schedule 3. The amendments that we have just debated in relation to the register of authorised users will allow LOCOG to make class exemptions. I guess that all the areas that the hon. Lady has brought before the Committee would receive class exemptions. The exemptions were brought forward with certain school schemes in mind. However, they could be adapted to deal with other types of class authorisations.

LOCOG is already in the process of granting individuals and organisations appropriate rights to use Olympic words under the OSPA, and it has provided assurances that it is keen to act appropriately and proportionately. Although I understand some of the concerns, LOCOG does not have the intentions that have been mentioned, and it will not carry them out. As I said, the only body that can bring a prosecution is LOCOG. It is, as it were, the UK body for the IOC, and it will act accordingly.

LOCOG is in the game of making 2012 one of the most successful games in the Olympic movement’s history. That will not happen if schools and sports clubs do not make up the whole of the Olympics. We have been looking for 70,000 volunteers, and they will come from many sports clubs and schools. The measures are about generating an atmosphere and protecting a major income stream.

Maria Miller (Basingstoke, Conservative)

For clarification, is the Minister implying that any organisation can apply for an exemption? Will that not cause an extraordinary amount of paperwork for the relevant organisation? Rather than do that, why not include in the legislation an exemption for non-commercial voluntary bodies, which, as the Minister said, need to be behind the Bill for it to succeed? Why not make the list inclusive rather than exclusive, and include all voluntary and non-commercial organisations? Surely that would save a great deal of money, time, paperwork and yet more red tape.

Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

There is concern that such a provision could be open to wider abuse. We have taken the other course, and I am sure that LOCOG is using its powers efficiently. Already, as I understand it, we are exempting schools per se. If the governing bodies want their clubs to be exempted, I have no doubt that LOCOG will consider them throughout the country. It will not be hard for LOCOG to do that.

We believe that we are protecting both the big income stream that comes from sponsors and advertising, ensuring that we get the maximum participation from the grass roots and ensuring also that there is sport in schools throughout the country. We think that we have that balance right, and that by working with LOCOG we can make things come right in practice.

Maria Miller (Basingstoke, Conservative)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 65, in schedule 3, page 38, line 11, leave out from ‘by’ to end of line 13 and insert—

‘any editorial usage, or representation in the course of reporting events forming part of the London Olympics or in connection with the provision of information, reporting of news or current affairs or for the purposes of criticism or review, by any means or in any medium without limitation.’.

Jimmy Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 93.

Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

We are now addressing paragraph 8 of schedule 3. It currently states:

“The London Olympics association right is not infringed by the use of a representation in the course of publishing or broadcasting a report of a sporting or other event forming part of the London Olympics.”

In response to various representations, the Government have tabled an amendment to that paragraph—amendment No. 93. It states that not only can someone be exempt if they give a report of something that has happened, but that now, added to that, they will also be exempt if they give out information about what is going to happen, or if they put out an advertisement about a publication about what is going to happen. Therefore, there has been an extension, and I welcome that.

However, when the Minister responded to an earlier question of mine, he was passed a note from his officials. He said that Government amendment No. 93 covered all the issues I referred to in the letter that I read out earlier. I said that what the Minister had written in his letter is that most forms of critique or review would not form an association. However, although his amendment refers to “a report” of an event, “broadcasting information about” something and “an advertisement”, it does not refer to a critique or a review. Therefore, if a newspaper wishes to comment on what is going on, I do not see where that is covered.

The letter also says that the Minister will deal with issues to do with athletes’ performances, for example. I do not see that that is covered either. Someone might want to write an article about a particular athlete.

I do not see that all of the things that the Minister said in his letter were going to be covered are actually being covered. Therefore, I would have thought that the Minister would have preferred amendment No. 65, which covers all the events that he says will be covered, rather than his amendment, which does not cover all the events and eventualities that he assured us would be covered.

I have tabled my amendment for the Minister; I have done it for him. It is better than his amendment, and I hope that he will accept it, and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I am going to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. We are coming towards the end of consideration in Committee, and he thought that he was going to get a major concession, but unfortunately for him that is not going to happen.

The purpose of Government amendment No. 93 is to provide an appropriate defence for journalism and news reporting in relation to the London Olympics association right. As with the Olympics association right, we think that a defence must be available for journalists so that they can publish reports about the Olympics, regardless of whether they are about its sporting competitions or other events associated with the games. However, while providing that defence, we still need to protect against the gratuitous use of the Olympics word and symbols in journalists’ reports that do not accord with normal journalistic practice.

Government amendment No. 93 ensures that the journalistic defence is not limited to retrospective news reporting. It provides a defence for people who, for example, broadcast a programme or publish a report on the progress of construction in relation to the London Olympics, or who conduct any other current affairs work. Government amendment No. 93 also creates a defence for advertising any such journalistic or current affairs work.

Amendment No. 65 seems to have a similar purpose to that of amendment No. 93. In providing a defence to journalistic work, amendment No. 65 also mentions criticism, review and current affairs broadcasting. Such journalistic works will be able to rely on the fact that such work does not create an association with the London Olympics and therefore that right will not be infringed by virtue of amendment No. 93. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is unnecessary, as most critiques or reviews would never be an association. With that explanation I hope that he will be reassured and have the confidence to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister has explained why it is crucial that he should accept the amendment. He has just told us that most reviews or criticisms would not form an association. By his own words he acknowledged that some reviews and criticisms could form an association, in which case the journalists concerned, the newspaper and the television outlet are likely to be affected, so they will not be certain whether they are covered. That will seriously inhibit editorial content. Why is a perfectly acceptable formulation developed for the Sydney games and continued elsewhere, no longer acceptable to the Government? If the Minister can give me a good reason why they are choosing to remove the opportunity to put in the important words “criticism or review”, perhaps I would be satisfied; I have heard nothing from the Minister to be satisfied about.

While I have the floor and am waiting for the Minister to read out his latest information, will he assure us that publishing and broadcasting definitions will cover all known platforms and potential future outlets—for example, the internet, mobile phones and so on? I should have raised that matter earlier and I   apologise for not doing so. If the Minister will respond to my points I can decide whether to withdraw the amendment.

Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

The answer to the last question is yes, and indeed to the first point that the hon. Gentleman raised. The matter was under serious discussion when the Bill was being drafted and counsel’s advice was that we did not need to make an amendment to specify critique or review. I will check with parliamentary counsel about what has been said in the debate in order to be reassured. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s point but we believe that amendment No. 93 covers it. I will write to members of the Committee when my officials have spoken to parliamentary counsel.

Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I am most grateful for the Minister’s offer. I assume that in the letter he will be able to give some examples of those instances that do not fit into the category of “most”, so that those responsible for the production of broadcasts or published items of one type or another will have an indication of the sort of things that they had better not be doing that could get them into difficulty. It would help to know what they are allowed to do and what not. With the assurance that the Committee will receive such a letter and, presumably, will have a further opportunity to debate the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.