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)
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.