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