HC Deb 14 July 1995 vol 263 cc1200-14

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 21, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections").

9.37 am
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2, 12, 14 and 15.

Mr. Winterton

The House will be aware that the Bill makes provision for the use for commercial purposes of the controlled representations: (i) the symbol of the International Olympic Committee, consisting of five interlocking rings, (ii) the motto of the International Olympic Committee, 'Citius, altius, fortius', and (iii) the words 'Olympiad', 'Olympiads', 'Olympian', 'Olympians', 'Olympic', 'Olympics' and translations.

The Bill will give the person to be designated by the Secretary of State as the proprietor of the Olympics association right, the British Olympic Association, exclusive right to use the controlled representation during the course of trade. It creates a commercial property right that I would describe as a regime similar to that of the Trade Marks Act 1994 relating to registered trade marks, and will enable the BOA to raise revenue for British athletes for sponsorship with the benefit of statutory protection.

The Bill also gives effect to commitments made by the Government to the IOC to introduce legislation to protect the Olympic symbol, motto and protected words in the United Kingdom. Such statutory protection is a precondition of any future bid for the Olympic games in the United Kingdom. It is unfortunate that that protection did not exist when Manchester, a city close to my heart, made a bid, sadly unsuccessful, to host the games a few years hence.

On Second Reading my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) raised valid concerns about the scope of the Olympics association right and its application to small businesses such as pizza parlours, butchers, garages and restaurants which call themselves "Olympic". My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage, whom I congratulate on his promotion, undertook to consider whether the bid affords sufficient protection to businesses whose use of a controlled representation could not be said to exploit an Olympics association. The amendments were moved in the other place by the Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage, my noble Friend Lord Astor.

The House can feel happy that the Bill gives adequate protection to users of a controlled representation. Clause 4(9), (11) and (12) protect the right to continue the existing use of the controlled representation for the purposes of an undertaking or as part of a business or company name. The proprietors of businesses referred to on Second Reading, such as "Olympic" restaurants, need have no concerns about the Bill.

Clause 4(6) provides that the Olympics association right is not infringed where one of the protected words is used in a way that does not create an association with the Olympic games or the Olympic movement or draw on qualities of speed, excellence, strength or other qualities that are associated with the Olympic games or the Olympic movement. Members of the Greek community who open small restaurants or florists may be able, on the facts of the case, to rely on clause 4(6) to defend an action for infringement by the proprietor of the Olympic association right by claiming that the use creates an association with their homeland and not with the Olympic movement.

The Secretary of State has power under clause 14 to give directions to the British Olympic Association with respect to the exercise of the Olympics association right. That is specifically intended to give a person who alleges that he was unfairly refused the right to use a controlled representation after the Bill comes into force, the right to approach the Secretary of State. However, there is scope for identifying those areas where it would be fair to allow someone to use a controlled representation so as to avoid the burden of persons having to apply to the BOA for its use or risk inadvertent infringement of the Olympic association right.

The Lords amended the Bill to allow the Secretary of State, by order made by statutory instrument, to provide that certain categories of uses of a controlled representation would not constitute an infringement of the Olympics association right.

If the Bill is enacted, the Secretary of State, with the assistance of the British Olympic Association, will seek to identify areas in which use of a controlled representation may properly be allowed without at all jeopardising the British Olympic Association's commercial interests. It is difficult to anticipate where the need may arise, but the provision is broad enough to allow the Secretary of State to permit uses of a controlled representation.

For example, he could permit the use for the purposes of new subsidiary companies of established companies; in the incorporation of a company under its former business name; for the purpose of a certain class of business, for example florists or small restaurants; and for specified trade uses for the purpose of an undertaking. For example, that would cover use in a campaign against the Olympic games, an issue that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on Second Reading.

The amendments will enable the Secretary of State to authorise fair and non-exploitative uses of controlled representations such as those cited by hon. Members on Second Reading. The amendments are entirely acceptable to me as the sponsor of the Bill. They improve the measure and I commend them to the House.

9.45 am
Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)

I declare an interest as I am a member of the British Olympic Association and I have been Minister for Sport three times in my career. This is an important day for sport and it is appropriate that such a Bill is being debated. The amendments will make an already good Bill an excellent one.

The important point to bring home is that the Bill will give sport an important future opportunity. Later today, we shall be able to consider the announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport about developments for England and Wales, while the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), will deal with developments in Scotland. Sport will be debated next week and that is important because we have few opportunities to debate it. The country will welcome that debate.

The amendments tidy up an important section of the Bill, which we all support. I have the highest regard for Mr. Craig Reedie, the chairman of the British Olympic Association. It will welcome the amendments because they clarify the Bill and remove any worries about the original drafting curtailing personal interests. The Bill, whose sponsor is my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), is supported by a large number of hon. Members in all parts of the House. I wish it well.

Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester)

It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). I understand that that was his first Back-Bench speech since his resignation from the Government. He gave distinguished service in government, and it is a privilege to follow him.

It is important that the House always seeks to stand up for the rights of the weak against potential exploitation by the strong. I suppose that that is what is at the heart of my continuing nagging concerns about the Bill and the amendments, especially amendment No. 12, a new clause that seeks to address concerns that were expressed on Second Reading. The other amendments in the group are consequential on that amendment.

I suspect that most hon. Members who take part in the debate will pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for introducing the Bill, and I join them in that. He has done a great service to the House and the Olympic movement and I hope that the Bill will make speedy progress to the statute book.

I regret that I shall have to speak at greater length than I had hoped, because I was unable to contact the British Olympic Association during the week to discuss my concerns with them in person. That was for the entirely understandable reason that most of its senior members were at the European youth olympics in Bath. I am delighted to see from today's edition of The Daily Telegraph that Britain's under-18 hockey team came from behind to beat Ireland 3–2 in the final yesterday. We urge our athletes on to great success in Bath.

I declare a kind of interest in the debate because I am an adviser to Visa International, which is a major sponsor of the Olympic games internationally. However, I make it clear that I have not discussed this matter with Visa and I do not know its views on the Bill or the amendments. My suspicion, however, is that, like any commercial sponsor of the Olympic games, sponsors would welcome both the Bill and any amendments that sought to clarify the way in which these powers can be used, because it is clearly important for sponsors to ensure that their sponsorship is protected. It is not just a question of protecting the rights of the Olympic movement or of the British Olympic Association. It is also very much a matter of ensuring that we protect sponsors' rights, otherwise that sponsorship will not be forthcoming. We have heard from my hon. Friend and in speeches in another place of the importance of those funds for Britain's athletes.

I want to make it clear that, in raising my concerns today, I share the basic support for the Bill's general thrust. Any additional assistance that is forthcoming to Britain's athletes, wherever they take the international stage, but particularly when it comes to the Olympics, is welcome, but how we fund the British Olympic Association raises important questions, and we must ensure that our athletes' rights to have adequate funds for their performances overseas are balanced against the need to safeguard the interests of this country's commercial organisations. My concern is whether the new clause and the group of amendments go far enough to protect their interests.

It is interesting to note in The Daily Telegraph today that the Sports Council has announced additional funding—another £1.25 million—for Britain's athletes competing at the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta, but I note that a spokesman for the Sports Council says that that money doesn't fully bridge the gap but I hope the lead that we've given might persuade some commercial organisations to do something.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying my patience somewhat. What has that to do with the amendments under consideration?

Mr. Luff

I am trying to explain the importance of ensuring that the rights of this country's organisations are absolutely protected. Let me explain more. We could be gathered up in a great feeling of good will towards the Olympics and our athletes without considering carefully enough and in sufficient detail the direct impact of the Bill on the organisations that we need to ensure are protected, particularly small businesses.

I have heard many reassurances from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield during his opening remarks. I want to raise some additional concerns and I should like to hear those same reassurances from my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that those organisations are properly protected. I was simply seeking to set the picture about the Bill's importance and to reassure the House that I in no way wished to undermine the effectiveness of the Bill, whose importance I genuinely understand. I share the view that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield expressed about that.

My concern about the amendments is born simply out of the concern to protect the Bill's impact on some specific commercial activities. In another place, we heard Lord Brabazon of Tara express his support for the Bill in almost evangelical terms. My concern is that, because we are so anxious not to undermine the Bill's effect, we do not give the amendments sufficient scrutiny and ensure that they have the right impact and that they are the right amendments. On reflection, I wish that I had tabled alternative amendments that would have met my concern.

Commerce has rights too, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said during his excellent Second Reading speech, which prompted, as I understand it, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to bring forward amendments to this Bill in another place. I understand that this group of amendments attempts to deal with those concerns, but I have a number of worries about it.

The powers that we are giving to the Secretary of State to act in respect of those concerns seem to be clumsy and discretionary. They rely on the use of statutory instruments. I worry that the Government will be prepared to bring forward a statutory instrument for consideration by this House only if commercial interests' concerns are extremely clear cut. Frankly, I am also concerned that there may be a certain reluctance in the Department of National Heritage to exercise those powers at all, so I am looking for a reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister of State that there will be a genuine determination by his Department to use the powers that this new clause will give him.

We have to be careful when we give powers to bodies that are outside the control of this House and make certain that the House has adequate powers of redress if those powers are misused. Earlier this week, I spoke on the Charities (Amendment) Bill. We were doing a similar thing with the charity commissioners. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield has been consistently concerned about the powers that we hand to the European Union when the House is not able properly to control those powers. He is right and it is understandable to have those concerns. My concern, however, is that we are debating this new clause only because the Bill is a trifle over-ambitious. Will he consider—I think that procedurally it is now impossible—my preferred route forward, which is slightly to reduce the Bill's ambitious nature?

I fully understand that the Olympic movement's symbols are effectively trademarked as the most powerful protection, but other organisations use them in a variety of formats. The Public Relations Consultants Association uses them in an extended format on the front page of its annual report. Can it look to the powers in the new clause to ensure that its historic use—I have the report here and I shall show it to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield—will not be caught by the Bill's powers?

I understand the need to protect the motto of the Olympic Association but I suspect that this new clause will really come into effect when we debate the use of specific protected words in this Bill. This is where the real difficulty comes and where my concerns lie. I have no problem with the Bill protecting "Olympiad" and "Olympiads" because I understand that they are specific terms, used only in connection with the modern Olympic games. Similarly, I understand that the word "Olympics" relates entirely to the Olympics games. That is reasonable. For me, however, the problems come with other protected words, especially "Olympian", "Olympians" and "Olympic". We must be careful about constraining the use of words that have more general, historic and geographical connotations. I suspect that this is the way in which we will look to the Secretary of State to exercise his powers under the new clause if it is accepted by the House today.

I come from Worcestershire. I worry what would happen if we gave Lea and Perrins the power to control the use of the words "Worcestershire" and "Worcester" in relation to sauce, or if we gave Royal Worcester Porcelain the power to control the use of "Worcester". Although I have enormous admiration for those two companies.

I would speak against any attempt to do so. It is right that we should express our concern about the power that we are giving the British Olympic Association to control the use of those two words and that we assure and satisfy ourselves absolutely that, under this new clause, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have adequate powers to deal with an over-mighty use of these words by the BOA.

I shall not weary the House with precise definitions of those two words, but it is worth remembering that all the dictionaries that I have considered give a wide variety of meanings, both for "Olympian" and "Olympic" which go well beyond the Olympic movement. The first definition of "Olympian" given in the dictionary is: Of or belonging to Olympus; heavenly, celestial. Again, the first definition of "Olympic" is: Of or belonging to Olympus the place. Those are matters of history and geography, not just games.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire)

Surely my hon. Friend's points do not apply to any use of the words if they will not be confused with the aims of the British Olympic Association: to provide teams and compete in the Olympic games. He gives examples about Worcester sauce and Royal Worcester Porcelain and comments that he would defend the use of the word "Worcester". Surely he would argue that, if someone came along and produced a Worcestershire sauce in competition with Lea and Perrins, it would be wrong and in breach of the law, but if someone were to produce a Worcester soup or something similar, which has nothing to do with the original product, it would not be a breach? Similarly, the point is that these amendments from another place make it clear that his concerns would not apply because restaurants and others have nothing to fear. The amendments protect only the British Olympic Association from other organisations that might take funds away from it in relation to the Olympic games.

Mr. Luff

I hear what my hon. Friend has to say and I shall not be drawn into the debate about Worcester sauce, which has real problems about copyright around the world, but some remarks were made in another place during the debate about the effect of the new clause which give me a scintilla of doubt that his confidence is accurate.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham got into a certain difficulty at Second Reading by giving examples of the use of those words by current businesses in a London telephone directory, one of those rare occasions when reading the telephone directory for the record was probably in order. I do not intend to do so today but I have considered those and I see that a number of companies have chosen to use those words because they believe it is useful in their business activity. My concern is that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield discussed grandfather rights, where a company already uses the word, there may be a real desire by the BOA to prevent new companies that also think that there will be a benefit from using this word when establishing themselves. I seek that particular reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister.

On Second Reading in the other place, Lord Astor—the then Minister—set out the Government's position clearly. Lord Brabazon, in reply, expressed severe reservations about accepting the amendment we are now debating. Indeed, he expressed disappointment that there should be any amendments at all to the Bill. I wonder what briefing led him to that view. Did the BOA express concern about the amendment and suggest that it might constrain its power to act to protect its sources of income?

10 am

I recognise that clause 4 provides a number of protections, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) rightly pointed out in his speech. However, what concerns me is that Lord Brabazon referred to the new protection offered by amendment No. 12—the new clause—as a power that he hoped would be used as an exception rather than a rule. The amendment seems to have been offered rather grudgingly by the Bill's sponsor, who hopes that it will not be used. I suggest that it is a power that needs to be used, possibly quite freely.

I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries is a member of the BOA. My difficulty is that the BOA, rightly and properly, has as its primary objective the promotion of sport. Those who will exercise the powers in the Bill have a strong sporting bent; they are not commercial individuals whose job is to protect the commercial base of the country. One of them, I am pleased to note, is the former physical education teacher at my old school, Windsor grammar. However, in general, and having looked in detail at the curriculum vitaes of those who will exercise the Bill's powers, I have no confidence that their prime purpose will be to protect commerce; it will, of course, be to protect sport. That is why we need the additional powers given to the Secretary of State in the new clause. I accept that the individuals concerned at the BOA are trustworthy people, but they are not very commercial. Their first priority is bound to be sport.

I am doubtful whether we even need the Bill at all, given that the BOA says in its documentation that its primary tool for raising funds for athletes is not the words and symbols that will be protected by the Bill, but its own marketing symbol that unites the Olympic symbols with the union jack in a roundel. It describes its need to protect that symbol as its principal way of raising commercial revenues. The BOA does not directly exploit Olympic symbols, words and phrases, just its own adaptation of them. That is why it is so necessary that the new clause should give the Secretary of State adequate powers to protect commercial interests from the BOA's unreasonable use of its power.

There is another point about who should exercise the powers in the new clause. As I understand it, it will be the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I understand that because the Bill is about sports men and women. However, as the new clause is designed not to protect sports men and women, but to protect commercial interests, it might be better to give the power to a different Secretary of State than one whose prime motive, honourably exercised, is to protect sports men and women. It might be more appropriate to give the power to the President of the Board of Trade or even the Deputy Prime Minister, given that he now has responsibility for competitiveness and deregulation. Their motives in exercising the power would be rather different from that of the Secretary of State for National Heritage. They will be concerned to protect the individuals whom I understand the new clause exists to protect.

I am looking for a number of specific reassurances. Given that the powers will be exercised by the Secretary of State for National Heritage, can my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that they will be exercised in a pro-enterprise way and that the Department will not uncritically accept the views of the BOA? Will the Secretary of State consult her colleagues in Government before exercising the powers to ensure that the BOA is right in resisting any particular application for the introduction of a statutory instrument under the new clause?

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield has already assured us that grandfather rights will be properly protected. Companies operating in or around my constituency already use words or phrases that are protected by the Bill. They may want to expand and set up new subsidiaries. I think that my hon. Friend gave me the assurance that they will be free to do so. However, I want my hon. Friend the Minister to give that same reassurance from the Dispatch Box, so that it has the necessary statutory force.

I also want an assurance that there is no way in which the BOA could use the powers in the Bill to do anything other than protect the literal words. The word "Olympia" is not protected by the Bill. The word "Olympic" is often used to describe size. For example, a local authority may describe its swimming pool as "Olympic-sized". I do not think that the BOA should expect a royalty payment from a local authority every time it described its own swimming pool in that way. Is that an example of the sort of matter that could be covered by a statutory instrument laid under the new clause?

I am left with the uncomfortable feeling that the Bill is cumbersome and complex when it should be quite simple. That sort of thing always sets off alarm bells in my mind. I wonder whether it could not have been more simple. I hope that the powers in the new clause are adequate to deal with the concerns that have been expressed both here and in the other place. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister's response.

Mr. Fabricant

While my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) was speaking, I took the opportunity to pop out and look at a copy of Yellow Pages. However, I resisted the temptation to bring it into the Chamber, as happened on Second Reading—although at that time it was entirely appropriate to do so. I wanted to see whether there were any companies using the words "Olympiad", "Olympiads", "Olympian", "Olympians", "Olympic", "Olympics", and so on as listed in the Bill, that might conflict with the amendments. There were none. All businesses using such word were concerned with photocopying, restaurants, florists and other such activities.

Indeed, that fact was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), whom I congratulate on taking the Bill through its various stages. It is clear that there need be no scintilla of doubt, as expressed in the other place, about the Bill's intentions. I do not envisage the possibility that companies such as those listed in Yellow Pages using the name "Olympic"—even if they are new companies using that name, as existing companies are already protected—would be affected by the Bill.

The whole point of the Bill is to protect the British Olympic Association. This debate is especially interesting for me because I serve on the National Heritage Select Committee and one of the areas we are currently investigating is Olympic bids in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Hon. Members may be interested to know that the Select Committee recently went to Barcelona to examine how the Spanish attracted the Olympic games to their country in 1992. What soon became apparent was the importance of the Olympic symbols for use by their local Olympic committee to raise money for local athletes. After all, is not that what the Bill is all about? Surely it is intended to ensure that there will be adequate funding for the British Olympic Association to send teams to Atlanta. The Select Committee will be going to Atlanta this summer to investigate how it attracted the Olympic games.

Indeed, we need to question whether it is even worth trying to attract the games to the United Kingdom. Given that Manchester spent a great deal of money on its Olympic bid but received only seven votes, we must question whether it is worth competing and whether it is worth the games coming to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Blackpool, South)

As the chairman of our party's sports committee, and as today I have the honour to wear the Olympic bid tie for the Manchester bid, I have to tell my hon. Friend that although I agree with a number of his points about the amendments, the Manchester bid was enormously important in terms of increasing confidence in Britain as a whole and in the north-west in particular. The city of Manchester has benefited enormously from its Olympic bid.

Mr. Fabricant

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) makes an interesting point. I would not wish to prejudge the findings of the National Heritage Select Committee. Before you rightly tell me off, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am rather drifting away from the amendments—I invite my hon. Friend, who has played an active and important role on the Back Benches as chairman of the Conservative sports committee, to attend the National Heritage Select Committee meeting when we interview the gentlemen from Manchester. They will include, I believe, Sir Robin Scott—

Mr. Gyles Brandreth (City of Chester)

Sir Robert Scott.

Mr. Fabricant

Yes, Sir Robert Scott, who led the Manchester bid. Robin Scott is a previous controller of BBC Radio 1.

I have no reservations about the amendments. They strengthen the Bill. I accept to some small degree the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) that the use of statutory instruments may be a clumsy way of making amendments. In practice, I cannot see why statutory instruments would be needed because, as has been plainly pointed out already, there are so many industries that use the terms and symbols involved which cannot be confused with the aims of British Olympic Association and therefore would not be diverting money away from it.

I want this country to succeed at the Olympic games. We invented so many sports which are not in the Olympic games such as cricket, football—I am not sure whether football is in the games, but I think not—and tennis. We invent sports but do not seem to succeed in them. That is why I was so delighted with this morning's news and delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister on television this morning talking about the Prime Minister's £100 million to promote sport in the United Kingdom. If East Germany could win so many gold medals with a population of only 18 million, how come a nation of 58 million active and fit people, as we are, is so unable to win Olympic medals in such profusion?

I support anything that can be done to promote the BOA and sport. I believe that the Lords amendments will strengthen not weaken the Bill.

Mr. Peter Atkinson

I join in giving a cautious welcome to the amendments although I share many of the reservations that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) outlined.

When we last debated the issue, one or two Opposition Members who are not in their seats today accused me of filibustering to delay progress in debating a subsequent Bill. That allegation was set in stone by the BBC on television news that night and prompted some 600 letters to me, mostly abusive and some containing more than letters. However, that is part of the life of a politician.

It may not have been a spectacular Bill or one that caught the headlines like the Bill discussion of which was to have followed, but it was nevertheless very important both for the British Olympic Association and for the many small businesses who use the name or similar names and who were—and still are to a degree—concerned that their businesses could be affected by the legislation. It was that concern, which was referred to by my noble Friend Viscount Astor in another place, that prompted the Government to introduce the amendments, which, I believe, go some of the way towards meeting those concerns.

It is quite wrong that Bills are simply nodded through the House. It is wrong that we should rubber stamp Bills and leave it to their Lordships to sort them out later. That is wrong and an abuse of the House. When Bills come before the House, we have the right to debate them even if they are less interesting and headline-worthy that those that appear subsequently on the Order Paper. It is the luck of the draw on a Friday.

I seek the assurances that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester asked for because I share some of his concern that we have a rather awkward system in which the Secretary of State, in negotiations with the British Olympic Association, will determine whether the use of the word is in breach of what is being proposed. With that guarded welcome, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on the Bill. I am sure that now that the wrinkles have been ironed out it will be very valuable asset to the Olympics and our Olympic teams.

10.15 am
Mr. Tom Pendry (Stalybridge and Hyde)

I intervene briefly to say that I think this is a very important day for the British Olympic Association. I am not referring to this glossy document, "Sport: Raising the Game", which we will no doubt be able to debate on Wednesday, as the Minister said. We shall see whether it is important for the Olympic movement then.

This Bill is the end of a very long road. Over the years, many of us have made representations to bring such legislation before the House. Indeed, in November last year, the Prime Minister wrote to me to say that he would introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allowed. We all know what that means. It is therefore very good that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) took the initiative to bring the Bill before us and I think that it is going to be a very important piece of legislation.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

May I publicly thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the support that they have given to the Bill? I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for his interest and the initiatives that he has sought to take in the past. This has been an all-party Bill. I am its sponsor but I pay tribute to the support that I have had from all political parties for the purpose and objectives of the Bill.

Mr. Pendry

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.

The Lords amendments to the Bill clearly provide means by which any possible problems which might arise in the future can be dealt with. The new clause created by amendment No. 12 provides the means by which the Secretary of State could deal with problems by order without the need to return to the House and that should help with unforeseen problems, such as the case of the Olympians.

I am glad that assurances have been forthcoming to the effect that the Olympians in particular will be able to continue using the Olympic symbol. It is a group with altogether altruistic aims representing our community of past Olympic athletes and embodying all that is good about the Olympic spirit and the Olympic family. Under the leadership of Liz Ferris, it continues to encourage fair play in sport and is a valuable source of information and advice and it assists the BOA.

I wish to place that on record, because I am grateful that the Minister has given that guarantee within the context of the Bill. I hope that the amendments are carried, because they certainly make the Bill an even better Bill than it was when it first began its passage in the House. As I said at the start, this is a very good day for the BOA.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

I welcome the Bill and support my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I congratulate him not only on sponsoring the Bill, but on including Northern Ireland in it. It affects us, too, and I share his tribute to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), because I know the role that he played when he was at the Northern Ireland Office, and his subsequent role in the realm of sport.

I long to see the day when our middle-distance runners will again top the field rather than lagging behind. I hope that next week's debate on sport will offer some light not only for Scotland and Wales but for Northern Ireland in the context of raising standards.

The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) referred to Lord Brabazon speaking in an evangelical manner. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman meant evangelical or evangelistic. It was the hon. Member for Worcester who spoke with evangelistic fervour. While he spoke with a quiet voice, he reminded me of the evangelistic preacher who started shouting because his notes said, "Argument weak, shout like hell." The arguments against the Bill were rather weak, and I look forward to it going through with the full support of the House.

Mr. Brandreth

I welcome the amendments but must do so in a subdued mood because of the sad and unexpected news of the death yesterday of my predecessor as the Member of Parliament for City of Chester. Sir Peter Morrison was Chester's champion for 20 years. There are three Cheshire Members of Parliament here today, and I know that they will join me in paying tribute to Sir Peter and in sending condolences to his family.

This is an important day for sport in the United Kingdom. The Bill is a small but important measure. I take this opportunity to salute my hon. Friend the Minister of State, because of all that he is doing to reawaken sport not only at the heart of school life but throughout our culture. We are going to breed Olympic champions in the United Kingdom, and I honestly believe that future generations will look back on the summer of 1995 and think of my hon. Friend the Minister and of the Prime Minister, who together are leading us into a new era of British sport.

The Bill is full of good sense. I think that the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) are unfounded. He will find that, when the Bill becomes an Act, common sense will prevail and that the new clause—or amendment No. 12—will be a useful moderating mechanism.

I am delighted to welcome the amendments and the Bill and excited to think that the Bill will be in place when the Olympic games come to Manchester, as they must, and when all the gold medals are won by true Britons, thanks to the leadership shown by our outstanding Prime Minister and the Minister of State.

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. kin Sproat)

I shall first make one or two general remarks about this group of amendments and then deal with some specific points on which hon. Members asked for reassurance and with those made so lucidly and forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield spoke clearly about the protection that the Bill gives to legitimate businesses users of a controlled representation. No one should be in any doubt—the Bill is not an anti-business measure. I shall deal in a moment with the related points that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) quite properly raised, but I give that general assurance at the outset.

The Bill protects genuine property interests in the controlled representation and gives the British Olympic Association statutory protection for what are, in effect, its trademarks, alongside any common law remedies that it may have. Those who need fear the Bill are those who seek to trade on the reputation of the Olympic games by making money for themselves and depriving the BOA of its life-giving revenue.

It may be helpful if I draw the House's attention briefly to further protection for users of a protective word. Protected words are "Olympiad", " Olympiads", "Olympian", "Olympians", "Olympic" and "Olympics" and their translations. Unlike the exceptions in clause 4(10) to 4(14), they do not depend on existing use at the time the Bill comes into force.

Although I do not agree, hon. Members seem to think that what is said at the Dispatch Box has more force that what is said elsewhere. I am therefore happy to say that clause 4(7) provides that, in the case of the representation of a protected word, the Olympics association right is not infringed by use which creates an association between the Olympic games or the Olympic movement and any person or thing where the association fairly represents a connection between the two, provided that the use is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. Examples of use that might be justified under this clause are an Olympic champion who endorses sports equipment as an "Olympic champion" and a hotelier who advertises accommodation within five minutes' walk of an Olympic games venue. It will also cover incidental reporting of anything to do with the Olympics in day-to-day trade. After all, the Olympics are public events and it is not possible to prevent businesses from making references to them.

Such use, however, would need to be a fair representation of an existing connection. The clause does not, for example, permit a manufacturer to claim that his products have been endorsed by the BOA or the Olympic movement at large if they have not. Likewise, a supplier of widgets could not claim on the basis of a simple supply agreement with the BOA that he is "the" supplier of widgets to the BOA.

Furthermore, the clause 4(7) defence should be available only when the use is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. Among other things, that restricts what is known in the marketing business as "ambush marketing". An example of that would be if the BOA officially endorsed a sportswear manufacturer's products and a rival manufacturer ran an advertising campaign using former Olympic champions in order deliberately to counter the benefits of official endorsement. That is not an honest commercial practice, and anyone who undertakes such an advertising strategy will receive no help from this clause.

My hon. Friends the Members for Worcester and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) are entirely right to say that, even where there is a genuine consensus in the House—as there certainly is in this case—it is not only right but essential that a certain healthy scepticism should be brought to bear on any legislation. I am sure that every hon. Member can think of a number of Bills that were not subject to healthy scepticism or explored sufficiently in the House, and regret that such legislation was too hastily passed. Although I hope that I can provide proper and adequate reassurances for my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, it is extremely important that such matters should be explored.

My hon. Friend spoke of the importance of the funds for sportsmen that will arise from the Bill; that is at the heart of the Bill. I was glad to hear the reference to the Sports Council's further grant of £1.25 million to the Sports Aid Foundation precisely to help our Olympic athletes in their preparation. That is exactly the sort of provision that is either supplementary to, or supplemented by, the provisions in the Bill.

A number of hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), mentioned the sports policy paper which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) waved before us. Incidentally, I thank the hon. Gentleman for that free publicity. One of the main purposes of the policy paper is to do on a larger scale what the Bill seeks to do on a lesser scale, which is to inject more funds into British sports. It is therefore particularly appropriate that we are considering the Bill on the very day that the Government have announced their wider provisions to inject more money into sport at school level and at the championship and elite level.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester sought an assurance that legitimate businesses would not be damaged by the Bill. I can give him that assurance. We shall certainly use the powers that we have under the new clause 12. Appeals can be made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if a business feels that it is being damaged because it believes that the BOA is unfairly and improperly using the powers that the Bill gives it. In that case, the business can appeal to my right hon. Friend who will make a decision.

My hon. Friend was also worried that there might be instances in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage could be thought to be more in favour of the sporting than the enterprise aspect of a case and that, if so, that matter should perhaps be put to another Secretary of State, perhaps the President of the Board of Trade or my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State. Of course, that can be done because, as the House knows, the term "Secretary of State" in a Bill can refer to any Secretary of State. Although, in this context, it would normally be the Secretary of State for National Heritage, it would be easy for the matter to be taken to another Secretary of State, and the Government will decide what is appropriate. That should ally my hon. Friend's fears.

My hon. Friend also asked whether pro-enterprise considerations would be taken fully into account. The answer is yes. The reference to the Secretary of State means any Secretary of State, so it could be the President of the Board of Trade. He asked whether grandfather rights were covered, and the answer is yes. I give my hon. Friend those specific yes, yes, yes assurances.

10.30 am

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) told us—I did not know—that the much-travelled Select Committee on National Heritage proposes to go to Atlanta. I say, not as a joke, that that will be extremely valuable to the Olympic movement, to the British Olympic Association, to the House and to the new United Kingdom Sports Council when it is established on 1 January next year. One of its specific remits is to attract to Britain top international sporting events, of which the Olympic games is possibly the biggest in the world. Therefore, to see exactly how Atlanta did it and what are the costs to that city will be extremely useful. As the youth games at Sheffield produced a pretty big debt burden on the backs of the city fathers for many years to come, it is important that we examine closely all Olympic-related matters. I shall value not only my hon. Friend's personal view when he returns from Atlanta, but the considered views of the Select Committee in summary.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire said that he was in favour of anything that could be done to support sport. He will know that today we are producing a sports policy paper which announces massive injections of money into sport from a number of different sources and the House will have a chance to consider it at greater length next week.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham made a valuable contribution to the Second Reading debate. He was treated extremely unfairly and I very much hope that the BBC will remedy the way in which it treats hon. Members. No doubt unwittingly, it grossly misrepresented the point that my hon. Friend made, as is proven by the fact that we are debating it today. By raising the matter, he caused my Department to decide that something must be done to clarify it, and that is why, for one valuable hour this morning, we discussed that important principle. I pay tribute to the healthy scepticism of my hon. Friend.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde has had much to do with these matters in the past. I certainly echo the thanks expressed to the hon. Gentleman by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. Although I am absolutely certain that, when our marvellous sports policy paper will be discussed at great length next week, the Labour party will find one or two tiny points with which it does not wholly agree, nonetheless I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his genuine support. He is right to exhibit that healthy scepticism that I call upon the House to exhibit towards others—even towards me. I look forward to next week's debate and I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for his supportive attitude.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) welcomed the fact that the Bill will apply to Northern Ireland. I agree with him. He will know from my actions that I believe strongly in that principle. When I constructed the United Kingdom Sports Council, partly out of the old Sports Council, for the first time I specifically included a representative from Northern Ireland, as it is extremely important that Northern Ireland is seen to be part of the United Kingdom is every possible way. That includes sport, and that is why it is in the new United Kingdom Sports Council.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) gave the House some very sad news that I certainly did not know. Judging by the response of other hon. Members, most did not know about the sad death of Sir Peter Morrison, who had been a friend to many of us for many years. I should very much like to join all hon. Members in the condolences that my hon. Friend will pass on to Sir Peter's family.

I welcome Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2, 12, 14 and 15 as general deregulatory measures which will lift from identified classes of business that do not qualify for exception under clause 4 the burden of applying to the BOA for consent to user control representation. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield on the way that he has made his case this morning and on his persistent dedication and good humour in the face of some dilatory frustrations. I welcome the amendments and commend them to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Back to
Forward to