London Olympics Bill |
|
Mr. Caborn: If the hon. Gentleman reflects on the examples of already existing case law and the Town and Country Planning Act, he will find that they are consistent with the explanatory notes. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the application of the law in general, but we are talking about a specific area. I can reassure him with some justification on the basis of what has happened during previous Olympic games. If we found an innocent person in a shop somewhere acting in a way contradictory to the provisions and their case was genuine, no court in this land would prosecute them. Actions would be taken, but not by prosecution. We would ask them to stop the activity. We are considering a relatively short time—the run-up to the Olympic games—and seeking to protect those who are investing huge amounts of money. This is not about changing case law; we are basing our planning on what happens now. We must apply some common sense. I cannot believe that we shall haul before the courts a little old lady who has a shop somewhere because she has used some words that are out of synch with what we are saying. It is ludicrous to think that. This measure is not about that sort of thing; it is aimed at those who want commercially to exploit the 2012 Olympic games. We know what happens at major sporting events—we shall come to ticket touting in a while. We are concerned with catching people who want to make a fast buck out of 2012, not those who advertise legitimately, who exploit the games in the right way, and from whom we receive benefit. That is the situation that we are seeking to protect; we are not going after the little granny who owns the sweet shop at the bottom of the road, in order to haul her before the courts. That would be crazy. Mr. Foster: I am inordinately grateful. Once the Minister gets passionate—we all love to hear him—he puts on record words that are enormously important for the future. Lots of grannies up and down the land will be very grateful to know what he has just said, and for the protection that he has just offered them. I will leave the matter there, but I should like the Minister to reflect on why I still have cause for concern, notwithstanding anything that he has said. I understand the Minister’s motivation, but what he has said could equally apply to almost any other offence in the lexicon of the laws of this land. It is not our intention to prosecute somebody who did not do anything. However, we should consider paragraph 110 of the explanatory notes, which specifically says:
Column Number: 98 The point is that we are proposing a reverse burden approach because it will be difficult for the prosecution to prove anything. We could have that argument about any law. One is guilty until one is proved innocent. That is not the way that I think it should be, and I still have not heard a convincing reason from the Minister. He could use the argument that he has used here in relation to any case, so I hope that we will have an opportunity to come back to the matter at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 20 Enforcement: power of entry Mr. Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 14, line 21, leave out
The amendment ensures that enforcement officers have the powers that they need to prevent unauthorised advertising. At present, clause 20(1)(a) gives enforcement officers the power to enter land in order to prevent unauthorised advertising—including land adjacent to the area where the regulations apply, where a projector has been set up to project images on to land or buildings within the regulated area. However, the clause presently excludes any right of entry or enforcement power where the projector does not project on to other land or buildings but into the sky. We need to close that loophole, so that enforcement officers are not left powerless to act against people who project prominent, unauthorised advertising into the night sky around the Olympic venues. Hugh Robertson: I have three quick questions for the Minister about this clause. The first is that, clearly, it governs the establishment of enforcement officers and their powers of entry. Is the Minister in a position to tell the Committee, on the basis of previous games, what size of enforcement— The Chairman: Order. I advise the hon. Gentleman that if he wants to debate the clause, he will have an opportunity to do so on clause stand part. However, he must wait until the Minister has dealt with his amendment. Hugh Robertson: Thank you. Amendment agreed to. Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Hugh Robertson: Thank you, Mr. Amess. There are three items on which we should welcome some assurance from the Minister. First, can he tell us, on the basis of the experience either in Athens or Sydney, what size the enforcement force will be? How many people are likely to be involved in it? Secondly, how precisely will it co-operate with the police in bringing prosecutions? Thirdly, I should like to confirm what I
Mr. Caborn: I am not in a position this morning to answer those questions specifically, but I can write to the hon. Gentleman and ensure that all three answers are put on to the public record. Question put and agreed to. Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 21 Role of Olympic Delivery Authority Mr. Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 16, line 18, at end insert—
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 50. Mr. Caborn: Regulations made to restrict advertising under clause 19, and street trading under clause 25, will create new offences that need to be prosecuted. Local authorities will be able to prosecute, just as they now prosecute similar offences, such as fly-posting. However, there will be a large number of different authorities involved, with a range of other priorities. Amendment No. 49 would give the Olympic Delivery Authority the specific power of prosecution in relation to clause 19 offences. Amendment No. 50 would give the ODA the specific power of prosecution in relation to clause 25. That should provide a single-focus, co-ordinated approach to prosecutions across Olympic sites throughout England and Wales for the period of the games. Amendment agreed to. Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 22 to 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 26 Enforcement: power of entry Mr. Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in clause 26, page 19, line 25, at end insert—
Column Number: 100 The amendment is a necessary addition to our enforcement powers in relation to street trading. Under clause 26(3) we have provided that, where an enforcement officer removes any article in order to prevent further trading, or for evidence in any potential court proceedings, there is provision to ensure that such articles are returned in a timely and appropriate fashion, where the reasons for seizure no longer justify retention. In addition to those powers, the amendment ensures that where enforcement officers—as opposed to police officers—seize goods, they are required to pass the goods to police as soon as possible. That is to ensure that the Police Property Act applies. That Act provides a procedure whereby the police may apply to dispose of or return seized property, or individuals may reclaim property. That procedure is particularly useful where the ODA, enforcement officers or the police do not have the details of the rightful owner of property, or where there appears to be a question mark over such ownership. Amendment agreed to. Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 27 Role of Olympic Delivery Authority Amendment made: No. 50, in clause 27, page 20, line 27, at end insert—
Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 29 Sale of Tickets Mr. Foster: As subsequent Government amendments cover the same point as amendment No. 12 and are more effective, I shall not proceed with it. 12.15 pmMr. Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 97, in clause 29, page 21, line 23, at end insert—
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 98. Column Number: 101 Mr. Caborn: Amendment No. 98 provides that the offence of ticket touting in clause 29 may be committed outside the UK. The intention is to target internet touting in particular and to provide a deterrent against those minded to move their unlawful business offshore to evade liability. Amendment No. 97 clarifies the position in relation to ticket touting via the internet. It provides internet service providers with defences to ensure that they are not accused unfairly of being an accessory to our new ticket touting offence, while also ensuring that the defences do not allow web companies to turn a blind eye to offences that are being committed via their sites. Such defences are required to provide effective implementation of the e-commerce directive, and are therefore required to ensure that clause 29 complies with EU law. These defences strike the right balance by ensuring that certain internet companies will not be found guilty of an offence when they have unwittingly advertised tickets for sale or have facilitated the sale of tickets, but such companies must act expeditiously to remove any information from their site that contravenes clause 29 in order to avoid liability. We believe that the amendment strikes an appropriate balance between cracking down on people who simply turn a blind eye to offences that they are helping to facilitate, and ensuring that responsible service providers are not unfairly penalised. Amendment agreed to. Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Hugh Robertson: I shall take a few moments of the Committee’s time to explore with the Minister the question of ticket touting, not least because several organisations, which he will know, have approached me and the hon. Member for Bath, as I am sure they have approached the Minister, about the question of ticket touting in the run-up to the 2012 Olympics and the effect that it has on other sports. The Minister will be aware that there are some very powerful arguments in favour of a more general ban than the one proposed in the Bill. There is the question of security. He will know that the cricket authorities are very worried about the security of some of the touring teams that are due to come to these shores in the next few years. There is also the question of public order and extra policing outside the ground, and of the cost to the national governing bodies of sport that must police ticket touting because it is not yet illegal. There is also the knock-on effect that ticket touting has on the availability of tickets for real fans. I am told that there is now a very considerable industry whereby firms speed dial and hold the numbers when tickets are released on the market, thereby denying access to ordinary sports fans. We should also consider the proceeds of crime. The National Criminal Intelligence Service reports that ticket touts are very often part of a much wider criminal operation, and the four sport consortia reckon that ticket touting is now part of a vast organised criminal business. I am told that it can
Mr. Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton, South-East) (Lab): I am sure that the Committee supports the aim of clause 29, which is to ensure that tickets are sold properly and honestly, and that they go to genuine sports fans. The last thing we want is for the Olympic games to be supported by the entire country but for the tickets to be sold in a way that dilutes or erodes that support. The Minister will be familiar with some of the practices of ticket touts. They do not necessarily ask a huge price for the ticket, but may offer a tee-shirt or scarf for a large sum and an ostensibly free ticket. I understand that the clause deals with that problem, not allowing such practices in the selling of Olympic tickets. However, given that we are acting to protect tickets for the games, we have the opportunity to consider some of the touting practices that take place at UK events outwith the Olympics but in Olympic sports. Would it not be a contradiction to take preventive and protective measures for Olympic sports at the Olympic games but to allow such practices to take place at other events? Given that the Minister’s Department is rightly acting to protect the Olympic games, I ask him to elaborate a little on how he proposes dealing with non-Olympic events. Mr. Caborn: Hon. Members were right to say that we have received representations from many sports. The Secretary of State is hosting a meeting on 10 November to talk about ticket touting. We want to start a dialogue between the various sports. Ticket touting is a problem not only for sport: it goes on beyond sport. That is another matter that will have to be factored into a review of the law; we have not ruled it out. What we are doing for the IOC has been forced upon us; that is what we are dealing with now, and I have no doubt that it will be good experience for us when responding to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East said about other sporting events and the wider issue of ticket touting. There is no doubt that touting happens. One only has to look at the prices on eBay for tickets to the last test match to see what goes on. It was the first time that tickets had sold out for all five days, and tickets for the fifth day were getting huge prices on eBay. From my point of view, as a Sports Minister, that money is going out of the game. A lot of that money would have gone back into the game if the extra money paid for the tickets had been part of the game’s revenue stream. Column Number: 103 We have to explore a number of areas to ensure that the fan—the punter—and the sports get a fair deal. Touting is exploitation, but the money does not go back into sport. It needs serious consideration. We will start that dialogue on 10 November by responding to some of the representations that have been made. We have to move forward, and I hope that that dialogue will pave the way for further legislation. Question put and agreed to. Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 2 Olympic symbol protection Mr. Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in schedule 2, page 33, line 23, leave out ‘in the course’ and insert ‘as a necessary incident’. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 77 to 82. Mr. Caborn: The changes that clause 30 and schedule 2 make to the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995—the OSPA—are crucial to ensure that the intellectual property of the Olympics and Paralympics is appropriately protected. The OSPA creates an Olympic association right as the principal means of protecting Olympic intellectual property. The amendments provide more clarity on the defences available to people when using protected Olympic words and symbols, and better define the concept of association in that context. The amendments largely arise from our discussions with the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, the British Olympic Association and other interested stakeholders over the summer. Government amendment No. 82 helps to provide more clarity on the concept of association in the context of the Olympic association right. For example, it points towards the idea of someone creating a commercial or contractual link or other demonstration of support between a person, product or service and the Olympic games or movement as something that would infringe the association right. That is the sort of exploitation of the games that we must prevent if we are to meet our obligations to the IOC to combat ambush marketing, and if the organising committee is to raise sufficient revenues to fund the games. We hope that the amendment provides greater clarity on the concept of association and the type of mischief that we are trying to prevent. Government amendment No. 82 also provides more clarity for people who have a legitimate right to use a protected word. That might include a bus company offering a service from Hull to London to allow people
The final part of Government amendment No. 82 provides the Secretary of State with the power by order to clarify the concept of association. As has become evident during our consultation with interested stakeholders, in drafting the Bill and in debate today, the precise nature of association and what should constitute a legitimate defence for the use of controlled words are by no means straightforward. We think it prudent to give the Secretary of State the power to introduce amendments to the concept of association. Such an order would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Therefore, if it proves necessary to use such a power, it will be subject to the sort of constructive debate that we have had on the Bill. Government amendments Nos. 76 to 79 clarify the defences available to people in using controlled words or symbols, particularly in relation to journalistic use. Government amendment No. 76 is designed to allow appropriate use of OSPA words and symbols in news reporting. In particular, the defence is designed to ensure that journalists can publish reports about the Olympics, whether they are reports on the sporting competition or details of cultural festivals or other events associated with the games. However, the amendment also ensures that the journalistic defence cannot be exploited and it protects against gratuitous use of Olympic words and symbols. Government amendment No. 77 ensures that the journalistic defence for the use of Olympic words or symbols is not simply limited to retrospective news reporting. We were concerned that the drafting of the original provision in schedule 2 meant that people who, for example, produced programmes for the events of the London games or reported on an athlete’s preparation for the games would not have a defence available to them. That was certainly not our policy intention, and the amendment is designed to clarify the situation. While speaking about journalistic reporting, I should also make it clear that a current affairs programme about the Olympic movement will not create an association as defined here. Journalists working on such programmes will therefore be able to rely on the defence in paragraph 4(2). Government amendment No. 79 makes a consequential amendment in the light of Government amendments Nos. 76 and 77. It creates a defence for using OSPA protected words and symbols in
Government amendment No. 80 ensures that the symbols as well as the words are caught by the defence in paragraph 4(2). Although it will rarely be the case that the use of the symbol will not create an association, we felt it was necessary to provide a defence for those rare exceptions. Government amendment No. 78 makes the offence in paragraph 4(1)(b) consistent with other intellectual property law. In particular, it imports the definition of artistic and literary works and so on from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and Government amendment No. 81 simply makes the drafting in the defence in paragraph 4(2) more precise. 12.30 pmMrs. Miller: The Minister clearly identified the need to provide a tighter definition of “association” in the amendment, and attempted to include a definition of it. I admit that that goes some way to help to clarify the Bill’s intention. However, the Bill still includes an automatic infringement with a presumption of guilt for the use of words that are loosely associated with the Olympics. We shall cover that more fully under the amendments that we have tabled to schedule 3, but it is worth pointing out that there is a need for more clarity. I am not sure whether this amendment is entirely consistent with other amendments to schedule 3. I remain concerned that we could inadvertently stifle the economic and social benefits that could accrue from the Olympics, and I am sure that that is not the Government’s intention. I again stress the fact that we understand the need to protect sponsorship value, but there is a question of balance. My concern is that risk-averse organisations that perhaps do not have access to extensive legal advice to unpick some of the words in the amendment could be put off overtly supporting the games. We need a more transparent approach, which we shall introduce under schedule 3, and an approach more in line with the Sydney Olympic experience, which was successful in tackling ambush marketing. Perhaps after we have had a little more time to consider the elements of the technical document we have been given today, the Minister may want to comment more fully on a couple of points that were raised about specific association rights. The document states:
Column Number: 106 It is specific about what needs to be protected, and we should take that into consideration. The document also states that
The IOC is giving us a bit of leeway to be more specific, and perhaps the amendment could better take account of that. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 19 October 2005 |