Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for intervening. I shall be interested to read the amendment when it comes before the House. Will he be kind enough to confirm that there will be no conditions under which the five circles can be used by anyone other than the BOA?

Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. We do not yet have an amendment. We are looking at the concerns that were raised in another place. I shall take his point on board.

We want to ensure that a small company which is unaware of the Act, as many small businesses may be, and trades, for example, as Olympic Flowers, or some such name, which is obviously not something which will compete with the laudable intentions of raising money for Olympic athletes and protecting Olympic symbols, would not necessarily be caught. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is looking very closely at the possibility of bringing forward an amendment.

Perhaps I may explain that such a power might allow the Secretary of State to permit uses for the purpose of a certain class of businesses such as small restaurants, or for specified trade uses for the purposes of an undertaking; for example, use in a campaign against an Olympic Games or drug taking in an Olympic sport. I am confident that such an arrangement would go very far in ensuring the further protection of small businesses and other reasonable uses of the Olympic words which I am sure we all wish to secure.

We are also concerned to ensure that the Bill goes as far as possible to protect the rights which we propose should be vested in the British Olympic Association. That is why we are considering a second amendment to Clause 4(1) (b) of the Bill to ensure that any use of a literary or artistic work in relation to other goods and services—for example, the production of T-shirts which, as my noble friend said, is a most important market, or tracksuits—infringes the Olympic Association right. It is already the intention on the face of the Bill that the Olympic Association right is infringed if such works are reproduced for the purpose of advertising or promoting goods or services. By extension, it is surely the intention of Parliament that the promotion of goods and services includes any sale by reference to the Olympic symbol, motto or protected words. In the interests of maximum exploitation of the commercial rights for the BOA, we are concerned to put that beyond doubt and are, therefore, considering the scope for such an amendment. The BOA supports the thrust of that amendment.

2 Mar 2002 : Column 1644

The Government are fully behind the Bill. Our concern in considering amendments is to be sure that interests which need to be protected are protected and that the British Olympic Association is given the maximum benefit from the legislation, which ultimately must mean the maximum benefit for British sport. I am very glad to welcome the Bill this evening.

7.22 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Addington, for their support. I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare who made a striking speech on the matter. However, I should add that there was no need for him to dress up for the occasion. Nevertheless, the fact that my noble friend chose to do so shows the importance of the Bill.

Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend; but it is important that noble Lords should realise that it is not the "night job" that I am going on to. In fact, I shall be addressing the Vauxhall Conservative Association which only needs a swing of 38 per cent. to remove the Labour majority. That is what I shall be doing this evening.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. However, it is still nice for the passage of the Bill that my noble friend is so dressed. He described the situation extremely well. I should also pay tribute to him for all the campaigning that he has done in the past to get the Bill to its present stage.

I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his remarks about the Bill. Obviously, I am slightly disappointed that there will have to be some amendments made to it. I can understand the reasons for them. However, my understanding, so far as concerns small companies, is that if, for example, you are a small company and you call yourself, "Olympic Pizzas", or something like that, that would be fine: but if you call yourself, "Olympic Pizzas, as used by British Olympic Athletes" you would be caught. I believe that that is quite right and proper.

I ask my noble friend for one assurance. The fact that amendments are to be made to the Bill means that we will have a Committee stage, a Report stage and a Third Reading in this House and then the legislation will have to go back to the other place. I only ask my noble friend to give us an assurance that the Government will find time for consideration of the Bill in another place so that it will get on to the statute book as quickly as possible.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until fifteen minutes before eight o'clock.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.24 until 7.45 p.m.]

2 Mar 2002 : Column 1645

Environment Bill [H.L.]

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 6.

Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No. 33:


Page 7, line 16, leave out ("the obligation to develop water resources") and insert ("any obligation").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return with this amendment, and two other amendments standing in my name, to the important subject of water and the conservation of water. Amendment No. 33 would widen the reference in line 16 on page 7 of the Bill from,


    "the obligation to develop water resources"

to, "any obligation". Amendments Nos. 278 and 279 to Schedule 18 would place on Ofwat and on the water undertakers respectively a duty to conserve and promote the "efficient use of water". This matter was of course raised in Committee. I have corresponded with my noble friend the Minister and he wrote me an encouraging and acceptable reply as regards the Government's intention to do something in the nature of giving a remit to Ofwat and to the water providers on this important matter of water conservation. In his letter to me my noble friend made a reference, interestingly, to reservoirs. He stated he was not quite sure whether or not I was in favour of reservoirs. I think that reservoirs in this connection are absolutely crucial to what we are trying to include in this Bill. I believe they help us to understand better our earlier discussion on sustainable development. There can be no better example of sustainable development than the need to conserve water.

One can either save water from other uses, or ensure that the water which is taken does not deplete the environment through, for example, being taken out of aquifers with the disastrous effects that that has. Reservoirs are a prime example of sustainable development in that water which would otherwise go into the sea is taken from the reservoirs and used where it is needed rather than taking water from aquifers. I am very much in favour of using water from full reservoirs and of using water which would otherwise go into the sea. Of course the location of the reservoirs is another matter. That is an example of sustainable development; it is also an example of the crucial need to conserve what will become an increasingly scarce resource in this country; namely, water. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some inkling of what he may propose, either at Third Reading, or perhaps in another place, to put into the Bill to meet the anxieties that some noble Lords—I believe on both sides of the House—have on this issue. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, proposes, and his general theme. My only doubt is the doubt that I expressed at Committee stage when this matter was discussed; namely, whether laying a duty on Ofwat to promote the efficient use of water would open the way for Ofwat to insist on metering. That is the problem that

2 Mar 2002 : Column 1646

we ran up against in Committee. As the noble Viscount knows, we are totally opposed to giving Ofwat a power to impose on water undertakers a duty to meter.

Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 33 moved by my noble friend Lord Marlesford would widen the proviso which states that the duties of the agency under Clause 6(2) shall not affect the obligation of water undertakers to develop water resources to meet their water supply obligation under Section 37 of the Water Industry Act 1991 so that the proviso would cover all their obligations flowing from that section.

This is primarily a question of drafting. I share the aim of the noble Lord that the agency's duties should not displace those of the water undertakers. We believe that the present drafting of Clause 6(2), which follows that of the existing provisions, achieves that aim. We therefore see no reason for change. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw that amendment.

Amendment No. 278 proposed by my noble friend amends Section 3 of the Water Industry Act and would place a duty on the Secretary of State, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Director-General of Water Services and every water undertaker, to comply with a requirement to further the conservation of water resources and promote water efficiency when considering proposals that relate to a water undertaker's functions.

Amendment No. 279 improves on my noble friend's earlier attempt during the Committee stage of this Bill. However, the amendment tabled here is still deficient in that the substitution proposed for Section 37(1) of the Water Industry Act 1991 will remove the duty water undertakers have under Section 37(1) (a) to make arrangements for the provision of water supplies to premises in their area and make supplies available to persons who demand them, and under Section 37(1) (b) remove their duty to maintain, improve and extend the water mains and other pipes in their area. I do not think any of us would wish to contemplate such a relaxation in the duties of water undertakers.

I remind noble Lords of the earlier debates on 19th January and 14th February. I said then that we were sympathetic to the important issue of water conservation and the proposal for water undertakers to be given a duty to promote the efficient use of water. I gave a commitment to consider, during the passage of the Bill through Parliament, whether it should be amended to introduce provisions about water conservation. That action is in hand, as I indicated on the previous occasion.

I understand the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, indicated on that occasion and repeated tonight. We are considering whether any extension is required to the duties and powers of water companies and the Director-General of Water Services to promote the economic and efficient use of water among consumers. We are wholly in favour of those objectives. If necessary, we shall bring forward appropriate amendments in another place.

2 Mar 2002 : Column 1647

Although I sympathise with some of the aims of the amendments, I believe many of them to be deficient and unnecessary. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page