London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I am grateful for the contributions to these amendments, although they take me down legal paths that I am not fully equipped to deal with. Regarding Premier League v Panini, I might be involved not only in a long deposition but might land myself in a contradictory situation where I would probably fall into a series of legal pits. I have no intention of doing that and I shall offer the Committee this explanation. We believe that aspects of the Panini case are helpful to the position we are trying to establish and the operations of LOGOC and the industry. As a result of that, and the belief that these areas are discrete and specific, I shall, with the agreement of the Committee, write to all Members on these topics. Everyone will then be fully informed of where we stand on this issue and where we believe that case is helpful. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing it to my attention, although if he wanted an instant response from me, he will be sorely disappointed today. I shall write to Members and no doubt we will have the opportunity of debating it at a later stage. I hope that on these amendments that will not be necessary, because I shall seek to persuade the noble Lord to withdraw them. I, too, regret the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, and I hope that when he was read the case I have presented, he, too, will feel that he does not need to move similar amendments at later stages. We shall see. We have provided in the Bill specific editorial and journalistic exemption from any infringement of either the Olympic or London Olympic Association rights. But it is important to emphasise that that will be relevant only to extremely rare news items which create an association with the games. Most legitimate editorial or journalistic work will not create an association with the games in the first place. They will not do that and therefore there will be no question of them having to rely on any defence. Nevertheless, this is an important provision as it reinforces the position that newspapers, news shows and current affairs programmes are able to report and comment on the Olympics as freely as they want. We have been careful to avoid creating a situation in which someone could commercially exploit the games and use a journalistic defence to hide behind that. The inclusion of the term ““necessary incident”” in reference to editorial or journalistic use is essential to prevent gratuitous use of the London Olympics and the creation of what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to as ““advertorials””—the real motive of which is commercial gain as opposed to genuine editorial comment. We want to deal with that. We understand the concerns of the print and broadcast media on this point and that is why we have been in intensive discussion with them since publication of the Bill. We have taken further legal advice on the effect of the provisions and I can reassure the Committee and the industry that it is our clear view that only overt and explicit attempts to create an association between a media owner or other entity, goods or services and the London Olympics will constitute an infringement under our provisions. All legitimate editorial and journalistic practices will be exempt from the provision in Schedule 4. I know Members of the Committee would expect me to say that, but it is important that I do so in circumstances where dubiety may have been created. I see no reason why any such doubts should be entertained. These issues were emphasised enough during the Bill’s passage through another place, but I want to make that clear, too. Perhaps I may also emphasise that LOGOC entirely agrees with this situation, and will make it clear in the guidance notes—which I emphasise again are still in draft form—how Schedule 4 is intended to be interpreted. We believe that the provisions we have included in the Bill strike the right and necessary balance between allowing genuine editorial and journalistic freedom to report or comment on the games and preventing illegitimate commercial exploitation of the games. We are confident that the Bill as drafted will allow all legitimate journalistic practices. I understand the noble Lord’s concerns. If I were not able to give those assurances and to express such views with great confidence, and if that had not been so in the other place too, the noble Lord would be right in that we would be trespassing on essential freedoms that would adversely affect the coverage of the games but, more importantly, the proper editorial rights and freedom of the media in all their respects. But I assure him that we are confident that we have the Bill drafted in those terms. I am saying all this only within the framework of the limits of United Kingdom law. It is not possible for us to legislate in the sovereign territory of any other country, as he knows only too well. We would be able to operate this law only against media activities that infringed the law if they were imported from Ireland for distribution in the United Kingdom. Then we would be able to act—and, indeed, we would be able to act in that respect with any other country. But if it were for publication elsewhere, there would clearly be a limit to the extension of British law, as the noble Lord hinted when he made his point. Amendment No. 73 has the particular effect of widening the exemption from a position where it applies to the publishing or broadcasting of information about the Olympics to a position where it applies to the publishing or broadcasting of any information at all. That widening of the definition is unnecessary. We have provided a specific exemption in the schedule for the provision of information about the Olympics to remove any doubt that such activity would not be caught. But there can be no doubt at all that when information is provided that makes no reference to the games it will never create any form of association with the games and will never risk infringement. There is no need to exempt the sort of activity that, by its very nature, will never need an exemption, because it does not relate to the games. The noble Lord is hinting that we should concern ourselves with a whole range of media activity not related to the games, and that we should create exemptions, when we have a clear list of exemptions in which the use of Olympic symbols or names might be used. For all those aspects of the media that have no relationship to the games at all, it seems an odd concept that we need to direct ourselves towards that issue. The noble Lord said that Amendment No. 74 was consequential. We have provided an explicit exemption for the advertisement of publications or broadcasts about the games. That is because in such advertisements, media companies may want to draw particular attention to Olympic content, and we want them to be sure that they will be able to do that when appropriate. But the position is slightly different for artistic works that involve the incidental inclusion of the sorts of words we have listed. An incidental inclusion in the artistic work in question will also certainly be an incidental inclusion in any accompanying advertising and will therefore be exempt by the existing provision. We do not need specific provision for this class because it will already have been exempted due to the nature of the activity. I want to allay the fears expressed. We are talking about fundamental freedoms and it is right that the Government should be probed about the restrictions they place in discrete areas, but the Bill is explicit about where it intends to be restrictive. Where it is not restrictive, it is clear that activities would not fall foul of any of the anxieties that Members of the Committee have expressed. I hope the noble Lord feels reassured by that response. As he indicated, the Government were pressed on this matter in the other place. I imagine that he has reinforced the issues today because he is not entirely satisfied by those arguments. I merely extend to the Committee the obvious point: we start from the premise that comment and editorial activity are entirely free in this country and must remain so. In areas where we need restrictions, we seek to justify them specifically. The broader issues beyond that are outwith our concerns and it is not for this Bill to attempt to address them.