London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

moved Amendment No. 23:"Page 47, leave out lines 30 to 35 and insert—" 3   (1)   For the purpose of considering whether a person has infringed the London Olympics association right a court may, in particular, take account of his use of a combination of expressions of a kind specified in sub-paragraph (2).”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 23, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 as well. The amendment deals with a controversial issue which was debated extensively and intensively in Committee—the evidential burden relating to the new London Olympics association right that we have created. This burden relates to the list of words and phrases in paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 4. The schedule currently provides that the use of these words and phrases in combination will, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, be treated as constituting an association with the London Olympics. We think that the list of words and phrases contained in Schedule 4 are important in helping the public understand what sort of activity may create an association with the London games and what sort of activity would fall foul of the London Olympics association right. Concern was expressed in Committee about the evidential burden in Schedule 4. Our intention was never to create an onerous or draconian provision. We were accused of doing so in Committee and I sought to rebut those challenges. We were seeking to create a practical and workable piece of legislation that would give greater clarity about what sorts of activity were likely to infringe the association right. The debate in Committee highlighted some difficulties in this area. That is why I tabled Amendment No. 23; it removes the evidential presumption in Schedule 4 which was the burden of all the main contributions in Committee critical of the legislation. We suggested in its place a provision which makes it clear that when considering whether the association right has been breached, a court may in particular consider whether the defendant has used a combination of words listed in Schedule 4(3)(3). The amendment therefore creates a position whereby due prominence is given to the words and phrases in Schedule 4 without creating the evidential burden that caused such concerns in Committee. In removing the evidential presumption in Schedule 4, we have also taken the opportunity to make related and appropriate changes to the scope of the London Olympics association right, which is what Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 do. The case was made in Committee, by persuasive arguments, that the real issue was that someone could be brought before a court with the evidential burdens stacked against them. We are seeking to right that balance and I hope that noble Lords will think that we have produced a solution to what was recognised as a significant problem in Committee. I beg to move.