Proceeding contribution from Lord Borrie (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 15 February 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill.
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill
Before my noble friend sits down, and with the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, may I ask a question that does not discuss the merits of the amendment as distinct from withdrawing it or, if we were voting on it, voting it down? Would not all this concern about ambush marketing, which is a very real and justified concern, be less loaded if we did not have paragraph 3 of Schedule 4? Everything else—especially paragraph 2, which makes quite clear what ambush marketing is—and the provisions in paragraph 4 onwards about authorised use and so on, would be there, but we would not have the loaded presumption in paragraph 3—I am not using any words that my noble friend does not like—if paragraph 3 was not there.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 678 c394GC
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Accountability Broadcasting Advertising Land Greater London Intellectual property Olympic Games Newspaper press Marketing Paralympic Games Regulation Regional planning and development Sports Trade marks Regional development agencies London Assembly London 2012 Organising Committee Olympic Delivery Authority
- Legislation
- London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 01:31:42 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_301810
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_301810
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_301810