London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

moved Amendment No. 75:"Page 50, line 21, at end insert—"    The London Olympics association right shall have effect from 31st December 2007.”” The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that this is the last amendment of this particular run. We are coming down the Cresta run; certainly we have some momentum behind us. This amendment is important. The Bill will currently bring Schedule 4 advertising restrictions into effect immediately upon Royal Assent. The intention of this amendment—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has tabled another amendment along the same lines—is to delay the date on which the advertising restrictions relating to the London Olympics association right will come into effect until six months before the Beijing games begin in the summer of 2008. That would mean that Schedule 4 restrictions are in effect for four and a half years before the London games commence and end, as the Bill states, six months after the end of the games, on 31 December 2012. The Government have opposed this amendment, which was tabled in the other place, as they want a ““belt and braces”” approach, so that London 2012 and LOGOC can give assurances to would-be sponsors that ambush marketers would be prevented throughout the period from Royal Assent to 31 December 2012. But the advertising industry believes that LOGOC can already act under existing legal protections—the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995, copyright and trademark law, the law of passing off, and misleading advertising regulations. The industry believes that the Bill will impose significant restrictions on freedom of commercial speech which will apply on a worldwide basis and that they must be introduced in a proportionate manner. It believes that it is disproportionate to introduce new intellectual property rights—with new advertising restrictions and a presumption of guilt—so far ahead of the commencement of the games. We have had private discussions with the chairman of LOGOC and the Minister, and I thank him for making himself and the noble Lord, Lord Coe, available. We have also argued that it is impractical to introduce these new restrictions in February or March of this year, because it would have a retrospective effect on advertising campaigns that may already be in production or may have been given pre-clearance by the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre, or its radio equivalent, the RACC. Mr Caborn gave reassurances at Report and Third Reading in the other place that the Government and LOGOC would take due account of this and take a light-touch approach in the early months after Royal Assent. That was reaffirmed, not only by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on Second Reading, but in subsequent meetings with him. However, it appears from meetings that LOGOC has not yet seen any scripts submitted which would infringe Schedule 4. It is doubtful that there is any question of infringement at this stage, which means that the argument must focus on proportionality. It is not a question of whether these powers are needed. I have said to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Coe, that I am doubtful about the argument that sponsors will not come forward if the association right has not come into effect. That is the argument that sponsors need to be attracted very early on. But the hunt for sponsors was launched on 24 January and there appears to be a perfectly satisfactory emergence of those interested in sponsorship. The burden is on those who wish to see this very long period for coming forward to explain exactly what the economic consequences would be to LOGOC if the full period was not granted. I raised the point on Second Reading that the organising committees for the Olympic Games in Turin, Beijing and Vancouver appear to be experiencing very little difficulty in attracting sponsors without that great length of time—and as we have said, the Sydney Olympics did not have that period. It appears that the organising committees for Beijing 2008 and Vancouver 2010 have both already exceeded their revenue targets in their bid books for marketing. I should very much like to hear the Minister’s response to the fact that the Canadians, who have a system of law not dissimilar to our own, have already succeeded in attracting the requisite amount of sponsorship to fund the games that they are hosting in 2010. They appear to have attracted that sponsorship without needing to have such draconian new laws in respect of intellectual property rights in place many years ahead of the games that they will be funding, or even to introduce such legislation in the first place. It appears that Vancouver will have no equivalent association right. That sums up a number of the arguments and demonstrates that the period of time required is totally disproportionate in the circumstances. I wish LOGOC extremely well in getting commercial sponsorship but I believe that introducing the association right so early is neither here nor there in terms of their activities and attracting the major sponsors that they need to fund the games. I beg to move.