London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I support and commend the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to which my name is attached, as is that of my noble friend Lord Pendry who, regrettably, is unable to be here today. He has an interesting recent historical connection with this matter, having been involved in another place in what is now the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995. Ministers and, when we were privileged to have a chat with him, the noble Lord, Lord Coe, expressed very strong support for having full protection against infringements of Olympics association rights—in other words, against ambush marketing—from the date of Royal Assent. They said that this was needed to reassure potential sponsors that from an early date—this would be some date in 2006—there would be government protection. But even at this moment—let alone waiting for Royal Assent—everyone knows that the Bill will receive the Royal Assent in broadly the form it is at present. No sponsor is going to imagine that somehow or other the association rights embodied in the Bill—and especially in Schedule 4—will be upset by a dramatic vote as if this was the Identity Cards Bill or some such controversial matter. The Bill is broadly accepted on all sides. Sponsors are concerned about advertisements which infringe their rights—ambush marketing—up to and during the games, and perhaps for a reasonable time thereafter. Do they really need more than four and a half years? Are they really concerned with ambush marketing that might take place later in the year 2006 or, as I would say—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would as well—in the year 2007? If the Bill and the provisions about ambush marketing come into effect, as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggests, at the end of 2007, there will still be four and half years of full protection against infringements under the Bill. Surely that is enough. It was enough for the Sydney games. I received some interesting information from one of the Minister’s officials—which I did not myself recall—that the relevant Bill in Australia would have passed earlier if it had not been for political troubles and a general election. So the four-and-a- half years was the period that was left after the Bill was passed, but has anyone suggested that that was inadequate to get the appropriate sponsors for the games in Sydney? I have not heard that. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, if the amendment is passed and the full protection is not operative under the Bill until the end of 2007, sponsors’ rights will be protected against any likelihood of ambush marketing in the meantime by existing legislation. The Olympic Symbols—