London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I suggested earlier that I do not think that there is much risk of ambush marketing and infringement occurring in the course of 2006 and 2007. None the less, if it does, there is lots of existing legislation—which was mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—including the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act, trade mark legislation and misleading ads regulations that could deal with it. If the Bill comes into effect as it now stands, the provisions would be disproportionate to the mischief of ambush marketing. I have said before—although I think the Minister thought that I was being a bit rude—that the Government seem so concerned to reassure sponsors that, as with the matter of presumption in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4, they are going over the top. They are not taking much note of the need to keep a balance between the perfectly legitimate interests of sponsors who are providing sums of money and need something in return, the interests of business generally in commercial freedom of speech and the interests of the public in such freedom and in ensuring that it is not unduly restricted by provisions in statutes such as this. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to other Olympic Games, including the winter games in Vancouver in 2010, that do not seem to have had any problems in getting major sponsors. They did not rely on any special legislation, but on existing legislation similar to ours dealing with trademarks. Even those of us who are not that familiar with business in Canada have heard of the Royal Bank of Canada, the Hudson’s Bay Company, Bell Canada and all the major companies that have come up with money to sponsor the winter Olympics in Vancouver. In the past the Government may have, understandably, exaggerated the problem of getting sponsors, but they surely do not feel that there is a problem now because things have gone so well. I hope that they will be more amendable to this amendment.