London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. It is important, and I recognise the point, if I ever doubted it, that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, emphasised in wishing the games and progress towards them well. The Bill is an important facilitator with regard to the games and I take his point very seriously. That does not alter the fact that the role of Members of the Committee is to subject the legislation to critical scrutiny which he and others are doing, and I recognise our obligation as well. We are required by the International Olympic Committee, via the host city contract, to prevent ambush marketing and unauthorised commercial associations being made with the games. We have no option and the new right in the Bill helps us achieve that. We follow the experience of our colleagues in Sydney in assessing whether specific legislation is necessary. I hear what has been said about the Vancouver position, and we will look closely at that again. We also looked at the Olympic Games in Sydney, and our professional advice followed on theirs. There are existing defences in both countries for intellectual property and other protections, but we were advised that existing intellectual property and other protections might provide some protection against ambush marketing but might not cover every case in the same way that existing trademark legislation could prevent specific logos and names being used but not in all cases. We were advised, like our colleagues in Sydney, that existing legal protections would not cover all the situations we might face in seeking to fulfil our obligations to the International Olympic Committee. That is why we constructed the Bill in the way we have—specific measures were needed. We are drawing on not just our own judgment on these matters but also on the experience of the 2000 Games. The ambush marketing restrictions, provided in Schedule 4, need to be commenced upon Royal Assent to give LOGOC the best negotiating position in terms of sponsorship. I hear what Members of the Committee say about other experiences; that has not been the general experience. LOGOC has very significant sums of money to raise for the Games. It is incumbent upon us to seek to guarantee those resources as best we can. LOGOC is seeking to sign up sponsors; it needs to do so in an environment free from ambush marketing and delayed commencement could jeopardise this important work. After all, the principle remains that once we have the games established in terms of the organisations deployed to organise them, we also have a duty to ensure that they carry out their work to best advantage. We have been asked what we are fearful of as we have the necessary protections. We have been asked why we are worried about problems in terms of challenges on sponsorship at this level. The Sydney Olympics were faced with a very real problem. In the lead-up to the 2000 games there, Ansett, the other airline in Australia which everyone knew at the time, signed a multi-million dollar sponsorship deal with the Sydney organising committee. Its major rival in airline provision in Australia was Qantas. Qantas ran a high-profile marketing campaign before the Sydney games legislation came into force. It avoided using the Olympic rings or the Sydney 2000 logo but it succeeded in creating an association between Qantas and the games. So successful was the Qantas campaign that, even though Ansett could claim official sponsor status, market research conducted throughout that period showed that more people thought that Qantas was the official sponsor of the games than thought it was Ansett. That is a risk that we are not prepared to take in providing the necessary protection for those who are concerned with sponsorship. In the early years, we are not bothered about inadvertent infringements by the local corner shop or cafe or newspaper advertisement, nor is LOGOC. As I think noble Lords indicated, LOGOC has in any case already committed to take a lenient approach in the early months of the legislation. Part of the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran—my noble friend Lord Borrie also emphasised this point as, indeed, did the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—is that activities already in progress could conceivably fall foul of the legislation if LOGOC acted with a peremptory and heavy hand. It will not do so and it has said that it will not do so. It is not in its interests to do so because this is the industry that it needs to court and work effectively with for the next six years. Of course, activities may already be planned. My noble friend Lord Borrie talked about the long lead time for advertising campaigns, and we all understand that point. If such activities begin before the Bill receives Royal Assent, LOGOC will take account of that. Equally clearly, LOGOC cannot be faced with a Qantas-versus-Ansett position. We owe it to LOGOC and to the organisation of the games to ensure that, as soon as Royal Assent is received, activities can be conducted with the confidence that others will not be able to intrude unfairly. At the same time, LOGOC will need in the early years to consider arrangements that are already in hand and not pursue them heavily. As we get closer to the games, it can be gradually more restrictive in its attitude. We have the right to expect LOGOC to operate with sense and good judgment. We have confidence in those who are responsible for the activities of LOGOC, not least because the chair is the noble Lord, Lord Coe. But we also recognise the immense challenge that they face in securing the necessary sponsorship. I shall look carefully at the Vancouver position and reflect on it before Report. But I hope that noble Lords will also take on board the fact that there is a close parallel between the activity in which we are involved and that of the organisers of the Sydney Olympics, who operated in an advertising and media environment not greatly dissimilar from our own. Sydney had its problems, including one major problem, and we have the right to guard against that. That is why, if the Committee will accept the points that I have made, we intend to ensure that this part of the Bill becomes effective on Royal Assent. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.