London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

My Lords, when the Secretary of State, Tessa Jowell, introduced this Bill in another place last July, she emphasised the many social benefits of the Olympic Games coming to London in 2012. She spelt out in particular the inspiration that they will provide for millions of children with dreams of sporting success, and the chance to transform one of the most deprived areas of London. The Government are to be congratulated on losing no time; the decision of the IOC was on 6 July, and moving the Second Reading to give effect to the Government’s commitments was on 21 July. The Bill sets up the Olympic Delivery Authority, to deliver the public sector obligations of the Government, and provides the legislative framework needed to enable this country to fulfil the requirements which the IOC places on whoever is the winning host city. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I am among the last speakers in this debate before the winding up. For me, there have been two joys. One is to have heard the excellent maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine. The second is to have had the joy of hearing the Front Benches of both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties plus the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and my noble friend Lord Pendry all criticise Schedule 4. Tucked away at the back of the Bill, it introduces some of the most extreme legislative forms of restriction on legitimate economic activity that I have ever had the misfortune to see. I come to the technical part. Rights, in the nature of copyright, are to be granted by the London Organising Committee conferring exclusivity on,"““the use of any representation . . . likely to suggest to the public that there is an association between the London Olympics and””," whoever makes that representation. Breaches can be challenged in the court by the all-powerful London Organising Committee. I declare an interest, as chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority. As such, I, along with my colleagues, am concerned to adjudicate on complaints about any advertisements in any kind of media that are misleading, offensive or irresponsible. But while I hope that noble Lords will agree such advertisements as those deserve to be condemned in the public interest, I am committed in general—as I hope noble Lords also are—to freedom of speech, including freedom of commercial expression. I want restrictions of any kind, whether inserted by Her Majesty’s Government or elsewhere, to be adequately justified. I hope I am not being too pompous about it, but would we not all agree that advertisements are largely useful to consumer choice? Marketing freedom is certainly of the essence of competitive economic activity. There are restrictions on the marketing of goods or services other than those that I have just mentioned—the ads which are offensive or misleading, and so on—where patent rights or copyright belonging to others are adversely affected. The reason for that is perfectly good. If patentees and copyright owners had no period of time when they could exclusively use their patent rights, there would be no adequate incentive to produce the special thing which justifies intellectual endeavour being protected in that way. A monopoly—although it is a word that I do not normally like—is justified, at any rate for a limited period of time, and the current law allows that for those with patent rights and copyright. Schedule 4 attempts to do something similar. Perhaps the Minister will use the argument that London Olympics association rights are just like copyright, and therefore they are perfectly legitimate. Of course, I accept some part of that argument, which is that the London Organising Committee must seek fairly to find entrepreneurs who are willing to be designated and to provide money to help to run the Olympics, and that those sponsors of the Games need exclusivity, at any rate for an appropriate period of time, to justify the investment and the expense of sponsorship. However, the question that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was the first to raise this evening, which was followed up by an excellent range of detailed comments from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, followed by others such as my noble friend Lord Pendry and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is whether the proposed period of time, from Royal Assent in a few months’ time all the way until 2012, is justified. A period of six and a half years seems to many people to be more than enough and to be disproportionate to the legitimate needs of the business sponsors. Yet the Government in another place, when this question was raised, referred to unauthorised marketing in 2006 and 2007, before even the time of the Beijing Games, as ““ambush marketing””—a phrase that suggests something most undesirable. Moreover, the normal burden of proof, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, succinctly said, is reversed, so that in certain circumstances the use of words such as ““Games”” or ““2012””, together with other words that are listed in the schedule, such as ““gold”” or ““silver”” or ““London””—or even ““summer””, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, pointed out—is caught. Therefore, someone who markets more or less anything as being available, such as hotel accommodation, in the summer of 2012, will be breaching the exclusivity rights laid down in the legislation. Other noble Lords have pointed out that even the words in Schedule 4 now are not the only words that people will have to trouble about, because they can be altered at any time by regulation, over which there may be some element of parliamentary control; but advertisers and marketers will not know in advance what they can safely use. Of course, those given association rights need to know that their rights will be protected, so that funding arrangements for the Games can be put in place. But is it not enough for them to know that their rights will be protected in what I might call the immediate lead-up, and of course during the Games, but not next year, well before even the Beijing Games in 2008? As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, there is already protection for the London Organising Committee in existing laws; and I think the noble Lord also said that six out of the 10 top sponsors have already signed. So LOCOG seems to be having no great difficulty in obtaining multinational sponsors. The Sydney Games, to which noble Lords referred, did not need such lengthy restrictions to obtain money. There is something extreme and undesirable about what is in Schedule 4—most particularly if it is to come into effect at once.