London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

moved Amendment No. 1:"Page 39, line 23, leave out ““as a necessary incident of”” and insert ““in””" The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 1, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 in my name, and will make a passing reference to Amendment No. 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I am pleased to introduce these amendments, which give broadcasters and publishers greater certainty that editorial and journalistic practices will not be adversely affected by the London Olympics association right. This issue has been debated at some length both in Committee and on Report. There has been a clear uniformity of purpose on both sides of the House in those debates about what the Bill should do. I think that, without question, we all agree that the press should be free to report or comment on any aspect of the games without fear of infringing the London Olympics association right. Noble Lords have expressed concerns that the current draft of the Bill, specifically the term ““necessary incident””, would inhibit editorial freedom and would give LOCOG a wholly unacceptable role in judging what is classified as editorial content in relation to 2012. That was clearly never the Government’s intention. What we sought to do in Schedule 4(8) was to provide an absolute fail-safe to ensure that journalistic and editorial activity would not fall foul of the London Olympics association right. But in creating that exemption for journalistic and editorial activity, we wanted to ensure that we did not create a loophole that an unscrupulous advertiser could exploit. That was the rationale behind the inclusion of the term ““necessary incident”” in Schedule 4(8); it was nothing more sinister than that. I have listened carefully to noble Lords on the Front Benches of both the Opposition parties and to the representations from broadcasters and newspaper publishers on this issue. Although our clear legal advice was that the current drafting of Schedule 4(8) would not have the effect that caused noble Lords such concern, I understand the confusion and unease that the term ““necessary incident”” created in the publishing and broadcasting industries. That is why I have taken the opportunity to table these amendments today to provide greater clarity about the effect of the exemptions in paragraph 8. My amendments would exempt publishing or broadcasting reports or information about the 2012 games from infringing the London Olympics association right. It is important that these exemptions will not apply to advertising materials that are published at the same time as, or in connection with, a report or information. In effect, that ensures that no form of advertising will enjoy the same exemptions as we have created for editorial and journalistic use. At this point, I should also put on record the fact that my amendments do nothing to change the effect of Schedule 4(8)(d). This paragraph ensures that publishers and broadcasters are allowed to advertise and use promotional time to publicise the report or information that they are providing. For example, a broadcaster would be able to promote or advertise the fact that it is running a current affairs programme about the Olympics or that its sports bulletin will include the latest information on the 2012 games. Although the debate on these amendments was triggered by consideration of the London Olympic association right, the principle applies also to the Olympic and Paralympic association rights created in existing Olympic symbols protection legislation. That is why I have tabled a similar amendment to Schedule 3, which amends the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act. In tabling these amendments, the Government have recognised the genuine concerns that the London Olympic association right could have adversely affected the freedom of the press—an intention, which none of us had. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who has argued so persuasively on this issue, has tabled Amendment No. 5, which has an effect similar to the amendments which I have put forward. I hope that now that he has had the chance to consider the new amendments, and the assurances that I have given the House about their effect, he will be satisfied that the Government have addressed his concerns. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment, and that all noble Lords accept the amendments that I have tabled today. I beg to move.