UK Parliament / Open data

London Olympics Bill

Proceeding contribution from Hugh Robertson (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 6 December 2005. It occurred during Debate on bills on London Olympics Bill 2005-06.
Time is marching on so I shall be brief. I thank the Minister for his comments in connection with amendment No. 9. In the light of his assurances, I am happy to leave the matter there. On amendment No. 8, I wholly accept what the Minister says about LOCOG’s desire to start the process of looking for sponsors early, and the fact that it needs the necessary safeguards if it is to do that. However, there are concerns in the advertising industry about the practical implications for advertising pre-clearance and copy advice. Television advertising, in particular, has long lead times. As we all know, advertisements can be 18 months in the making, and a campaign costs hundreds of thousands of pounds to produce and broadcast. There are serious and costly implications for advertisers and broadcasters if the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre, the BACC, has given clearance to a TV advertisement before it is broadcast, and its decision is subsequently overturned by LOCOG. It could, in theory, insist that the advertisement were withdrawn, but under this legislation it could also sue for damages and take out an injunction against the advertiser. Secondly, another, even more technical issue must be addressed before the Bill comes into effect. The committee of advertising practice, which is the code-owning body within the Advertising Standards Authority system, offers advertising copy advice on a voluntary basis in the non-broadcast media. I understand that the CAP has said that it is not in a position to give copy advice because the legislation will lie outside its self-regulatory British code of advertising, sales promotion and direct marketing, which the ASA enforces. The CAP apparently takes a similar approach to financial services advertising, the components of which are regulated entirely by the Financial Services Authority, which is a body that I remember with considerable pleasure from my time in the City. I realise that both of those points are technical, and if the Minister undertakes to write to me I will be happy not to press them.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

440 c828-9 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Commons chamber
Back to top