London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

moved Amendment No. 60:"Page 14, line 46, at end insert—" ““(   )   shall provide for exceptions for newspapers, magazines, television, radio and for the provision of news and information by means of mobile telephony or other electronic media,”” The noble Lord said: We come to a very important part of the Bill which has been the subject of considerable discussion in the other place and between various parties, including the Government, the advertising industry and the newspaper and broadcasting industries. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, used a very interesting phrase and said that the Government have been rather coy in their drafting of certain parts of the Bill. The Government certainly have not been coy in their drafting of this part of the Bill. There are quite a number of amendments which try to alleviate some of the problems caused by the rather aggressive drafting throughout this part of the Bill. Amendment No. 60, standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, is of considerable concern not only to the Newspaper Society, in particular, but also to other publishers and broadcasters—particularly those in the electronic media—who would be affected by this. Clause 19, and particularly subsection (5)(a), is drafted in such a way that it will encompass newspapers because they are documents and contain advertisements. Their sale and supply—and the display of news vendors’ hoardings—will be caught by the restrictions on advertising around Olympic venues. There are similar problems for other printed and broadcast media and for news services supplied by electronic media. They are covered by Clause 19(5)(b). I accept that the Government have already partially admitted that it is not their intention to sweep all into their net. Mr Caborn, in Committee in the other place, said:"““We will draft regulations that contain exemptions that follow those in current planning regulations, which include an exemption for newspapers—we shall make sure that newspapers are exempted in that secondary legislation””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 18/10/05; col. 92.]" He was asked about the Government’s intentions in respect of other media. At Report stage he confirmed:"““I have given a commitment in respect of newspapers, magazines, radio and television, but I cannot provide a blanket exemption for mobile telephony at this stage. Although I can reassure the hon. Member for Bath that the mobile services currently available will almost certainly be exempt, we must””—" this is an interesting phrase—"““future-proof this provision by leaving it somewhat open-ended””.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/12/05; col. 809.]" I am sure the Minister will not use language like that, but we shall see. Clearly, as regards newspapers, magazines, television and radio, the Government have accepted the need for that exemption and were committed to it in the other place. So they should provide in the Bill that the regulations will contain those exemptions. The regulations may not be drafted for some considerable time after the Bill has passed—after all, they will not be needed for some period—but the passage of time alone makes it all the more necessary for the Bill to contain a specific reference to the need to exempt these media. It is not satisfactory that a clear government commitment as to the regulations’ content should be recorded only in Hansard and in correspondence with the Minister. Details, of course, can go into the regulations, but surely the Bill itself should commit to the fact that appropriate exemptions will be made. On mobile telephony and other electronic media, the Government’s intentions are rather less clear and that makes a strong case for including it in the Bill. Mr Caborn seems to have demonstrated that he understands that such media are within the editorial exemptions contained in paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 in relation to content, so what is the problem over confirming that such services will also be exempted from the advertising in the vicinity restrictions? Newspapers and broadcasters increasingly offer a ““news to your mobile”” service in the form of clips and so on, and they are accessible by mobile telephone. Clearly, it would be absurd, as well as unworkable, if the application of regulations under Clause 19 somehow purported to impose a dead zone for electronic news and information services, so that if you were in Stratford you could buy your usual newspaper but could not access a website or receive news headlines to your mobile phone with 3G technology. This is obviously not what the Government want or intend. I hope that not only will the Minister clarify that second limb but will commit to including an exemption in the Bill in the form of the amendment. I beg to move.