London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I thank the Minister for that. I very much welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. Despite his discourse on lawyers and legal matters, I thought that he rather detracted from his first set of statements. I think we all agree that we are seeking greater clarity here than is the case at present. I also very much welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said vicariously on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon. The Minister says that the intention is to act effectively to implement the obligations to the IOC and in relation to the host city contract and so on. He said that the Government plan to do so in a fair and proportionate manner and that there will be a debate in both Houses on the regulations. I fully accept that that debate will take place. But the issue is about having a greater degree of certainty at this stage; that is the commercial issue for newspapers, broadcasters and others. It is not enough for the Government simply to say that it is almost certain that we will do X, Y and Z, because they may turn round and say, ““We’re not going to do X, Y and Z””. People who have planned—these things have to be planned commercially—have to know what kind of things they will be able to provide at some point in the future. I do not know quite how the Government are planning to do that. If something in the Bill were more determinative or, indeed, if there were draft regulations, then obviously there would be a greater degree of certainty. The first of the Minister’s two alibis here is the usual ministerial one of lists. The Government’s refuge is often to say, ““We cannot have lists of things””. It is rather like the ““may/shall”” debate—it does not really take us a great deal further when discussing the Bill. If it is appropriate to have a particular exemption in a Bill, then it should be there. The Minister’s other refuge, with which I have some sympathy, is the futuristic one—that is, we do not know what these mobile telephones will be capable of. But if you talk about what they can do now, surely that will get you through the hoop. You do not have to discourse as to whether they can throw laser beams across three miles or whatever. We are talking about the display of advertising, news clips and information on a mobile telephone; we are not talking about a display on a hoarding or something coming by electronic means from a telephone, however marvellous the particular telephone with which I happen to be equipped in a few years’ time may be. The telephone that I have at the moment is not too bad but it certainly cannot do that. The idea that somehow glaring gaps would arise if there were an exception does not wash. I ask the Minister to have a closer look at this issue to see whether more certainty and comfort can be given to the industry so that those involved can plan rather better. I do not know whether the Minister can say anything further at this stage. He certainly went further than did Mr Caborn in the other place. One would have to read Hansard to elicit this, but I think that he was rather firmer on the issue of mobile telephony and he gave a little more explanation. But I hope that in future and perhaps at the next stage of the Bill, the Minister will go further than that and will give clearer undertakings. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.