London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions, although I would not mind just a spark of difference between them. The unity on the other side of the room has begun to terrify me in regard to the representations they have made. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for reminding me of what I said at Second Reading because I sought to express on that occasion that we recognised that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had sought assurances from us; that we had written to it and that we were grateful for its memorandum. The committee had highlighted the need for consultation with the groups affected by some of the regulations provided in the Bill, and we wrote back confirming the undertakings given by the Minister in another place and, indeed, outside Parliament. I reflected that confirmation, as faithfully as I could, when winding up the debate on Second Reading. Of course we need to put provisions in the Bill which will control advertising and prevent ambush marketing. The obligation to do so lies with the arrangements that we made with the International Olympic Committee. All noble Lords will know how stringent the IOC is about advertising around the games. A great deal of the advertising we are discussing is restricted to the vicinity of the games. That is why I mentioned the issue of the projection of mobile telephony close to the games. That is where it would cause a problem. We are not interfering with the vast range of activities of the advertising industry in many other respects but we do have an obligation under the bid for the games. I can reassure noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has pressed me hard on this—that we have already begun extensive dialogue with a broad range of interested stakeholders in regard to these issues. We have met representatives from the advertising industry bodies such as the Advertising Association, the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, the Outdoor Advertising Association, the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, the Direct Marketing Association and the Institute of Sales Promotion. Of the broadcasters, who, as we all recognise, also have a very real interest in these issues, we have met, on a number of occasions, ITV, Channel 4, five and Sky. We have also met with the advertising clearing houses, the BACC and the RACC, not to mention a range of other interested parties concerned with advertising. The Newspaper Society and ITN are notable among that group. So work is going on. Again, if I may refer to discussions that we have had outside the Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Coe, whose work on LOGOC we all respect, gave a clear indication of the work that he had to do and how it interlocked with the Bill and some of the restrictions which were necessary. Any changes that we make to the Bill and the legislation that we draft in terms of the regulations we need—I said earlier that the regulations will need to be drafted later—will be informed by the relationships we have established with appropriate interests outside the House. That is the only way in which we can reach an effective position in regard to this whole question. The view that these matters should be in the Bill has been presented again today. I recognise the strength of the arguments. We are in the fullest consultation about what has been clearly identified as an important area to get right and we will fully consult on the regulations. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will recognise that their amendments would not add to the position but would complicate it. In some respects, asking for a specific requirement in the Bill to consult with the industry when I have shown that we are already in the most extensive consultation—and have been for months—indicates that the amendments are otiose. After all, it is not only the actions I have established today which show that we are committed to this strategy but, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, indicated, unequivocal assurances were given at Second Reading. These followed, of course, unequivocal assurances given in the other place that we intended to work this way. We cannot conceive that advertising regulations which would work well could be constructed without all relevant interests being fully consulted. We plan to keep in very close touch with the industry and we are already involved in extensive consultation. I maintain that these issues are best left to regulation—which, remember, will be restricted to the period of the games—and we do not need these amendments. I hope the noble Lord will accept that argument.