My Lords, I want to add my voice to those who have commended the Minister on his flexibility as regards the government amendments that he has moved. He has listened to the debates in Committee and acted on them. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Coe, is not in his place—he was earlier—because I would have now asked the Minister to go the extra mile—I am glad some noble Lords appreciated that comment. However, I do not intend to detain the House by picking over what has already been said on the subject. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has said today and at previous stages that this is the time for compromise. Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour Benches support this compromise amendment in that spirit. It is now the turn of the Government to demonstrate their willingness on this issue and to make a compromise. I believe it is incumbent on them to do so.
A postponement of the commencement date for Schedule 4 solves, in my view, a number of problems, not least the fact that London’s 2012 guidance notes for advertisers and others remain in first draft form only. In other words, the final version of the interpretive guidance will not be available to those whom the London Olympics association right will affect until sometime after that right has reached the statute book. Clearly, that is not ideal or fair from any viewpoint or perspective.
Amendment No. 31, if adopted, would provide LOCOG, once it has taken over the responsibility for this particular task from London 2012 on Royal Assent, with extra time to complete the necessary stages of drafting that clearly still need to be done before producing a final version of the guidance notes. As others have said, there will then be a job to communicate their existence and content and to explain the implications of the London Olympics association right to those on whom it may impact.
If it is the intention of my noble friend Lord Davies to reject this compromise amendment on behalf of the Government, I would challenge him to explain in categorical terms how he intends that LOCOG will get over this particular—dare I say?—hurdle. In eager anticipation of the Minister’s response, I commend the amendment to the House.
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Pendry
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c625-6 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-26 16:39:14 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305416
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305416
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305416