London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that, on the important matter of advertising, we do not want people to use ambush marketing on the pretence that someone came from their area when that was not true. Of course, he rightly reminds us that the success in the Commonwealth games to date has come from all the home countries, and we should rightly applaud all those who are involved. The Minister rightly made the point in introducing this string of amendments that the Bill has received a great deal of cross-party support. These proceedings are rather like the marathon runner who can find the extra energy to sprint at the end of a long race: we have the opportunity to make some important improvements during the Bill’s final stages, as a result of the cross-party consensus. The Minister is well aware of the history; it has been referred to already. Much of what we are debating now is based on ideas that were first suggested by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) and myself in Committee, when the Minister was not prepared to accept an addition to the list of consultees in the Bill, particularly in relation to the advertising industry, notwithstanding the fact that the proposal was modelled on the Gambling Act 2005, which the very same Minister had taken through the House only a few months earlier. None the less, he was not prepared to accept that proposal. The Bill then went to another place for debate, and we were all eventually delighted that the Government were willing to accept that the advertising industry should become a statutory consultee. Although I clearly welcome these amendments, because they are based on proposals that originally came from Liberal Democrat and other Opposition Members, I want to raise an issue with the Minister nevertheless. We are considering the important issue of ambush advertising and marketing, and it is crucial for the House to accept that such things can happen and that we must guard against them for obvious reasons, to protect the Olympic symbol from its unwanted use in advertising. We therefore accept not only the need to take rapid action, as people propose novel ideas for ambush marketing, but the need for rapid consultation. That is all accepted, so it is important to take account of the fact that, only yesterday, the Joint Committee on Human Rights commented on that aspect of the Bill in its seventh report on legislative scrutiny. On page 6 of that report, on the procedures that might be adopted, it said:"““Ordinarily this would be the occasion for adverse comment from our Committee””." It went on to point out that it would not make such adverse comments, because of the special circumstances of the Olympic and Paralympic games. However, it made a strongly worded recommendation. It said:"““We consider it, however, all the more important that the explanatory memorandum which accompanies the regulations when they are made provides a detailed explanation as to why in the Secretary of State’s view the restrictions on advertising are compatible with the rights identified above””." The Committee was obviously referring to human rights. It is crucial that the Minister use this opportunity to give absolute assurances that the regulations, when published, take account of Joint Committee’s recommendations. With that said, I, like the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, am delighted to accept these Lords amendments. Lords amendment agreed to. Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 10 agreed to.