That is right. The IOC could make such a change, perhaps in response to an international issue, in which case the amendment would give us the necessary flexibility. We must retain the right to make a change in order to provide greater clarity both to the courts and to the public about what sort of activity is likely to create an unauthorised association.
We should also bear in mind that the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to remove words from the list, if legitimate business is stifled as a result of the provision in schedule 4. As a result of the amendment, the Secretary of State ““shall consult”” persons who will be affected by changing the list of words. The amendment specifies that appropriate consultation will take place with the advertising industry, advertising regulators, LOCOG and others. I am happy to advise the House to accept the amendment, which includes some of the commitments that we have made during the Bill’s passage through Parliament.
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Richard Caborn
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 21 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
444 c212 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:58:10 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_310745
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_310745
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_310745