Mr. Caborn: Each case is considered on its own merits, but relocation costs, new stock and loss of profits can be included. All that will be determined by the Lands Tribunalthis is where the independent tribunal comes inunder the Land Compensation Act 1961. There is independent arbitration and the facility to take into account losses beyond just the land price. If that is operated correctly, the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman should be answered.
In relation to the concern raised by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), all agents have guidelines for dealing with conflicts of interest, and all such procedures are fully regulated by the appropriate professional body. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has its code of conduct, and members of the RICS who are in breach of that could face expulsion. In the light of the Adjournment debate that took place in Westminster Hall, I am writing to the LDA to draw its attention to that position. If there has been any such occurrence, I do not believe that it has been intentional. I reiterate that the Lands Tribunal is the mechanism for the type of arbitration to which the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) was referring.
I genuinely hope that I have been able to answer the questions put on the record. Overall, the LDA has done a reasonable job in difficult circumstances. It had to respond post-6 July, and it has done that very well. We have put tremendous pressure on it, and I think that its approach to underground cabling and other issues will
6 Dec 2005 : Column 798
pay immense dividends in the medium to long term. While, on the one hand, it might not have answered a few telephone callsI understand the frustration arising from thaton the other, I hope that when we get this Bill on to the statute book and the ODA takes over we can start working in a slightly more effective and efficient manner than has probably been the case previously.
Richard Ottaway: I am obliged to the Minister. There has been frustration, although I am the first to acknowledge that things have improved, particularly in the past few weeks. I am grateful for his interest in the matter and the way that he has approached it. In the light of the welcome clarification that he has given today, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
It is well documented that ambush marketing has been an issue at previous Olympic games. At the 1992 Barcelona games, Reebok paid $700 million only to find Nike sponsoring the winning basketball team's press conference and one of the competitors covering up his Reebok logo. At the 1996 Atlanta games, however, the issue really threatened to overwhelm the Olympics. As a result, subsequent summer and winter games have included provisions to prevent ambush marketing and to protect the rights of official sponsors. That is
6 Dec 2005 : Column 799
important as LOCOG, the event manager, needs to raise approximately £1.5 billion, which will come from three main funding streams. Funding of £550 million will come from the IOC, £310 million will come from ticket sales, an extra £100 million will come from other sources, and £510 million will come from sponsorship raised by LOCOGhence the need for these regulations. Given that, as the hon. Member for Bath pointed out, any revenue surplus is reinvested, with 60 per cent. invested for the general benefit of sport in the UK and 20 per cent. going to the British Olympic Association, we wholeheartedly support that approach.
I am therefore happy with the concept of anti-ambush marketing provisions and the protection of the London Olympics association. Across many sports, inside and outside the Olympic movement, that is the modern waynotably at recent cricket world cups, which have seen similar provisions. Set against that, however, all Members of the House will want voluntary organisations, community groups and sports clubs to benefit from hosting the 2012 Olympics. The key is to achieve that without compromising the protection put in place to safeguard the official sponsors. Amendment No. 2 seeks to achieve that.
Voluntary organisations, community groups and sports clubs have several concerns. The London organising committee for the Olympic games, which already has the power to make blanket exemptions for specific groups, has said that it will not do that in the instance that we are considering and I thank the Minister for writing to confirm that after the Committee stage. There is a concern that the sponsorship of teams or individuals could be affected.
It is also down to the accused to prove their innocence, which is difficult in some cases given the limited resources at their disposal. Fundraising on behalf of individual athletes may be compromised and voluntary or community groups that want to have an Olympics theme day could fall foul of the regulations. For example, I was contacted by Soul in the City, a religious group that engages young people in voluntary work to the benefit of local communities. It is a fantastic organisation that everybody here would support. It wants to hold an Olympics theme day but is worried that doing so will contravene the regulations. That fear of contravening the regulations will deter smaller organisations from making use of the many opportunities that the games will bring.
The commercial marketing elements of the Bill are undoubtedly necessary to prevent ambush marketing and exploitation. Previous Olympics, prior to the introduction of similar measures, have suffered. We also need to maximise the advertising revenue so that, after 2012, the maximum amount of money can be returned to sport.
However, the 2012 Olympics have been marketed as an event that will benefit the whole of the UK. Thanks to the hype that surrounds the games, anticipation is understandably high. Every hon. Member will want schools, sports clubs, community groups and voluntary organisations to derive the maximum benefit from hosting the games. All those organisations will want to use the Olympics to bolster fundraising, raise awareness
6 Dec 2005 : Column 800
and get more people involved. There is no prospect of those groups making personal gains. I urge the Minister to go into some detail in his response to explain the exact processes and safeguards that will protect those groups. There cannot be a single hon. Member who does not want that to be achieved.
In speaking about amendment No. 5, I should like to take over where my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) left off in Committee. In Committee, the hon. Member for Bath tabled an amendment to clause 18(5)clause 17(5) as it was then. Conservative Members supported it in debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke elicited from the Minister the welcome confirmation that there was no intention to apply the regulations to television.
The hon. Member for Bath had similar success in establishing from the Minister that newspapers and, indeed, the stands from which vendors operate, would also enjoy an exemption from any regulations issued under clause 18. We are grateful for the clarification on that. However, despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke to elicit similar assurances about magazines and radio, they were not forthcoming. Given that they are directly comparable to newspapers and television, surely it is right that the exemption from any regulations issued under clause 18 extends to them.
I understand that those issues were subsequently raised at the meeting between representatives of the advertising industry and Department officials on 10 November. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. At that meeting, officials also undertook to consider the case for extending the exemption from clause 18 regulations to mobile telephones and other forms of electronic media that might deliver advertisements.
The amendment's object is therefore threefold. First, it would reflect in statute the commitments that the Minister made about newspapers and television in Committee. Secondly, it would extend those commitments to the comparable media of magazines and radio. Thirdly, its purpose is to tease out from the Minister the view at which the Government have arrived on mobile telephones and other electronic media, which should also be exempted from the regulations issued under clause 18.
I know that the Minister is aware of many of those concerns and I thank him publicly for his assistance thus far. We discussed the issues at the helpful meeting at the Department on 21 November. I hope that, as a result of the amendments, he will welcome the opportunity to put the necessary reassurances on the record.