Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Mr. Don Foster rose—

Mr. Caborn: I can reassure the House that anyone listening to a radio programme or reading in the vicinity of Olympic venues a newspaper that contains adverts will not be caught by our advertising restrictions. The hon. Member for Bath can therefore rest assured that such a person would not be prosecuted. I understand the concerns expressed about spectators being prevented from listening to their radios as they walk into the stadium. That is absolutely not our intention and we shall ensure that our regulations are drafted in such a way as to make that clear. Does the hon. Member for Bath still want to intervene?

Mr. Foster indicated dissent.

Mr. Caborn: That shows that, had the hon. Gentleman waited for those pearls of wisdom to fall
 
6 Dec 2005 : Column 808
 
from my lips, he would not have needed to intervene. I hope that, in the light of my reassurance, the amendment will be withdrawn.

Finally, I turn to amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which would require the Secretary of State to consult representatives of the advertising industry before drawing up regulations under clause 18, and before varying the list of words and phrases in schedule 3. The advertising industry will obviously take a keen interest in the new advertising regulations and any changes to the words and phrases listed in schedule 3. We shall consult the advertising industry in drawing up regulations under clause 18—as we have done in drawing up the Bill—and in making any amendments to the lists of words and phrases in schedule 3. I draw hon. Members' attention to clause 22, which, among other things, requires the Olympic delivery authority to liaise with the people likely to be affected by regulations expected to be made under clause 18.

The advertising industry will not be the only stakeholders affected by the advertising regime; local businesses and residents, for example, may also have an interest in it. I am not sure, therefore, that it is helpful to widen the Bill's existing list of consultees, as it could never be exhaustive. In my view, the Bill contains sufficient safeguards to ensure that the interests of the advertising industry and of others are considered, and that their voices are heard. The Government and LOCOG have already established a very good dialogue with the advertising industry, and we shall continue to ensure they are fully engaged in the development of regulations under clause 18, and in any changes made to the list of words and phrases in schedule 3. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

I turn to the question of the ambush market and exempting voluntary organisations and sports clubs from restrictions. Amendment No. 2 applies only to clause 18, which deals with advertising in the vicinity of Olympic venues. Under schedule 3, which we shall debate later, we have provided that LOCOG can authorise people to associate themselves with the games. We should not create a loophole that can be exploited, but I do envisage voluntary community groups being given certain authorisation. We considered this very issue in drafting the Bill, but we came to the conclusion that creating such a blanket exemption would provide a very wide defence that could be open to abuse. For example, we might want to allow all local junior athletics clubs to associate themselves with the games; on the other hand, we might not want major football teams such as Manchester United to do so.

We have sought to address this issue by giving LOCOG the ability to grant the authorisations provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5 to schedule 3. The amendments that we made in Committee allow LOCOG to make class exemptions, and require it to maintain a public register of people, and of classes of people, who are authorised to associate themselves with the games. Those amendments were tabled with schools and voluntary organisations specifically in mind.

I undertake to consider exempting mobile phones from the advertising restrictions when the regulations are made. We intend to be reasonable in our approach to regulations made under clause 18, but as was made clear in Committee, between now and 2012 there will be
 
6 Dec 2005 : Column 809
 
considerable advances in technology and in the ways of the ambush market. I have given a commitment in respect of newspapers, magazines, radio and television, but I cannot provide a blanket exemption for mobile telephony at this stage. Although I can reassure the hon. Member for Bath that the mobile services currently available will almost certainly be exempt, we must future-proof this provision by leaving it somewhat open-ended, so that we can deal with any advances in technology between now and 2012.

Mr. Don Foster: Before the Minister moves on to the two extremely exciting Government amendments, I should point out that although he talked about his commitment to consulting the industry about the development of regulations under clause 18, he did not deal with the reference in amendment No. 7 to consulting

Surely the Minister accepts that, for example, the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre needs to be consulted on the regulations, not least because, otherwise, it could pre-clear an advertisement that is subsequently seen to fall foul of the new regulations. Presumably, it could even be sued as a result of such pre-clearing. Will the Minister clarify that point?

Mr. Caborn: I would expect the BACC to be consulted, but let me put this issue into context. We are talking about a national organisation, LOCOG, which is responsible to the IOC. Its current chairman—hopefully he will continue as chairman through to 2012—is Lord Coe, who is supported ably by Keith Mills. These people will not go out of their way to take the draconian steps that some Members have suggested this evening. We are giving LOCOG powers that we believe are commensurate with its fulfilling its obligations to the IOC. I am sure that those people will interpret the powers that they have been given and the actions that they can take with common sense. There will be consultation and we shall take a common-sense attitude to it.

We have debated bearing down on the games' cost implications for the council tax, but we should remember that they will also provide massive income. In order to reassure the main sponsors and to maximise the revenue stream from them, we must ensure, for example, that we provide clean stadiums. The Government and LOCOG have a duty—not just to the IOC but to council tax payers in London and to others who will finance the games—to ensure that we deliver on these issues.

We tabled Government amendments Nos. 19 and 20 after the constructive debate in Committee of an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bath. He takes great credit for these amendments, although I wish my officials had changed the odd word or two and given the Government greater ownership of the amendments. In any case, I concede that the hon. Gentleman or his researcher drafted the amendments.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to amenity and public safety when drawing up advertising and street trading
 
6 Dec 2005 : Column 810
 
regulations under clauses 18 and 24. I agree with comments made in Committee that strengthening the requirement to have regard to amenity and public safety will ensure that the regulations are appropriate and fitting for each and every venue. I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman for provoking the debate in Committee and am pleased that we are able to come back with these amendments to the Bill at this stage.

Hugh Robertson: I thank the Minister for the reassurances that he has provided. It is fair to say that both sides of the House wish to achieve the same aim: we are simply coming at it from slightly different directions. The achievement tonight is that we have moved closer together. In view of that, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.



Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.



Amendment made: No. 19, in page 12, line 42, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Clause 24


Street Trading, &c.



Amendment made: No. 20, in page 17, line 33, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Clause 35


Regional Development Agencies

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 25, line 5 [Clause 35], leave out subsection (2).

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 27.


Next Section IndexHome Page