Draft London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Advertising and Trading) (England) Regulations 2011
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Beresford, Sir Paul (Mole Valley) (Con)
† Blears, Hazel (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Campbell, Mr Gregory (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Cruddas, Jon (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
† Duddridge, James (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Godsiff, Mr Roger (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
Goggins, Paul (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
† Gyimah, Mr Sam (East Surrey) (Con)
† Hames, Duncan (Chippenham) (LD)
† Jones, Graham (Hyndburn) (Lab)
† Jowell, Tessa (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
† Nuttall, Mr David (Bury North) (Con)
† Pritchard, Mark (The Wrekin) (Con)
† Raynsford, Mr Nick (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
† Robertson, Hugh (Minister for Sport and the Olympics)
† White, Chris (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
† Wilson, Mr Rob (Reading East) (Con)
Mark Oxborough, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
First Delegated Legislation Committee
Tuesday 1 November 2011
[Mr Albert Owen in the Chair]
Draft London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Advertising and Trading) (England) Regulations 2011
4.30 pm
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Advertising and Trading) (England) Regulations 2011.
Since the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 was passed, enormous progress has been made in preparing London and the rest of the UK for the games. As always, I want to place on record my thanks to our coalition partners, and indeed to the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood for her continued support and all the work that she did during the early part of the games process.
During the passage of the 2006 Act, Parliament recognised that tailored provision was needed for the games to act as a stronger deterrent against ambush marketing and illegal trading, and because existing powers alone would not be not adequate for a major, time-critical event such as the London Olympics. While the International Olympic Committee is understandably concerned about ambush marketing, and while similar powers are common for many other world-class sporting events, we also need the regulations to protect public space so that spectators can access venues safely.
When drafting the regulations, we tried to strike an appropriate balance between those objectives and ensuring that normal business can carry on to the greatest possible extent. With an expected global audience for the games of up to 4 billion people, there is no doubt that there will be concerted attempts to ambush them. The regulations must protect against that but, crucially, they must go no further than is necessary. Proportionality is vital here.
In striking that balance, we have listened carefully to the views of those who will be affected. My Department launched a wide-ranging consultation in March. More than 600 people or agencies were directly contacted about the consultation and a leaflet was delivered to every letterbox within the proposed regulated zones. My officials have met representatives of the advertising and trading sectors on several occasions. Despite the fact that so many were directly contacted, only 51 written responses were received to the consultation, from a range of stakeholders, which is a reflection of the extensive informal consultations that have taken place under both Governments since 2006. In general, there was support for our proposed approach. Most suggestions tended to be technical, and we have amended the regulations in light of those suggestions.
We recognise that ambush marketers will try to find new and innovative ways to associate brands with high-profile events, which is why we have prescribed a broad definition of advertising and trading activity, and then specified several exemptions, many of which are based on existing legislation. Advertising or trading activity that is not exempt may still be undertaken if it is authorised by the Olympic Delivery Authority for trading, or by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games for advertising. Let me be absolutely clear that the regulations are not about stifling public protest; we have crafted a specific exemption for demonstrations.
Unlike for previous host cities, some of which regulated a kilometre outside venues, our regulations apply to event zones, which in most cases comprise only the venue and the area a few hundred metres around it. Indeed, I have looked at all the maps to ensure that that is the case. In a few cases, the event zones go slightly further so that we can protect key places, primarily for when spectators will walk from a major transport hub. As with the event zones, the times when the regulations apply are tailored to each event—switching on the day before an event starts and applying when the event is taking place.
Under the 2006 Act, the regulations may be enforced by the police or by enforcement officers designated by the ODA. It is only right that the police focus on safety and security matters at games time, so the ODA will take the lead on enforcement with police back-up where necessary. The ODA is looking to designate enforcement officers from local authorities who are experienced at dealing with street-trading and advertising offences. It will take a light-touch approach towards most infringements, which are likely to be minor, but persistent offenders could face having offending items seized or, in a small amount of cases, destroyed. The ODA’s enforcement strategy, which I have seen and approved, will be published on its website shortly. It was trialled during the test events and the experience of the local authority enforcement officers has been extremely positive.
Following Atlanta 1996, the IOC required all bidding cities to commit to take steps to prevent ambush marketing around games venues. Sydney 2000 was a test case, and since then other host cities have taken similar steps. I believe that the regulations provide a robust yet proportionate framework to deal with ambush marketing, as well as preserving a consistent look across venues and ensuring safe access to them. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
4.35 pm
Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Owen.
I thank the Minister for his co-operation in the development of the regulations. I also commend the efforts of his officers and congratulate them on their rigorous approach and the care with which they have engaged with stakeholders. They have done an excellent job.
The Minister clearly set out that the undertaking to bring forward such advertising and trading regulations was part of the commitment that we made to the IOC in our bid to host the games. They are part of the protection of the extremely valuable intellectual property and brand associated with anything to do with the Olympics. Existing trading standards regulations are not adequate to meet
such a highly specific and clearly time-limited purpose, so Labour Members support the regulations and the way in which they have been developed, although it would be helpful if the Minister could answer one or two questions.I share the Minister’s concern about proportionality. I note that a considerable number of trading standards officers—some 250, I think—will be deployed to ensure that the regulations are given effect. Given the constraints on local authorities, is the Minister satisfied that trading standards officers of sufficient experience and training will be available to cover the games without their own areas suffering any detriment, given that some of them will be seconded from parent local authorities?
I also draw the Minister’s attention to some interesting quotes captured in the response to the consultation from the TUC and the Hackney Pearl suggesting that there might be some impediment for local businesses. One of the Tower Hamlets newspapers suggests that specific advice and guidance might be necessary for micro-businesses so that they understand the regulations. The European Sponsorship Association makes the wise observation that
“disproportionate ambush protections and overly zealous enforcement of anti-ambush rules can generate very substantial negative media coverage, often with adverse publicity for the event organiser, for the host city and country and for official sponsors.”
In a way, the provisions are similar to those regarding the management of Olympic lanes, the issuing of licences and so forth that that the House debated recently, which are now being considered by another place.
The impact of the regulations, sensible and well drafted as they are, lies in the proportionality of implementation and enforcement. A lot of discretion will rest on the competence and confidence of individual trading standards officers who are confronted by an apparent breach.
I note that no compensation will be payable. Will the Minister set out the thinking behind that? I understood that businesses that suffered loss of trade would be compensated when they were not able to trade within the vicinity of one of the venues. I might have misunderstood something, but perhaps he could clarify the position on record to reassure businesses in the immediate areas of the venues.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD): It is important that that point is clarified. From reading the documentation, I understand that compensation will be provided, as a figure of £253,000 is included in the estimates in the impact assessment. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it will be particularly helpful if the Minister explains the purpose for which that money is intended?
Tessa Jowell: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. To going back to the point about support for micro-businesses, advice should be given about opportunities to secure some of that compensation.
The provisions, when properly executed and implemented, will be important to promote confidence in the games, and in their management and handling, throughout the 16 days of the summer games and 11 days of the Paralympics. I commend the regulations—[ Interruption. ] Old habits die hard. I am happy to support the regulations, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to my specific points.
4.42 pm
Mr Foster: It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. It is also a great pleasure to be able to support the Minister and the regulations. It is important that we place on record our thanks to his officials for their work to take account of not only the formal written responses that were received—as the Minister said, the number of responses was relatively small compared with the 600 notices that were sent out—but the informal consultations.
I am delighted that a number of changes were made to the draft regulations after taking account of the issue of demonstrations, to which the Minister specifically referred. Given what is going on outside St Paul’s—and, in fact, in Queen square in Bath—that is particularly important. Account has also been taken of such things as the daubing of slogans onto semi-naked bodies—[ Interruption. ] Not in my case. The exemption for delivery vehicles has been widened so that, unlike under the original draft, we will be dealing with not just milk floats. Many changes have been made in response to the understandable concerns that were expressed.
There is one area in which understandable concerns have been expressed but, sadly, they have not been taken into account by the Government. I first raised the issue in 2005 when we were discussing what became the 2006 Act. The reverse burden of proof will apply to people who have been involved, or are alleged to have been involved, in ambush marketing activities. In 2005, when moving amendment 16, I argued that it would be preferable to have the normal burden of proof, namely that someone is innocent until proved guilty. At that time, the then Minister for Sport, Dick Caborn, assured me that there was not a problem:
“Our approach is consistent with the case of Sheldrake v. DPP, which essentially sets the bounds of acceptability in relation to reverse burdens of proof. Our approach also closely follows the type of defence available under section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act, which provides an offence in breach of advertising restrictions imposed under the Act.”
That was all jolly helpful, but it did not mean a great deal to me. I was simply concerned that this was placing an unfair burden on people who might have transgressed. Anyone who was present, and some members of this Committee were on that Committee, will recall that the Minister for Sport got somewhat hot under the collar with me and accused me of raising issues that were not very important. He said:
“We must apply some common sense. I cannot believe that we shall haul before the courts a little old lady who has a shop somewhere because she has used some words that are out of synch with what we are saying. It is ludicrous to think that. This measure is not about that sort of thing;” —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2005; c. 96-97.]
I was delighted to hear that, and I was delighted to hear the Minister today say that there is to be a light touch approach. However, it is very clear that someone will have to prove that they have taken not just some steps, but “all reasonable steps”. That could place a significant onus on major businesses, which could be caught up in this, not through any fault of their own but because of the approach by some zealous junior member of staff. Will the Minister give us an assurance that either the Department or LOCOG, whichever is more appropriate, will issue clear guidance to businesses as to what would constitute the taking of all reasonable
steps? I would prefer the burden of proof to be reversed to the normal requirement, but if it is to stay where it is, businesses need those assurances. As that work is having to take place now for those firms, it would be helpful to receive assurance not only that that guidance will be issued but that it will be issued in the near future.One aspect of the legislation is omitted. I understand the reasons for that, but it is important to draw attention to the fact that other Olympic and Paralympic events will take place within the United Kingdom, in particular the torch relay and the Paralympic torch events. I know that these regulations do not cover those issues. I have been in discussions with the Department and I have received assurances that those issues will be discussed, particularly how to prevent ambush marketing during the torch relay and during Paralympic events. I should be grateful for the Minister’s assurance, so that it is on the record, that that work will take place with local authorities which can be assisted in ensuring that there is no ambush marketing during those activities.
In respect of the torch relay and the Paralympic events, it concerns me that local authorities will be required, as I understand it, to obtain planning permission and advertising consent if the torch travels through their area. They will have to go to themselves, because they are the planning body, to obtain planning permission, but if the route is specified, the details of the torch route will be revealed before it is made public, and there are security issues. There is a paradox, which will require some careful working through. The easiest way to achieve what we want would be for the Minister to work with his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to see if they will make an exemption from those requirements for the torch relay and the Paralympic torch events. I understand that that is extremely unlikely and that DCLG has not been particularly helpful with such matters, but I urge him at least to have a go to try to solve the problem, because there will be difficulties for local authorities unless we help them.
Having made those two broad points, I would like to say that I am pleased that many changes have been made to take account of the concerns raised. I am more than happy to support the Minister and the Government in backing the statutory instrument.
4.51 pm
Hugh Robertson: I thank the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath for their helpful and constructive responses.
The right hon. Lady made three points. She asked whether I was satisfied that a sufficient number, in terms of the absolute number and the quality, of experienced enforcement officers could be recruited. I can assure her that that is the case, on the basis that that is the advice we have been given. During the test events over the summer, the opportunity was taken to test a series of events and I gather that they all went extremely well. The response was appropriately proportionate and everybody understands the critical point that she made: over-zealous enforcement will do enormous harm to the event in a way that none of us, who are either involved with it or who represent constituencies that are closely involved, as in the case of the right hon. Gentleman,
want to happen. She is right to raise that concern and I can give her that assurance. That leads to her second point about the TUC, the Hackney Pearl and the Tower Hamlets newspaper.The right hon. Lady will remember, from the extensive amount of time she spent at the helm of this project, that there is always a danger that some media reports will home in on a part of it before they really understand what is going on and produce a slightly alarmist story, when the reality is rather less severe. That has undoubtedly happened a little bit with some of these regulations. She makes a good point and it is also a timely reminder to us that we need to double and redouble our efforts to ensure that everybody understands exactly what is and is not permissible at games time.
On the compensation payable, the 2006 Act does not make specific provisions for compensation and none will be payable for advertising. For traders however, the ODA will give financial assistance and pay up to £200 a day or £150 in Scotland—I am looking around to see which Members are in Committee, before I get into trouble over that. It is simply because the licence costs less north of the border, but that financial assistance is available.
My right hon. Friend may have made a small error, but he can take comfort from the fact that I made exactly the same error. He and I remember a conversation with the former MP for Sheffield Central, Richard Caborn, during the passage of the 2006 Act. It was important to the ODA and the organising committee that the regulations took effect straight away, but the deal that I thought was reached in the end was that in return we reversed the reversal of the burden of proof that had applied during the Sydney games. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to remember that, but that aspect of the legislation applied only to the association right and not to the advertising, which I discovered only the other day.
I can give my right hon. Friend some comfort by telling him that what the regulations propose is entirely consistent with regulations in other parts of the advertising industry. It is absolutely what happens in other parts of the advertising spectrum, and, indeed, the 2006 Act specifically provides two defences. I am afraid that the changes went through with the Act and are now part of the legislation. I have looked at this matter carefully since waking up, as my right hon. Friend has, to the fact that that aspect does not apply to both sides, but merely to the association right, in terms of the combination of names. I am convinced that what we are doing is sensible and consistent with policy in other areas of advertising. My right hon. Friend made a point about the security of the route at the torch time.
Mr Foster: Will the Minister help me with something, so that it is clear and on the record? There is a requirement that it must be demonstrated that all appropriate steps have been taken. Will the Minister agree to provide advice and guidance on that matter?
Hugh Robertson: Yes, I absolutely give that assurance here and now. There are two defences that anybody can have: first, that they had no knowledge of the activity taking place; and secondly, that they had taken steps to prevent such activity. A defence, therefore, is laid down in the Act and anybody can use it.
As far as the security of the torch is concerned, I again take my right hon. Friend’s point. He is about to receive a briefing on the torch relay, as is the right hon. Lady. Inevitably, they will see that it is a pretty simple join-the-dots exercise, and that it becomes very obvious exactly where the route will be after looking at the various stops. I suspect that it will be clear which roads and streets the thing will go down as soon as the route of the torch relay has been released.
My right hon. Friend absolutely hit on part of the reason why we have not extended the powers to the torch. It was felt that the regulations are quite powerful,
and we have to use them extremely sparingly and proportionately. There was a very strong desire, which will be shared by everybody on the Committee, not to overdo this. It was felt to be right that the powers are restricted to as small an area as possible around the venues at the time of the games, and that we should not try to use them more generically.