London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill
House of Commons, 21 March 2006.
Clause 20 — Regulations: supplemental
Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 10.
Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)
I shall be advising the House to accept all the amendments made in the other place. They were all tabled by the Government, following some high-quality debate and strongly made points on both sides of the House.
The Bill has benefited from broad cross-party support throughout its passage. We improved the Bill in this House and can improve it further today by accepting the amendments made in the other place. I genuinely thank Opposition parties for their broad support and I thank Members for their positive engagement with the Bill, which has helped to prepare it for Royal Assent just nine months after Jacques Rogge, the president of the International Olympic Committee, opened that envelope—with some difficulty—in Singapore last July and said that wonderful word "London".
Since then, we have been getting on with the preparatory work. We have started the Olympic park, and key personnel are already in place in both the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games and the Olympic Delivery Authority. I am delighted that this important Bill has progressed so swiftly.
Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 all relate to the people whom the Secretary of State must consult when making regulations under clause 19, which will control advertising in the vicinity of games venues, and under clause 26, which will control street trading in the vicinity of venues.
Andy Reed (Labour, Loughborough)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the Commonwealth games means that it is even more important that we get those provisions right, because there will obviously be much more media and advertising interest in making the Olympics a success? Will he congratulate all those who have won medals so far, especially Loughborough, which seems to be fifth in the medal table?
Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)
I could not agree more—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) tells me that Welsh swimmers are doing incredibly well, too. I realise that I am digressing, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that you, like me, welcome the fantastic performance of our team in Melbourne and hope that it continues until the end of the week. It is nice to see headlines in the Australian press that we whacked the Australians in the swimming pool as well.
As Members will recall, this House debated advertising and it was debated again at length in the other place. The debate focused on whether we should put a requirement on the face of the Bill for the Secretary of State to consult the advertising industry and anyone else likely to be affected directly by the regulations under clauses 19 and 26. Members will remember that I gave unequivocal assurances that the advertising industry would be consulted. Those assurances were echoed in the other place. However, Members will be aware that we have been very much in listening mode during the Bill's passage and, as a result, I am pleased that the Government brought forward an amendment in the other place, which addresses the concerns of Members and the industry, and gives a statutory basis to the commitments that I have already given.
I draw Members' attention to the fact that the amendments address the comments made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the Bill of 15 December. The Committee commented on the need for organisations representing those affected by either the advertising or street trading regulations to be consulted. The amendments mean that representatives will be consulted where interested persons are affected by the regulations.
I shall deal briefly with the detail of the amendments. Amendment No. 3 ensures that the advertising industry, and anyone else who may be affected by the regulations that will control advertising in the vicinity of games venues, will be consulted as the regulations are being drawn up. Amendment No. 8 ensures that those likely to be affected by regulations under clause 26, controlling street trading in the vicinity of venues, will similarly be consulted.
The remaining amendments in the group make minor and consequential changes, and I commend them to the House.
Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)
I, for one, am extremely encouraged that we are all here. On Third Reading, I said that, although the Bill is not lengthy in parliamentary terms, it is, in fact, quite complex—setting up a de facto regional development agency in the Olympic delivery authority in its first half and establishing the ground rules of the marketing of the commercial media rights in the second. The Minister agreed about that then and looked at me, possibly a little ruefully, over the Dispatch Box. Indeed, subsequent events have proved that right. Given the fact that these are difficult and technical issues, I am delighted that they have been ironed out during the parliamentary process and that the Bill is back with us tonight.
The time interval between winning the bid on 6 July and the first publication of the Bill on 14 July was extraordinarily short, even allowing for the fact that much of the preparatory work had obviously been done. Given the Bill's technical nature, which I have already acknowledged, it is a very considerable achievement on behalf of all those responsible for drafting the Bill—LOCOG, the British Olympic Association and, of course, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—that the list of amendments is so short. May I therefore genuinely ask the Minister—I mean this absolutely seriously—to pass on my thanks to all those who were involved?
In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Glentoran said:
"If democracy in this country could run on the sorts of lines that we have debated in this particular Bill, this country would be a better place".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 March 2006; Vol. 679, c. 1210.]
Fabulous, is it not? I wholly agree. The process of parliamentary scrutiny has genuinely made this a better Bill. I am told that the Sydney games needed four Bills, and I suspect that, as the games progress, a number of other issues will benefit from parliamentary scrutiny. I hope therefore that the Government will be encouraged by their experience with the Bill and that, as a result, they will involve Parliament closely, as the process develops. That is crucial to maintain the cross-party consensus that has characterised both the bid and the Bill.
All four groups of amendments before us tonight were introduced as a result of concerns first raised in Committee and subsequently by our Front-Bench spokesman in the other place, and I should like to record my thanks to Lord Glentoran for the part that he played. Unsurprisingly, all four groups of amendments therefore enjoy my support.
This the first group of amendments mandates the Secretary of State to consult the relevant industry bodies before regulations on advertising and street trading are drawn up. The Minister agreed to that principle in Committee, but it will now be given statutory force. Clearly, it is eminently sensible to involve the industry closely at every stage and for that requirement to have statutory force, and we all want consultation, rather than prescription, to characterise the delivery of the games. This group of amendments, therefore, has our full support.
Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)
I am delighted that the Minister introduced this string of amendments and, quite rightly, used it as an opportunity to praise all our athletes for their successes in the Commonwealth games. Reference has already been made to the rivalry between Bath and Loughborough. Of course, the Minister will be well aware of where our swimmers were, in the main, trained—and it was not Loughborough.
Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)
rose—
Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's intervention will relate to the amendments.
Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)
I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your advice. I was going to say that, when considering the advertising of the Olympics in 2012, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that not just English images should be used. David Davies—not the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), nor the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies)—won by nearly a full length, and he was not trained anywhere near Bath or Loughborough.
Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)
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 the 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.
Schedule 3 — Olympic Symbol Protection
Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)
I beg to move, That the House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 18 to 20.
Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)
The thanks that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) gave to my staff and all those who worked on the Bill will be passed on. They have done an excellent job not just on the Bill, but in keeping Opposition Members informed and, indeed, in considering and acting on many of their comments, and rightly so. Those thanks will be conveyed to all those concerned.
We will consider the Joint Committee recommendations that were referred to by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and incorporate them in the explanatory memorandum. That should be available when the Bill receives Royal Assent, which, I hope, will be early in April or even towards the end of this month.
This group of amendments gives greater clarity as to how the London Olympics Association right affects publishers and broadcasters. The Bill had always provided for exemptions from the London Olympics Association right for people who broadcast reports or published information about the 2012 games. These amendments provide greater clarity and certainty for publishers and broadcasters that their activities will not be adversely affected by the new association right.
Our intention throughout has been to ensure the absolute freedom of the press to report about, or indeed comment on, the Olympic games and the Paralympic games. The amendments provide important clarification of that position, but in creating an "editorial or journalistic" exemption, we needed to ensure that we did not unwittingly create a situation that advertisers and those who seek to ambush the games could exploit. That is why the journalistic exemptions in the original draft of the Bill contained the phrase "necessary incident". That phrase caused the publishers and broadcasting industries considerable concern, and I am happy that we were able in the other place to table amendments that addressed that concern.
We have found a form of words that provide comfort to the publishers and broadcasting industries that their activities will not be unfairly affected by the Bill, but that also ensure that advertising material that is published at the same time as, or in connection with, a report or information about the games will not have an "editorial" exemption behind which to hide.
I think that both sides of the House have always been in agreement about what this provision should achieve—ensuring the freedom of the press in relation to the 2012 games. I think these amendments achieve that without creating a loophole that advertisers who seek to ambush the games could exploit. While the issue came up in debate on the provisions in schedule 4, it applies equally to the Olympics association right as well. That is why we have made identical changes to schedule 3, which amends the original Olympic symbol legislation.
I hope that hon. Members agree that these changes improve the Bill and that they will be prepared to accept the amendments that their lordships have made.
Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)
As the Minister has said, this group of amendments addresses concerns raised by the broadcasting and newspaper industries and taken up by both Opposition parties both here and in the other place. On Report in this House, the issue was raised at a fairly late hour so I am delighted that it has now been properly addressed.
There was a justifiable concern that wholly legitimate and acceptable broadcasting and journalistic activity could—I say only "could"—be caught by the advertising regulations, and there was particular concern about the term "necessary incident". This group of amendments addresses that concern, exempts publishing and broadcasting reports and information about the 2012 games from infringing the London Olympics Association right and gives the exemption statutory force on the face of the Bill. As you might expect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this group of amendments therefore has my wholehearted support.
Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)
There is no doubt that this is a welcome group of amendments. As the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) and the Minister have said, there was from the beginning concern from the newspapers and broadcasters about the original provision. It is worth recalling what the Newspaper Society said in its letter to members of the Standing Committee. It stated:
"For a statutory body to have any role in determining the content of a newspaper's editorial material would be without precedent and would represent an utterly unacceptable incursion into the freedom of the press, and a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 as being contrary to Article 10 of the Convention."
Similar concerns were expressed by many other bodies.
As a result, I tabled a number of amendments in Committee initially to expand the safeguards to cover criticism and review in addition to reporting. That was considered inadequate. At a later stage, I proposed that the provision include "any editorial usage" without limitation. That, too, was rejected by the Minister. In another place, my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones, who is the Front-Bench spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, proposed an amendment that would have deleted the words "as a necessary incident of" and inserted the phrase "in the course of". Sadly, that too was rejected. However, I am delighted that we now have a Government amendment that deletes the words "as a necessary incident of" and inserts not the phrase "in the course of", but merely the word "in". That is clearly briefer, but makes exactly the same point. It is very similar to the amendment tabled by my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones, so it is hardly surprising that we fully support it.
Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)
I briefly wish to take the opportunity to add my support to the amendments. We all recognise that, although some people will get to watch the Olympics live, most people even in my constituency of Putney, which is close to where some of the events will take place, will watch the games on television in the same way that we now watch Wimbledon on television. To be able to iron out the concern described is a real achievement. I am very pleased that we have been able to do it.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 13 agreed to.
Schedule 4 — London Olympics Association Right
Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)
With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)
This group of amendments relates to the status of the words and phrases listed in schedule 4. In debate, both here and in the other place, considerable concern was expressed about the "evidential burden" that we had created in relation to schedule 4. The evidential burden would have meant that the use in combination of the words and phrases listed in paragraph 3 of the schedule would, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, have been treated as constituting an association with the London Olympics. Although the burden was a light one, by which a defendant had to produce any evidence that an association had not been made, to shift the burden back to LOCOG to prove its case, we have listened to what has been said during the Bill's passage and have taken the opportunity to amend it by removing the evidential presumption.
We still feel that the list of words and phrases in schedule 4 is important in helping the public to understand what sort of activity may create an association with the London games, but we appreciate the concerns that have been expressed about the position in which we would have been putting advertisers and businesses by virtue of an evidential presumption.
The amendments will remove the evidential presumption attached to the use of the words and phrases listed in paragraph 3. Instead, we have suggested that when considering whether the London Olympics Association right has been breached, the courts would be able to consider, in particular, whether the defendant had used a combination of the words and phrases listed in schedule 4.
I hope that hon. Members will be able to support this approach. It removes the evidential presumption about which both Houses had expressed concerns, but retains in the Bill the list of words and phrases that provides greater clarity for the public about what the association right is about, and allows the court to take into account the use of those words and phrases when deciding whether someone has infringed the association right. I hope that the House will accept the amendments.
Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)
The amendment addresses the use of presumption, in that a person is "presumed" to have infringed the London Olympics Association right by using any of the words listed in the Bill. It has become known, slightly unfortunately, as the reversal of the presumption of innocence, and it was one of the most controversial aspects of the original Bill.
As the Minister has said, we debated the issue at length both in Committee and on Report, and I warned him on Third Reading that I thought that it would cause problems in the other place.In Committee we discussed the defences that were available in the original Bill and the fact that the approach was consistent with Sheldrake v. DPP and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. However, concerns remained, focused mainly on two areas: first, the fact that it is a basic principle of English law that one is innocent until proven guilty, and the regulation at least seemed to contravene that principle; and secondly, the fact that the Bill seemed to weight the dice firmly in favour of LOCOG.
We all accept that the marketing of major international sports events is now in a new era, and organisers demand exclusivity to derive the most commercially advantageous sponsorship deals. As a quid pro quo, we all accept that some of the money finds its way back to the grass-roots development of sport. I wholly agree with that principle. However, it is important to strike a balance so that the enforcement of the measures is not unduly heavy-handed.
The amendments represent a good compromise. LOCOG gets the exclusivity that it requires and the security of knowing that the regulations will take effect on Royal Assent, while on the other side of the fence, the industry gets some measure of protection from over-zealous enforcement. I therefore have no hesitation in agreeing to the amendments.
Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)
I, too, am delighted to say that we will support the amendments. This matter caused great concern during the passage of the Bill. I said in Committee that at the very least the presumption of liability, if not of guilt,
"goes against what everyone in this country and certainly our courts holds dear: the principle of innocence until proven guilty."
When the matter was first raised, the Minister said:
"it is appropriate, and indeed proportionate, that the burden of proof falls on the defendant in this case."
We argued strongly that the Government's view was incorrect, but the Minister tried to justify it by saying:
"we are not going after the little granny who owns the sweet shop at the bottom of the road, in order to haul her before the courts. That would be crazy."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2005; c. 94–97.]
However, as the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) has rightly pointed out, it is crucial that we realise that we will be dealing not only with the little granny, but with local sports clubs and community bodies, which need protection.
I was genuinely delighted that although the Government failed to accept amendments tabled in this place, progress was made when the Bill got to another place and was in the hands of my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones. I noted with interest that Lord Davies of Oldham described himself as quailing in the face of Lord Clement-Jones on the matter. It was good to note that after Lord Davies had listened to my noble Friend's argument, he was willing to accept it and move an amendment with wording similar to that tabled by my noble Friend.
I am sure that the amendments will be accepted today, but I hope that the Minister will give thought on another occasion to the outstanding question of LOCOG's status in respect of freedom of information legislation. He will be aware that LOCOG is exempt from such legislation because it is a private body. I accept entirely that confidential business matters need to be protected, but that legislation already protects them. Although LOCOG will not be covered by freedom of information legislation, I hope that it will operate as if it was covered by that legislation, because it is important that there be absolute transparency whenever it acts and makes decisions, especially on the matter that the amendments address. Let me end as I began, by saying that I am delighted that we are considering amendments to the most controversial bit of the Bill and that we have found a satisfactory situation to the problem.
Andy Reed (Labour, Loughborough)
I add my congratulations on the way in which this issue has been dealt with, which demonstrates that there has been cross-party support for getting the wording right throughout the Bill's passage. Opposition Members were right to raise the matter in Committee because the Bill would have somewhat shifted the presumption on the evidence, although we also realised that there was a real need to prevent ambush marketing. The headline-grabbing words in the Bill made it difficult to escape that thought. The idea that we could ban the use of the word "summer" in a whole variety of contexts, which was suggested by paragraph 3(4)(g) of schedule 4, caused consternation outside the House—although those of us who were involved in the Bill's passage, LOCOG and others realised that we wished to prevent the use of a combination of phrases and words, such as "2012" and "the games", for commercial purposes.
I want reassurance from the Minister about a matter raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). Will he ensure that there is sufficient flexibility for amateur sports clubs and associations and county sports partnerships throughout the country? For example, in Leicestershire the county sports partnership and others are trying to organise 2012 fun runs from now right through to the time of the Olympics. We want an assurance that no such projects will ever be caught, because they are intended not to make a commercial profit out of the games but to encourage people to participate. They are intended to encourage mass participation in sport throughout the country by garnering enthusiasm for the 2012 Olympics.
We have made the right move by trying to reassure people outside the House that the presumption is not the wrong way round, and that the presumption of innocence exists. However, the regulations will still be sufficiently tough to address those who wish to profit from the games. We should not underestimate the fact that many people will want to ride on the back of the success of the Olympics, especially as we run up to the games in 2010 and 2011. If we allow that to happen, it might jeopardise the commercial success of the Olympics and the money that we need to generate through big sponsors to pay for the games. It is thus important that we get this aspect of the Bill right. On reflection, we now have perhaps the best possible way forward, so I congratulate all who have been involved on finding the solution.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
I welcome the amendment on evidential presumption, because the matter caused a great deal of debate in Committee. However, I wish that the amendments went further, especially on the terms of infringement.
As we predicted in Committee, the list of prohibited words and expressions is starting to cause problems for several organisations. Such organisations wish to support the games and ensure that they are a success for the whole country. An organisation in my constituency called Basingstoke 2012, which was set up to promote Basingstoke as a site for an Olympic training team, has already fallen foul of the rules, and I believe that other organisations throughout the country are experiencing similar difficulties. The problems are of such an extent that my local paper, the Basingstoke Gazette, is running a competition to rename the organisation. In the meantime, the organisation is being called "Basingstoke 2011 plus one" to try to get round the problem. The situation is a little reminiscent of what we were discussing in Committee, so I hope for further reassurance from the Minister that organisations that wish to support the success of the games for the betterment of the country will not fall foul of the measures.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16 agreed to.
Lords Amendment: No. 17.
Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
I have heard the comments made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller), and I shall speak to LOCOG about that matter. As she knows, LOCOG will start any prosecution and take a view on such issues. We will give further consideration to freedom of information, and although the issue should not be addressed in the Bill, I have heard the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
Like other amendments that we have debated today, Lords amendment No. 17 was introduced following debate in this House and the other place. It makes it clear that before altering the list of words and phrases in paragraph 3 of schedule 4, the Secretary of State shall consult the advertising industry, advertising regulators, LOCOG and anyone else whom she thinks appropriate. The amendment is similar to those that we have already discussed in relation to the advertising and street trading regulations, and again, we have listened to the concerns expressed by the industry and on both sides of the House. The amendment provides on the face of the Bill greater assurance for the advertising industry that it will be consulted on provisions that may affect its day-to-day business. I think it unlikely that the list of words and phrases in schedule 4 will change, but hon. Members will appreciate that if damaging ambush marketing takes place between now and 2012, the Secretary of State must retain the right to alter that list.
Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)
Does the Minister agree that there would be another possible reason for a change if the IOC changed the technical manuals, in which case the Secretary of State would have no choice other than to change the wording?
Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)
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.
Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)
As the Minister has said, the amendment gives statutory force to the requirement to consult the advertising industry, its regulators and LOCOG. Once again, it returns to an issue that was discussed at length in Committee and on Report in this House and in the other place. It recognises the concerns of the industry and strengthens the requirement to consult, and therefore has my full support.
As the Bill leaves this House and Parliament for Royal Assent, may I place on the record my view that it is a considerable achievement for Parliament to have got such a complicated but important Bill on to the statute book in so short a time? I have already paid tribute to civil servants for their work—I do so again now—and I also pay tribute to those at LOCOG and the British Olympic Association who have been involved with the Bill. The Bill has also been an excellent advertisement for the benefits of parliamentary scrutiny and cross-party co-operation. I hope that the Government will do everything in their power to ensure that that continues as we move towards 2012, and if they do so, they will have our wholehearted support.
Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)
Like the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), I am delighted that we have seen this final change of heart by the Government on this important issue. I am also delighted that we will now see on the face of the Bill some of the things that a number of hon. Members have requested for quite a long time.
As I said when we discussed the first group of amendments, we must accept that sometimes there will be a need for rapid change in the light of clever techniques used by advertisers. However, it is equally important that before any rapid change takes place, whether because of an incident or because of a request from the IOC, the consultation to which the amendment refers should take place. That may be difficult, because advertising is often planned a long time in advance, which involves the investment of a lot of money. I can foresee a number of difficulties, which is why I am pleased that the amendment includes not only consultation with the advertising industry but a requirement to consult those who regulate the advertising industry, which is a crucial addition.
It is worth reflecting that this is the only amendment that appears to have come almost out of nowhere. When other amendments were debated in the Lords, there was agreement that the Government accepted the principle and would come back with their own amendment. When this provision was debated in Committee in the Lords on 15 February, however, it was rejected outright, and the Government said that they were not interested in implementing it. Suddenly, lo and behold, the Government introduced the provision on Report on 16 March. None of us is sure what caused their change of heart, but whoever persuaded them—on this occasion it was not Lord Clement-Jones—they did a good job and deserve congratulation.
Like the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent and the Minister, I think that both Houses of Parliament can be inordinately proud of themselves for the way in which we have handled this Bill, which is the crucial legislation for the important 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. All of us have been extremely well served by the Minister's staff, Department of Culture, Media and Sport civil servants and a wide range of lobbying groups. The lobbying groups have advised hon. Members on both sides of the House, which has enabled amendments to be tabled that have made the Bill much better than it was when it came before us a few months ago.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Let them take a bow.
Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)
The Minister certainly deserves to take a bow. He has worked hard on the Bill, and he has been willing to listen to the arguments and make concessions. All those involved deserve praise for what is now an excellent Bill, which will help us to deliver excellent Olympic and Paralympic games in 2012.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 20 agreed to.