London Olympics Bill

That shows that, had the hon. Gentleman waited for those pearls of wisdom to fall 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 I hope that, in the light of my reassurance, the amendment will be withdrawn.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. I put on the record that 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 I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.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 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.