London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I express my support for this amendment on the assumption that paragraph (3) remains in the Bill. I would not be very unhappy if it did not, but I am assuming that it will. I remind noble Lords that we had some discussion about consultation with the advertising industry on Amendment No. 61. There is a particularly strong case for writing into the Bill a requirement to consult the advertising industry over the Secretary of State’s power to vary the list of words and symbols in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Bill. The Minister in another place, Mr Richard Caborn, sought to reassure the advertising industry that it would be consulted, so we are left with an argument that most of us have heard many times before, on all sorts of Bills, about why we should or should not put a provision in the Bill. Ministers usually chose the first option and noble Lords often chose the second. There are precedents in certain recent Bills for such a provision: DCMS will be well acquainted with Section 234 of the Communication Act 2003 and Sections 23 and 24 of the Gambling Act 2005 which provide for consultation. My reason for saying that the case for putting a requirement for consultation on the face of the Bill is particularly strong here because, if the Secretary of State is able to introduce what might be a fairly hurried change to the words and expressions that should be protected because of a perceived need, that could unfairly and unjustly interfere with advertising campaigns that have long lead times—a television advertising campaign for example—with a lot of money involved. The case for having consultation specified in the Bill is because it is particularly important. Leaving consultation to ministerial promises would lead to uncertainty.