London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

My Lords, I did not put my name down to the amendments last week for the reasons I alluded to in the debate on Amendment No. 7, but I support them. Like the Minister, I am not a lawyer, but I read what he said in Committee on 15 February:"““We are confident that the Bill as drafted will allow all legitimate journalistic practices””.—[Official Report, 15/2/06; col. GC403.]" That is a very firm statement. It remains the case that the media are not themselves so confident, and their anxiety has been exacerbated by the fact that the Minister and Mr Caborn in the other place have referred to,"““ostensible news broadcasts which are really ‘advertorials’””," as the intended victim of the exception, and not ““genuine news broadcasts””. The media are genuinely baffled by the remark that I have quoted and do not know of any such programmes. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, Ofcom, for instance, requires a clear separation between editorial and advertising content and has detailed rules relating to advertorials. If news reports are intended to be excluded from the scope of the infringement, the media’s view is that this remark, and the legislative approach which supports it, need further clarification as a matter of urgency. The media quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, included Sky, which is concerned that its legitimate reporting activities on Sky News are called into question by the present state of the Bill. I think back to the greatest sporting occasion in this country a year ago—the Ashes. There is no question at all that the drama which the Ashes produced was hugely enhanced by the quality of the broadcasting by Channel 4, which at one stage reached audiences of 9 million people for test cricket, which five years ago people would have said was impossible. There is much at stake if Sky believes itself to be at risk in that regard. I realise that at this late stage we may not get an amendment from the Government but it seems to me that at the very least considerable further ministerial clarification would be of assistance. If the Minister cannot convince us through such clarification, I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will return to this matter at Third Reading, which will be our last opportunity to remove the present uncertainty in the media and create an equilibrium, which good work in your Lordships’ House has secured in other matters of concern on the Bill which reached us from the other place.