London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

My Lords, I too listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say. There is no doubt but that since Grand Committee—indeed, since his letter—he has refined his arguments. He tells us that he is not talking about radio or television broadcast and that he is worried about printed material but not newspapers. He is actually concerned about flyers that purport to be linked to the games. As the whole of this debate shows, the provision is a very heavy sledgehammer to crack a nut of a flyer. Is that what the Government are really worried about—a flyer? We have the whole of the broadcasting industry and the whole of the newspaper industry excited by the draconian terms of this Bill but the Government are concerned with prohibiting a flyer. It seems an extraordinary situation. If that were the only area of concern I suppose I could stop there and say, ““Why do the Government not rephrase the Bill so that they actually catch what they want to catch?””. However, the Minister went on to say, ““We have to safeguard certain terms owned by the Olympic movement from those seeking commercial advantage””. He is confident that the Bill will do nothing to infringe press freedom but, ““That means that we have to look at how the London association right relates to journalistic practices. It is trying to catch only an association between goods or services and the games””. But then he went on to the really dangerous thing which sent shivers down my spine and said, ““We have to consider whether a news item does this””. That is an extraordinary statement. He is saying that if a journalistic item creates an association between goods or services and the games, then LOCOG is entitled to take action against that newspaper. That is an extraordinary statement. I think it means that all those who are concerned about these provisions are entirely justified. The Minister went on to say that these provisions ““strike the right balance””. However, merely what I have just said demonstrates the contrary and that this whole ““necessary incident”” phrase needs to be removed. With the best will in the world I no longer really can argue that the Government misunderstand the situation. I have to argue that the Government are intent on doing what the Minister has said, which frightens me even more. I suppose one could say that one seeks clarification in Grand Committee and then receives further clarification as time goes on. Usually that creates a sense of security—assurances are given and one can assure those who are affected by a provision that these clarifications, read into the record, will help if action is taken. However, I can give no such reassurance to those who have briefed me for this debate and who have demonstrated concerns to quite a number of noble Lords. I cannot give that assurance. In fact, I am more frightened about this provision than when I started. Obviously it is late and I cannot press an amendment now on Report. However, subject to consultation with colleagues on all Benches I may well bring this back on Third Reading. I very much hope that the Minister will consider the next steps and whether he can do other things to provide assurance within both the newspaper and the broadcasting industry.