Clause 17 - Advertising regulations
London Olympics Bill
10:30 am
Maria Miller (Basingstoke, Conservative)
I am the vice-chairman of the all-party advertising group, and I declare that as an interest.
All hon. Members here want to ensure the success of the 2012 London Olympics. Our amendments are designed to clarify certain aspects of the Bill to help ensure that we strike a balance between protecting the value of sponsoring and successfully using the Olympics as a catalyst for the wider economic and social good of our country. It is important that we acknowledge that there is a balance to be struck.
Sponsorship and licensing will yield an important income of about £510 million, as has been noted, but staging the Olympic games in London in 2012 will involve an estimated net public subsidy of about £1.1 billion. An initial report, commissioned in May 2002 through Arup, on the costs and benefits of the Olympics stressed the importance of maximising the value of what it referred to as “second order benefits”—that is, economic benefits that are not a direct result of the staging or sponsorship of the games—in order to help eliminate what was defined then as a financial burden. It is with that objective in mind that I speak to amendments Nos. 73, 108 to 111, 113 and 114.
I support amendment No. 73 because the Bill’s wording, which gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations about advertising in the vicinity of the London Olympics events, is far too imprecise, particularly for the advertising industry. Clause 17 provides the Government with, frankly, quite unfettered powers. What would “vicinity” mean for events in London? Until when would the clause remain in operation? The Government’s objective in the Bill should be to ensure that we meet the IOC standards as set out in the host city contract and in the technical manuals that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to earlier, which have unfortunately yet to be made available to Committee members.
Specifically, the host city contract states that
“no Olympic venues or major access points leading to the Olympic venue shall be encumbered during the period of the games by any franchise or concession or any other commercial agreement, including the right to name the venue to promote ... any third-party’s products ... that would conflict with ... any agreement entered into by the IOC”.
That indicates to me that the amendment as presented would be entirely in the spirit and the word of the host city contract. The London Organising Committee has written to me previously to say that it feels that Parliament should decide on this issue. Indeed, the Government’s own regulatory impact assessment clearly states that this requirement needs to be
“strictly limited in time and geography”
to minimise the impact on competition. There is some clear evidence, Mr. Amess, that the probing amendment should be taken seriously.
I have also received representations from various media organisations, both directly and through the Advertising Association, that express considerable concern at the possible detrimental impact on outdoor advertising, on the national and regional press and on broadcasters that would arise from the imprecision of the term “vicinity”. Those media fear that the clause creates a high degree of uncertainty and is inoperable as it stands.
To return to my earlier comments on the need to maximise those second-order benefits, we really need some clarity on the issue today. It is not sufficient for the Government to leave such wide scope for intervention. Clarity is required, and the amendment provides that, so we support it.
Amendment No. 115 is aimed at ensuring that any secondary legislation that is subsequently issued under clause 17 is as clear as possible—again to achieve some of the certainty that is required. I therefore propose to delete
“,or provide criteria for determining”,
because that implies that the Government could have several goes at amending the regulation, and that merely adds uncertainty. The deletion of subsection (3)(c) is essential. It opens up the entire debate about vicinity, which we have already said is proving problematic.
Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 give the Secretary of State all the flexibility that is required to apply the regulations appropriately and proportionately. Certain forms of advertising may be acceptable in some locations but not in others. I tabled an amendment to subsection (6)(a) because it is not specific enough and leaves the Secretary of State with too much leeway to decide the period for which regulations should apply.
The regulatory impact assessment is useful in this matter. It clearly states that marketing measures need to be
“strictly limited in time and geography”
to minimise the impact on competition. We see no need for the regulations to apply for longer than the duration of the Olympic period, as has already been stated.
Finally, through amendments Nos. 113 and 114, we want the Government either to amend clause 18(1)(a) in Committee, or perhaps to clarify through Hansard that they are talking only about the limitations as set out in clause 17(2). The purpose of the amendments is to limit the application of the regulations to the Olympic period. The Bill’s current terminology is far too vague, is open-ended and causes a sense of uncertainty. Much of this goes back to terminology adopted in amendment No. 73. There is a need to talk about the London Olympic period, rather than leaving this important issue liable to change at a later date.
I ask the Minister to consider the amendments and I stress the importance of striking a balance. We need to protect the value of sponsorship in the Olympics. I speak with first-hand knowledge in that respect, having spent nearly 20 years in advertising and marketing. Indeed, at one point I worked for an Olympic sponsor company in the Barcelona Olympics. The issue is not only about protecting those interests but the need to obtain the wider social and economic benefit.