Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill. Members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—SP Bill 4A—the marshalled list and the groupings, which the Presiding Officer has agreed. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division this afternoon. The period of voting for that division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. The voting period for all other divisions will be 30 seconds.
Section 10—Ban on advertising in the vicinity of Games locations
Amendment 1, in the name of Jamie McGrigor, is grouped with amendments 2 and 3.
The purpose of amendment 1 is to allow ministers, in the run-up to the 2014 Commonwealth games, to exempt advertising that appears in
"newspapers, magazines and cinemas, on television and radio and by means of mobile telephony or any other electronic media."
One of the purposes of the advertising regulations that can be issued under section 10 is to ensure that advertisement hoardings outside games venues are not inadvertently covered by cameras that are covering events or the spectators who are watching them. We understand that, but there is real concern that it is likely that newspapers or magazines that spectators might take into the games, or through the vicinity of games locations, will contain advertisements that have been sponsored by people other than the official games sponsors. Therefore, there is a risk of people inadvertently falling foul of the regulations unless an exemption is provided to cover such a scenario. The same applies to the users of mobile phones or laptops who might source advertising by non-sponsors inside a games area. What would happen if a local person within the official vicinity of a games venue tuned into their commercial radio station or into an advertising-funded television station? That person could be breaking the rules if they saw or heard advertising by a non-sponsor, which is why exemptions are needed.
It has been pointed out that a cinema that is within the vicinity of a games venue might show adverts by non-sponsors and might therefore, in theory, break the rules. Some might say that such concerns are far-fetched, but that is not the opinion of the Scottish Daily Newspaper Society or the Advertising Association, which represents the Scottish Newspaper Publishers Association and several other organisations. The organisations responded to the 2007 consultation on the draft bill and made the points that I have made. They are worried about the matter. While the Olympics legislation south of the border was going through Westminster in 2005 and 2006, ministers in both houses recognised the validity of such concerns and offered reassurances that the advertising regulations would contain the necessary exemptions.
I ask the minister to support my amendment, which would deal with the legitimate concerns that I have raised. If he does not want to do so, will he provide, on the record, reassurances relating to the Commonwealth games in Glasgow that are similar to those that his counterparts at Westminster provided for the Olympic games in London? It is hardly enough to say that the Government will take a commonsense approach to enforcement, as that would not provide the necessary reassurance to people who are frightened of breaking the rules by accident rather than by design.
I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say on amendment 1.
My colleague Bill Aitken will speak to amendment 2.
The purpose of amendment 3 is to state, in section 11, the maximum period during which advertising regulations issued under section 10 could apply. We agree with the principle that official sponsors should be protected from ambush marketing by non-sponsors. Nevertheless, we consider that the measures that achieve that should be proportionate and should provide the wider advertising industry in Scotland with the greatest degree of certainty. In our view, the bill as it stands does not do that.
We think that the bill should indicate the maximum duration of advertising regulations that could be issued under any eventual statute. The purpose of the amendment is to provide the advertising industry in Scotland with the greatest degree of certainty now about how any regulations issued under section 10 are likely to impact on the sector come the summer of 2014.
The opening and closing dates in the amendment are calculated on the basis that the games are scheduled to open on 23 July 2014 and close on 3 August in that year. The Commonwealth Games Federation appears to require that the restrictions be in place a fortnight earlier, which would be 9 July 2014, and that is what is in the amendment. The closing date in the amendment is the day after the official end of the games. Unless the Government has come to an agreement with the Commonwealth Games Federation of which we are not aware, we think that the regulations should continue only for the 24 hours following the official closure.
The minister will know that there is nothing in the bill that specifies the dates on which the regulations will be in place. Understandably, advertisers would like those dates to be clarified if possible.
I move amendment 1.
We would like further clarity from the minister on the issues that Jamie McGrigor has raised—specifically on how we can ensure that we have a similar process to that which has been adopted by the minister in the United Kingdom Parliament with responsibility for the 2012 Olympics. If we can get reassurance or further clarity from the minister on that, we would be happy to accept that.
I do not think that there is too much difficulty here, but we require some clarification, as has been outlined by Mr McGrigor and Mr McAveety.
The purpose of amendment 2 is to introduce a statutory defence for breaches of any regulations that are made under section 10. Paragraph 5 of the revised explanatory notes explains that, on summary conviction, an individual could be fined up to £20,000. That, plus the creation of a criminal record, is a fairly substantial penalty.
It is notable that, in drawing up the equivalent sections for the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, which contains similar penalties, the Government south of the border saw fit to incorporate a statutory defence over and above the commitments that it made in respect of providing exemptions, which have already been debated by Mr McGrigor. It may come as no surprise that amendment 2 is modelled on a defence contained in section 21(2) of the 2006 act. At present, no equivalent defence to cover circumstances in which the advertising regulations might be breached inadvertently by an individual is contained in the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill. Frankly, we do not understand why there should not be some consistency in approach, albeit that different Governments are involved.
It is, perhaps, significant that the Local Government and Communities Committee noted the omission of a defence in its stage 1 report, having had its attention drawn to the fact by the Advertising Association. The association clearly has an interest to defend; nevertheless, it seems that there is potential for injustice.
The minister might rely on the principle in Scots law that, in order for the commission of an offence to occur, there must be a demonstration of mens rea—namely, evil intent. That might be the basis on which the minister feels it unnecessary to incorporate amendment 2; we will listen to what he says with interest. It is quite possible, given the way in which the advertising industry operates, that someone, through the actions of an agent or on an unauthorised basis, might find themselves subject to prosecution under the bill as it stands. As I see it, the only basis upon which a defence could be sustained in a court would be that of the absence of mens rea. It may be that the minister is in a position to elaborate on that and to tell us something that I do not see. I await his comments with interest.
I thank Jamie McGrigor for raising those issues and I also thank Frank McAveety and Bill Aitken for their contributions.
Amendment 1 would allow the advertising regulations to exempt certain types of advertising. It has always been our intention for the advertising regulations to be capable of exempting types of advertising from the advertising offence. Section 10 already allows the regulations to do just that. I assure Jamie McGrigor and other members that it is our intention to use the regulations to exempt, where necessary, the types of advertising that are mentioned in amendment 1. For example, if a cinema falls within the vicinity of a games location—that is one of the examples that Jamie McGrigor used—the regulations will exempt that cinema from committing an advertising offence by showing its regular pre-feature film adverts.
Amendment 2 would introduce a statutory defence to the advertising offence if the person could prove that the offence occurred without their knowledge or despite the fact that they had taken all reasonable steps to prevent it from occurring or continuing. Such a defence is contained in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006. However, the offence to which that defence relates is framed very differently, in that it is to contravene the regulations. In our case, the offence specifically relates to advertising
"in the vicinity of a Games location at a prohibited time".
Advertising, within the meaning of the bill, is
"a communication to the public … for the purpose of promoting"
a product or service. The act of advertising is a positive act and each case would need to be considered on its own merits in order to determine who was actually advertising. It is therefore almost impossible to conceive of a situation where a person could commit an offence without their knowledge.
There are some problems with amendment 2 as it has been drafted. As well as the defence being available where the person is in ignorance of the fact of advertising, the proposed provisions could be interpreted as affording a defence based on ignorance of the law. Clearly, that should be avoided.
Regulations may make further provision in relation to advertising. In this context, consideration will be given to the different scenarios that might arise. If it is considered appropriate, it would be possible to include an exemption or a defence.
Amendment 3 would introduce a defined period during which the advertising regulations would apply. As I am sure that Jamie McGrigor is aware, the games are expected to take place from 23 July to 4 August 2014. However, we cannot say with any certainty that those dates will not change. I understand that there has been some concern in the advertising industry about the duration of the advertising regulations. We are committed by the host city contract for the games to control advertising from up to two weeks before the games begin. We may also need to control advertising for a short period after the closing ceremony. I would not expect that to last for more than a few days. Indeed, I would anticipate that it will last for no more than four or five days.
It is worth noting that the street trading and advertising regulations protect games locations. Those are defined as places in which events are held as part of the games, or other places specified by ministers and used in connection with the games. It is unlikely that any place could be described as having a connection with the games more than a few days after the closing ceremony.
I hope that that provides Jamie McGrigor and other members with the assurances that they have been seeking.
I am grateful to the minister for giving those assurances on amendments 1 to 3. I am prepared to accept what he has said, which allays our worries.
Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 2 not moved.
Section 11—Advertising activities, places and prohibited times
Amendment 3 not moved.
Section 43—Orders and regulations
Group 2 is on trading and advertising regulations etc: procedure, consultation and public notice. Amendment 4, in the name of Jamie Stone, is grouped with amendments 5 to 8.
I speak as the convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee and on the committee's behalf.
I will speak first to amendment 4, which is grouped with amendments 5 to 8. The amendments address concerns expressed by the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which exists to ensure on Parliament's behalf that there are adequate checks and balances in relation to powers such as those for which the bill provides. At earlier stages, the committee expressed concerns about the broad powers that ministers are taking in sections 2(3) and 10(3) to create exceptions and to make such further provision as they think fit in relation to street trading and advertising offences in the vicinity of games locations. The committee was also concerned about the power that is being taken under section 19 to make regulations concerning use of the internet in relation to what constitutes a ticket touting offence.
Under the bill as it stands, the substance of what will amount to such offences will be contained in regulations. Given the significance of criminal law, it is generally thought proper that offences be set out in primary legislation. However, we accept that, to some extent, the games are a special case and that the details of offences should be set out in subordinate legislation, subject to safeguards to provide adequate scrutiny of the exercise of ministers' powers. When the bill was introduced, those powers were subject to negative procedure. The committee suggested to the Government that a higher degree of parliamentary scrutiny was appropriate, as the regulations will set out the key elements of street trading, advertising and internet ticket touting offences. The street trading and advertising regulations will set out exemptions to offences and the times and places in which they will apply. The internet ticket touting regulations will specify what an offence is.
The Government accepted our view in part and amended the bill at stage 2 to require affirmative procedure to be applied to the first use of each power. However, the committee remained concerned that the Government's amendments did not go far enough. It is foreseeable that the Government might need to exercise the powers several times in order to achieve the results that are required by the host city contract or for other reasons. The regulations that are in force when the games take place might differ substantially from the first set of regulations. The penalties for the offences that the regulations will set out are potentially high. Although it may be the Government's intention for the substantive use of the powers to be in the first regulations, best intentions are not always fulfilled because of error or matters beyond the Government's control. After all, the games are still six years away and it is clear that the powers will not be exercised until much closer to their start.
The effect of amendment 4 is to make the regulations subject to affirmative procedure—a higher level of scrutiny—unless the Government needs to act urgently to comply with obligations that are imposed by the host city contract or any request or guidance from the Commonwealth Games Federation, or to secure the effective operation of the games. In such cases, negative procedure may be used. The availability of the option of using negative procedure in cases of urgency means that there need be no delay in bringing necessary provisions into force, as negative instruments can be brought into force during parliamentary recess, if required. The committee considers that the amendment achieves the right balance between Parliament's role of monitoring the Government's exercise of the powers and the Government's need to react quickly to events. If there are urgent circumstances requiring the Government to make regulations quickly, we doubt that it will have difficulty justifying to Parliament the use of negative procedure.
I turn to amendment 7. At stage 2, the Government lodged an amendment to section 44, the effect of which was that ministers were required to consult relevant bodies only the first time that they made street trading or advertising regulations. The minister's view was that the power would be used on a subsequent occasion only in urgent circumstances, where consultation was not feasible.
In our view, it is foreseeable that further street trading or advertising regulations might be made in circumstances that are not urgent. Consultation with those bodies whose functions will be affected is an important check and balance on the exercise of the delegated powers. The committee thinks that the default position should be that ministers are obliged to consult before making any street trading or advertising regulations, unless they do not have time to do so, by reason of urgency. In evidence last week, officials told the committee that they intended to consult wherever possible, so our respective positions are not very far apart.
Amendment 7 requires ministers to consult the relevant councils, the organising committee and other appropriate persons before making any trading or advertising regulations, unless the regulations require to be made urgently to comply with obligations imposed by the host city contract or any request or guidance from the Commonwealth Games Federation, or to secure the effective operation of the games. Amendments 5 and 6 are consequential to amendment 7.
I turn to amendment 8. Section 46 currently requires ministers to give public notice of the general nature of the first trading and advertising regulations no later than two years before the games begin. Ministers must also give public notice of the detailed provisions of the first trading and advertising regulations no later than six months before the games begin. The regulations will set out the key elements of the offences of trading and advertising in the vicinity of the games. Such offences attract considerable penalties of fines of up to £20,000 on summary conviction or unlimited fines on conviction on indictment.
Public notice of those offences is important. The Government's intention, as explained to the committee last week, is to deter wrongdoing rather than to prosecute for wrongdoing. Public knowledge of the detail of the regulations appears to be essential in order for them to act as a deterrent. Amendment 8 would provide that the public notice would not be restricted to the content of the first trading and advertising regulations; it would also be required for the detailed content of any subsequent regulations where that is possible.
Amendment 8 would therefore amend section 46 to place an additional requirement on ministers to provide notice of any subsequent street trading or advertising regulations no later than two weeks before the games begin unless ministers consider that it is impractical to give such notice. I await the minister's response with great interest.
I move amendment 4.
I thank Jamie Stone for lodging his amendments. We are grateful to the Subordinate Legislation Committee for its detailed scrutiny of the bill. It has made a number of recommendations that we have implemented during the parliamentary process and which have undoubtedly improved the bill.
Amendment 4 would place a subjective test of urgency on ministers' ability to use negative procedure when amending the advertising, street trading or internet regulations. The advertising and street trading regulations will specify where and when such activities will be prohibited during the games and will define activities that might be exempted from such controls. The internet regulations will specify circumstances in which making internet facilities available is or is not to be capable of constituting the touting offence contained in the bill. We understand the intention of amendment 4, but we have legal concerns that it would be detrimental to the effective running of the Commonwealth games.
The amendments that have been lodged by the Subordinate Legislation Committee offer an opportunity for me to clarify how I expect the regulation-making process to operate in practice. It is the Government's intention that the first use of the regulations, which will be their substantive use, will require affirmative procedure—they cannot be made unless approved by Parliament. The Government will also be required to issue public notice of the general nature of the advertising and street trading regulations two years before the games and the detail of those regulations six months before the games.
As the Local Government and Communities Committee noted in its stage 1 report, the Government
"may need to react quickly to unforeseen circumstances in advance of the Games … and when the Parliament is in recess."
For example, emergency road works could force a change in the marathon route or we could find that an organisation or individual was exploiting a loophole in our regulations. Ambush marketing is innovative by nature and those seeking to exploit the games for commercial gain have used methods at previous major events that could not have been predicted. In such circumstances the Government would have to react immediately, given the unique nature of the games, which are expected to last 11 days from 23 July to 3 August 2014.
If the Government were required to use affirmative procedure in such circumstances, it would require the recall of Parliament, which would be in recess during that period. That is not a practical proposition. Negative procedure would allow the Government to respond quickly without having to recall Parliament. Introducing a subjective test, such as the requirement to demonstrate urgency, creates legal uncertainty and could cast doubt over the validity of the regulations. They could be challenged on the ground that the matter was either not urgent or not required for the purposes set out in the amendments. The difficulty of determining urgency would be particularly acute if, near the end of the parliamentary term, the Government discovered that a change to the regulations was required, but there was a lack of available parliamentary time to enable a debate to be had on the affirmative instrument. Were negative procedure to be used in such a case, the question would be whether the case was urgent or whether parliamentary time was not available. One does not necessarily equate to the other.
Legal certainty is particularly important when dealing with regulations that specify criminal offences and we should aim to avoid introducing any grounds for challenging either the basis on which the regulations were made or whether there has been a reasonable exercise of judgment. These amendments would require the Government to consider whether the specific circumstances met such a test. If a person affected by the regulations were to raise a challenge in the courts, it might delay or prevent any action. Given that the games are expected to last only 11 days, serious damage might be done to their image and to our reputation as a major event destination before the Government could react effectively. Moreover, a challenge to the regulations after the event could have the same effect and could be financially damaging.
Under section 44, before they make the first trading or advertising regulations, ministers will have a statutory obligation to consult
"the councils for the areas where it is proposed that the regulations apply",
the organising committee of the games and
"other persons whom Ministers consider appropriate".
Amendments 5 to 7 seek to require ministers to consult those persons before any subsequent trading or advertising regulations are made, unless the regulations have to be made urgently for the specified purposes. The Government is committed to consultation, unless it is not practical to do so because of time constraints such as, for example, in the event of a venue becoming unusable a week before the games. This provision is particularly relevant given that the projected games are a specific, one-off, two-week-long event.
Because the requirement to consult is a precondition for making the regulations, introducing a subjective test on whether the duty to consult applies carries with it all the problems inherent in imposing the same test on deciding which procedure to use in the first place. Given that such a move opens the regulations to legal challenges on exactly the same basis, the Government takes the view that the Subordinate Legislation Committee's proposed amendments to section 44 are as detrimental to the bill as those proposed for section 43.
In its consideration of the matters that have led to these amendments, the Subordinate Legislation Committee has expressed concern that use of the power after it is first used could be substantive and has highlighted as an example the possible need to correct errors. Although errors are always possible, we should not lose sight of the fact that the first regulations will undergo considerable pre-legislative scrutiny and that there will be parliamentary scrutiny of the draft regulations. If any errors arise, it seems rather unlikely that the necessary corrections will have any substantive effect rather than simply address technical points.
Amendment 8 seeks to impose a duty on ministers to give notice of subsequent regulations at least two weeks before the games, unless that is impractical. Unlike the duty to consult in section 44, giving public notice is not a precondition to making the regulations but is intended to assist those who will need to comply with them. Ministers will make every effort to ensure that members of the public are made aware of such changes. As Jamie Stone suggested, our aim in the bill is to prevent unlawful acts, not to prosecute offenders. As it is in our interest to make the contents of the regulations widely available, amendment 8 merely reflects a commitment that the Government has already made.
Agreeing to the Subordinate Legislation Committee's amendments would introduce a subjective test of urgency, the determination of which could leave the regulations open to legal challenge. That would reduce the Government's ability to react to events in the period leading up to and during the games and could significantly damage Scotland's reputation as a major events destination.
I welcome the minister's acknowledgment of the improvements made to the bill as a result of the Subordinate Legislation Committee's scrutiny.
The debate on these amendments illustrates the balancing act between the committee's role in safeguarding the Parliament's interests by ensuring that subordinate legislation receives the best possible scrutiny and the Government's role in delivering the best possible games. I am sure that the entire chamber agrees that that is what the Government is doing. That said, the minister's point about recalling Parliament in recess is not technically correct, because during the recess subordinate legislation can be passed under negative procedure.
It has been important to debate this matter and to have the minister's response on record. It would have been nice if we could have taken things a bit further. However, given the minister's commitment to being as flexible as possible and providing the maximum amount of information; given that the committee has made its point, put its view on record and demonstrated the value of its work; and given that we all want to make the games the best possible success story for Scotland, I seek leave to withdraw amendment 4—unless other committee members are minded to press it.
Amendment 4, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 44—Consultation
Amendments 5 to 7 not moved.
Section 46—Notice
Amendment 8 not moved.
Section 48—Interpretation
We move on to group 3, which is on the meaning of "vicinity". Amendment 9, in the name of Jamie McGrigor, is the only amendment in the group.
Once again, I have managed to lose—[Interruption.]
Order.
Perhaps the amendment will speak for itself, Mr McGrigor.
I apologise.
Amendment 9 attempts to provide a definition of "vicinity" in section 48. Although many sections of the bill refer to "vicinity", the Government has failed to define the concept anywhere in the bill. I make my comments in the context of the advertising regulations, but it is clear that a definition of "vicinity" is important for many people.
It is notable that both the Local Government and Communities Committee, in its stage 1 report, and fellow members who spoke in the stage 1 debate at the end of February commented on the lack of a definition of "vicinity" and called on the minister to define the concept at the earliest opportunity. Thus far, the Government has committed only to stating that any restrictions on advertising will be designated in legislation that is to be issued nearer to 2014, and that the meaning of "vicinity" will be defined then. In practice, that could mean that the concept will not be clearly defined until early in the year of the 2014 games, when, as section 46 requires, ministers must have set out the detailed provisions of the advertising regulations.
Without a definition of "vicinity", the advertising sector in Scotland will not know what it can and cannot do. That will be most important for the owners of outdoor advertising sites. Advertisers sell their space months in advance, so there must be clarity on which sites will be in the vicinity of a games location and which will not.
Even if the minister is not prepared to accept my amendment 9, I ask him at least to do what the relevant minister at Westminster did in relation to the Olympics, when, in the context of games venues, he said:
"When we talk about vicinity, we mean a few hundred metres."—[Official Report, House of Commons, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2005; c 78.]
That would at least provide a welcome steer to those who will be affected by the restrictions that are likely to be contained in the advertising regulations that are eventually issued.
In the consultation, Glasgow City Council expressed concerns that legitimate businesses in Glasgow might suffer from the impact of restrictions in their day-to-day commercial activity. Perhaps the council was thinking of as innocent a matter as the status of commercial signage on shop fronts and newspaper stands. Ministers responded to that concern by stating that the advertising regulations would provide for such businesses to continue to conduct their ordinary, day-to-day business, provided that there was no direct conflict with the games. I put it on record that I wish the parliamentary draftsmen some years hence luck in arriving at a suitable form of words that will succeed in achieving the differentiation that is sought.
I would be interested to hear the minister's thoughts on the contractual implications for existing branded venues that do not happen to be used for Commonwealth games events but which find themselves in the vicinity of such events.
I move amendment 9.
For Jamie McGrigor, who had difficulty finding his papers, the meaning of "vicinity" might be "here or hereabouts".
The fundamental issue that has been raised, both at committee and in the debate today, is the definition of "vicinity". As Jamie McGrigor said, when Dick Caborn was pressed in the House of Commons in October 2005, he seemed reasonably comfortable on the issue. He said:
"When we talk about vicinity, we mean a few hundred metres."—[Official Report, House of Commons, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2005; c 78.]
I hope that the minister will reflect on that and make a similar response today. That would address the concerns of the Advertising Association and others who lobbied members on the definition of "vicinity". If he does that, I am sure that people will be reassured.
I turn to Glasgow City Council's concerns, on which it would be useful for the minister to clarify his views. A number of major commercial enterprises are in discussions about advertising sites at major event locations and the council is concerned about its advertising sites. Everyone would welcome clarity.
I thank Jamie McGrigor for raising the issue, which relates to the physical space in which unauthorised advertising and street trading will be prohibited in 2014.
The proposed advertising and street trading regulations will define the places in which and times at which such controls will take effect. It is likely that restrictions will be applied for different periods in different ways for different events. That will allow the unique characteristics of each venue to be taken into account.
I am aware of the advertising industry's concerns about the definition of "vicinity". I assure Jamie McGrigor that the flexibility to which I have referred will be used to ensure that the restrictions are proportionate and comply with the requirements of the host city contract. In the stage 1 debate, I said:
"The issue is not as simple as drawing a line a set distance around a building. Further, as the final games programme will not be finalised until closer to 2014, it makes sense to define ‘vicinity' in the regulations, which will use affirmative procedure for their first substantive use."—[Official Report, 27 February 2008; c 6334.]
I turn to what happened in the House of Commons. Clearly, events move on. I am aware of an incident at a senior cricket game. Some distance from the event, an energy company that was not the match sponsor placed large banners on gasometers that were in clear line of sight of the ground—they could be seen not only by people at the event but by those watching on television. The siting of the banners did not fall within the definition of "vicinity" as meaning 200m or 300m, but nonetheless their siting impinged on the sponsorship arrangements for the match. That shows the use of ambush marketing. Clearly, the definition of "vicinity" is not as straightforward as drawing a circle or a line around the location of an event.
As I said, the games programme will not be finalised until closer to 2014. For that reason, we would prefer to define "vicinity" in the regulations. Public notice will be given and consultation on the substantive regulations will take place before the games, and the Parliament will be required to approve the regulations' first use. I hope that Jamie McGrigor accepts our position on the matter and will therefore seek leave to withdraw amendment 9.
I ask Jamie McGrigor to wind up and indicate whether he will press or seek leave to withdraw amendment 9.
Obviously, the definition of "vicinity" is not straightforward: I understand that. I hope that what the minister said allays the concerns of those who raised the matter. I am sure that he will keep his word. I seek leave to withdraw amendment 9.
Amendment 9, by agreement, withdrawn.
That concludes consideration of stage 3 amendments.