Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 61, in

clause 26, page 14, line 7, at end insert

'limited to matters directly connected with sport and for the promotion of London's bid for the 2012 Olympics'.

Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 62, in

clause 26, page 14, line 10, at end insert

'limited to their work for sport and/or the promotion of London's bid for the 2012 Olympics'.

Amendment No. 63, in

clause 26, page 14, line 11, at end insert

'limited to matters directly connected with sport and/or the promotion of London's bid for the 2012 Olympics'.

Amendment No. 65, in

clause 26, page 14, line 15, at end insert—

(fa) to Sport England and its equivalent bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for the purposes of training future Olympic and Paralympic athletes and for connected sporting purposes'.

Amendment No. 66, in

clause 26, page 14, line 31, leave out subsection (6).

Amendment No. 71, in

clause 28, page 15, line 6, at end insert

'and then paid on to the Sports Lottery Fund for the purposes of distribution for the benefit of sport.'.

Amendment No. 73, in

clause 30, page 16, line 1, at beginning insert 'sporting,'.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Many of the amendments would ensure that the money from the Olympic lottery goes towards sport and towards winning the bid for London 2012, to ensure that we do not run any risk of money being wasted on other matters such as bureaucracy administration or matters unconnected with sport. We felt that it was important to build some extra precautions into the Bill, which the amendments

are designed to do. Amendment No. 66 is particularly important, because it would delete subsection (6). Clause 26(2)(d) already makes it clear that money should go to the Greater London authority: we would amend that in order to restrict the purposes for which the GLA can use that money.

I know a number of excellent Conservative members of the GLA, and if those people were in complete control I would have enormous confidence that they would ensure that the money was spent wisely. I am suspicious of subsection (6) because I have grave doubts that the GLA will necessarily use an unfettered power—which subsection (6) would give it—just for the benefit of sport. As it stands, it is the blankest of blank cheques. To change languages, it would give the GLA carte blanche to do more or less whatever it likes with money.

If one combines amendment No. 66, which would delete subsection (6), with amendment No. 63, which would ensure that the purposes for which the GLA uses the money relate to sport or the promotion of the 2012 bid, there would be proper protection. If subsection (6) is allowed to remain, it would be a recipe for a subsequent National Audit Office investigation of how the money might not have been used for proper purposes because it had not been spent by the GLA on the things that it should have been spent on—sport and the 2012 bid. I urge the Minister to consider amendments Nos. 66 and 63 in that context.

Amendment No. 64 replaces amendment No. 24, which we originally introduced. It is rather different, but it deals with an important issue. It would use the words ''the National Paralympic Committee'', rather than the National Paralympic Association.

Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman may have strayed on to the next group of amendments.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I beg your pardon Mr. Illsley. I was jumping ahead of myself. Amendment No. 71, which would amend clause 28 but is rightly in this group, relates to what happens to the money on the winding-up of the fund. In the past, in all kinds of public, or joint public-private projects, no one has looked forward to what happens at the end of the process.

Obviously, we hope that the project will not have to wound up until after a very successful Olympics. However, the Bill contemplates the possibility that we might, sadly, not win the bid and that there might have to be an earlier winding up. Amendment No. 71 would ensure that the money would go to sport. We hope that the Minister will agree—even if he cannot agree with some of the others—that amendment No. 71 will strengthen clause 28 and will provide a clear indication in the Bill that any net receipts at the end of the process should go towards sport.

Amendment No. 73 is important because it adds the word ''sporting'' to the beginning of clause 30(4)(b). It should not just be a matter of spending money on cultural matters associated with the bid, which is why the word ''sporting'' should be included. That is what those amendments would do, and I hope that the

Minister will reply in particular detail to the points raised by amendments Nos. 66 and 63, and 71 and 73.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I will go through each amendment and give our reasons for recommending that the hon. Gentleman withdraw them.

Amendment No. 61 proposes that an addition be made to subsection (2)(a). It would require payments from the Olympic lottery distribution fund to the Secretary of State to cover only those expenses incurred in connection with the matters directly with sport and the London 2012 Olympics.

This amendment is unnecessary. Subsection (2)(a) already includes the provision that expenses should be connected with only that part of the Bill. It is already restricted to matters arising in relation to Olympic lotteries. The drafting mirrors the arrangement in existence for the other national lottery distribution funds.

Amendment No. 62 proposes a change to subsection (2)(c) to ensure that any payment from the Olympic lottery draw fund to the national lottery distribution fund goes to sports good causes only. It would not be sensible to specify that all money from the Olympic fund to the distribution fund should always be paid out in connection with sport.

There may be circumstances in which we want Olympic fund money to go to the general distribution funds. For example, in the event of the Olympic lottery games generating a surplus—the hon. Member for Surrey, Heath has argued very forcibly that that might be the case—it may be desirable to transfer funds for the benefit of all good causes, particularly as the income going to the Olympic cause will at least in part represent a sales diversion from the existing good causes.

Another example would be if a transfer of funds had been made in the other direction—from the national lottery distribution funds to the Olympic lottery distribution fund under clause 25. We might wish to make a payment to the national lottery distribution fund that is not directed to sport alone.

Subsections (4)(b) and (5) already enable the Secretary of State to allocate money to the sports good cause, in proportions that she would determine. The reason for the provision is that at some point it may be desirable to recompense the sport lottery distributors for contributions to the costs of staging the Olympics at the expense of other sports projects.

With the existing provision it would be possible to ensure that the sports distribution bodies that contribute most from their own lottery funds for the staging of the Olympics could benefit accordingly.

Amendment No. 63 amends subsection (2)(d) to limit payments made from the Olympic fund to the Greater London authority to matters directly related to sport. We resist the amendment on the basis that the subsection was carefully drafted in keeping with arrangements for public funding for 2012, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are set out in the memorandum of understanding between Government and the Mayor of London.

In managing the overall flow of Olympic funds, the GLA may be required to spend its own money, which had been earmarked for other non-sport and non-Olympic purposes, on an immediate Olympic need. In such a case, and if any money were then repaid from the Olympic fund to the GLA, the GLA should not be restricted to spending that money directly on sport or Olympic matters. The subsection reflects the need for flexibility in managing Olympic income and expenditure.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I understand the importance of the point that the Minister makes about the memorandum of understanding. Following my points, would he and his advisers consider rewording subsection (6) by Government amendment? I am asking them to look at the matter. Its terms are astonishingly wide, and if the reasons why one needs a certain breadth of operation—because of the memorandum and the reasons he has just set out—were in the Bill, we would be a great deal happier. Would he be prepared to consider whether it is possible to incorporate some of his brief into a modified version of subsection (6)?

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I am trying to explain—obviously not very well—that the clause provides the flexibility within the context of sport to ensure that the memorandum of understanding is carried out and that we can move moneys from the GLA and from the Mayor's office. The flexibility might exist when we pay upfront but when we repay we cannot have that flexibility. The consequence could be that the GLA would not be persuaded to put money up front, because the money that was returned would be earmarked, ring-fenced and restricted. I do not believe that that is a good way of moving forward and having a successful Olympic games. We must trust people in the context of the memorandum of understanding and the clause. We need that flexibility and if we do not have it, the consequence could be that we will not get things funded at the necessary time.

The GLA is specifically listed to reflect the fact that it is the other main source of public funding, and that in delivering the overall package it may at some point be necessary to reimburse it for expenditure incurred. That ought to be on the record. To date, the political parties are at one, and the BOA, the Mayor's office, the GLA and the Government are working closely together to achieve the objectives. To start writing mistrust in at this stage would be fundamentally wrong and would send out all the wrong signals. Agreeing the amendment could well be interpreted in that way.

Amendment No. 65 would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations permitting payments to the four sports councils in the UK. It specifies that those payments would be for the purpose of training future Olympic and Paralympic athletes. However, funding is already available for those purposes through the normal sports lottery funding stream.

Amendment No. 71 seeks to amend clause 28 so that any money paid to the NLDF from the OLDF, on the winding up of the latter, is allocated solely to sports good causes. We have already explained why we should retain flexibility over payments to the NLDF. Those arrangements also apply in winding up the Olympic lottery distributor. We need to retain that

flexibility because it is impossible to say in advance how much, if anything, would remain in the OLDF, and whether it would be more appropriate to use the remaining OLDF moneys to benefit all good causes, or just sports good causes.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister made it clear that the take from the other causes would be identical and that the share would be the same. Will he give a similar assurance that if money goes back to the good causes, it will go back in the same way, and that the share will be equal so that each of the good causes gets back at least a proportion of the money that it had to give up?

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

We are pushing into the future. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are already in the process of changing the lottery. There has been wide consultation so there could be all sort of movement on how the lottery is distributed in the future. We are trying to retain flexibility and fairness. That judgment will be made at the time. To tie that down into proportions would not be wise at this stage. That flexibility must be retained, and I am trying to make things fair, as well.

The clause allows the Secretary of State to make that decision at the time of the winding up of the Olympic lottery draw. Only then will she have the benefit of knowing how much is left in the Olympic draw, what payments, if any, have been made from the NLDF to the OLDF, and the extent of the contribution of the various sports distributors to the staging of the Olympics.

Amendment No. 73 would add ''sporting'' events to the ''cultural and other'' events for which the Olympic draw may make grants and loans in clause 30(4)(b). We do not believe that that is necessary, as

''other events held in accordance with . . . the Olympic Charter''

or an agreement with the IOC could already encompass sporting events. The amendment does not expand the provision.

I ask the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to withdraw the amendment in the light of the assurances that I have given about what the clause is intended to achieve.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for responding in some detail. On that last point, on amendment No. 73, we return to the kind of discussion that the Minister had with my hon. Friend the

Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) this morning. It would do no harm to add the word ''sporting'' before ''cultural and other events'' and would at least put sporting matters into the Bill. I hope that the Minister will accept that adding one more word will not lead his officials to send him another note like the one they sent him this morning saying ''Too many words'', and that he will think about it again. I should be delighted if, at a later stage, he were to insert the word ''sporting'' into clause 30(4)(b) through a Government amendment. It is a small point, but it would send all the right signals.

I understand the Minister's point about the memorandum of understanding, as I made clear in my intervention. I do not want to spoil the good working relationships by injecting a sense of mistrust, as the Minister suggested we might be doing, but there could be some middle ground, a way in which subsection (6) does not need to be open-ended. The Bill could refer to the memorandum of understanding.

In the light of what the Minister has helpfully said, Lord Moynihan and I will consider whether it is possible to table a modified version of our amendment on Report or in another place. However, because I want the flexibility to return to some of those issues later in the passage of the Bill, I shall not pursue them to a vote as a point of principle this afternoon. We are making a genuine attempt to improve the Bill.

I am still concerned about what happens when the fund is wound up. I accept, as the Minister said to the hon. Member for Bath, that we are looking a number of years into the future. The hon. Gentleman had a helpful thought when he said that we could at least put something in the Bill that said that the good causes received money back in the same proportion as they had contributed. That might be another way of approaching what I was seeking to do when I said, ''Let's make sure it all goes back to sport''.

We do not want to fight the matter tooth and nail; we were making a genuine attempt to improve the Bill. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Four o'clock till Tuesday 27 January at half-past Nine o'clock.