Clause 31 - Distribution policy
Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill
10:00 am
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 74, in
clause 31, page 16, line 34, leave out subparagraph (ii).
The Liberal Democrats have always made it clear that they support the Olympic bid. However, although an important side effect of a successful Olympics will be the worthwhile regeneration of the part of east London involved—the lower Lea valley and the surrounding area—we want to ensure that there is no danger that the Mayor of London could hijack a serious Olympic bid and turn it simply into a regeneration project. Who is calling the shots? We are happy for subsection (5)(b) to say that the Mayor of London needs to have a copy of any proposals, but the danger of subsection (4)(b)(ii) is that it could give the Mayor, as a statutory consultee, a power of veto.
Until recently, as all members of the Committee and the wider world will be aware, the Prime Minister was not at all keen on the current Mayor of London and was critical of him: indeed, at the last mayoral election he said that he would be a disaster for London. Only in the last few weeks has the Mayor apparently become the Prime Minister's new best friend. We are therefore anxious to ensure that the current Mayor has no power of veto. Of course we hope that there will be a different Mayor after the elections this year. Nevertheless, we believe that the Mayor should support the bid, and I am glad that he has said he does.
It is noteworthy that the Mayor was not one of the leading public figures on stage at the launch of the bid at the Royal Opera House. That was very much the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and Barbara Cassani's show, which is absolutely right. The Minister may recognise that we are keen that it should stay at all stages an Olympic bid and that, although regeneration is very important and worth while, we should not put the cart before the horse. That is the basis on which we probe the possible deletion of subsection (4)(b)(ii).
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
You will be well aware, Mr. Illsley, both from the sittings that you have chaired and from those chaired by your colleague, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), the reports of which I am sure you have read, that Members on the Opposition Benches have had a fairly close partnership. In fact, there has been good co-operation across the Committee. However, this is the second time that I must fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. I agree with his desire to see a
different Mayor of London by mid-2005, although I suspect that we have different people in mind. This is not part of the hustings for the Mayor of London, however.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the Olympic bid being the Prime Minister's show. My memory of the launch is different; I specifically recall the Mayor of London speaking very movingly about the benefits that a successful Olympic bid would have for some of the least well-off people in London. I enjoyed hearing what he had to say. The athletes stole the show, however, because they really explained the benefits of a successful bid for London and the rest of the country.
My reasons for disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman are quite simple. I believe in the basic premise of no taxation without representation. As the memorandum of understanding made clear, if the bid is successful the people of London will make a sizeable contribution to the cost of staging the games; and the Mayor is already committed to funding 50 per cent. of the bid and to raising more than £500 million towards the cost of staging the games. He has also said to the people of London that the average household is likely to face a council tax increase of £20. The person who represents the people has a right at least to be consulted, and that is all that subsection (4)(b)(ii) requests. It is eminently sensible that the Mayor, who, on behalf of the people of London, is making a sizeable contribution to the bid and to the staging of the games, should be consulted on the details of how the distribution body spends the money.
It worries me that the hon. Gentleman wants to drive a wedge between the bid committee, the Government and the Mayor of London in an unhelpful way. The Minister told me that I should not believe all that I read in the papers, so I have double-checked my facts, and he will agree that it was unhelpful of the mayor of Paris to allege that there were differences between the Government and the Mayor of London on this issue. I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the numerous difficulties and differences of opinion that might arise on various issues, but on this one there is no disagreement. The Mayor of London made that very clear. He was present when the comments were made, and he heard them, as I did. The remarks made by the Mayor of Paris did not help his country's bid.
There will be, and needs to be, a close working relationship. It is right that London should contribute in the way that is planned towards the funding of the bid and, if we are successful, the running of the Olympics, and it is therefore right that the Mayor of London should be consulted on the issues referred to in the clause.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has more faith in the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) getting elected than the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has in Steven Norris getting elected. I accept that we are not at the hustings for the Mayor of London, but it is
something of a condemnation of the Conservative candidate that he would not be able to be consulted if he were successful in becoming the Mayor of London.
I could not possibly comment on what the Mayor of Paris has been saying. We should not interfere in the bidding process in other countries. I can say that the hallmark of our approach to the bid has been the unity of purpose between the BOA, the Mayor of London, and the Government. That is reflected on the bid committee. The events of a week or so ago showed the world that there is a unity of purpose that has not been seen before.
We have been talking about the dome and Greenwich. I was in Greenwich discussing tourism. I am talking about something that is indicative of what has happened in London. Some people were saying that they have never seen such things happen in London before. We might have had to employ certain planning powers. We thought that some planning authorities might not be as co-operative as they could be. When I was in Greenwich, and talking about the development of the Olympic bid, a councillor who is part of the planning committee said what a great success it was that we had brought together all the boroughs that had a role to play in planning for the Olympics. This was before Christmas. He said to me, ''If Barbara Cassani wants a decision on Christmas day, she can have a planning committee and a decision on Christmas day.'' That is indicative of the unity of purpose that surrounds the attempt to make the games successful. No other single event has brought people together in that way.
Obviously, we must ensure that all the proper rules and regulations are in place, but we should maintain that unity and that partnership. It will be a major selling point when the IOC visits, and make us different from other cities around the world that are bidding. Anything that detracts from that would be unfortunate, if not politically naive. It is ludicrous to think that the Mayor would not be consulted about expenditure and investment in relation to the Olympic fund, when 50 per cent. of the income is being raised from that area. It would not be good in terms of the management of expenditure and the development of the facilities if artificial divisions were created. That would be counter-productive. I hope that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will withdraw the amendment.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
To respond briefly to what the hon. Member for Bath said, I made it clear that my concerns were about the current Mayor of London. I have probed the matter sufficiently, and I will not pursue it further at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 75, in
clause 31, page 16, line 35, at end insert—
'( ) the British Olympic Association;
( ) Sport England and its equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland;
Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 67, in
clause 31, page 16, line 40, at end insert—
'(ca) the British Olympic Association;
(cb) Sport England and its equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland;
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I shall be brief because some of these issues have been raised before. It struck us that there could be an opportunity to improve clause 31 by including the BOA, separate from the NOC. They are one and the same thing for the purpose of the bid, but it would be helpful to make it clear that the BOA, and Sport England and its equivalents in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, would be consultees. I am talking about an opportunity for sport more widely to be consulted. It is merely a probing amendment to check whether the Minister will indicate whether he has any plans, even if not in the Bill, to allow sport more widely to be brought into the opportunities for consultation on the distribution policy. We want all those involved in sport in the UK to have a voice.
A few minutes ago, the Minister made an unusually politically partisan remark for this Committee about how the Government had a shortfall to make up in terms of sport. I remind him that it was John Major's Conservative Government who introduced the national lottery. At that time, all of us involved in sport were hearing from everybody else involved in sport in the UK that it was the best thing for sport that had ever happened. It was the success of John Major's national lottery that led to the huge increase in funding for sport. Never mind what they are doing now in supporting the Olympic bid, which we welcome, what this Government did initially, by introducing the new funding bodies, was to reduce the amount of money that sport was getting compared with the early years of John Major's national lottery. As the Minister is well aware, that caused a great deal of chagrin in sporting bodies throughout the country. We are working together cross-party to try to support an Olympic bid and make it successful, so I do not seek to pursue that partisan argument, but I wanted to remind the Minister when he talks about shortfalls about the success of the lottery in funding sport.
We seek to put in the Bill a provision for wider consultation. That is as far as we want to go.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
I accept what the hon. Gentleman said. His reference to the dome needs to be put into political perspective. I have, on many occasions, congratulated the previous Prime Minister, John Major, on what he did with the lottery. I have said many times that we do not want unduly to criticise the lottery, as has been the wont of some newspapers in the recent past, for small allocations of money to various causes with which they fundamentally disagree. That has had a disproportionate effect on the lottery and has done much damage to it. We should be careful how we highlight some of those cases.
On amendments Nos. 75 and 67, we have not set out in the Bill provisions for consultation with governing bodies and wider sport. We have done that through the
mechanisms that are in place. They have held good in the past and will do so in the future. We consult widely: the BOA consults, as do our NDPBs, and we will make sure that their views are considered. To put them in the Bill as consultees could start slowing down the process that we are trying to keep lean and mean, as it were. We wish to ensure that it is an effective conduit. There is the opportunity for wider consultation, and we think that it is important to make informed decisions on behalf of sport, but that does not necessarily need to be in the Bill. What has occurred in practice has held good to date and we think that that will continue to be the case.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
I want to pick up the Minister on what I am sure was a slip of the tongue that he will want to get off the record. He said that the new body would be lean and mean. We want it to be lean but, on this occasion, certainly not mean.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
That depends on how ''mean'' is interpreted. I am saying that it will be an effective decision-maker. It will be mean in the sense that it will make those decisions purposefully. It will keep to that ethos throughout. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
It was useful to get the Minister to say that. I am grateful to him for putting on the record his recognition of what the previous Conservative Prime Minister, John Major, did for sport with the lottery. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.