Clause 31 - Distribution policy
Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill
10:00 am
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.