Clause 26 - Payments out of Fund
Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill
9:30 am
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 24, in
clause 26, page 14, line 12, at end insert
'and the National Paralympic Association'.
Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 64, in
clause 26, page 14, line 12, at end insert
'and the National Paralympic Committee'.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I welcome you back to the chairmanship of our proceedings, Mr. Illsley, which I expect we shall move through fairly swiftly this morning.
Amendment No. 64 replaces the original amendment that we sought to table, amendment No. 24. At the successful launch of the Olympic bid at the Royal Opera house a week ago last Friday, Lord Moynihan and I had a useful, if brief, discussion with Philip Lane, the chief executive of the British Paralympic Association, who is keen that the interests of paralympic athletes should be fully recognised in the Bill.
It was pointed out to us that in the original amendment No. 24 we had referred to the National Paralympic Association, whereas officially, as I think the Minister will confirm, the proper title for the purpose of changes to the Bill should be the National Paralympic Committee. On that basis we tabled not only amendment No. 64, but a later amendment replacing National Paralympic Association with the National Paralympic Committee. We believe that, in relation to the powers in the clause to make payments out of the fund, the Bill should refer specifically to paralympic athletes. As subsection (2)(e) refers to the NPC, it would be helpful to make it clear that payments can be made to the NPC.
One of the things that British sport is, rightly, most proud of is the prominence given to paralympic athletes in recent Olympics. The United Kingdom has an amazingly successful record for medal winners in all kinds of paralympic sports. We have done well over the years in many Olympic sports, but even the success of our medal-winners in the main Olympics has been dwarfed by the huge success of British paralympic athletes. I know that the Minister will want to join me in paying tribute to the courage and determination of
all those athletes. He will also agree that it was good to see one of them interviewed on stage by Sue Barker at the big launch and to hear his tribute to all those who had helped and supported him. He was a paralympic athlete from very much the area chosen for the London 2012 Olympics bid.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
I join the tribute that the hon. Gentleman is paying to all the members of the British paralympic team and those who support them. However, would he not wish to add that London is the home of paralympics?
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He anticipates a point that I was about to make. It is something that will unite both sides of the House of Commons and of the Committee.
All of us who care about sport are much aware of the development of sport for the disabled in the UK in recent years, particularly in London, as the hon. Gentleman said. I have been involved with many disabled athletes over the years and have met a number of competitors in wheelchair basketball and my original competitive sport of swimming. Many paralympic swimmers have been successful, and I have met a number of them. With the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) and hon. Members from all parties, I took part in a match at Lord's involving disabled cricketers at the beginning of the last cricket season. I was fortunate enough to share a long partnership with the colleague of the hon. Member for Bath from the far west. It was an inspiring occasion and I am proud that the MCC and Lord's do so much for disabled cricketers.
All sporting bodies in this country have taken great care over disabled athletes in recent years, and we are right to be proud of that. I would like to see the NPC included in the Bill as a body that can receive payments out of the fund. I hope that the Government might be minded to accept the amendment.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
I associate myself with the remarks made by hon. Members about supporting our Paralympic teams. They did fantastically well in Sydney—the best that they have ever done. We hope that the world-class performance money from the lottery, Sport England, and UK Sport will continue to ensure that they are properly funded and that we will get a crop of medals in Athens in a few months. Our best wishes go to all those who are competing.There is no doubt that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) is arguing for equal treatment of the National Paralympic Committee and the National Olympic Committee—or, as they are also known, the British Paralympic Association and the British Olympic Association. We all endorse that sentiment. I will explain why the NPC does not appear in clause 26, and why the NOC does. Once I have explained, the hon. Gentleman may want to consider withdrawing his amendment. We are talking about facilitating the financing of the Olympics through the BOA, and about compensation. If London is successful in its bid, the International Olympic Committee will require the BOA to enter into
a joint marketing programme with the London organising committee for the Olympic games. Under that arrangement, the BOA must transfer its commercial rights, including its ability to market the Olympic symbol—the five rings—to the London organising committee. That will greatly reduce the BOA's ability to generate sponsorship income. Sponsorship, particularly relating to the five rings, is the main source of its funding. The BOA will still have a key role to play both in helping to stage the games and in supporting Team GB. It is therefore vital that the BOA receives compensation for its loss of ability to generate income. The inclusion of the BOA as a possible recipient of the Olympic lottery draw fund payments is intended to enable it to receive compensation for the transfer of its rights to the London organising committee. The same arrangements are not required for the BPA. It is not required to enter into a joint marketing programme with the London organising committee, and it does not rely as heavily as the BOA on marketing and sponsorship income. Unlike the BOA, the BPA receives Exchequer funding for its running costs. The requirement to compensate the BOA for loss of income is the only reason why it appears as a possible recipient of the Olympic lottery draw fund. There is no need for a similar arrangement for the BPA. Given that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment, and allow clause 26 to go through the parliamentary process unamended. Mr. Hawkins: I have listened carefully to the Minister. I will not pursue the matter today, or press the amendment to a vote, but I would like further to consider what he has said. It is possible that we will want to return to the matter either at a later stage, or in another place. Assuming that the Minister is right, and the reference does not have to be included in the Bill, I still find the matter slightly puzzling. It would be useful, should any unexpected developments arise, to have in the Bill the power for the NPC to receive payments from the fund. That would be a wise precaution because one never knows what might happen. However, for the moment, I understand the Minister's argument. I want to check the facts, but we can return to the matter later if we need to do so. 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. 25, in
clause 26, page 14, line 15, at end insert—
'(2A) Any regulations under subsection (2) shall specify that any moneys received by the Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund prior to the election by the International Olympic Committee of a city to host the 2012 Olympic Games shall be paid only under—
(a) subsections (2)(a)(b)(c) or (e), or
(b) for the purpose of sponsoring, promoting or developing opportunities for disabled athletes.
(2B) If the Secretary of State makes an order by virtue of section 22(3) then he shall by regulation require that all moneys received by the Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund shall be used for the purpose of subsections (2)(e) or (2A)(b).'.
Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 26, in
clause 30, page 15, line 33, at end insert—
'(c) any sports-related purposes with the agreement of the National Olympic Committee or the National Paralympic Association.'
Amendment No. 72, in
clause 30, page 15, line 33, at end insert—
'(ba) any sports-related purposes with the agreement of the National Olympic Committee or the National Paralympic Committee'.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
As the Committee will realise, amendment No. 72 replaces amendment No. 26. It substitutes the correct wording and refers to the National Paralympic Committee.
We also want to widen the opportunity for the Olympic lottery distributor to provide money for sport, so we are seeking to introduce paragraph (c) to provide that wider opportunity.
Amendment No. 25 would take forward our earlier argument about the lottery starting before the 2005 decision date when we suggested that the money should go to disabled athletes. It would be helpful to provide a wider opportunity for the Olympic lottery distributor to provide money for sport if it were made clear that the money should go to disabled athletes. We have suggested that that should be restricted to clause 26(2)(a), (b), (c) or (e) and we have not amended those paragraphs, but it would be sensible not to include the Greater London Authority in that capacity in subsection (d).
I shall listen with interest to the Minister, but I am conscious that we debated some of the issues earlier.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
A good try, yet again. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the same answer as earlier. Trust me, I am a Minister.
When we went to the House of Commons and asked for the lottery to be used on a hypothecated basis, it was for a clearly defined funding stream for staging the 2012 Olympic games. If our intention had been to ask the House for more money for sport, we would have said so. There would be two consequences of the amendments. First, the money from the funding package might be spread more thinly and affect delivery of the 2012 games. Secondly, funding beyond the Olympics into other sport would be unfair to the other good causes that are funded by the lottery because there would be a displacement. I do not know the exact proportion, but we have tried to guide both the Committee and the House on that with the information that we have. In a spirit of fairness both to sport and to the other good causes, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
Once again, I suspect that we shall have to return to some of these issues on Report and, perhaps at greater length, in another place. I see no benefit in prolonging the argument now because the Minister will not change his mind at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
I want to ensure that I did not mislead the Committee, and especially the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). The hon. Gentleman referred to top-slicing of other good causes and asked whether there would be equal top slices based on the regional impact assessment. My answer was yes. I discussed the matter when I returned to my office, and all the discussion that had taken about how we approach the good causes and the RIA was correct. Clause 25(2) provides—this is also relevant to clause 26—the facility to top-slice in varying degrees, so I do not mislead the hon. Gentleman. The calculations in the RIA are based on a consistent top-slicing, and clause 25(2) does allow for a variation of that. I wanted to put that on record as I thought it would be unfair if it were not brought to the attention of the Committee.
It is our intention to ensure that all the good causes are top-sliced equally. That is what all our calculations are based on and what the RIA was based upon, but it is difficult to predict the situation seven years from now; therefore there is the provision for flexibility, if circumstances were to mean it would be unfair to top-slice equally.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
I thank the Minister for that clear explanation of the position. I think that the Committee will have been pleased to hear not just that there is a possibility that the slicing may be at a different rate, but the clear assurance that the intention is that, subject to unforeseen circumstances, it will be done on a pro rata basis. That is important, because the good causes that will lose out need an indication of the size of loss to their particular pot in the light of the introduction of the Olympic lottery games.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation to the hon. Member for Bath.
Senior figures in sport have expressed to me their concerns that there may be some extra complication introduced by the Government's decision to have a separate Olympic lottery distribution fund, and there is a worry that the decisions taken by those running the fund may be skewed by the pressure of individual concerns over the Olympic bid. There is concern about whether there is a sufficient guarantee of a legacy from the money raised by the Olympic lottery. The legacy from the Manchester Commonwealth games has been very good, and I am sure that one of the reasons why the Government decided to support an Olympic bid for London for 2012 was the success of those games. All those of us who are passionate about sport were delighted to visit those games and that they were a success—I was particularly delighted because the shooting events were held at Bisley in my constituency. However, there is a concern that by setting up a separate Olympic lottery distribution fund there might be a danger of wasted administration costs.
We are now a couple of years forward from the ''game plan'' document and we have had a lot of money paid out through the existing sports lottery. Will the Minister recognise that he needs to address the concerns of those in sport on the legacy issue and
carefully examine the new Olympic lottery distribution fund to ensure that there is no waste on bureaucracy that might have been avoided had different decisions been made?
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
Those involved in sport have not indicated any of those concerns to me or to my officials; on the contrary, we have kept things lean and mean and ensured that the lines of communication are as short as possible where we can affect decisions. Although the hon. Gentleman has proposed amendments to stop this, I am sure that he will appreciate that we are attempting to ensure that there is flexibility in the distribution of lottery funds in a number of areas—for example, if the Mayor's office or the Greater London Authority wished to move in, the Bill allows us to compensate. We have attempted to ensure that the streamlining of payments is effective, because we know that we are operating under very tight time constraints as we move to the bid and—hopefully, after July 2005—beyond.
There has been no indication to us about the legacy in respect of the lottery. The legacy was first class in relation to the Commonwealth games in Manchester. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I saw how a number of cities had dealt with the bid, the operation and the legacy, which taught us a lot, particularly when we consider the Sydney experience, where a fantastic—but massively underutilised—suite of facilities costs £10 million a year, not to fund its debts, but in revenue to keep those facilities running. If those in Sydney could make that choice again, they would not have two arenas. They would use a downtown arena in Sydney rather than building a new one.
We have learned from those experiences and have built them into our strategy, which is why we were commended so highly by the president of the IOC, Jacques Rogge. He said that the approach that the Brits had taken was very businesslike. We have been congratulated on the way that we approached the bidding process, part of which has been the legacy. I know of no criticism from those involved in sport, to the best of my knowledge. Later, the hon. Gentleman might be able to whisper in my ear the names of those who have been whispering in his ear, and then I shall be able to whisper in their ears.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.