| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Olympic Bid
8. Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): What assessment she has made of the projected economic benefits of a successful London Olympic bid. [151928]
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): We commissioned a cost-benefit analysis from Ove Arup before deciding to endorse the decision to bid to host the games in London in 2012. Staging the games would bring general economic benefits to Britain through business opportunities and potential tourism benefits through increased visitors. It will specifically benefit one of our most deprived parts of London.
Mr. Llwyd : I thank the right hon. Lady for that response. Although I fully endorse the London Olympic bid, I respectfully remind her that we need to bring the people of Scotland and Wales with us because £1.3 billion in lottery funding will be used to prop up the bid. May I remind her that there is excellent sailing in Wales, we are shortly to host the Ryder cup and the millennium stadium is probably the best in Europe?
Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution and I greatly appreciate the spirit of cross-party support for the London bid, which is an important element of our strength. I take the hon. Gentleman's points. We hope that we will stage the games; their impact and ability to benefit every part of the UK will be an important test of their success.
Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op): One of the biggest economic beneficiaries of the Olympics should be the local community in which they will be sited in the Lea valley, which is one of the most deprived communities in the country. What efforts is my right hon. Friend making to involve that community in the development of the bid to ensure that when we do win the Olympics it will benefit?
Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is right. Community support for the Olympics will be one of the important tests that the International Olympic Committee will apply. It is not only an important test for the committee, but for us as a Government. Involvement, regeneration, an estimated 9,000 new jobs to the area and the legacy of social housing will bring benefits to the part of London about which my hon. Friend is so concerned.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South) (Con): I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that a key component of the bid is the decision to site the yachting events at Weymouth and Portland harbour. It is a natural harbour and the obvious location. However, does she share my concern that Powergen has submitted planning applications to build a wind farm on the breakwater of Portland harbour? That will obviously have a detrimental effect on sailing and the Olympic bid. Does she agree that unless the whole country—including business—gets behind the bid, there will be no economic benefit?
Tessa Jowell: I will resist the temptation to express a view on planning matters, which are rightly a matter for
the local authority. London 2012 has made the decision about the location of the yachting facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), who is not currently in his place, like the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), has been a powerful advocate for the location. It will be an excellent venue.9. Laura Moffatt (Crawley) (Lab): If she will discuss with Sport England the use of Crawley's new leisure facilities as part of the Olympic games 2012 bid. [151930]
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): The venues proposed for the games were announced by the bidding company, London 2012, on 16 January, the day after the technical bid was submitted to the International Olympic Committee. They were chosen by 2012 to best fit the needs of the athletes and Olympic sports. If we win the bid, sporting facilities across the country will be used by national teams for training camps, and at that time Sport England will look at the range of facilities available.
Laura Moffatt : We in Crawley are desperate to share what will be first-class facilities, to be completed next year. We would very much like to be able to show the world that the Olympic bid is not just about London, but about the ability for the rest of the country to contribute. For us it will be the icing on the cake.
Tessa Jowell: I could not agree more about the importance of ensuring that the benefits of the Olympics spread throughout the United Kingdom, including Crawley. That is why we have the biggest-ever programme of investment in sporting facilities. Last year, I announced a further £100 million of lottery money to fund the Active England programme, so that we could meet our dual objectives of winning the Olympic bid and hosting the games in London, and increasing participation in sport. We want to inspire young people throughout the country, including Crawley, to become champions.
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
Cathedrals
18. Hugh Bayley (City of York) (Lab): In what circumstances Church of England cathedrals may (a) be made bankrupt and (b) lose their charitable status. [151910]
Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Stuart Bell): First, let me thank the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) for their kind remarks about the conferring of an honour on me in the New Year's honours list. The House can be very generous on these occasions.
When a charitable corporation, such as a Church of England cathedral, establishes a separate company under the companies legislation, that company can be
wound up under the Insolvency Act 1986 in the same way as any other company set up under the Companies Acts. Cathedrals are established for purposes which are recognised by law as charitable. The interaction between insolvency law and the law on charitable corporations is, however, untested as yet in the courts.
Hugh Bayley : May I add my congratulations on my hon. Friend's honour to those already expressed?
I think my hon. Friend may have missed the point. He will know that Bradford cathedral has a county court judgment against it from my constituents in a company called Fast Forward for a sum amounting to more than £100,000. The judgment is not against a company set up by Bradford cathedral, but against the cathedral itself. Does my hon. Friend think it acceptable that a Church of England cathedral can have a judgment against it for such a large sum and simply refuse to pay? If it were a commercial body, bankruptcy proceedings would follow. If it were any other form of charity—
Sir Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking up the cause of his constituents in a very proper and fastidious manner. He and I have arranged a meeting to discuss the details, to which I look forward.
Legally and financially, cathedrals are independent bodies governed by the Cathedrals Measure passed by Parliament in 1999. The commissioners have a very limited statutory role in relation to cathedrals, which means that they have no power to compel Bradford cathedral to reach a settlement, and no power to provide funds.
ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
Postal Elections
19. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): If he will urge the commission to recommend the expansion of all-postal elections; and if he will make a statement. [151911]
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): No. The Electoral Commission is an independent body, and the statutory functions of the Speaker's Committee do not extend to influencing its position on matters such as this. The commission itself, in its July 2003 report "The Shape of Elections to Come", recommended that all-postal voting should become the norm for local elections in England and Wales, but it believes that it would first be necessary to tighten the law relating to electoral fraud and, in particular, to move to individual electoral registration.
Michael Fabricant: I am reassured by that answer. What steps can my hon. Friend take to ensure that, for example, when postal ballots are delivered to large blocks of flats they are not stolen? We want to see as
many people as possible vote in general elections, but what steps can be taken to ensure that personation does not take place?
Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend is on to an important point. The commission recognises that all-postal voting has resulted in increased turnout, which it welcomes. It has made it clear in all its published reports, however, that it is convinced that the risks of personation and intimidation must be addressed through specific changes to the law before all-postal voting is made more widely available.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West) (Lab): When the Electoral Commission has considered all-postal voting in the past, has it taken into account the fact that young people are more likely to vote if there is a facility for postal voting, and that all-postal voting therefore has a particularly helpful effect in encouraging young people to exercise their right to vote?
Mr. Viggers: Turnout among younger people has been disappointing. In fact, it is estimated that the turnout among 18 to 24-year-olds in the 2001 general election was only 39 per cent. Moves to encourage voting by all people, especially young people, will indeed be welcomed.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): What is the point of the Electoral Commission producing well-researched reports if the Government ignore the results? In the forthcoming European elections, only two regions were suggested as suitable for all-postal ballots, yet the Government have decided to go ahead with the pilot in four regions—including the whole of the north of England—disregarding colleagues from Scotland who supported Scotland's case to be included and without the safeguards that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) mentioned earlier. Does he find that satisfactory?
Mr. Viggers: The Electoral Commission was invited by the Government to nominate up to three regions in which all-postal voting could take place. It recommended two, and the Government have announced four.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): Why?
Mr. Viggers: It is not for me, as a ventriloquisee, to have a view on those facts.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |