|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
All sponsorship activity for the London 2012 Games is a matter for the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG). It is a self-financing body that has a budget of around £2 billion for hosting and staging the London 2012 Games. Around a third of the LOCOG budget will come from its sponsors and will contribute to delivery of the Games, but regeneration costs will not be met from LOCOGs sponsorship programme.
The delivery of the new venues and infrastructure needed to enable regeneration is included in the Olympic Delivery Authority's budget.
Mr. Caborn: This is a matter for the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG). To host and stage the London 2012 Games, LOCOG has a budget of around £2 billion, almost all of which has to be raised from the private sector. Around a third of this will be through sponsorship activity. Sponsors are, therefore, a vital part of delivering a successful Games. In addition, LOCOG will also receive a proportion of revenue from the sponsors in the International Olympic Committees (IOC) The Olympic Partner Programme (TOP), within the overall contribution they will receive from the IOC towards the London 2012 Games.
Mr. Caborn: This is a matter for the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG). Their sponsorship programme is based on a three-tier structure and their first priority is to sign the main partners in Tier One. LOCOG announced their first Tier One sponsor, Lloyds TSB, in the banking and insurance sector in March 2007. The other active sectors included in Tier One are utilities, telecommunications, airlines, automotive, sportswear and oil and gas categories. I understand that they expect to make a number of further announcements in this financial year, although no specific dates have yet been agreed. Their Tier Two and Tier Three programmes will come on line in due course. The LOCOG sponsorship programme is in addition to the sponsors included in the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) The Olympic Partner Programme (TOP).
Mr. Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the number of construction workers on the Olympic site who will receive healthcare benefits. 
Mr. Caborn: The estimated number of construction workers on the Olympic Park site (i.e. excluding the village and retail development) is expected to peak at around 9,000 in 2010. It is assumed all will be entitled to receive NHS healthcare benefits, and it is likely that many will be provided with additional healthcare benefits by their employer. However, it is not possible to estimate what additional benefits may be provided since the majority of construction contracts are yet to be let.
Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will place in the Library copies of (a) submissions made by bodies for which she is responsible to the IOC Co-ordinating Commission and (b) the IOC Co-ordinating Commissions final report. 
Tessa Jowell: The visit of the IOC Co-ordination Commission was organised by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG). It is a regular private business meeting between those two organisations to discuss progress. The bulk of the information was provided by oral evidence and papers were tabled by LOCOG. Those papers submitted by LOCOG to the IOC Co-ordination Commission were provided in confidence.
My Department submitted the Legacy Promises document to the IOC Co-ordination Commission. Copies of this document are already in the Library of both Houses. The IOC Co-ordination Commission does not produce a formal report as such. Rather the Chairman of the Commission writes a private letter to the Chairman of the Organising Committee. However, the Commission issued a press release and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of 18 April 2007, Official Report, column 639W, on the London Olympics, whether the breakdown of planned expenditure provided corresponds to the budget headings of the revised budget provided to the IOC Co-ordinating Commission. 
Tessa Jowell: The visit of the IOC Co-ordination Commission was organised by the London Organising Committee of the Paralympic Games and Olympic Games (LOCOG). The bulk of the information, including the revised budget was provided in a series of presentations to the IOC.
Mr. Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate her Department has made of the number of tourists visiting (a) Northern Ireland, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) England during the 2012 Olympics. 
Mr. Woodward: Estimates of the number of tourists by country are not available. Preliminary estimates suggested that about 500,000 additional inbound visitors will come to London during the games. However, VisitBritain and Visit London will be shortly commissioning some research to undertake more in-depth analysis.
Mr. Caborn: The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 and the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995 contain provisions that safeguard the intellectual property rights of the London 2012 Games. This includes giving customs and trading standards officers powers to detain and seize goods which infringe the rights of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) and the British Olympic Association by using the Olympic and Paralympic terminology, symbols or mottos without their consent.
LOCOG has begun planning their strategy to combat unofficial merchandise and counterfeit goods and are in the process of identifying a prevention and enforcement policy for the next five years. They have also set up an Anti-Counterfeiting Working Group whose aim is to collaborate and share information and best practice, and to develop a co-ordinated multi-disciplinary approach to the issue. The Working Group includes representatives from HM Revenue and Customs, Trading Standards, Metropolitan Police, Olympic Security Directorate, and the Intellectual Property Office.
The provisions contained in the Olympic-specific legislation are in addition to the general intellectual property rights which LOCOG will also rely on to protect the brands related to London 2012, the Olympic movement and Paralympic movement.
Mr. Scott: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment her Department has made of the effect of the Licensing Act 2003 on live entertainment in public houses, with particular reference to the removal of the two in a bar exemption. 
A survey of smaller venues we carried out in 2006 showed that nearly three-quarters of the 7 per cent. of venues that had ever put on music using the two in a bar exemption now have a licence for live music. Those who did not apply stated that they chose not to because their premises were either unsuitable, or they would not use it. This research is available in the Libraries of the House and on the DCMS website:
The Live Music Forum has been monitoring the early effects of the Act on live music and is due to publish its assessment shortly. Our own planned research into the current provision of live music will look at premises including pubs, and will be completed by the end of the year.
Mr. Lammy: As the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed in the Adjournment Debate of 20 March on the Bicentenary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade, the Government will be initiating a public debate on a suitable date for a National Memorial Day every year and what this might entail. Further details will be announced in the coming weeks.
Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many responses were received to the Sports Ground Safety Legislation Consultation; and when she expects the results to be published. 
Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations her Department has received about continued funding for UK Deaf Sport; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Caborn: The Department has received correspondence from Craig Crowley, chair of UK Deaf Sport, most recently in April 2007. Mr. Crowley expressed his disappointment at UK Sport's decision not to fund his organisation and asked that UK Sport review the decision.
Since we won the right to host the 2012 Olympic games, UK Sport has revised its strategy, and it is now primarily focused on supporting Olympic and Paralympic sports. However its World Class Pathway Programme does not discriminate against deaf athletes, and there are already some talented deaf athletes on the Pathway who will continue to receive the support they need to succeed at the very highest level.
In my reply to his letter, I suggested Mr. Crowley contact each of the Home Country Sports Councils to see if they would be prepared to fund UK Deaf Sport for the Deaflympics, and to obtain advice on alternative sources of potential funding.
Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding her Department (a) has given to UK Deaf Sport for the year 2007-08 and (b) gave for each of the last three years. 
|Funding for deaf sport (£)|
Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many community sports coaches there are in (a) West Bromwich, East constituency, (b) the West Midlands region and (c) England; and what steps she is taking to increase the number of community sports coaches. 
(a) We do not hold specific data on the number of Community Sports Coaches in the West Bromwich, East constituency but there are 168 funded posts in Birmingham and the Black Country, of which 147 are operational
(b) 419 funded posts in the West Midlands, of which 374 are operational
(c) 3,298 funded posts in England, of which 2,921 are operational
Anne Milton: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on fire risk assessments in respect of tourist industry facilities; and if she will make a statement; 
Mr. Woodward: I have had no discussions on fire risk assessments in respect of tourist facilities with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who has responsibility for fire safety policy. Guidance on compliance with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, which was developed following a public consultation, is set out in a series of guides dealing with a range of different types of premises, and are freely available on the Communities and Local Government website.
Further advice on the 2005 regulations and the assessment of fire safety risks is contained in VisitBritains National Quality Assessment Scheme magazine, Quality Edge (Winter 2007 edition, Page 18), which is also available on the internet at:
Mr. Heald: To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speakers Committee on the Electoral Commission how many staff funded by the public purse in the Electoral Commission are classified as people without posts. 
Mr. Heald: To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speakers Committee on the Electoral Commission what assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the effectiveness of individual electoral registration in reducing the scope for fraud in Northern Ireland. 
Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that since the introduction of individual registration in 2002 it has published reports on the 2003 Northern Ireland Assembly election, the 2005 combined UK parliamentary and local government elections and the 2007 Assembly election. It is the Commissions view that changes introduced by the Electoral Fraud Act 2002, including individual registration, have resulted in more accurate elector registers and reduced the scope for electoral malpractice.
Mr. Heald: To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speakers Committee on the Electoral Commission pursuant to the answer of 16 May 2007, Official Report, column 749W, on elections: fraud, (1) how many cases of prosecutions for offences under the Representation of the People Acts came to the attention of the Electoral Commission and were recorded in each year since 2002; 
Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that it has no formal or statutory role in relation to electoral malpractice, and there is no requirement for it to be informed of cases of prosecutions for offences under the Representation of the People Acts. The available information on the number of such cases brought to its attention in each year is as follows:
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|