| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Moynihan: I have the greatest respect for the Minister as we move through the proceedings of the Committee. However, I have noticed that whenever I speak precisely on the amendment—whenever I get to the core of the argument—his initial comment from the Dispatch Box is that my remarks have been completely wide of it. I know that I have the Minister running on this one and I am confident that as a result of those opening remarks he will accept the amendment. I hope that he will do so with widespread support from my Benches and those of the Liberal Democrats.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am of course interested in the views of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in particular those on the inability of cities bidding for Olympic Games to hold the cost within their original estimate. Undoubtedly, the evidence given to the CMS committee by Richard Caborn and Tessa Jowell has to be taken seriously.
The question that arises is: what help is given by a report to Parliament setting out in detail the cost of hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games? The questions which then arise are: at what stage should that report be submitted to Parliament; what should it contain; and what action should Parliament take as a result?
Clause 21, to which the amendment refers and which would not come into force until the report had been laid before Parliament, sets out the arrangement for the licensing of Olympic lotteries. It does not set out the arrangements for the total range of funding for the Olympic Games. Subsection (1) allows for a Section 6 licence issued by the National Lottery Commission under the 1993 Act to promote a lottery to be designated specifically as an Olympic lottery.
Subsection (2) provides that the main Section 5 licence under the 1993 Act, which authorises the running of a National Lottery and is currently held by Camelot, must include a provision for determining the proportion of funds raised that are attributable to Olympic lotteries.
Subsection (3) ensures that a lottery designated as an Olympic lottery under a Section 6 licence may be so designated only if the Section 5 licence contains a provision for determining the proportion of proceeds of lottery gains that are attributable to Olympic lotteries.
Subsection (4) allows the National Lottery Commission to make that variation to the Section 5 licence after consulting the Section 5 licence holders. These provisions are in line with the existing arrangements for the licensing of the lottery under the 1993 Act.
I believe that the appropriate levels of scrutiny are afforded through existing parliamentary powers and I am confident that they would be exercised. The Select Committee for Culture, Media and Sport has already demonstrated a close interest in the London Olympic bid, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has been quoting from the evidence to it. We welcome that and I am sure that it will continue to do so.
London will be required to submit its candidature file, containing full details of its proposals, to the International Olympic Committee by 15 November this year. That will include a detailed budget for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. I am not sure whether it is that information which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is seeking should be submitted to Parliament. Clearly, it is possible that that document, which will have to be signed off by all the stakeholders—the Government, the Mayor and the British Olympic Association—could be laid before Parliament. I am not promising that it will be, but it could be. I should be interested to know whether that is the information which the noble Lord is seeking.
However, even if we decide to lay it before Parliament, the costs and revenues will need to be monitored and reviewed on an on-going basis. That is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was making about the inadequacy of forecast. To place a requirement to lay a single report detailing costs before licensees does not help Parliament very much. The other extreme—to ask for reports on costs to be laid on a continual and updated basis—would be impractical and it could restrict the operation of the Olympic lottery games. Under those circumstances, I suggest that the role of the CMS Select Committee is entirely appropriate for that kind of investigation.
I should be interested to know which of these alternatives the noble Lord prefers.
Lord Moynihan: The Minister has given me many ideas, which is always welcome. First and foremost, the Select Committee investigations into the hosting of the Olympic Games in London in 2012 are welcome. They have been in depth and their analysis has been invaluable. The committee's current assessment of the overall financing and the future of the game has been invaluable to me in preparing for the work on the Grand Committee. It is therefore appropriate and right that the Select Committee continues to monitor performance and to take evidence to that effect.
However, the amendment goes much further than that. It recognises that while the work of the Select Committee is important, there is a strong argument that a report should be laid before both Houses of Parliament, covering in detail the costs of hosting both the Olympic and Paralympic Games, first, for the London 2012 bid and, in the context of the drafting of the amendment, for all future cities hosting those games in the United Kingdom.
The Minister has made a number of useful recommendations. In returning to the amendment at a later stage, it would be advantageous to the House to detail how frequently the report setting out the detailed costs is laid before your Lordships' House and another place. I flag up for the Minister the suggestion that that presentation should be annually. We need the opportunity, in advance of the formal adjudication of the bid in Singapore in July next year, to review the costings which will form part of our formal bid on 15 November this year. It is wholly appropriate that Parliament has the opportunity to consider and review those costings and it is hoped that time will be found in government time to debate the matter. I say "in government time" because, given the strong support that they have demonstrated for the Olympics, it would be appropriate for them to share in detail all cost implications, not least the implications for the precept on Londoners that they have in mind in order to support the funding of the games in London in 2012.
I accept the Minister's admirable recommendation that a time basis should be placed on the amendment. At a later stage, I shall ensure that it is on an annual basis, starting from the baseline with the proposed costings included in our formal documentation, which will be finalised by November this year.
The Minister also pointed out that there would be an additional benefit in this; namely, that it would be able to reflect changing circumstances. I am acutely conscious, in reviewing the cost of the Athens games, about the significant increase in the cost of security. The involvement of NATO to provide support for security services during the games has an interesting ramification in terms of the cost contribution that individual NATO countries will be making towards the security of the games in Athens. One of the benefits of an annual report would be to consider in some detail the changes that take place—in particular, changes in security arrangements and the cost of security of hosting the games, which would need to be reflected.
The Minister has led me to the conclusion that there would be merit in the Government coming forward with their financial costings of the games. At present, for example, we do not have in the Red Book any costings for security associated with a successful bid. I anticipate that the Minister may reply by saying that there are two reasons for that. First, we have not been successful in winning the bid to host the Olympic Games yet. It would be unusual in the extreme—or to quote from the Minister's noble friend on the Floor of the House "in extremis"—for the Treasury to come forward with costings on security for an event that has yet to be won. I assume that that is the principle reason why to date we have had no Treasury costings with regard to security. But there may be another reason.
The second reason the Minister may give to the Committee is that Treasury projections do not go to the summer of 2012. If my memory serves me right, they stop shortly before that time. That may be a very good reason why we do not have costings from the Government.
One of the purposes of ensuring that there is a report laid before Parliament setting out the costings in detail is to elicit this kind of detail from the Minister. We would then be in a position to question the validity or otherwise of the costings that have been placed before Parliament. It is critically important that we have that opportunity. In the closing minutes of today's proceedings in debating this amendment, and before everything that we shall discuss tomorrow on the London 2012 bid, it may be appropriate to reiterate that there is absolute support from the Conservative Benches for a successful bid to host the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Indeed, we were ahead of the Government when we came out with our support. We led a debate in your Lordships' House that was unanimous—well ahead of the Government—in determining its widespread support for hosting a successful Olympiad in London in 2012.
All the amendments and recommendations that I shall make to the Committee for its consideration come from a passionate belief that a successful hosting of the Games in London in 2012 is our top priority in terms of sports policy. With my noble friend—a celebrated Olympic gold medallist—sitting on my left to support me, I am sure that between us we can persuade the Minister of the wisdom of accepting helpful, constructive amendments on the lines proposed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, concludes his remarks, I should like to make two points. First, it is enormously helpful that he has made explicit what he means by reports—he is talking about an annual report. The question is: who would lay it? Perhaps the Government or London 2012 may do something. There is a whole range of issues. Let us talk about it before Report. Of course, there will parliamentary activity. I have emphasised the role of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, but there could be other parliamentary activity. We are very happy to discuss the matter with him.
Secondly, he made a point about security costings. I can assure him that London 2012 is already working on that with the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police. Security costs will have to form part of the November bid.
Lord Moynihan: I welcome the initiative taken by the Minister for further discussion on this point. In view of the time and his helpful contribution, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This would be an appropriate moment for the Committee to adjourn until two o'clock tomorrow.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): The Committee stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow.
- The Committee adjourned at half past seven o'clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |