| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Moynihan asked Her Majesty's Government:
Who will pay for the security costs associated with hosting the Olympic Games if the London 2012 bid is successful; and what estimates they have made of such costs. [HL4472]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Using the same approach as that taken for the Commonwealth Games in Manchester, security for the Olympic Park and venues will be covered within the Olympic operating
26 Oct 2004 : Column WA117
budget with the public sector funding package paying for the wider costs of policing and anti-terrorism. On the basis of a detailed assessment by consultants and after close liaison with the Metropolitan Police Service, sums for both of these elements have been provisionally identified in the Olympic budget. These will be available on publication of the candidate file next month; the International Olympic Committee have asked candidate cities not to make the file public prior to then.
Lord Moynihan asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they will share the costs between the Mayor of London, the National Lottery and the Exchequer of any public subsidy required by the London 2012 Olympics in excess of the £2.375 billion already confirmed within the June 2003 Memorandum of Understanding between the Government and the Mayor of London on Olympic funding; and [HL4521]
In line with their funding formula for the hosting of the London Olympic Games in 2012, what would be the anticipated precept levels for Londoners assuming an overspend of (a) £1 billion; (b) £2 billion; and (c) £3 billion. [HL4546]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The robust and business-like approach to planning and financial controls on the part of the Olympic stakeholders are designed to prevent such overspend. As the Memorandum of Understanding, laid before the Parliament as Command Paper 5867, states in paragraph 17, in the event of any overspend the Government will be the ultimate guarantor. We further reported this to Parliament in a Departmental Minute dated 2 December 2003. As the memorandum goes on to say, the Government expect to discharge that responsibility (should it arise) in a sharing agreement to be agreed as appropriate with the Mayor of London and through seeking additional National Lottery funding in amounts to be agreed at the time. At this stage however, no such specific sharing arrangements exist. Whatever the arrangements which might apply, levels of any London council tax precept would be a matter for the Mayor of London.
Gambling Bill
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their assessment of the effects of their proposed relaxation of the restrictions on gambling in casinos on corruption, money-laundering and other forms of serious criminal wrongdoing; and upon what information their assessment is based. [HL4526]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The proposals in the Gambling Bill which relate to casinos should have no adverse impact in terms of crime. There is no reason why, for example, making it possible for casinos to advertise or removing the requirement that they must operate as members' clubs should have such an
26 Oct 2004 : Column WA118
impact. On the contrary, the Bill will provide the Gambling Commission with monitoring and investigative powers which the Gaming Board now lacks, and the ability to exchange information about casino operators and applicants for casino licences with bodies with whom the Board has no information gateway. The commission will also have more resources than the board; and the prevention of gambling from being a source of crime, being associated with crime or being used to support crime will be one of its statutory functions. It is also relevant that casinos are already subject to the European Union's second money-laundering directive, and will be subject to the provisions of the further directive which now under discussion. We have received no representations from the police about the impact of the Bill in relation to serious or organised crime.
Lord Moynihan asked Her Majesty's Government:
What analysis and projections have been made of the impact of the Gambling Bill on future income generated by the National Lottery for good causes; and whether they will place any such analysis in the Library of the House. [HL4551]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The position remains as set out in paragraph 5.11 of A Safe Bet for Success, laid before Parliament as Cm 5397.
Youth Sports: Anti-doping Roles
Lord Moynihan asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Youth Sports Trust has no role in anti-doping and is primarily concerned with implementing the new national strategy on PE, school sport and club links.
UK Sport, as the recognised National Anti-Doping Organisation for the UK, has responsibility for educating athletes about anti-doping and has a special scheme aimed specifically at young athletes aged 13-17, called Start Clean.
Passive Smoking
Lord Smith of Leigh asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of evidence of the effects of passive smoking, how they propose to protect those who work in places where smoking is currently allowed. [HL4568]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): This year as part of the Choosing Health? consultation the Government talked to a wide range of people to get their views and their proposals about how health may be improved. One issue this covered is how best to protect people from secondhand smoke. We have stated our belief that the status quo is not an option. The Goverment's conclusions on this matter will be covered in the forthcoming White Paper.
26 Oct 2004 : Column WA119
Animal Health and Welfare Strategy
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has given to the view recently expressed by the president of the British Veterinary Association that the department's approach to implementing the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy is "at the very least complacent, and potentially downright dangerous"; and what action the department is taking. [HL4358]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): The Government have worked very closely with the BVA in developing the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. There are some areas where the BVA argues that Government should adopt a more interventionist approach, in particular, the licensing of livestock farms, the introduction of compulsory farm health plans and annual veterinary visits. The BVA has also called for greater level of government spending in this area, particularly in respect of veterinary surveillance.
The Animal Health and Welfare Strategy is based on a strong partnership approach and does not propose an increased level of regulatory burden on the livestock farming sector. I do not accept the allegation from the past president of the BVA that the Government are complacent. In seeking to encourage a partnership approach, we are seeking to work with the wide range of interested parties to jointly own and implement the strategy, using it as a framework to guide the decision-making process.
Orchards
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to publish detailed guidelines on what constitutes a traditional orchard for the purpose of the Single Farm Payment. [HL4462]
Lord Whitty: On traditional orchards, the Commission has confirmed that the existing guidance on eligibility of land in dual use, while in need of updating, will not change in substance. But this refers to "grazed" land. This does not appear consistent with a decoupled scheme and we are taking this (along with a number of other issues) up with the Commission.
In the mean time we are pressing ahead and have commissioned the Central Science Laboratory (which has an extensive database on which to call) to draw up some criteria for such orchards that might easily be applied in the field. That project is now complete and will form the basis for criteria that we will have to test with the Commission. We plan to publish that work shortly.
26 Oct 2004 : Column WA120
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
What rationale was used to decide that orchards planted after 1977 are not likely to be eligible for the Single Farm Payment, given that the grants by the Government and their agencies; have been given to plant traditional orchards since that date. [HL4463]
Lord Whitty: Regardless of planting date, land used for permanent crops, including orchards, cannot be used to support a claim for the new single payment. This rule applies in all EU member states. But existing guidance from the European Commission (and it has confirmed that while the guidance needs to be updated, the substance will not change) does allow land in dual use, for example, traditional grazed orchards, to be used to claim subsidy in certain circumstances.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |