Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Goodhart: This appears an obviously sensible amendment to block what would otherwise have been a serious lacuna in the Bill, and I am entirely happy to give it our full support.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 33 to 35 not moved.]

Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 35A:

"26A (1) Amend Article 39 (jurisdiction in respect of Group A offences) as follows.
(2) In paragraph (1), after "means" insert "(subject to paragraph (1A))".
(3) After paragraph (1) insert—
"(1A) In relation to an offence under section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 (fraud), "relevant event" includes—
(a) if the fraud involved an intention to make a gain and the gain occurred, that occurrence;
(b) if the fraud involved an intention to cause a loss or to expose another to a risk of loss and the loss occurred, that occurrence.""

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Transitional provisions and savings]:

[Amendments Nos. 37 to 40 not moved.]

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Repeals and revocations]:

[Amendments Nos. 41 to 46 not moved.]

Schedule 3 agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

31 Jan 2006 : Column 65

Tuesday, 31 January 2006.

Grand Committee

The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (BARONESS THOMAS OF WALLISWOOD) in the Chair.]

London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

(First Day)

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Thomas of Walliswood): Before I put the Question that that the Title be postponed, I remind your Lordships of two points of procedure: noble Lords will speak standing, and the House has agreed that there be no Divisions in Grand Committee. Therefore, unless an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.

If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes. That is the normal rule, but perhaps I may suggest that this afternoon, since all the votes will be taken in one go, the Committee might agree to adjourn until that voting procedure is completed and then return to this Committee. But it is up to your Lordships to decide that as we go through the day.

Title postponed.

Clause 1 [Interpretation of principal terms]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:

The noble Baroness said: My noble friends and I thought that we would start with a really difficult and contentious issue. So I will start with a bang by proposing that in Clause 1(2) the words "in particular" should be left out of the introductory words before the lettered paragraphs. It seems perverse that any reference to the London Olympics includes anything which forms part of the games including, in particular matters which one might think were not necessarily central to the games. I am not sure that I would agree that an event taking place outside London will not be as much part of the Olympics or Paralympics as any other event. In paragraph (a),

I assume is the cultural Olympics, and will be very important as well.

The term is used more naturally elsewhere in the Bill. I found in Clause 12(1)(b), for example, a list of the persons, such as highway authorities, that are to co-operate with the ODA in particular with regard to transport services. Clearly, this is not a matter of major politics, but I hope that the Minister can explain what we are to understand by the words "in particular". I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Baroness indicated that this was a difficult and contentious
31 Jan 2006 : Column GC66
amendment. All I can say is that I quake at what is to come if this is defined in those terms. Let me make the obvious point. Everybody knows what is meant by the games of the Thirtieth Olympiad. The main part of the games will be the sporting events that take place in London in the summer of 2012.

However, the games go beyond sport, and, in line with the International Olympic Committee's host city contract, there will be an ongoing, nationwide cultural festival to accompany the sporting occasion. It will include, for instance, the relay for the Olympic torch before the games and the Olympic carnival to be held during their course. The point of Clause 1(2) is to make clear that when the Bill refers to the London Olympics, it refers to the official cultural events to be held under the aegis of the games as well as to the major sporting events which we all understand.

I also want to make it clear that the events to be held outside London form part of the official definition of the London Olympics. The clause states that a reference to the "London Olympics" includes, in particular, the non-sporting events that are required under the host city contract and the events due to take place outside London. We use the words "in particular" to emphasise the inclusion of these two classes. The amendment would take that away.

Of course I accept that the main focus of the Olympics will be on sport and on London, where the majority of the activities are to take place, but the central meaning of the "London Olympics" is in fact the games of the Thirtieth Olympiad and the Paralympic Games that will take place in the same year. It is important to recognise the wider scope of the games. We are obliged to recognise it, but we do so with great enthusiasm because they represent the breadth of the concept of the Thirtieth Olympiad. Given that, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I had to listen to what the noble Lord had to say before deciding whether I would intervene. The breadth and spirit of the Olympiad is a given. We do not need to argue about that. The question being asked by the noble Baroness is why we have to refer to events "in particular". I am sorry, but his explanation of the breadth of the games is inaccurate and his explanation of the use of those two words is inadequate. They represent what I would call legislative draftsmen's politesse, to make the subsection look a little better. Perhaps they are paid by the word; I do not know. The phrase adds nothing to the sense of the Bill or, indeed, to the wider concept of the Olympiad.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I hear what the noble Lord says, and he is right to say that the words do not have any legal significance. However, I shall reiterate the point I seek to emphasise here. The common understanding of the London Olympics will be the sporting events to be held in London. The Thirtieth Olympiad is wider than that in concept, in geographical area and in function because of the cultural dimension as well as that of sport. We have
31 Jan 2006 : Column GC67
included the words "in particular" because they help to convey the concept of the breadth of the Thirtieth Olympiad—of which, of course, we are proud.

Lord Borrie: That seems extremely reasonable and Members opposite may be making heavy weather right at the beginning of the Bill. The Title of the Bill refers to the Olympic Games and therefore it might be thought that it does not cover matters other than the games themselves. The word "London" is also used in the title and therefore it might be thought that the Bill does not cover events held outside the capital. Surely it is desirable to make it clear early in the legislation that, in particular, these matters are covered.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page