Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The Minister will recall my moving amendments at our previous Sitting on the subject of biodiversity and the legacy. I hope that he will regard anything that I said on that occasion as pertaining to this occasion also.

Lord Davies of Oldham: As if I dared to forget that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was present. I share the concerns of all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. One of the bleakest sights in sport is the relics of some former stadia and facilities a short time after the Olympic Games are over. I remember a feature in one newspaper which showed the facilities which had been constructed for the Athens Olympics. It represented a vast car park and an unused facility. A solitary car was parked in the car park, which could have held 7,000 cars. Nothing was going on because the facility had not been developed in such a way as to be of meaningful use after the games. It was utterly derelict.

That is a lesson that we have learnt. The Olympic Games have not always left behind a legacy of which the city concerned has been proud. We were very conscious of this. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, pointed out quite explicitly that one of the attractive and winning features of the London bid was its emphasis on the after-games legacy. I bear in mind his point that not just infrastructure but sport itself should be the beneficiary.

The ODA, in exercising its functions, must have regard to the desirability of maximising the benefits to be derived from the games and to ensure that these
 
2 Feb 2006 : Column GC219
 
benefits are not an add-on at the end, but integral to the whole development of the games' structure. That is essential; otherwise, we could replicate the experience of some other cities.

The ODA will be responsible for delivering all major infrastructure. It will work with key stakeholders, including the Mayor and other London bodies, to deliver agreed legacy plans for the Olympic park and other venues. I stress that it will do so in consultation, because the ODA has a limited life. It expires shortly after the games, but the legacy, by definition, is inherited by a range of other authorities which have a persistent interest in what is left behind.

The ODA cannot be the owner of this legacy; it will not last long enough to be in any way, shape or form the beneficiary of it. The owners will be those other authorities. That is why we are concerned that they work actively to maximise the potential benefits from the games and that the ODA take on the necessary consultation.

Key figures and key bodies also are concerned to ensure that the legacy is proper development. The Olympic board consists of the Government in the form of the Secretary of State, the Mayor of London, the chairman of the London Olympic Games Organising Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Coe, the chairman of the British Olympic Association, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. They share the ultimate responsibility for fulfilling the commitment in the bid to ensure that the wider legacy of the games is to be delivered in the sporting field, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, emphasised, as well as in the economic and social fields—but also, bearing in mind the representations of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in the environmental field.

5 pm

It also means that the benefits are spread as far and as fairly as possible around the country, not just in London. There have recently been meetings on this. For example, there was a business summit at which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, together with the Mayor of London, met businessmen and discussed how businesses large and small can benefit from the games. We are going to hold a further conference in Leeds in July to consider how the benefits can be spread more widely around the country. We all bear in mind—a point that arose in the context of Greenwich—that the Olympic year creates a unique opportunity for British tourism and for a range of British businesses around the country because of the anticipated increase in visits to this country.

At Second Reading, I brought to the attention of the House the extraordinary statistic of the number of people who, having been to the Olympic Games in Sydney, went there again within two years of the
 
2 Feb 2006 : Column GC220
 
games. A very high percentage returned. That is the kind of development that we hope to replicate in London.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Before, the Minister's last sentence goes into Hansard, he might wish to have another look at it. He described people going to Sydney for a second time and then said, "the majority of them returned". There was the possibility in that text that something happened to the rest in Sydney that was to their detriment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Once again, I am indebted to the eagle ear of the noble Lord. The issue that I was seeking to emphasise is that more than 60 per cent of the people who attended the games went to Sydney for a second time in a very short space of time. I hope that we will replicate that in London. At least we have the benefit of clarifying that for Hansard. I apologise for the slip.

We are concerned to maximise the legacy in all aspects and recognise that that is integral to the bid. Guaranteeing the legacy is not down to the Olympic Development Authority doing its work, but it is down to all those who are part of the development of the games who have a long-term interest and long-term obligation to our fellow citizens.

Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that. I hope I can give a belated, small reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I did not mean to suggest that only London should be the beneficiary of the legacy. Indeed, I do not think that my amendment ought to be read in that way, given paragraphs (c) and (d). I will read what the Minister said.

I do not for a moment want to suggest that what he said did not contain goodwill or was in any way disingenuous. We have had many exchanges during the two days in Committee on the Bill in which there has been much expression of goodwill, but I have been left wondering what guarantee there is in the legislation. There should be a guarantee that the issues we have discussed will come to pass. I do not doubt the goodwill of all those involved, but the ODA, especially, and LOCOG will have the responsibility of delivering certain things. The Mayor has a clear political interest in ensuring that the games work well and that the public believe that the legacy is being delivered.

But I am concerned to know that one can point to words in black and white which say that that will happen. As this is the Committee stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 [Regulations: supplemental]:

Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 60:


"( ) shall provide for exceptions for newspapers, magazines, television, radio and for the provision of news and information by means of mobile telephony or other electronic media,"
 
2 Feb 2006 : Column GC221
 

The noble Lord said: We come to a very important part of the Bill which has been the subject of considerable discussion in the other place and between various parties, including the Government, the advertising industry and the newspaper and broadcasting industries. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, used a very interesting phrase and said that the Government have been rather coy in their drafting of certain parts of the Bill. The Government certainly have not been coy in their drafting of this part of the Bill. There are quite a number of amendments which try to alleviate some of the problems caused by the rather aggressive drafting throughout this part of the Bill.

Amendment No. 60, standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, is of considerable concern not only to the Newspaper Society, in particular, but also to other publishers and broadcasters—particularly those in the electronic media—who would be affected by this.

Clause 19, and particularly subsection (5)(a), is drafted in such a way that it will encompass newspapers because they are documents and contain advertisements. Their sale and supply—and the display of news vendors' hoardings—will be caught by the restrictions on advertising around Olympic venues. There are similar problems for other printed and broadcast media and for news services supplied by electronic media. They are covered by Clause 19(5)(b).

I accept that the Government have already partially admitted that it is not their intention to sweep all into their net. Mr Caborn, in Committee in the other place, said:

He was asked about the Government's intentions in respect of other media. At Report stage he confirmed:

this is an interesting phrase—

I am sure the Minister will not use language like that, but we shall see.

Clearly, as regards newspapers, magazines, television and radio, the Government have accepted the need for that exemption and were committed to it in the other place. So they should provide in the Bill that the regulations will contain those exemptions. The regulations may not be drafted for some considerable time after the Bill has passed—after all, they will not be needed for some period—but the passage of time alone makes it all the more necessary for the Bill to contain a specific reference to the need to exempt these media. It is not satisfactory that a clear government commitment as to the regulations' content should be recorded only in Hansard and in correspondence with
 
2 Feb 2006 : Column GC222
 
the Minister. Details, of course, can go into the regulations, but surely the Bill itself should commit to the fact that appropriate exemptions will be made.

On mobile telephony and other electronic media, the Government's intentions are rather less clear and that makes a strong case for including it in the Bill. Mr Caborn seems to have demonstrated that he understands that such media are within the editorial exemptions contained in paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 in relation to content, so what is the problem over confirming that such services will also be exempted from the advertising in the vicinity restrictions? Newspapers and broadcasters increasingly offer a "news to your mobile" service in the form of clips and so on, and they are accessible by mobile telephone. Clearly, it would be absurd, as well as unworkable, if the application of regulations under Clause 19 somehow purported to impose a dead zone for electronic news and information services, so that if you were in Stratford you could buy your usual newspaper but could not access a website or receive news headlines to your mobile phone with 3G technology. This is obviously not what the Government want or intend. I hope that not only will the Minister clarify that second limb but will commit to including an exemption in the Bill in the form of the amendment. I beg to move.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page