London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

My Lords, Tony Banks was somebody I never met, but he was one of the world’s great characters. He was into everything, a leader, a player, a sportsman and probably, reading about him, a tease. I wish to associate myself and my party with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and my own personal tribute to Tony Banks. We as a nation have been charged with the welcome task of delivering the world’s largest sporting spectacular event, the Olympic Games, in 2012 and boosting its sporting profile worldwide. The eyes of the world will be monitoring our preparations to a greater or lesser degree from today until the summer of 2012. I take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Coe, his team, Tessa Jowell, the DCMS team, and all those involved, on their achievement in winning the nomination for Britain. The Bill we are discussing today, and throughout its progress, is essentially a stepping stone to enable a successful delivery of this event. I want to make it clear at this stage that we on this side of your Lordships’ House have the same objective as Her Majesty’s Government—to deliver the most successful, friendly and financially beneficial Olympic Games yet run. Our objective in these debates will be to improve the Bill and in no way to destroy or damage it. The Bill as it appears in this House is fundamentally sound, but there are a few concerns I should like to raise. Most of these were also raised by my honourable friend Hugh Robertson in another place, so they will come as no surprise to the noble Lord. There is the issue of accountability to Parliament. The London 2012 Games is a national event and should not be made into an unnecessarily political one. The ODA and other Olympic bodies are accountable through the Secretary of State to Parliament, but Parliament must maintain accessibility to this process. I suggest that an annual update of progress, issues and costs, with an opportunity to debate outstanding or new concerns, would be appropriate. There is a very real prospect of a considerable economic boost for sport and tourism across the country. Ours was a bid for the Games that will reach beyond the closing ceremony and we must deliver on that for the regeneration of the Lea Valley, the new world-class venues for sport, the boost to tourism and a heightened passion for sporting achievement at all levels. There is also the issue of partnership. I have already mentioned that we wish to maintain a cross-party consensus, something particularly pertinent when considering the extensive powers that the Bill grants to the Mayor of London. The powers are unprecedented and, therefore, potentially dangerous and controversial. To deliver a project of this size and scale, we accept that he will need to have extraordinary powers, but under the Bill he could decide, for example, to buy compulsorily the Centre Court at Wimbledon. Therefore, will the Minister look at how those boundaries might be policed? The Mayor has been known to push at the boundaries of his power and it is essential that in no circumstances should he be allowed to use the Olympics as a pretext to exercise powers that are not explicitly and directly related to the Olympic Games of 2012. It is vital that the Mayor works in close partnership with the ODA and the boroughs and that they endeavour to achieve their targets without resorting to unnecessary force or bullying. London 2012 has to be a Games for the athletes, run and supported not just by the Government but also by the Opposition parties, whoever they may be. The fact that London is hosting the Games is sure, but although we expect to be in power in 2012, that is not sure. That brings me to the costs and who will cover any overrun should there be any. That problem has been widely debated in the national press. The memorandum of understanding signed by the Government in 2003 clearly puts the responsibility on the National Lottery and the London council tax payers. There is a real possibility, given the history of other Games, that the 2012 Games will cost more than has been budgeted for. It is said that Sydney and Athens ran far more than 100 per cent overspends, although the new good news is that LOCOG is anticipating a surplus for 2012. In the event of a deficit, why should Londoners be expected to pay for any cost overrun for this national event? The Government and the Mayor have agreed a funding package of up to £2.375 billion to meet the cost of staging the Games, including support for elite support and associated sports investments. That includes £1.2 billion in contingency. I suggest that it is vital that the nation understands how that money is spent and how much goes into long-term infrastructure, housing, sporting, transport and other things. We need more clarity about the proposed final cost allocations. There is considerable concern among sports governing bodies regarding the importance of financing their seven-year plans on the road to London 2012. I very much hope that that issue will be revisited in the course of the debate. If we are to move from 10th in the medal table to the aspirational target of fourth, announced by the British Olympic Association, it is vital that our young Olympians of tomorrow are able to rely on the finest coaches and support services in the world. I hope that the absence of eagerly awaited funding from the Pre-Budget Statement of the Chancellor will not be paralleled by a similar lack of initiative and action on behalf of our sports people in the Olympic Bill. I seek the Minister’s assurance that we shall not have to wait until the next Budget before our sports governing bodies are adequately financed for the task in hand. We hold very real concerns about the draconian constraints to the advertising industry. The Bill sets out powers to protect the Games from unauthorised commercial exploitation and ambush marketing. While that is understandable, when considering the sums of revenue that need to be raised by LOCOG and the need to maintain the value of the advertising and merchandising to LOCOG’s top sponsors, I believe that the timeframe and the restrictive nature of the Bill remain overzealous. These restrictions are set to be in place a matter of months after the Bill is passed and continue for the next six and a half years. The Sydney Games only put such measures in place four years in advance, is it therefore strictly necessary for London to impose them for an additional two and a half years? We are also concerned about the presumption of guilt in this regard and the proposed legislation goes far further on this agenda than the IOC recommends—why? Will Her Majesty’s Government give the House an undertaking that they will give greater clarity on all these issues to those affected by advertising restrictions within a time frame that they, the marketeers and advertisers, can work to. We are aware of the huge costs in time and money that are incurred in advertising and marketing programmes. We must give businesses adequate protection and guidance in good time if we are to retain their good will. I am also concerned that the Secretary of State has the power to change the prohibited ““words”” at any time by affirmative order. That creates a risk of some advertisements being pre-vetted and allowed airtime and space under one set of rules, and subsequently found to be illegal by a second set of rules. Will Her Majesty’s Government assure us that this matter will be addressed and clarified, especially in Schedule 4 to the Bill? While the Bill goes to great lengths to protect the London Olympics from over exuberant advertising, it goes to no lengths at all to monitor or control gambling in relation to the Games, which can, it has been seen in recent weeks, threaten the integrity of sport. I seek acknowledgement of this issue from Her Majesty’s Government and ask the Minister to inform us how this potential problem might be addressed. I now raise the small but very important issue of compensation for the businesses in the lower Lea Valley. There are a group of 284 businesses—although I read in my newspaper a few days ago that there were 300 claimants—all of whom stand to lose business from re-location. I understand that the compensation they are being offered is allocated on a pre-bid land value basis. However, they will have to purchase on a post-bid basis when the market will have changed dramatically. Added to this is the inconvenience of re-locating. We feel that this is not being handled fairly or well by Her Majesty’s Government. They will tell me that it is up to the Mayor, but I do not accept that. The ODA must win the support of the nation and must not appear to be a ““bully””. The Minister must re-assess the manner and values in which sensitive issues of compulsory purchasing are approached. The Minister mentioned security. I fear that the euphoria of winning the bid will forever be linked with the disbelief and horror of the terrorist attacks which took place less than 24 hours later. It is something of a surprise that there is no mention of security provisions in the Bill and I ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s position on this, and how they see the additional costs of security in 2012 being covered. Then there is the issue of tax—the tax take on the Olympic lottery game. If the expected value of money to go to the Olympics through the lottery is £750 million, the total sales from the Olympic lottery games will be £2,680 million. This means that the total amount taken by the Government in lottery tax duty will be £321 million. Surely that says something about the Chancellor’s attitude to the games. The tax should be returned to LOCOG forthwith. Lastly, let us turn to the reforming of the structure for the provision of grass roots sports. This needs a radical overhaul in order to develop and find future generations of gold medallists. I have drawn attention in various debates on sport in your Lordships’ House to the ridiculous level of bureaucracy which hampers the progress of our sports clubs; now is the time to re-structure for the 22nd century the bureaucratic management of sport in this country. My noble friend Lord Moynihan and Kate Hoey in their excellent report Raising the Bar go a long way to suggest how this might be done. This is a Games for elite athletes at the highest level, but its scope and impetus must be carried forward and used to deliver on the wider sports agenda. We have before us the opportunity to achieve a unique and remarkable sporting celebration, but we need to get it right from the start. Seven years is not a long time; however, I am sure that with continued cross-party support and accountability we will deliver.