London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

Far be it for me to suggest that any political points have been made over a cap on council tax. I recognise that the suggestion is put forward in the benevolent way in which the noble Baroness always introduces her amendments. The reason why I resist this amendment and why I was very grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Borrie on Amendment No. 12 is that, if they were accepted, both amendments would have the Government effectively writing an open cheque for the costs of these games. It is different, with the Government being the final guarantor, to say that they should dangle an open cheque book in the air. The concept of ““final guarantor”” is clear. The Olympic Games will be delivered to the satisfaction of the International Olympic Committee because that is what we have signed up to. We have a responsibility there and we know that we will fulfil our obligations. The Government have some responsibility for guaranteeing that. However, when it comes to the question of who pays, then of course we have some clear illustrations of how the games are to be paid for and how much is involved. The noble Baroness said that it would be helpful if Londoners knew what they were in for. First, we know what Londoners have signed up for with regard to the games. They have signed up to pay for £625 million over the period. On average, that is £10 a year. It is £20 a year for those in band D, or 38p a week. All additional costs will obviously cause some concern, but 38p a week for the Olympic Games seems to be a pretty good deal. It is set against a background not only of a general welcome for the games from all sides of the Committee, in the House at Second Reading and also in the country, but also against the background of the lasting benefits which we recognise will come to London. During the bidding period, the deal was in the Memorandum of Understanding of May 2003. It was publicly known two years before London succeeded with the bid—to universal joy. ““Universal”” is perhaps an excessive description but there was general joy that our bid was successful. Everyone tells me that they know exactly where they were at 12.47 pm on 6 July last year. Again, it may be an exaggeration to say ““everyone”” but certainly that was the case for a very large number of people. There was huge delight. The costs for London were set out in the deal. The noble Baroness is saying that, in addition to that understanding of where we stood in winning the bid, we now want, as does the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, to translate the Government from being guarantor of the games into being the underwriter of the cheques for the games. First, I know that at some stage local elections will intrude before any general election takes place. I understand the preoccupation with local events, which may relate to local financing at this stage, but, as sure as night follows day, sooner or later we are all answerable to the taxpayer. So I warn Members of the Committee not to be too cavalier in thinking that the Government have an automatic open cheque book for however worthy a project, lest, at some stage in the future, a taxpayer dares to say, ““How dare you spend money in this cavalier and irresponsible way””. It is a broad charge for me to use the word ““irresponsible”” and I do not want to go that far, but I want to emphasise our responsibility. If we are to keep costs under control, if we are to ensure that financial management is sufficiently rigorous, and if all parties to this are to have confidence that all other parties are working to deliver the highest value at the lowest cost, then all parties must be subject to risk. The trouble with the concept of capping the council tax is that it says in relation to one party, ““That’s the end game. Whatever these costs amount to and whatever goes on from now on, we’re out of it because we know what we are paying and the rest must come from someone else’s pocket””. I do not think that that is responsible government; responsible government is that all parties to this project—all contributors and all of us—have a responsibility for delivering these games and for delivering them in the most excellent form we can, while keeping costs as low as we can because we are answerable to those who are obliged to meet those costs. The Government are concerned that that answerability should remain. The noble Baroness presents excellent advocacy on behalf of a particular group—London council tax payers—and on how their responsibilities count. That would be at the expense of all of us—not just if the costs were higher than anticipated but when the additional costs go beyond that factor. It would be a cost to all of us as we would have taken out of the equation one group who should be concerned about costs. Whatever it did, whatever expenditure levels were lighted upon and whatever went on, no more will come from its particular pocket. We do not think that that makes sense. We are prepared to meet one of the requests of the noble Baroness—should not some attempt be made to keep Londoners informed of what is going on? We understand that that will be the case. Material will be sent out alongside council tax bills which will identify the progress regarding the games. I cannot be specific about that at this stage; I am responding to what I think is an entirely legitimate request and demand. We want to see that that is done. We have not worked out the details of how we will do it, but that is an entirely legitimate request. Therefore, I accept it. I turn to the more general issue of whether the Government are jolly well going to pay up, come what may. Therefore, we take all constraints off all other contributors at this ridiculously early stage, or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, wants, a more modest concept that only London council tax payers should be taken out of the equation—that they know what they have to pay and no more. We intend to keep rigorous control of costs. The best way is to ensure that all those involved with this venture remain responsible for the delivery of the games in the most efficient and cost-effective way.