| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that—[Interruption.] Order. I am aware of the speculation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but, as far as a statement is concerned, I have heard nothing at the moment. Perhaps I could add, in a more jocular vein, that the Chair would sometimes appreciate 45 minutes notice of points of order.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath) (Con): I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 17, line 6, , at end insert—
'(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b)(ii) the Mayor of London must have regard to the equal importance of the Olympic Bid 2012 and the regeneration of the Lower Lea Valley area'.
We now turn to the Bill's provisions on the Olympics and the new Olympic lottery. It is appropriate, as we turn to the sporting elements of the Bill, to have a sports fan such as yourself in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should also say, as a great racing fan, that I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said about the racing aspects. We have worked together as a team and I am pleased to have seen such strong support for our views on both sides of the House—including, most recently, in the speech of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale).
Conservative Members completely support the Olympic bid for London 2012. The Minister and I—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—are wearing our London 2012 Olympic bid badges. We hope that, on the day after London has won the Olympic
bid in 2005, all Members and people throughout the country will want to wear those badges to demonstrate the whole country's support for the Olympic bid and for staging the Olympics in London in 2012.We sought to improve this part of the Bill in Committee. There were three big issues for Conservative Members, two of which my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will return to on Third Reading and my noble Friends, led by Lord Moynihan, will pursue in another place. We believe that, in order to bring in the maximum amount for sport in general and the Olympics in particular, the Olympic lottery game should start at a time when interest in the Olympics will be at its height. I raised that matter with the Secretary of State earlier this afternoon at Culture, Media and Sport questions.
Secondly, we believe that the Government should show their commitment to sport—it is what I call the acid test—by agreeing to forgo what would otherwise be the tax take from the new Olympic lottery game and instead giving those moneys to sport.
The third big issue is dealt with by amendment No. 9. We want to avoid any Olympic bid being in some way hijacked by the present Mayor of London. In Committee, we recognised that the regeneration of the lower Lea valley area in east London would be an important side effect of a—hopefully successful—Olympic bid. However, we have been concerned that in many of his public statements, the Mayor has afforded regeneration greater importance than the Olympics. In Committee we sought to deal with the problem in a slightly different way from the present amendment No. 9, but I am indebted—as are we all in the House—to the Clerks for their advice on finding an acceptable alternative way of presenting the issue to the House this evening.
As the whole country will remember, the Prime Minister bitterly criticised the present Mayor when he first stood as a mayoral candidate.
The Prime Minister predicted that the Mayor would be "a disaster for London", but because it has become clear in the past few months that there is absolutely no chance of a victory for another Labour candidate, the current Mayor of London has suddenly become the Prime Minister's new best friend.
We hope that there will soon be a new Mayor of London—a Conservative Mayor. When the Mayor is consulted on future decisions about the Olympic bid, it would be helpful if the Bill stated that in responding to the consultation the Mayor must take fully into account the interests of both the regeneration of the lower Lea valley and the London 2012 bid. The amendment is a straightforward attempt to improve the Bill, which we sought to do with all our amendments in Committee, for the sake of both sport and the Olympic bid. We hope that the Government will accept it, if not today then in another place.
Mr. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North) (Lab): I do not want to detain the House, but the amendment is frivolous. There is no conflict between the London Olympic bid and the need to regenerate the area where the games will primarily be based.
If the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) thinks that there is a conflict, he has not examined the proposals from other cities. To allow the necessary
space not only for new stadiums but for all the ancillary facilities such as parking, new public transport infrastructure and especially houses for athletes, the Olympic village cannot be located in an area such as Hyde park or the Bois de Boulogne. If a major city is selected—we recognise that the International Olympic Committee will go for a major city—the Olympic village must be located in an area that is currently not used for very much. It therefore makes sense to look for a regeneration project as part of the Olympic bid, so I cannot see the conflict.
Mr. Hawkins: Like me, the hon. Gentleman visited the potential sites with the all-party Olympics group. I agree with him that there should not be a conflict, but concern has been expressed that the current Mayor of London has talked almost solely about regeneration. We want to see both the necessary regeneration and a concentration on the bid in any work done by the Mayor of London—whoever that may be. Our amendment seeks to ensure that the Mayor will consider both matters in any consultation.
Mr. Henderson: Like the hon. Gentleman, I learned a lot on the visit to the Lea valley and saw exactly what is proposed. I cannot see how there is a conflict. The Mayor of London is responsible for promoting the redevelopment of the Lea valley, as he is responsible for promoting the redevelopment of other areas. The best way—perhaps the only way—currently to redevelop that area is to do so on the back of the Olympic bid.
The Mayor of London knows how crucial the Olympic bid is for London, and I say that as a Member of Parliament from Newcastle. I support the London Olympic bid because I know that Britain will not get the Olympics unless they go to London. It is hugely important, particularly for young people throughout the country, that we take our best shot at obtaining the Olympics. The Olympic village must therefore be located in a redevelopment area. I cannot see a conflict and will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, but I am not sure that an amendment is necessary to make the point.
7.15 pm
Mr. Don Foster: On Third Reading, we may have an opportunity to say a little more about our support for the Olympic and Paralympic bid. Liberal Democrat Members fully support the bid and would not want to take any action that might reduce the chance of success. Anything that drives a wedge between any of the component parts of the bidding process will clearly not be helpful.
Sadly, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) attempted to suggest in Committee that the Mayor of London, whoever he or she might be, should not even be consulted on how lottery funds raised through the new Olympic lottery game should be spent, which was clearly a bad mistake on his part. Equally, it is a bad mistake to suggest that the Mayor of London, or anyone else involved in the bidding process or the arrangements to distribute lottery funds, would not take into account the wide range of important interests.
All hon. Members want to see a successful Olympic bid and want to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom benefit from a successful Olympic games. If
people did not take that view, it would be pointless to suggest an Olympic lottery game. People from across the country are hardly likely to play that game if they do not see that, as well as the chance of winning some money, it will benefit their part of the country, whether it be Bath, Bangor, Belfast or even Banff.All parts of the country should benefit, but it is clear that London will undoubtedly benefit, not least through the regeneration of the lower Lea valley, which is vital. Hon. Members surely know that London has the highest unemployment of all regions in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who apologises for not being here, pointed out earlier that 13 of the top 20 constituencies in the unemployment list are London constituencies. Vital regeneration, huge support for sport in this country and other benefits will flow from a successful Olympic bid.
I am sure that the Mayor of London wants to be involved in the deliberations, not least because he, on behalf of the people of London, is making a significant contribution—not only a contribution to funding the cost of the bid, 50 per cent. of which will come from London, but a contribution of £500 million towards the cost of staging the Olympics if the bid is successful. Londoners will contribute an average council tax increase of some £20, and will rightly expect to benefit, not least from the regeneration.
I say to the Minister in passing that during regeneration account should be taken of the needs of businesses currently located in the lower Lea valley that may need to move to other locations. I hope that every effort will be made to ensure that new premises can be found for them within the locality, so that they, too, can benefit from the Olympic bid.
I find it strange that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who moved the amendment, wants to ensure that only one of those who will be consulted must take a balanced approach to regeneration and the other benefits of the Olympics. Why should not the National Lottery Commission or the National Olympic Committee equally be expected to consider both factors?
The amendment is clearly a pop at the current Mayor of London. It shows that the Conservative party has very little faith in its candidate for the mayoral election, Mr. Steve Norris, which is understandable since my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will occupy that position in the near future.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |