London Olympics Bill |
|
Clause 32 Greater London Authority: powers 5.30 pmHugh Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in clause 32, page 22, line 31, after ‘London’, insert
The effect of the amendment is fairly obvious. The clause deals with the powers given to the Greater London authority. In subsection (2)(h)—[Interruption.] What is going on outside? [Interruption.] The Chairman: Order. Column Number: 136 Hugh Robertson: Subsection (2)(h) seems amazingly wide-ranging to us. It allows the Greater London authority to take action in respect of places outside London. I presume that the point in drawing up that provision was to give the GLA power over those places that host Olympic events. Our amendment aims to tie that down, precisely to test whether that is indeed the purpose of the clause, and to ensure that the GLA does not have a much wider-ranging power. Mr. Caborn: I accept that there is a lot of logic behind the amendment. The rationale behind allowing the GLA to take action in respect of places outside London is that the council tax precept will be used to fund the Olympic Delivery Authority, which, although focused on the lower Lee valley, will undertake work across the whole country. However, we obviously expect the ODA’s work to focus on Olympic venues and associated facilities, such as park and ride, so there may be a way of being clearer about the Mayor’s activities outside London. At the same time, we want to ensure that any amendment will not unnecessarily complicate funding arrangements for the ODA. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will give the matter further consideration, and we will return to it on Report, if that is acceptable to him. Hugh Robertson: I thank the Minister for that. The issue was brought to our attention by a number of boroughs in London that are understandably concerned about it. We look forward to any future reply, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 11, in clause 32, page 22, line 34, at end insert—
The amendment is straightforward. I am afraid that we are back to the subject of lists and which bodies or individuals should be consulted, in this case by the GLA. Under the clause, the Secretary of State, the British Olympic Association and LOCOG are listed. That leads to the obvious question: why not the Olympic Delivery Authority, which will have responsibility for the preparation and delivery of the Olympics? I would argue that the London boroughs would also be sufficiently important to be on the list. After all, London boroughs will be responsible for collecting the council tax funding, to the tune of roughly £20 per household per year, so they will obviously have a keen interest in how the GLA uses the powers in the Bill. In addition, including London boroughs in the list would increase accountability. London boroughs, through their elected members and councillors, and indeed business and cultural communities, have many ways of involving these bodies and groups in the wider project. The amendment questions the Minister as to why the ODA and London boroughs have been left off the list. Column Number: 137 Mr. Caborn: I agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiments; it is vital that, wherever possible, we take a consultative and co-operative approach to deliver the 2012 games, as we have done throughout the Bill. The clause already provides that the GLA, when exercising its functions under the clause, should have regard to the desirability of consulting and co-operating with other persons with useful experience or knowledge. I would expect this to cover bodies such as the ODA and the London boroughs. The named consultees in the clause—the Secretary of State, the BOA and LOCOG—are members of the Olympic board, and are the bodies with overall financial and contractual responsibilities for the delivery of the games. The GLA should be required to consult members of the Olympic board in the first instance, but should also consult bodies such as the ODA and London boroughs when appropriate. That is provided for in the Bill as it is drafted. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment. Jo Swinson: In the light of those assurances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 34 Regional development agencies Jo Swinson: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 34, page 24, line 2, leave out ‘at the request of’ and insert ‘after consultation with’. When we consider the role of the regional development agencies, we can all agree that one of the most inspiring things about the Olympic bid, and the process by which London won the games, has been the support that the bid enjoyed across the country. The coverage in the press gives a taster of how welcome has been the news that the Olympics is coming to the UK. In an article headed “Olympics Joy: A Real Boost For Brum”, the Birmingham Evening Mail of 7 July 2005 quoted Birmingham city council leader Mike Whitby as saying:
Closer to my home territory, The Herald (Glasgow) reported on the same date that
while the Belfast Telegraph said:
In Liverpool, which is already looking forward to 2008, a Liverpool culture company spokesperson was quoted in the Liverpool Daily Post as saying:
Column Number: 138 There is clearly a huge amount of support up and down the country. That is why it seems very strange that clause 34(2) states:
After all, the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 requires regional development agencies not to be passive, but actively to promote their regions. In celebrating the bid team’s having thought the unthinkable and put London into the position in which it was able to win the bid, we have been celebrating its spirit of taking the initiative and being ambitious. It does not make sense, therefore, to expect regional development agencies to sit back and do something only when they are asked to do so by the ODA. The amendment seeks to give some authority to RDAs to take the initiative, to come up with ideas about what might be appropriate in their regions, and then to consult with the ODA before implementing them. It makes sense to allow the regions to do that, and I hope that the Minister will take that point on board. Mr. Caborn: Before I explain our resistance to the amendment, may I say that the nations and regions support group, chaired by Charles Allen, which advised the 2012 bid team—it was very successful and I should like to thank all who were involved; it was one of the key factors in our securing the bid in Singapore—has now moved to a new phase for the delivery of the games? I am the Minister responsible for it, and it involves a lot of senior people from the regional development agencies, sports bodies around the country and the devolved administrations. That group will continue, and it will have a clear focus on the regions. As we have said many times, this is not a London-centric games; it is for the whole country. The support for the bid—even, if I may say so Mr. Hood, in Scotland—was about 81 per cent. We want to ensure that we continue to tap into that strong vein. RDAs will be able to take action to support the success of the games under the powers that they already have under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1990, which exist to further economic development. The 2012 Olympic competitions will take place across the country, and every region will have the opportunity to benefit and to capitalise on them. However, we must ensure that this one body is responsible for co-ordinating public sector efforts to prepare for the games. We do not want the RDAs to get distracted from their core business, which is why the Bill ensures that the ODA can co-ordinate actions taken by the RDAs that specifically and exclusively involve preparation for the London Olympics. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment. Mr. Foster: I entirely welcome the announcement that the Minister has just made about the setting up of the new nations and regions committee. I am delighted that Charles Allen will continue to head that body, in view of the excellent work that he has done. Column Number: 139 I think that I heard the Minister say that he did not want the RDAs to be distracted by the Olympics from their core business. This is a fantastic opportunity for each of the nations and regions to benefit. The press release about the setting up of the new nations and regions committee says it is an opportunity to ensure that the UK as a whole benefits from the great opportunities created by staging the games in 2012. Is the Minister really telling the Committee that for the RDAs to get involved in using the Olympics to regenerate their area and develop economic, tourism and cultural opportunities will distract them from their core purpose? Surely this is a wonderful opportunity to develop that core purpose. I fail to understand what the Minister is saying. Mr. Caborn: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is why I referred to the core business of further economic development. Where the RDAs can exploit that, they should. I went on to say that the co-ordination of that public effort as far as the Olympics were concerned would be done by the ODA. From our knowledge of experiences around the world, we believe that the structure we have put in place gives that process a focus and co-ordination. When my hon. Friend sees the roll-out of that structure, he will be delighted by the way the Bill is phrased and the structures. The process will make maximum use of the RDAs and their regions. Jo Swinson: I hope that RDAs that come up with good ideas that the ODA happens not to have thought of will get a supportive hearing from the ODA. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in clause 34, page 24, line 2, at end insert—
Column Number: 140
Clause 34 gives RDAs a new purpose: that of preparing for the London Olympics. Once the games are over, that purpose will clearly no longer be relevant. We therefore propose to give the Secretary of State the power to repeal the RDAs’ purpose of preparing for the London Olympics after the games are over. The details of what may be included in the order are listed in the amendment. It may include savings, transitional provisions or provisions for the transfer of property, rights or liabilities. Amendment agreed to. Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Mr. Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton, South-East) (Lab): Before we come to a conclusion on the clause, I wonder whether the Minister will clarify a couple of points. It is clear that the Minister and the Secretary of State have made great efforts to ensure that the Olympics games will be for the whole country. That nationwide support was evident when the decision was announced in July. London is the host city, and that is where most of the investment will be. Of course, this process will lead to the very welcome regeneration of east London. However, other parts of the country want to make a contribution and the clause focuses on that. If we consider the Sydney Olympics, it has been estimated that £150 million was given to regional companies, creating 55,000 jobs. The clause allows RDAs to prepare for the Olympics with the ODA. I would like to ask the Minister exactly how that will work because many businesses throughout the country are interested in bidding for contracts through the RDAs and with the ODA. I have a couple of examples. One of the biggest manufactures of copper piping in the country is in my constituency. When the athletes are staying in the Olympic village, having a warm shower in the morning, they will be having their shower in London but the copper piping could well be made in Wolverhampton. 5.45 pmSitting suspended for a Division in the House. 6 pmOn resuming— Mr. McFadden: I fear that the Committee is somewhat distracted by a competition other than the Olympics that is taking place outside the Room. I shall therefore be brief. The point I was making to the Minister was that businesses in my constituency and in many others would be keen to bid for work. I shall spare the Committee a lesson on things such as construction, glass-making and lock-making. Each Member present will be able to think of businesses that could bid for the work. The key question is how businesses, working with their regional development agencies, take
Of course, the Minister is not running a charity. Work has to be of the right price and the right quality. However, how do we ensure equal opportunity in bidding? What efforts will the ODA make to ensure that businesses in different regions get a chance to bid? This is not just a question of the run-up to the games. There is an important legacy point to be made. Let us consider the experience of Sydney. A report commissioned for the west midlands working group estimated that the experience gained by Australian companies on working for those games has been instrumental in then winning about 10 per cent. of the work for the Beijing Olympics. So, when I ask the Minister about how British business can take advantage of the opportunities presented by the 2012 Olympics, it is to secure jobs and work in our industries in the Olympic games that will follow, in 2016 and beyond. Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend raises an important point about the role of the RDAs and the ODA, and activities in private sector. As I have said, we wanted three skill sets in this project. The first was the skill set to win the games, and we achieved that. The second is the skill set to deliver the construction project. The third is the one needed to deliver the games. We have been able to do something with the ODA; once this legislation is on the statute book we will bring together a board that addresses the issues to which my hon. Friend referred. It will basically be there as a construction company. To the best of my knowledge, that has not been done before in the structures of other Olympic games. I will make its priorities clear to the ODA and its board members. My hon. Friend is right that it is not a philanthropic society. We are not running a charity but one of the biggest construction projects in Europe, if not the world—particularly in prestige terms. It gives great opportunities. Therefore, if British industry responds to that challenge, a favourable wind should be given to it. I will carefully examine the position that will be taken by the project board to ensure that we can capitalise on that supply chain into these areas. My hon. Friend is right because some of the stuff that we will be putting into these areas will be at the leading edge of technology in design, building materials and the like. That is a challenge that I am sure British industry across the board will take on. That will lead to more contracts in the future and it is important that we get this part of the scenario right. Engaging the rest of the UK is important. We should also not underestimate the impact on tourism, which is one of our worst performers in terms of trade deficit. I think we have about a £15 billion or £17 billion trade deficit on tourism. That is the biggest trade deficit of any sector. We have a great opportunity to start addressing some of our weaknesses with Visit Britain, which is very ably led by
I take seriously what my hon. Friend said. When the ODA is up and running, I hope that it will engage with bodies such as the CBI and chambers of commerce to ensure that the infrastructure is put in place so that British industry can maximise on the games. I will be doing everything from a ministerial point of view that I can. I hope that that is helpful and that the message will very clearly get through to the new board of the ODA. Question put and agreed to. Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 35 and 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 37 Commencement and duration Amendment made: No. 42, in clause 37, page 25, line 6, after first ‘and’, insert ‘paragraphs 1 to 10 of’. —[Mr. Caborn.] Mr. Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in clause 37, page 25, line 7, at end insert
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 51 and 52 Government new clause 3—Scotland. Mr. Caborn: The Government amendments in this group make the changes necessary to ensure that the Bill is consistent as it applies to Scotland and Scottish law. New clause 3 incorporates the majority of Scotification amendments required, including the necessary alterations in terminology. Government amendment No. 53 allows for the clause to be commenced immediately on Royal Assent. Government amendment No. 51 gives Scottish Ministers the order-making power to commence clauses on street trading, outdoor advertising and arrestable offences as they affect Scotland and Scottish venues. Amendment agreed to. Amendments made: No. 43, in clause 37, page 25, line 8, after ‘Act’, insert ‘(including paragraphs 11 to 13 of Schedule 2)’. No. 51, in clause 37, page 25, line 9, leave out ‘and an order’ and insert—
Column Number: 143 No. 44, in clause 37, page 25, line 20, at end insert—
Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 38 Extent and application Mr. Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 95, in clause 38, page 25, line 28, leave out ‘and 33.’ and insert ‘to 34.’. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 96. Mr. Caborn: Clause 38 amends the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 so that RDAs are given the additional purpose of preparing for the London Olympics. The 1998 Act applies only to England and Wales. The amendments offer absolute clarity that none of the amendments to the Act will extend beyond England and Wales either. They do not need to, since the Olympic construction project will take place in England, primarily in London. Amendment agreed to. Amendments made: No. 96, in clause 38, page 25, line 33, after ‘(1)’, insert ‘(except section 34)’. No. 52, in clause 38, page 25, line 36, leave out subsection (4). No. 98, in clause 38, page 26, line 4, at end insert—
Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause 2 Security
Brought up, read the First time and Second time, and added to the Bill. Column Number: 144 New Clause 3 Scotland
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 20 October 2005 |