London Olympics Bill

As ever, I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed). On this occasion, I agree with almost everything that he has said and was not offended when he described me as hair-shirted. I also agree with him about the addition of rugby sevens on to the list of sports, although I say that slightly diffidently knowing that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) will no doubt read my remarks and wonder why darts has not been included on the wish list for additional Olympic sports. As the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) has said, the Chancellor’s statement caused considerable disappointment given what he did not say about funding for sporting endeavour, and particularly sporting endeavour that helps us to achieve an increased medal haul. He was right to say that those of us who share that concern need to get together with the representative bodies to find arguments to put pressure on the Chancellor and to come up with other forms of funding. As the hon. Member for Loughborough has said, a lot is being done, and I praise the Minister and the Government for their work. I also hope that we go on to develop links between community sports clubs and our schools. My party simply cannot support the approach proposed by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, because we have some difficulty with the Conservative party’s mixed messages about the lottery. Conservative Members tell us that it is wrong for the Government to put their sticky little mitts in lottery funding, but the Conservative party manifesto contains a proposal to raise £250 million a year from the lottery for its club-to-school scheme. The Conservative party is proposing a form of hypothecated tax, which Conservative Members always say is complete anathema to them whenever we make such a proposal—the Conservative proposal is schizophrenic. Many hon. Members had grave qualms about using the lottery to make a major contribution towards the cost of running the Olympics. However, Liberal Democrats recognised that the Olympics are so important to the nation, to sport and in many other ways—for example, culturally—that we were prepared to make an exception. That is why we supported the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004, and I believe that we were right to do so. During the passage of the 2004 Act, we were disappointed when we were told that the £410 million from other distributors would only be available if it were needed, although it was not long after the 2004 Act received Royal Assent that the Government said that that sum would be needed. However, we lived with that situation, because we had made a commitment. Even were I prepared to support the notion of taking VAT in respect of just one part of the lottery and using it in the broad way that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent suggests, I am not convinced that the mechanism would work. How would LOCOG, which has very specific responsibilities in respect of the running of the Olympic games, ensure that all aspects of sport will receive some of the money? Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of what would happen were LOCOG to receive that additional, very significant sum of money. As the games should operate successfully within budget as it is, an extra £320 million could lead to a surplus. He will remember that as part of the deal, 20 per cent. of any such surplus will go to the IOC, 20 per cent. to the BOA and 60 per cent. to grass-roots sport. He is suggesting, in effect, that we take money away from the lottery and give it to the IOC. Some of the money would not even end up in sport in this country. I find that aspect of the proposal difficult. The new clause is somewhat schizophrenic about the lottery and about the approach to VAT receipts and the Chancellor’s responsibility for using them. For those and many other reasons with which I do not wish to detain the House, we will not support the hon. Gentleman, who in many other respects has done a fantastic job.