London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I wonder whether what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is doing is finding a delicate way of getting around the memorandum of understanding and the various statements made by the Secretary of State and the Mayor so that if the budget of the games over-runs everyone will be frightfully civilised and talk about how the over-run will be paid for. That is how I read the memorandum of understanding, which has left some of us dissatisfied. That is the reason for my amendment—only this morning I realised something which I hope the Minister will take away and consider, not as a party political point which might be read into my amendment. However, it has become clear that one of the reasons it is right to pursue the question of a cap on the total amount raised from the Mayor’s precept is because Londoners in particular signed up for texts, e-mails and all sorts of things relating to the games on the basis that they pay £10 a year. I will not weary the Committee regarding whether everyone has understood that that is band D of the council tax and so forth, or even if they have understood that it might go on for 12 years rather than 10. But there is a public understanding and support for the games in London. The £10 a year results from the calculation of what it is necessary to achieve—either the £550 million or the total of £625 million over a period of 10 or 12 years—taking into account the tax base, the collection rate and the fact that these will be variables. I credit the Mayor of London—I try to be fair when I think he deserves credit—there is some explanation of this in next year’s draft budget, which has just been published. There is not enough, but there is some. There are other aspects of the funding of the games that I want to explore. One is the taking forward of the debate, which we began at Second Reading. The Minister said that if you cap the funding provided by one source, that provokes everyone else to overspend. I am not sure that I fully understood that and he might want to correct it. It seems to me that it forces everyone responsible for the project to keep tight control of the costs, otherwise they would suffer a disproportionate effect. Parts of the funding have not had much public discussion. There will be interest on the amount raised by the precept—it is £57.2 million in a year. The nicely worded note I received from officials in the GLA is that the starting point for the assembly is that the interest is public money and it would not set out to gain or lose money from interest earnings. However, I would not want to pay it over to the ODA if the DCMS slowed down its payment. They say that this will need careful thought and agreement with other funders. I bet it will. The £10 is not the totality of what will be raised. I am sure that other items of Olympic funding will be increased in the Mayor’s budget. I do not, as it happens, argue that there should be nothing above the £10, because amounts may be required to ensure the legacy for Londoners. But my point, which takes me on to my serious practical point, is transparency. This is not political mischief-making. I believe that everyone agrees that there should be as much clarity as possible in the amount required and the amount levied towards the Olympics. To that end, this should be made clear on council tax bills. There is good will to try to achieve that. I have heard that from every side—not, as it happens, from the Government because I have not had that debate with them—and I believe that legislative change is required to ensure that. Can the Minister consider whether this Bill could be the mechanism, knowing that legislation takes a long time to proceed when it begins with only a twinkle in someone’s eye? There might be issues around the Long Title and this would be too late for 2006–07. But the Mayor, the Assembly and the boroughs want it. If we can use this legislation to sort that out, many people would be satisfied. Most importantly it would ensure that the public—those who read council tax bills—have as much information as possible. If possible, it would be good if this could be bottomed out before Report. I can table an amendment on Report, but it would not be as good as one that the Minister might be able to bring forward. If it would be helpful, I volunteer to have a meeting before the next stage to discuss whether this might be a sensible proposition and the implications of it. This occurred to me only this morning and I have not had a chance to talk to anybody else about this, other than a couple of members of staff who were close by but who were aware of the issue. Having made some possibly mischievous points early on—and I know that the Minister will resist the amendment as it is tabled—I think this issue might be worth pursuing.