London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill

Andrew Love Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There is the quid pro quo that if one has tough anti-touting regulations, one has to make it as simple as possible for people who buy tickets in the legitimate expectation that they will attend an event, but who then cannot do so, to exchange their tickets and get their money back. That is what happens in major sporting events the world over. There are a number of sporting events across the United Kingdom where that already works well. There is a very good system at Lord’s for test match tickets, and Wimbledon has a smart system in which people hand in their tickets as they go out and they are simply recycled. LOCOG is absolutely clear that there has to be an efficient, easy and simple mechanism for exchanging tickets legitimately in order to discourage touting.

Turning to the business before the House, the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 sets the legal framework.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to raise this issue before the Minister moves on to the terms of the Bill. It relates to the Olympic legacy, and in particular to the main stadium. The Minister has received a letter from Tottenham Hotspur football club regarding the arrangements for the decision relating to West Ham United. I wonder if he can say whether he has responded to that letter, and what he believes to be the latest position regarding the stadium.

[Hugh Robertson]

I have to tread a little carefully in answering that question because we are under threat of judicial review and the lawyers on all sides will be watching what I say carefully. [Laughter.] I hear knowing chuckles from former Ministers on the Labour Benches. I am confident that the process we followed was absolutely in line with what was expected, and that the process followed by the Olympic Park Legacy Company under Baroness Ford was correct. The hon. Gentleman is right that we have received what is technically called a pre-application letter from Tottenham Hotspur, and indeed one from Leyton Orient. We have responded to the letters within the terms advised by the lawyers and we wait to see what happens next. I am entirely confident that the correct process was followed.

[Mr Love]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Tottenham Hotspur has raised concerns about transparency in relation to these matters, and about the procedure that was used. Does he believe that he has satisfied those concerns, and has he made public the issues that Tottenham Hotspur was concerned about?

[Hugh Robertson]

I have not made those concerns public, and that is, rightly, a matter for Tottenham Hotspur. I am confident that the process followed by the Olympic Park Legacy Company was robust, correct and inside the law. As I said, we have responded to the letters and wait to see what happens next. At this point it is difficult, and very possibly dangerous, to say a great deal more. Suffice it to say that if we can get to a stage where the legal threat is lifted, I and everybody else in the process will do all that we can to help Tottenham Hotspur find a new ground.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Robertson]

I can absolutely give my right hon. Friend those assurances. The firm conducting the ticketing operation was selected precisely because it was able to give those assurances. Nobody wants any breach of security, and the ticketing process has several features—although I do not want to go into details—that will make it extremely difficult for people to operate in that fashion.

[Mr Love]

May I press the Minister on the illegal use of the internet? Although some sites may have been closed down, I expect that 10 times as many opened up the next day. What specific measures have been taken and what publicity is planned to ensure that what happened to the New Zealanders does not happen to other people coming to this country?

[Hugh Robertson]

The short answer is that that is what the Bill is intended to do. The advice from the police is that there is a threat that organised gangs will target the London Olympics precisely because they will be such a prestigious global event. It is that threat that warrants the increase in the fine from £5,000 to £20,000. That threat has been identified in a way that was not apparent when the original Act was passed, and the advice is that a much meatier fine is required to address it.

A key issue for the games is the effective movement of the games family to and from venues. Before Members seek to intervene, I should point out that that does not mean the IOC; it means the athletes and the officials who need to get to the events. At the risk of going back to the pub quiz, the Atlanta games in 1996 had a significant problem with athletes and officials being able to get to events on time. We can imagine the frustration of any young man or woman who has trained for some 20 years to reach this seminal athletic moment, but cannot get there in time because of a traffic jam because the host city cannot shift people around the city to order. The 2006 Act allowed for the creation and enforcement of traffic management measures specifically for the games to enable their smooth running and to deliver journey time commitments made to the IOC on the movement of athletes and other games family members.

These included powers to create an Olympic route network, and I am grateful for the work done by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) when he was a Minister to enable the ODA and local traffic authorities to make traffic regulation orders for defined Olympics purposes, and for the ODA to set levels of penalty charges, in accordance with guidelines and subject to consultation and approval. The Act also relaxed, for London Olympic events, the restrictions on the making of special event traffic orders.