Olympics and Paralympics (Funding)

Debate between Keith Vaz and Baroness Jowell

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I welcome this debate and the enthusiasm of the many hon. Members who have spoken, as well as their determination to ensure, particularly when the torch makes its tour around the UK, that the towns, villages, cities and communities of Great Britain lead the celebration. We can be very confident on the basis of what we have heard today.

This week will mark 150 days to go until the opening ceremony when, as so often mentioned in the debate, half the world’s population will be watching the Olympic stadium in London. We must all feel a special tingle of anticipation at the prospect of what lies ahead.

I listened carefully to all the speeches and, although he is not in his seat, I would like pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). He captured, certainly better than I could, the spirit of “One Vision” and the equivalence between the summer Olympics and the Paralympics. Indeed, many of the Paralympian wags will say that the summer games are simply a test event for the main event that follows—the Paralympics.

This is a moment to take stock, under the watchful eye of the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), at whose mercy I have spent many hours in the past 10 years. It is a moment to focus again on why we decided to invest £9.3 billion of public money in seeking to host the greatest sporting event in the world. The term “legacy” is used very loosely, but it is important to pin down precisely the legacy commitment we made. It was twofold: first, that an Olympic games would drive the regeneration of east London and, secondly, that an Olympic games in London would transform a generation of young people through sport. As we consider the use and value to the public of that enormous investment of their money, let me set out briefly the achievements regarding each of those legacy promises.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and I join others in commending her for her role in securing the Olympic games for us. One of the legacies of the games is that they are going to be the ethical Olympics. Does she still share my concern about their sponsorship by Dow Chemical, especially given that the Indian Government have today launched a formal protest because of evidence that Dow and Union Carbide used private investigators to spy on activists who were supporting the Bhopal victims?

[Tessa Jowell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. We have shared considerable concerns about the risks of that particular sponsorship and its investment in providing the wrap for the Olympic stadium. We have to be realistic about the degree and fundamental nature of change that the Olympic games alone can achieve, but they provide a moment to shine a bright light on continuing injustice in the world. We should never forget the suffering of the up to 25,000 people who died in the wake of the Union Carbide disaster. Neither should we forget that Saudi Arabia is the only country that will not be sending a team that includes women, flying in the face of the International Olympic Committee commitment—the Olympic commitment—to gender equality. Nor should we forget the stories about the exploitation of children, which I am glad to say were rapidly acted on by LOCOG. The Dow sponsorship will remain controversial, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has raised that issue.

Let me return briefly to the two central commitments on legacy. First, on the regeneration of east London, many have rightly paid tribute to the outstanding work of the Olympic Delivery Authority, led by David Higgins, Dennis Hone and, of course, Sir John Armitt. They have done something that nobody believed possible when we started on this long course nearly 10 years ago. That work is a fantastic advertisement for a bold, confident UK plc and for the work force of the UK and I very much hope that the benefit of that investment—the expertise that been so carefully developed—can be traded around the world after our games.

This has been Europe’s largest public sector construction project and, possibly, the most ambitious exercise in regeneration. We have had many arguments over the Dispatch Box about the Olympic budget. When Labour was in government, we increased the scale of the ambition. Yes, we could have put what was called a flat-pack games on a contaminated site, but if we had not undertaken the regeneration of the site we could never have built homes there or built the polyclinic for which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) has campaigned so hard. Neither could we have had the venues with legacy use for our elite athletes of the future and for the young people of the communities in the six Olympic boroughs. Of the money spent on constructing the park, 75p in every pound has been spent on regeneration—on cleaning the soil, decontaminating the site, getting rid of the waterlogging and installing the wetland area that means that Canning Town will be protected from flooding. That is real regeneration in action. Some 90% of the material derived from demolition at that site was taken to be recycled.

As the hon. Member for Corby (Louise Mensch) rightly said, however, we have to measure the legacy in terms of more than just physical structures. For example, there has been a recreation of opportunity in the lives of the people who have worked on the park and in the lives of people in that part of east London, which houses two of the most deprived boroughs in the country. Of the 40,000 people who have worked in the Olympic park, 20% have come from the six boroughs and 13% were previously unemployed. There has been special focus on apprentices, with three times the regional average working not only in the park but on the construction of the village and at Westfield, where there are 10,000 permanent jobs and a retail skills academy.

There has also been a story around the country, which has been referred to by hon. Members, of contracts being let at a time of severe economic anxiety for small and medium-sized enterprises. The fact that such businesses have won 1,500 contracts means that we can tell a story of the Olympic park—of the steel for the aquatic centre coming from Neath, of the turf in the field of play coming from Huddersfield, of the steel for the Olympic stadium coming from Bolton and of the plants coming from Thetford. So, there has been investment in creating opportunities in the lives of a population who would not have had those opportunities were it not for the Olympic games.

Let me speak briefly about the second commitment—transforming a generation of young people through sport. That is a commitment not only for this country but for others around the world. The whole House can feel proud of the international inspiration programme now going on in 20 countries, which the organisers of the Rio games have agreed to take forward. In Bangladesh, 80,000 children have been taught to swim, and in north-west Brazil there have been leadership programmes. Magic Bus, which I know well—I have the bracelet—is a child development programme that uses sport to engage children in education.

All that has been achieved against a background of absolutely solid cross-party support, but there has been one decision that was incomprehensible: the dismantling of the organisation of sport for children in primary and secondary schools under which every child was doing two hours a week of sport. Those children were competing and had a choice of being involved in up to 14 sports. In the spirit of collaboration that has been such an important part of this process, I am prepared to wait and see how the Government’s plan unfolds, but I think the abandonment of school sport partnerships and of sport and physical activity for children in primary school and for younger children in secondary school is a terrible, missed opportunity. However, I do not hold the Minister or the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport responsible for that.

Many thanks are due: the plaudits for LOCOG will be endless, but we also celebrate the world-class excellence of, the ODA and the fact that it has achieved so much. We thank Sir Charles Allen, who has given life to the nations and regions programme, so that we will see all of the UK celebrating and creating its own experience of the Olympics. The Olympic Park Legacy Company has taken an extraordinary lead. The hon. Member for Corby was right to say how extraordinary it is that seven of the eight venues already have long-term tenants. We can be confident that the site will be a great social, commercial and sporting centre for London in the future.

London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Keith Vaz and Baroness Jowell

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

The short answer is no. I am entirely aware of the controversy that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. I believe the Indian Olympic committee is meeting this week and plans to make a decision. I am told that it is not planning a boycott or anything like it, but clearly that is a matter for the Indian Government and their Olympic committee.

It is recommended that the Bill be amended to provide that the affirmative resolution procedure must be used unless the Minister considers it necessary, by reason of urgency, to use the negative procedure. As I made clear when clause 2 was debated in this House, it was always my intention that the negative resolution procedure would be used only when there was an urgent need to do so. As such, the Government were happy to accept the Committee’s recommendation and to provide the additional clarification, and tabled amendments in Committee in the other place accordingly.

The effect of these amendments is that advertising and trading regulations will be made via the negative procedure only if the Minister considers that that is necessary by reason of urgency. In such a case, the regulations will confirm, on their face, that this is the Minister’s view. They also provide for the corresponding procedure in the Scottish Parliament, for advertising and trading regulations made by Scottish Ministers.

What we mean by “urgency” is that, for reasons of time, it would be impractical to use the affirmative procedure and necessary instead to use the negative procedure. This is likely to be because the amending regulations have to take effect quickly, before the earliest date that affirmative regulations could practicably be made. In essence, then, the amendments simply provide further assurance that the negative procedure would be used only when there is an urgent need to do so, and as a result provides extra assurance to Parliament. That was always the intention.

[Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I am pleased to support the Government’s technical amendments, which I think strike the right balance between parliamentary accountability and the need to be able to respond flexibly to urgent changes in situations. As we draw this process to a close, I will take the opportunity to commend all the officials who worked on the earlier legislation with me when I was Secretary of State and now support the Minister in taking it forward. This legislation is important for protecting the essential vision and ambition shared by Members on both sides of the House for our Olympic games. It relates to protection against ticket touting and the need to ensure the smooth operational running of the servicing for Olympic and Paralympic venues.

There are just eight months until the start of the Olympics. They are under budget, the venues and the Olympic village have been built on time and the torch relay has been announced. There is a real sense of excitement across the country. There may not be many other opportunities allowed by the long title or any other event to debate the Olympics, but I know that the Minister is always available to discuss matters of outstanding concern, such as that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the legacy. I can assure the Minister that all those discussions will be in the spirit of the cross-party support that has been such an important feature of the preparation for the games.

[Keith Vaz]

Before my right hon. Friend brings her remarks to a close, may I pay tribute to her—she has rightly paid tribute to the Minister and the fact that the projects are on time—for all she has done over the past six years to help to secure the Olympics and to work with the Government on an all-party basis? We are very proud of what she has done.

[Tessa Jowell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his generous comments. I warmly support the amendments to the Bill.