Olympics and Paralympics (Funding)

Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Baroness Jowell

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Jowell]

I am delighted to support everything the hon. Lady says. Through UK Sport, our athletes have been the beneficiaries of unprecedented funding to enable them to do their very best in front of the home crowd, but this is quintessentially a public-private partnership. I know the support that athletes have received from their sponsors has been indispensable, as has the sponsorship by some of our great companies of the games themselves.

[Mr Foster]

I was remiss in not mentioning this in my speech, but although the right hon. Lady is correct in saying that it is a public-private partnership and we should be grateful to all the private sector bodies that have sponsored and become involved, the one part of the public sector that is often missed and not thanked is local government. My local authority, Bath and North East Somerset council, has put in an enormous amount of effort and money to ensure that we get a lasting legacy.

[Tessa Jowell]

Again, I am delighted to join the right hon. Gentleman —my right hon. Friend for the purpose of Olympic business—in welcoming that work. I met a number of London local authorities last week to hear from them directly about their plans and the efforts they are undertaking. The commitment of so many local authorities is inspirational.

Many references have been made to the importance of cross-party support, which has been fundamental, first, to the stability of the delivery of one of the riskiest programmes imaginable; and, secondly, to maintaining public confidence. In particular, I thank the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) and the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport for the way in which they have maintained that cross-party solidity, from which lessons can be drawn, I believe, for other aspects of public policy that require long-term commitment.

There is a point at which we will hand the games over to the initiative, the passion and the enthusiasm of the British people, because there is only so much that Government, LOCOG and the ODA can do. There will be a moment in the middle of May when, as many hon. Members have said, the Olympic torch is lit and it begins its tour around our country. That will be the moment when the whole country wakes up to the certainty that the Olympic games—the UK’s games—will be held in London in a matter of 30 or 40 days.

London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Baroness Jowell

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Jowell]

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

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) rightly praises the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), who praised the Minister, and I would like to praise them both for the excellent work they are doing.

It is interesting that we are debating two minor technical amendments to a Bill we debated not long ago. On Second Reading I pointed out that the explanatory notes stated that the Bill

“makes a small number of technical amendments to the advertising and trading, ticket touting, and traffic management provisions of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006.”

We are now debating minor amendments to a Bill that itself made minor amendments to another Bill, but they are none the less important, because they reflect the spirit of what the Minister said when we debated the Bill. In relation to the advertising regulations contained therein, I think that we were all encouraged to hear that he is keen to introduce those as sensibly as possible. Indeed, on Second Reading he said that the advertising regulations would be treated with a “light-touch approach”. He later said that they would be handled “sensitively”, and on another occasion he said that they would be dealt with “proportionately”. We are grateful for all three assurances.

We are also grateful for the assurance that if, for example, the venue or timing of an event need to be altered, we have the ability to debate the matter in Parliament if those necessary changes relate to advertising. We all recognise that if, for example, a major burst water main causes a change in venue or timing at short notice, it is important, as others have suggested, that we have the power to ensure that we can continue to do what the Act is for: protecting the main sponsors of the event so that people do not leap on to a sudden change in order to introduce ambush marketing, for example. They are small amendments, but they are sensible and important and we certainly support them.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 and 3 agreed to.

Terrorism prevention and investigation measures bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 7 June (Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.

Subsequent stages

2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mr Newmark.)

Question agreed to.

London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Baroness Jowell

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

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

We are pleased to support new clause 1 and the consequential amendments 3 and 4, because, as the Minister has clearly set out and, indeed, our constructive discussions in Committee reflected, new clause 1 and the consequential amendments would allow traffic commissioners to apply a shortened application procedure for haulage operators who want to apply for a change to any environmental conditions imposed on the location where their lorries are kept, particularly the hours that they may operate in and out of that location.

That flexibility is of enormous importance during the period of the games, as many haulage operators may need to adjust their operations in response to increased delivery restrictions in London, as well as in other areas of Britain where Olympic events are being held.

I will come on to this point when we discuss new clause 2, but it is my firm belief that although some of the operational necessities of the games may cause inconvenience for individuals and businesses, we should do all that we can to keep that inconvenience to a minimum. Again, there was a strong consensus on that in Committee.

New clause 1 is therefore a sensible measure that will make it easier for haulage operators to adjust to difficulties that they may experience as a result of the games. It forms part of a critical wider programme led by Transport for London to encourage individuals and businesses to change their travel behaviour and arrangements during what will be, by any measure, a challenging time for London’s transport system. I think that Members on both sides of the House are confident that London will rise to that challenge, and we are happy to offer our support.

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

May I begin by saying that I was mildly disappointed with the business managers—this is absolutely no criticism of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or Mr Speaker—for selecting today of all days to debate this important Bill, given that many of us who are here would far rather be celebrating with our Paralympians as today is Paralympics day? Perhaps there will be an opportunity later today to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Foster]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that getting taxi drivers in London on our side is crucial in the campaign for wider public support, but before she moves on to her fifth point, will she explain a little the language she has chosen to use? She is basically proposing that appropriate taxis should be able use the Olympic route network in appropriate circumstances, but what does she have in mind?

[Tessa Jowell]

The language is flexible, because how greater flexibility is delivered is an operational matter for the ODA and Transport for London. A number of possibilities are covered. It might include access to the Olympic lanes for taxis early in the morning or late at night, when their use for Olympic transport is not at its maximum, or use could be restricted to black cabs—we would want to avoid suddenly having a whole lot of operators claiming to be taxis and therefore eligibility to use the Olympic lanes. Those are two examples of greater flexibility, and we would be grateful if the Minister, with the ODA and TfL, could examine them.