Enterprise and Culture Committee, 01 Nov 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 1, 2005

Official Report 333KB pdf

---

London Olympics Bill

As I said, item 2 must wait until Karen Gillon is here, but item 3 is the legislative consent memorandum on the London Olympics Bill. I welcome Patricia Ferguson MSP, Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, along with her official, John Gilmour, who is head of sport stewardship and delivery branch—he would get a job at Hearts any day—and Nicholas Duffy, who is a solicitor from the Scottish Executive.

We, like the committee, welcome the success of London's bid to bring the 2012 Olympics and Paralympic games to the United Kingdom. In the case of the London Olympics Bill, we are committed to supporting the UK Government in putting in place as soon as possible the structures and other arrangements that will help to deliver the games.

The bill is concerned mainly with delivery of the games in London and with some reserved matters and will have a limited impact in Scotland. The provisions within the devolved legislative competence and the bill as a whole are time limited and Olympic-games specific.

The ticket-touting provisions will apply throughout the UK and to all Olympic events. No Scottish ministerial powers will be exercisable in respect of those provisions.

The restrictions on street trading and outdoor advertising will be operative only on days when the Olympic football tournament matches take place at Hampden; the advertising controls might apply the day before. The restrictions will apply within a short radius of Hampden of probably no more than 1km.

Scottish ministers will exercise ministerial powers in respect of commencement of the relevant provisions and the restrictions on street trading and advertising. Detailed implementation of the policy will be through regulations that will be made under clauses 17 and 23 of the bill, which will be subject to approval by the Scottish Parliament.

The Olympic delivery authority will be required to develop strategies that require Scottish ministers' approval of how it proposes to exercise its functions in Glasgow in relation to street trading and advertising.

UK ministers will not exercise any powers that would impact directly on devolved matters. They will be required to consult Scottish ministers before giving guidance or direction to the Olympic delivery authority that might affect a devolved matter. The primary legislation that will be required in relation to Scotland will be enacted at the same time as that for the rest of the UK.

Our purpose is to seek any additional information that we might require from the minister and to decide whether there are any points that we want to make to Parliament when it considers the Sewel motion.

I will ask about funding. I see from the memorandum that you are saying that no cost will come to the Executive. Will you say a bit about the functions of the Executive, local authorities and the delivery of police services? How will the costs be reimbursed by the ODA?

If the ODA requires additional street cleaning to be done, or additional lighting to be provided in the vicinity of a venue, it will be responsible for any additional costs that accrue. There would have to be consultation of the local authority about such issues—we expect that dialogue would take place. There is quite a long run in to the Olympics, so such dialogue would take place nearer the time. The money would be reimbursed in that way.

Such work would be done on the basis of full-cost recovery.

Would that also cover matters such as increased numbers of street traders' licences, which might be required for people who will selling memorabilia or whatever? That might mean that the local authority would require additional staff.

The ODA will be empowered to delegate its functions to another body. We anticipate that it would do so on a full-cost recovery basis.

It is interesting that the bill is extremely narrow and focused, which reflects the fact that Scotland will have one venue and will play a limited role in the Olympics. Did the Executive think that it might want to tackle street trading and ticket touting in legislation anyway? Ticket touting can damage sports events other than the Olympics and other cultural events. Was it on the Executive's shopping list, regardless of whether the Olympics were coming to London?

There is a particular interest in and concern about the Olympics. The International Olympic Committee is a jealous guardian of its mark and is always concerned to ensure that any income that it generates is fed into the games. A specific piece of work needs to be done for the Olympics.

I am not aware that there is a problem with ticket touting such that other events are jeopardised or that the financial viability of any club or organisation has ever been called into question. If that was the case, we would have to examine the matter. The provision is a specific measure relating to the Olympic mark and the way in which the IOC structures what it does.

If the ODA is looking for enhanced services and is likely to contribute to them, how much pressure will it be likely to put on who delivers the services? I am concerned that we obtain as much local benefit as possible out of any participation. If the ODA is looking south of the border for, say, a cleaning company, will we have a say and be able to debate with the ODA who provides the service?

The ODA will work with the local authority and have it deliver the service, so it will be up to the local authority how it provides the service. We know how Glasgow City Council cleans its streets now, but we do not know how it will do so in 2012. However, it will be the responsibility of the local authority to provide the service after discussion with the ODA.

Can you confirm my understanding of the bill's place in the wider range of activities and discussions that will take place in the run-up to the Olympic games? Am I right in saying that the Scottish aspects of the bill that we are being asked to consider today are small, limited and focused aspects of the arrangements for the games—necessary, but small—and that it would be wrong for us to draw any wider inferences or conclusions from them? In other words, many other aspects of arrangements, such as those that colleagues have touched on, will be the subject of further discussion at a host of different levels, and it is important that we do not confuse them with the specific provisions of the bill. Am I correct?

The bill's provisions are tightly drawn and narrowly focused, which is right—that is what is required. There will also be regulations that will be decided by the Scottish Parliament nearer the time. There are and will continue to be discussions about the role of the rest of the UK, in which Scotland is taking a keen interest. We will work with the London organising committee, the ODA and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport at Westminster to ensure that any benefits that can accrue to Scotland do accrue to Scotland.

I have two questions. First, paragraph 8 of the paper states:

"The main measures of the Bill provide for … The delivery of transport needs for the Games, including the necessary preparation in the lead up to 2012".

Does that include transport in and around Hampden/Glasgow?

No, it does not. It means specifically transport needs around London.

Secondly, paragraph 10 refers to amendments to the bill that are to be made during the committee stage at Westminster. It says:

"The amendments are concerned mainly with the way in which the provisions in respect of police powers and criminal procedure should operate in Scotland."

Obviously, police powers and criminal procedures are devolved matters, and are the subject of much legislation here. What are the amendments designed to do?

As I understand it, they concern infringements of the ticket-touting provisions that will be put in place.

Do the police not have appropriate powers anyway?

The powers are not as tightly drawn as they will be under the ticket-touting provisions of the bill.

Similarly, does the reference to criminal procedures relate to ticket touting?

Yes, and possibly to ambush marketing and other advertising. If there was a problem that could not be resolved by any other means, I presume that there would have to be recourse to law.

Are there any more questions for the minister? If not, can I take it that there are no general points on which the committee wishes to report to Parliament? Is everybody happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.