I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for relevant information about food, including information about the country of origin, contents and standards of production of that food, to be made available to consumers by labelling, marking or in other ways; and for connected purposes.

The first occasion on which I sought the leave of the House to introduce a Bill to require clearer labelling of food was in 2004. I was certainly not the first Member to seek to introduce such legislation, and many Members throughout the House have supported the proposition that consumers should have clearer, more accurate and more honest information about the food that they buy than is currently required.

Since 2004, interest in local sourcing and local production of food has grown significantly. The issue of food miles has become more prominent in political discussion, and the importance to consumers of higher animal welfare standards has continued to increase. Only this morning, on the BBC Radio 4 programme “Farming Today”, an egg farmer spoke of his continued shift towards free-range hens for egg production, because that was what consumers wanted.

Attempts to improve the law continue. My own Bill has support from Members on all sides of the House, and I note that next week my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth) will seek leave to introduce her own food labelling Bill, which I understand focuses mainly on nutrition and health issues. It will complement my Bill, which, as well as providing information about the content and production standards of food, will ensure that information about the country of origin of different foods is included in labelling.

Consumers should have the information that they need to make informed decisions about the food that they buy. A wide range of issues may rightly concern them when they make their purchasing decisions, including the nutritional and calorific value of food, the salt or fat content, the animal welfare standards according to which food is produced, and the country of origin. Any food labelling regime must seek to address those various concerns. It is important that all food producers adhere to the same high standards applied to food labelling, and the best way in which to achieve that is through a statutory framework.

The Food Labelling Regulations 1996 require food to be marked or labelled with information such as the name of the food, a list of its ingredients, the amount of an ingredient that is named or associated with the food, an appropriate durability indication, any special storage conditions, the name of the business and manufacturer, and in certain cases, the place of origin, as well as the process used in the manufacture and instructions for use.

In July this year, the Food Standards Agency updated its guidance on the use of marketing terms such as “fresh”, “pure” and “natural”, but there was nothing new on country of origin labelling, although the guidance continues to draw attention to regulation 5 of the 1996 regulations, which requires

“particulars of the place of origin or provenance of the food if failure to give such particulars might mislead a purchaser to a material degree as to the true origin or provenance of the food.”

Currently, country of origin labelling must comply with the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which make it an offence to label any food in a way that falsely describes it or which is likely to mislead as to its nature, substance or quality. However, neither Act defines how much British involvement is required before produce can be sold as British.

The specific expression “country of origin” is not defined in the 1996 regulations or in the food labelling directive 2000/13/EC. However, the approach taken in section 36 of the Trade Descriptions Act is that, for the purposes of the Act, goods are deemed to have been manufactured or produced in the country where they last underwent a treatment or process resulting in a substantial change. This is likely to include the manufacture of bacon or ham, for example. However, at present, consumers are being misled. Pork that has been imported from Denmark and then packaged in the UK may be called “Product of Britain”.

The problem can apply to other food products, too. Butter churned in England using milk imported from Belgium should not, supposedly, be labelled “English”, but it can lawfully be described as “produced in England from milk”. Norwegian salmon that has been smoked in Scotland should not, supposedly, be called “Scottish”, but it can lawfully be described as “salmon smoked in Scotland”. Slaughtering in this country would count, so that “British lamb” could mean imported lambs slaughtered and packaged in the UK. Products can be labelled as “produced in the UK” when all the ingredients come from outside the country. There is concern that some companies have taken advantage of these slack regulations, and label their products with the Union Jack accompanied by slogans such as “traditional British food” or “great British recipe” when, in fact, they are not produced in this country.

There is, obviously, a duty on consumers to read the labels in the first place, but there is also a need to prevent labels, presentation and other information from being misleading about the product. Country of origin is an area where there is particular potential for consumers to be misled. Clear mandatory country of origin labelling would significantly reduce the risk that consumers making a food purchasing decision would be misled, or in practice be unable to use their consumer power to support domestic producers if that is what they wish to do.

Country of origin labelling already exists for beef, and I believe it should be extended to cover other fresh meat. There are more complex issues in the labelling of processed meat and dairy products, where the sourcing frequently varies. I acknowledge that these issues would need to be considered carefully in Committee. Modern labelling technology has improved considerably in recent years, and I am persuaded that it would now be easier for processed food manufacturers to comply with country of origin labelling requirements than it was in the past, but I acknowledge that processed food does present greater difficulties in labelling than fresh meat.

This morning, I was pleased to attend the David Black memorial award breakfast in the House of Lords, celebrating the achievements of the British pig industry despite very difficult conditions in recent years, and particularly to honour the contribution to the industry of this year’s award winner, Ian Campbell MBE. I was also pleased to receive a copy of a film entitled “An Inconvenient Trough”, made by a group of pig farmers and launched this morning. It is an excellent follow-up to the campaign “Stand by Your Ham”, which last summer featured Winnie the pig in a stall opposite Downing street, where she drew thousands of visitors, including many Members. This film draws attention to the conditions facing pig farmers, notably that 70 per cent. of the imports of pork and pork products into the United Kingdom are produced to animal welfare standards that would be unlawful in this country. It is in that context that we must look at country of origin labelling. I must emphasise that this is not in order to prevent consumers buying products from where they wish, but, rather, to ensure that they are making informed decisions and that they cannot be misled.

Government can also do more. The pig industry has produced its own quality standard mark for pork, and for other pork products such as bacon and ham. The mark shows that the meat has been produced to higher animal welfare standards, yet 76 per cent. of bacon and 39 per cent. of pork served in Whitehall Departments is produced to the lower EU standards, not the higher standards of the quality standard mark.

I make no secret of the fact that I wish all consumers would buy British meat all the time, but achieving that is a matter for consumers and is not the purpose of my Bill. I just want to see a fair deal for British farmers. I want to ensure that they are given the chance to compete fairly with overseas products, that the lower animal welfare standards often applied to imported production are clearly marked for consumers as well as the higher standards of domestic production, that farmers are able to engage the consumer in supporting the high standards of food safety, animal welfare and environmental care that lie at the heart of British farming and that they cannot be undermined by misleading labelling of competing products. A vital part of facilitating that shift in priorities will be to ensure that this country has far more rigorous and transparent food labelling. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Bacon, Keith Hill, Mr. Keith Simpson, Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. David Heath, Mr. Stephen O’Brien, Mr. David Ruffley, Angus Robertson, Mr. Roger Williams and Sir Nicholas Winterton.

Food Labelling

Mr. Richard Bacon accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision for relevant information about food, including information about the country of origin, contents and standards of production of that food, to be made available to consumers by labelling, marking or in other ways; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 November, and to be printed [Bill 157].

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House congratulates the British team on its superb results in Beijing, which should provide an excellent platform for its performance in London 2012; notes with concern however the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Report of 23rd April 2008, which highlighted the inadequate preparations for an Olympic sporting legacy from London 2012; is disappointed with the Government’s legacy action plan which is largely a restatement of existing commitments; notes that the London Olympic Games will be the biggest sporting event in the history of the UK; and calls upon the Government to ensure that the UK lives up to the promise made in July 2005 in Singapore that the London 2012 Olympic Games will be used to leave a lasting sporting legacy.

The Opposition have been unstinting in our support for London 2012. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), when he was leader of the Conservative party, gave his personal assurance at the time of the bid that London 2012 would have the full support of a future Conservative Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), the shadow Olympics and Sports Minister, was in Singapore for the bid, stressing and underlining the cross-party nature of the support for the project.

The Government may say today that by initiating this Opposition day debate on the Olympic legacy, we are somehow breaking the Olympic consensus: nothing could be further from the truth. It is because we are passionately determined to ensure that London 2012 is a huge success that we have a duty to speak up when we think that things are going wrong.

May I bring to the hon. Gentleman’s attention some of the points that we heard earlier in Prime Minister’s Question Time? There was, frankly, very little support for borrowing. Would he concede that the Olympic programme is founded on a massive construction project, and that unless we make commitments of the kind that this Government have made to the construction companies, we will go belly-up and we will not have any Olympics full stop?

I agree completely with the hon. Lady that those construction projects need to go ahead, and within budget. The Opposition have totally supported the fact that some changes inevitably need to be made in a situation such as the financial crisis that we currently face, and I shall talk about those changes in a few minutes. My point is that when something goes wrong in a project of this scale, it is important to speak up. We did that over the appalling budget miscalculations that meant that the budget for the Olympics had to be virtually tripled, leading to hugely damaging effects on the national lottery good causes. We are speaking up now over the Olympic legacy, which is not only one of the most important elements of the 2012 project, but one of those most in danger of not being delivered.

Our concern is not primarily about the economic legacy, and our motion is not about that. We recognise that the project will bring huge and vitally needed regeneration to five of the poorest boroughs in London, although there are concerns about the possible reduction in the number of houses being built and the threats hanging over the money being invested in upgrading the North London line. Our motion is about the sporting legacy, which divides into two distinct areas. The first is the so-called hard legacy, which is the one that will be left behind by the venues built for the Olympics. The second is the soft legacy, which is the increase in sporting participation that should happen in not only the Olympic sports—that increase is welcome—but all sports. That will provide a challenge, because, as the Government’s own report acknowledges, participation in sport has decreased in a number of the host cities after they have held the Olympics.

Ensuring that the reverse happens is a challenge that we must meet, because these Olympics will cost every household—every family—in the country £500. They will cost the equivalent of £7 million every day from today until the opening ceremony, and that cost is being borne by taxpayers throughout the country. Thus, it is only right, proper and fair that the benefits should also be felt throughout the country. With a sporting legacy, the 2012 games can be a huge success; without it, they will be a gross betrayal of the promises made by Britain both to the world and to its own people.

The Government legacy action plan says that

“it is right that there is no separately costed London 2012 Games legacy plan.”

Of course legacy projects need to be integrated into the main projects, but the danger of not having a separately costed plan is that when the going gets tough, they are the bit that gets cut. We are concerned about signs that that is exactly what is beginning to happen. At the time of the bid, huge play was made of the fact that the facilities constructed for volleyball, basketball and water polo would be temporary and relocatable, so that after the Olympics they could be taken down and moved to another part of the country, which could then benefit from the Olympic legacy. That will not happen in respect of volleyball, which will take place at Earls Court, or fencing, which will take place at the ExCeL centre, and there are signs that Sport England is backtracking in respect of some of the other sports.

That has led the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport to say the following on page 37 of its sixth report of Session 2007-08:

“We are concerned at signs of a creeping reduction in relocatable venues. Every decision not to construct a temporary relocatable venue reduces the scope for the nations and regions to share in the…legacy”.

There was also huge concern when the shooting was moved from Bisley to the Royal Artillery barracks at Woolwich, where what will be constructed will be entirely temporary, leaving no legacy at all. The Select Committee report stated that it is

“highly regrettable that the site chosen for shooting events is not one which commands the support of any of the constituent bodies of British Shooting, and we believe that more should have been done to explore alternative sites”.

The hon. Gentleman has referred to the site for the shooting in Woolwich, in my constituency. Will he please tell the House whether his party is in favour of moving shooting to another location and, if so, to which one?

My party is in favour of exactly what the Select Committee says: that, wherever possible, we should ensure that there is a permanent legacy. The current plans for shooting do not allow any legacy to be created, and we think it highly regrettable that more research was not done into making possible some kind of legacy for shooting from the Olympics.

May I ask the Secretary of State about design? When venues are being built, it is important that the potential legacy tenants—the people who will use the venues after the Olympics have finished—have some input into the design. Can he explain why design decisions have been taken before legacy tenants have been confirmed? That makes legacy use more expensive and less attractive to potential tenants. I compare that with what happened during the 2002 Commonwealth games in Manchester, when Manchester city was confirmed as a legacy tenant right from the outset, which meant that there could be a smooth transition and that a legacy could be assured.

This June, the Government finally published their legacy action plan—three years after winning the bid and following two warnings from the Select Committee that they needed to get a move on. If the plan had been even barely adequate, however, we would not be having this debate. However, the fact is that it contains simply a series of re-announcements and only one new idea. The Government re-announced the promise of five hours of sport per week. That is fine as an aspiration, but when unpicked it works out at £15 per school per week to increase the amount of sport from two to five hours a week for every pupil. They also re-announced the target of making 2 million people more active, which dates from March 2007, as well as the medals target, which dates back to the 2006 Budget. They also re-announced decisions in a Department for Transport plan to boost cycling and a Department of Health plan to encourage healthy eating by babies. We should not plan the 2012 legacy by cobbling together every single programme with vague links to sport and the Olympics. This is not about looking at what we are already doing, but about what we could do.

One new idea has been proposed: free swimming for under-16s and over-60s. Of course we welcome anything that encourages swimming, especially because it comes top of the list of sports that people say they would be interested in taking up. However, local councils say that not nearly enough money has been put aside to finance the plan. I would like to mention a matter that I brought to the Secretary of State’s attention during the last Culture, Media and Sport questions. He received a letter from the Labour leader of Stevenage council—in the Minister of State’s constituency—telling him that the average cost for a district council of implementing the scheme for the over-60s alone would represent a 2 per cent. increase in council tax. Is this really the time—when families up and down the country are struggling—for the Department to fund its schemes by bludgeoning its councils into back-door rises in council tax?

I introduced free swimming to the London borough of Newham when I was head of its culture department. We found that it did not increase our overheads or costs, because it brought in people who had not swum there previously. It also had the knock-on effect of advertising and promoting the other services available in the leisure centre that otherwise would not have been seen by that client group. Furthermore, those people spent additional money on food, drink and other services available in the centre, which subsidised some of the fixed overheads of the swimming pool.

In that case, will the hon. Lady speak to the Labour leader of Stevenage council, who has a very different view about the cost of the scheme? Will she also condemn the decision announced by Newham council on 14 October to cancel its plans for a leisure pool as part of the Olympic legacy, which will come as a huge disappointment to its residents?

Information that we have just received about the under-16s part of the scheme identifies the fact that the funding that the Government have put on the table accounts for less than half of the scheme’s total likely cost. The Secretary of State calls it a challenge fund—the only challenge is for councils to decide whether to cut services or raise council tax to fund it. That is an example of the Government over-promising and under-delivering at its worst. Even Labour councils are up in arms over what is happening.

I chaired the recent county sports partnership meeting in Leicestershire. We have asked all our local authorities to work together to ensure that we put together a Leicestershire-wide bid, rather than individual ones. The figures that came back varied enormously and had no basis—literally, they were almost made up. I fear that, in some circumstances, the hon. Gentleman’s figures come from people just flying a little kite. Will he join me in expecting much more detailed work from local authorities, rather than the usual scare story that local authorities need more money?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s involvement in county sports partnerships, which are extremely positive initiatives. I got my information from a freedom of information request. We received responses from hundreds of councils about the expected costs.

The hon. Gentleman has again displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of what we seek to achieve through the free swimming scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) said, it began in local government. Councils were doing this themselves using funds at a local level, from primary care trust and council funds. We have put in place a national fund to help an initiative that began in local government. The logic of the system now in place for local government means that councils can set their own priorities. Eighty councils have selected the sports participation indicator as a priority. This is entirely in keeping with the system of priority setting in local government, at local level. The hon. Gentleman seems repeatedly to fail to understand that point.

If it was a partnership with local councils, why was it spun to the media when the announcement was made as a promise that the Government would deliver free swimming for the over-60s and under-16s? That was the message in all the headlines.

The best comment on the Government’s legacy action plan came from Tim Lamb, the chief executive of the Central Council of Physical Recreation. In a statement issued this morning he said that, apart from the swimming proposals,

“The rest of the proposals”—

in the legacy action plan—

“are little more than existing plans which have been re-badged…there has been a real poverty of ambition about the Government’s thinking.”

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves his point about swimming, does he agree that although we would all support opportunities, if properly funded, to get those who can swim to do more of it, the plan seems to have forgotten about getting more people to learn to swim? Would not the money have been better targeted at more swimming teachers and ensuring that swimming pools are available at times when pupils can learn to swim, rather than filling them up with those who can swim already outside those times?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I do not think that any of the schemes can work in isolation. The coaching and teaching is very important. I completely accept that making something free can excite public interest. We do not criticise the principle of local councils deciding that they want to boost swimming participation by making it free; we criticise the fact that it was announced as a big Government initiative to make it free for the over-60s and under-16s, when in fact that tab is being picked up through the back door by council tax payers.

Is not the fundamental point that this is a cobbling together of initiatives that would have existed already, at a national level? Only London government under the Conservative administration has recognised that if the legacy issues are not dealt with, we risk losing support for the whole Olympic project in London, particularly in south London where my constituents are becoming strongly opposed to the Olympics because there is no prospect of a legacy. For example, places such as Crystal Palace are not being invested in at all.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of the first things that the new Mayor of London did was to set up a legacy board of advisers and ring-fence money from the London Development Agency to be used for creating an Olympic legacy, boosting participation in sports and increasing money for coaching. The Conservatives are interested in action, not words.

Although encouraging people to swim is vital, a swimming pool in my neighbouring constituency of Ilford, South has just closed down for health and safety reasons. Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be beneficial for the Government to help replace that swimming pool to ensure a true legacy? It could also be used as an Olympic training facility.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. People have also been concerned about the cloud of misinformation about the number of swimming pools open. The Government have released figures that included swimming pools at private clubs among those considered open to the public.

I understand completely why my hon. Friend emphasises swimming and the sporting legacy, but he will know from his other responsibilities that many people are fearful that one of the legacies of the Olympic games, because of the diversion of resources, will be leaking cathedrals, crumbling churches and other cultural assets being put at risk. Will he briefly address that point?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to an extremely important consequence of the appalling budget miscalculations that the Government made with regard to the Olympics, which meant that they had to dip into national lottery funds, with an appalling cost to lottery good causes. I agree with him. We do not want this to be a legacy just for the Olympics, and that is why the Opposition have a proposal to return the lottery to its original four pillars, which will restore that much-needed money to the arts, heritage and charities sectors, which are also extremely important when it comes to the overall legacy of 2012.

Can we concentrate on the positive? I had a lot to do with the 2002 Commonwealth games in Manchester. One of the outstanding successes in the legacy of those games was the velodrome in Manchester. I believe that the recent success of our cyclists in the Olympic games in Beijing was based on that legacy. I have two constituents who between them won five gold medals for cycling in the Paralympics. To my mind, the example set in the Olympic games can produce that legacy. Surely the Government should concentrate on allowing people to use the facilities that will be built in order to stage a grand and successful Olympics. Is that not the way to proceed, rather than expressing the negative attitudes that are coming from both sides of the House about what the Olympics in 2012 can achieve for the UK?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I entirely agree with him. The example set by people such as Bradley Wiggins, Chris Hoy and Rebecca Romero is very inspiring. I believe that since those successes, the sales of bicycles have doubled. My hon. Friend will also be interested to know that 73 per cent. of the funding for our top cyclists came not from the Government but from the national lottery. That is why the national lottery plays such an important role.

My hon. Friend has been very kind about the Select Committee, which, as I am sure he will agree, is ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). Does my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) agree that it is not just crumbling churches that have suffered as a result of the lack of control over the Olympic budget? Grass-roots sporting organisations are having their funding taken away from them. The sporting legacy will not be delivered by the people watching the Olympics on TV, as most people will do. It can be delivered only by organisations such as those in my constituency—if they continue to receive lottery support for grass-roots sport, so that kids get involved in the first place.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since the Government came into power, 80 per cent. of the funding for grass-roots sport has come not from the Government but from the lottery. Ministers’ consistent raids on lottery funds for their pet projects have meant that the amount of lottery money going into grass-roots sports has declined from £397 million in 1997 to £209 million. It has nearly halved, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Let me draw my hon. Friend’s attention to another responsibility of the Select Committee, which is tourism. There is virtually nothing in the report about the tourism legacy. It is true that the Government have never prioritised tourism, and it is worth reminding the Secretary of State that it is an £85 billion industry that employs 2 million people.

Last year, we were promised a four-year marketing campaign that would welcome the world to Britain. What has happened? The VisitBritain budget has been cut by 18 per cent. over the next three years, and our tourism market share, which has gone down by 10 per cent. since the Government came to power, continues to decline. We are missing a golden opportunity to set the tourism industry right and to allow it to embrace the huge opportunity offered by the fact that the eyes of the world will be focused on this country and this city in 2012.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is even more important that we have a good legacy for tourism? Those whom I represent in my part of Warwickshire are unlikely to receive a direct legacy from the sporting events and are unlikely to see a significant increase in grass-roots sports. They might see an increase in tourism from those who come to London and are then persuaded to leave London and to visit the rest of the country. If they do not see that legacy, it will be harder to persuade them to get fully behind the Olympic ideal, as we would all wish them to do.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course the challenge of the Olympics, as far as tourism is concerned, is that in the year of the Olympics it is not necessarily the case that more visitors come to the country. Sometimes, people are put off because they think that everyone else is coming, and it will be difficult to get flights and hotels. In fact, in Beijing this year hotel bookings were significantly down compared with last year because of the Beijing Olympics. My hon. Friend is right, and that is why we have to ensure that we identify the opportunities offered to showcase the whole of Britain to the world, grasp the bull by the horns and do something to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. That is not happening.

Since my hon. Friend mentions the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, I am sure that in his wide-ranging and impressive speech he will be planning to cover the cultural legacy, which is an important feature of the Government’s proposals. They are short of ideas. Does he agree that an outstanding idea from the Opposition, which I hope the Government will take away, would be to recognise the important contribution that this country has made to the Olympics by choosing a suitable site in the Olympic park to recognise the contribution of Dr. William Penny Brookes and the Wenlock Olympian Society to the origins of the modern Olympics?

I thank my hon. Friend for that important contribution, and agree entirely that we need to do more to recognise the Wenlock Olympian Society. The cultural Olympiad must be an important part of what London offers the world in 2012.

Let me return to what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) said about the way in which the performance of our top athletes can inspire people to take up sports. It is not just sales of cycles that have doubled. Sales of swimwear at Tesco have doubled since the success of Rebecca Adlington. Athletes need financial support, so will the Secretary of State explain why his Department has virtually broken the promise made in 2006 to raise £100 million from commercial sources to support our top athletes? Is it not the case that when the Government made that commitment they totally failed to understand what they could and could not raise from sponsorship? Is it not also the case that they failed to do anything for two years when economic conditions were much more favourable, and that now that the economic tide has turned there is a risk that that money will not materialise?

How different the Government’s approach is from that of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, which is organising the games and last week signed up Cadbury as a tier 2 sponsor. The committee has to raise a lot more money, but it has already managed to raise two thirds of the money that it needs, four years ahead of schedule. Paul Deighton, the chief executive of LOCOG, said:

“If ever a strategy of going early was borne out it’s now.”

The Government, who had to raise only £100 million, sat on their hands. Three Culture Secretaries later, not a penny has been raised. Once again, they failed to fix the roof when the sun was shining.

The Secretary of State knows the power of British sporting performance in inspiring grass-roots participation.

The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous in giving way. I have listened patiently to him and I am afraid that his argument is a long way away from my understanding of the impact of the Olympics. I represent a constituency 200 miles away, near Liverpool, yet our local authority has applied for funding for the Olympics, and has received it. Our health authority is introducing a huge number of initiatives on the back of the Olympics programme. We are feeling the benefit, and we are miles away. We feel really excited about the programme. We do not get any of the big buildings, but we have seen the development of community centres, swimming pools and an integrated health plan to support health. I wanted the hon. Gentleman to know that, because it is my experience, and I would guess that it is not unique.

I want the Olympics to inspire every schoolchild in every school in Crosby. That is a vital part of our Olympic legacy. That is why we are having this debate. We are concerned that what the Government have published does not amount to anything substantive. It is because we are concerned that there will not be a substantive legacy for the schoolchildren in her constituency that we are having this debate.

Let me tell the Secretary of State that the failure to understand the critical role of the national lottery is an essential factor in why it has been so difficult to secure an Olympic legacy. This January, the Government were forced to raid another £675 million from lottery money for good causes. That was described as a “cut too far”—not by us, but by Derek Mapp, the chairman of Sport England. He was promptly sacked, presumably for what he said, and that created turmoil in the very organisation charged with boosting mass participation in sport.

The Government’s amendment asks us to welcome the “reform” of Sport England, but will the Secretary of State confirm that no successor to Derek Mapp will be appointed until well into the new year? If so, that would mean that that critical organisation will be without a leader at one of the most important times in its history.

The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he would not break any cross-party consensus on the Olympics, but he has gone on to make a series of what I would call nit-picking points. Can he say, at that Dispatch Box, what he would have done differently on funding the Olympics?

Yes, I can. We would have returned the lottery to its original four pillars, which would have meant much more money going into legacy. We supported the Olympic budget, but this debate is about the Olympic legacy. One way that we could secure much more money to create a sporting legacy is to return the lottery to its original four pillars.

In Scotland, we are set to lose up to £200 million of lottery spending, and that will have an impact on good causes and grass-roots sports in every constituency. We are preparing for the Commonwealth Games in 2014, so does the hon. Gentleman think that there is a case for us getting back some or all of that money to pay for our legacy in Glasgow?

I think that creating support for a sporting legacy is as important for the Commonwealth games as it is for the Olympics. Returning the lottery to its original four pillars could create an extra £400 million for grass-roots sport in the decade following 2012. That would mean that more money would go into sport in Scotland, Wales and every corner of the country.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem with how the budget is being implemented is that the Government are spending far too much on consulting, advising, mentoring, watching and auditing, and not enough on just delivering the facilities?

My right hon. Friend makes a telling point, as I would expect. It is true that the amount of money spent purely on consultancy is huge—at more than £400 million, it has raised a lot of eyebrows. Many question marks have been raised about the amount spent on consultants for the Olympics project, and for many other projects that the Government have set up.

The construction of venues is the responsibility of the Olympic Delivery Authority, and that is on track. The organisation of the games is the responsibility of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games, and that too is on track. The legacy of the games is the Government’s responsibility: it is a critical area, yet the Government are failing to deliver. One reason for that is that the legacy responsibility has fallen between the cracks, having been divided between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Government Olympic Executive and the Minister for the Olympics.

It could be so different. We could start by returning the lottery to its four pillars, and we could have credible, achievable objectives for every child in every school in the country.

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman very carefully, and I paid special attention to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). Is he saying that he would like Scotland’s lottery money to be returned to Scotland, especially given that Scotland is building for the Commonwealth games and hoping to create its own legacy from them? Would he go further and increase funding for Scotland from other parts of the lottery, as is happening with London in respect of the Olympics?

The point about the national lottery is that it is played throughout the country, so its benefits need to be felt throughout the country. The Government have had to raid good causes because of their miscalculations over the Olympics, and that has meant that the lottery is not operating as it should. We want to return it to its original four pillars so that lottery players in Scotland can benefit from their contributions, just as lottery players throughout the country do.

The hon. Gentleman has just used a phrase that is incorrect. I heard him say that we should return the lottery to its “original four pillars”, but the previous Conservative Government created it with five pillars, one of which was the millennium fund. Has he forgotten that?

No, but the Culture Secretary may not have noticed that we are a long way past 2000 now. As a result, it is possible to wind up the Millennium Commission. I am not sure that many people in this House would say that how the commission spent its money was an especially good example of how lottery funding can be spent. Both sides of the House bear responsibility for what happened with the dome.

I shall conclude by saying that we need vision. Where is the plan to send Olympians and Paralympians to every school in the country to fire up children with the Olympic vision? Where is the curriculum material that will mean that the Olympics can be integrated into what children are taught? We had such material for the Commonwealth games in Manchester, but there is no sign of it for 2012.

Where is the plan to link sports clubs better to their local schools, so that we can reduce the current high drop-off rates when people leave school and stop playing sport? Most importantly, where is the imagination and determination to make sure that we get a legacy in the constrained and difficult financial circumstances in which we find ourselves?

When the Olympics have gone, we are unlikely to see them back in this country in our lifetime. Therefore, let us use them to inspire a lifetime of sport and sporting values, because we have only one chance.

I beg to move, To leave out from “House” to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof :

“applauds the British Olympic and Paralympic teams for their superb performance in Beijing which should provide an excellent platform for their performance in London 2012; recognises that the increase in public funding for elite programmes has helped contribute to this success; notes that a decade of sustained investment at every level of sport–school, community and elite–has laid the strongest possible foundations for this Olympic period; welcomes the recent School Sport Survey which shows that 90 per cent. of children are doing two hours of sport a week; further welcomes the reform of Sport England that will build a world-class sport development system; and endorses the Government’s Legacy Action Plan, including measures that will make a reality of the promise made in Singapore in 2005 to make two million people more active by 2012.”

It is not something that I do often, but I shall begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) for calling this debate. Sport matters greatly to millions of people in this country, yet the occasions when their national Parliament focuses on it and debates it in detail are rare indeed.

The Secretary of State paid tribute to the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) for calling this debate, but does he nevertheless feel that this is a missed opportunity? We are playing politics with this important subject rather than working together to build a positive legacy for people. An example of what I mean is the proposal to build a bike track at Hadleigh in my constituency. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should work together to build a legacy based on the wonderful achievements of our Olympians and Paralympians, and on the great achievements made by men and women in sport across our country?

I am glad that the full parliamentary strength of the UK Independence party is behind the Government’s efforts to build a successful Olympics. Like the hon. Gentleman, I picked up a churlish note in the speech by the shadow Culture Secretary. That was disappointing, because although I congratulated him on calling this debate, I was not encouraged by the tone of his remarks.

I was about to say that the next four years present us all, as Olympic hosts, with a unique opportunity. Indeed, it is a one-off opportunity as we will not again in our lifetimes get this chance to change permanently the place of sport in our society.

I agree that today should be an opportunity to try to rebuild a consensus about the Olympics. I shall come to my criticisms of the legacy plan later, but I wanted to intervene on the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) towards the end of his speech, as I was waiting for the bit when he would announce the Opposition’s plans. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Gentleman’s speech was heavy on analysis but very light on policy specifics?

That is a perfect summary. The hon. Gentleman’s speech was a series of nit-picking points about the Government’s proposals, but not once did we hear a substantive suggestion about what the Conservative party would do differently to alter the place of sport in this country.

The right hon. Gentleman and I have played football together a number of times in a very consensual manner for the parliamentary team, so perhaps I can start my intervention from that base. Does he accept—

What about policy, Alistair?

Does the Culture Secretary accept that, because of the decline in spending on sport after the raids on the lottery, it is the role of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt)—

You can do better than that, Alistair!

My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey is absolutely right to point out that spending decline to the right hon. Gentleman, as we must make sure that the legacy is good and proper.

Come on, Alistair, what about a bit of policy?

What will happen over the next few years—

Order. We must not have continued interventions from the Back Bench—

Tell him.

Order.

I fear I agree with the sedentary interventions, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are funding an Olympic games that will be the biggest boost that sport in the UK has ever received. The Olympics will lift sport to a place in our national life that it has never occupied before.

The shadow Culture Secretary’s remarks were light on analysis. When the available lottery pot for Sport England is combined with the extra Exchequer investment available to Sport England in the current spending review period, Sport England will be operating with an increased budget for school and community sport during that period, rather than a diminished one.

My right hon. Friend and I have a keen interest in one of the best sports in the world—rugby league. How will he ensure that rugby league benefits from the legacy and how will he ensure that Sport England takes seriously the importance of rugby league and moves away from the sports it always seems to support?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who makes the case for rugby league, which is a sport important to his constituency and mine. I am sure that he will join me in wishing the England rugby league team success. We congratulate them on their winning start in the rugby league world cup at the weekend. We will see a benefit for rugby league. Under the leadership of Richard Lewis, the sport has made great strides recently in investing in its club structure. I am lucky that Leigh Centurions and Leigh Miners rugby clubs are two of the strongest amateur clubs in the country. Rugby league is agreeing a whole-sport plan with Sport England, which will give the league the wherewithal to develop the sport during the Olympic period, as others wish to do.

rose—

I shall give way to the shadow Culture Secretary and to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) but then I want to make progress.

The Culture Secretary has just said that total funding for grass-roots sports has increased, so can he explain why answers supplied by his Department to my parliamentary questions show that the amount of money going to sport from the lottery and from grant in aid is £135 million less than when his Government came to power?

I will supply the hon. Gentleman with the exact figures for the total spending over the three-year period, comparing the last spending review with the current one. He mentioned grant in aid, but I think he may have missed out the extra money given to school sport to fund the five-hour offer in schools. Much of that money will go into developing sport in the further education sector and school-club links. I will clarify the figures because it is an important point, but I am confident of my statistics.

We have heard how people were inspired by watching British Olympic success in Beijing. They watched those games on television and the vast majority of people in the UK will watch the London 2012 games on television, so can the Secretary of State explain why there will be such a big increase in sporting legacy after a London Olympics compared to the Beijing games? The only difference is that organisations such as the lottery will have less money to distribute to sport.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is not fabled for his imagination, but he should try to think of the possibility of an Olympic team training on his doorstep, at a local training camp. Can he not imagine what that will do to inspire—[Interruption.] I am sure that national teams will train in west Yorkshire. He should think about how positive that will be and not be so cynical. His constituents under the age of 25 will not be anywhere near as cynical as he is about the Olympic games.

rose—

I will take one more intervention and then—

Two?

And the hon. Gentleman, but then I must make progress.

The Secretary of State talks rightly about increased investment in sport in schools, but the uncomfortable fact is that Britain has the highest post-school drop-out rate for participation in sport. We have heard about the cut in funding for grass-roots sports, so what are the Government doing to plug the gap between schools and the 125,000 sports clubs across the UK? Most of those clubs are voluntary organisations and we all know from our constituencies that they have great potential to keep our young people fit, active and engaged.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which relates to a large part of the substance of what I want to say. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics has just reminded me that part of the funding package I was outlining to the hon. Member for South-West Surrey includes a guarantee of three hours of sport for 16 to 19-year-olds. It is an important aspect and I shall address it during my remarks, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) raised it.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) but then I shall have to make progress.

I want to be positive because I view the 2012 games with huge optimism. We have referred to the Commonwealth games in 2002. May I ask the Secretary of State two questions? First, what conversations and discussions has he had with those who were involved in the Commonwealth games about the legacy of the games? In an earlier intervention, I mentioned the velodrome and my constituents, Sarah and Barney, who won five gold medals at the Paralympics. They did wonderfully well. Sarah won gold—

Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to content himself with one question. Interventions are getting longer and longer and many people want to participate in the debate, so the Secretary of State should respond—

The second question—

Order.

I will take the question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and then I will make progress.

The hon. Member for Macclesfield made an excellent point. Experience in Manchester directly informs how the London games are being brought forward, but the same cynical points that his Back-Bench colleague made about the Olympic games were made about Manchester. People said that we were building white elephant facilities that would have no legacy. The gold medals for cycling in Beijing were made in Manchester from the investment in the velodrome and all the associated infrastructure for British cycling. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to get these things right, but he makes the point very well indeed. I speak regularly with Sir Howard Bernstein, Richard Leese and others who were pivotally involved in the decisions about the Manchester Commonwealth games. We got it right then and we will get it right in London 2012.

I hope that we can use today’s debate to agree across the House that the Olympic period should be used to raise the place and prominence of sport in national life and debate, and that by doing so, we will make Britain a more active and world-leading sporting nation. It is precisely because of the scale of our ambition on that point, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics has reminded us many times, that we were successful in Singapore in winning the games for Britain. Today, I shall update the House on our progress in delivering a permanent sporting legacy. However, although I shall focus on sport, it is important to remind the Olympic cynics that our legacy goes much wider—tourism, skills, culture and regeneration.

Given that there is now a lot of unused capacity in building and construction, can we look forward to a fall in the advertised prices of facilities that are not yet under contract? That will relieve some of the pressure on the sporting legacy budget.

We can be assured that in the Olympic Delivery Authority we have a team of professionals who are managing the projects with skill and precision. They have already been commended for the tremendous progress they have made so far, and the right hon. Gentleman can be assured that they are taking every step necessary to secure the best value for the public money involved.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

In a moment. I want to make some progress and go through the four key elements in our Olympic sporting legacy.

First, our over-arching and ambitious goal is to have 2 million more people active by 2012. Secondly, every young person in England should have the opportunity to participate in five hours of sport in and out of school. Thirdly, we shall create a world-class community sport system and an improved club structure through a refocusing of Sport England and an enhanced role for our national governing bodies. Finally, we shall have an enhanced system for funding elite sport through the creation of a mixed economy of three funding streams—lottery, Exchequer and private sources. That will be the permanent legacy from our Olympic games. Taken together, those measures represent a coherent sports policy with investment at every level. Success at elite level will drive more participation at the grass roots, and improved facilities and coaching at the grass roots will keep young people active in sport and expand our talent pool.

rose—

rose—

I will give way, but then I really must make progress.

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He took an intervention from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about consultants, and I want to return to that point. Allegedly, £400 million has been spent on consultants, but does the Secretary of State not agree that we need to employ consultants to secure the very best contracts and the best value for people? Moreover, what is the point of securing a contract if one does not put in place a structure to monitor compliance with that contract? I happen to think that the spending was a good investment, and I hope that the Secretary of State does, too.

We should not be at all shy of saying that we will make use of the best expertise and professionals to ensure that we get the best possible value. These are complex projects; they need to be managed properly. At times, that will involve bringing in the best in the business to make sure that we get the best possible value. We should not be at all coy on that point.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he has been very generous with his time. He mentioned the lottery. In Scotland, we are set to lose £150 million for good causes involved in grass-roots sports at the very time we are trying to create a legacy from the Commonwealth games in Glasgow. Does he agree with all parties in the Scottish Parliament—and with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who agrees with this position—that the money should be returned, so that we can ensure a legacy from Glasgow 2014?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will continue to have incredibly close dialogue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to make sure that Glasgow 2014 is as successful as London 2012 and Manchester 2002. That is what we want. I give him a commitment that I will maintain that dialogue, but I must remind him that the Olympic games is a British project, for which Great Britain bid, and it will benefit all of Great Britain. Indeed, the football will take place in Scotland. Surprisingly, his party took advantage of the Beijing games to call for a Scottish Olympic team. I do not think that that was in line with the mood of the country at the time. It wants a British team to have a successful games in the capital city. However, we will make sure that the Commonwealth games in Glasgow are a success, too.

I want to draw the Secretary of State’s attention to concerns that local authorities are expressing about their ability to brand programmes that they are already running. I understand that my local authority has just had it confirmed that it can use the term, “Team Sutton”, but concerns remain about the fact that it cannot use the term “London 2012”, which will mean that the programmes remain relatively low-profile.

Of course, we have to ensure that the money that we need to raise privately to fund the Olympics and the building of the Olympic infrastructure is not compromised, and that there is not an overcrowded field in which everybody seeks to use the association with the Olympics. Local authorities can be associated with the Olympics through the “Inspire” brand that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics has been so creative in bringing forward. I hope that that will give local authorities the marketing that they need.

rose—

rose—

I must make progress, but I will give way later. Before we address the elements of the legacy, it is important to reflect on the changes and the progress that we have made in the past 10 years. I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating the British Olympic and Paralympic teams in Beijing on their tremendous success. Britain won an incredible 102 medals in the Paralympics and 47 in the Olympics; it was Britain’s best medal haul in more than a century. Every single one of those medals was won by the hard work of athletes, with support from their coaches, who are often forgotten, and sacrifices from their families. Again, that is too often forgotten when we celebrate the achievements of our fine athletes.

Public funding helped, and it is important to remember that Olympic success is built not just on funding at elite level, but on a decade of investment at every level of sport—school, community and elite. That has not always been the case, and for all the lectures that we heard this afternoon from the Opposition, let us remind ourselves of where sport was back in 1996. At Atlanta in 1996, Britain won one gold medal and was 36th in the medals table. It was our worst Olympic performance ever. That was not just bad luck; it is what we get when we neglect and under-invest in this country’s sporting infrastructure at every level over a long period. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) shakes his head, but I saw first-hand—

rose—

I will not give way just now, because I am making an important point. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman needs to listen to this point. I saw it—[Interruption.]

Order. We must not have interventions from a sedentary position. Interventions must be made in the proper way, otherwise the debate is totally disrupted.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I saw it with my own eyes: after-school competitive sport was simply allowed to crumble away, and it was not the fault of loony left councils. Competitive sport has always been a bedrock of community life in areas such as St. Helens, where I went to school. That change was the result of failure to respond to one of the key elements of the teachers’ dispute of the mid-1980s. We saw the collapse of an informal, ad hoc, voluntary system of providing after-school sport, and no alternative was put in its place, which deprived millions of children of a quality introduction to sport during their school years. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent wants to dispute that record of events, he should stand up now and do so.

I will. First, the Secretary of State just criticised us for making so-called party political points. Looking at the Olympic medal tables in the 1980s and early 1990s, we see that we came ninth, 11th, 12th and 13th in those years; he knows that perfectly well. He, of course, has picked the one year in the last 30-year cycle to suit his argument, which was a rather silly party political point. He also knows that it was overwhelmingly left-wing Labour councils that pursued an anti-competitive-sport agenda that did huge damage to the competitive sport system in this country.