Proceeding contribution from Hugh Robertson (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 28 April 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill.
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill
There is a distinction between the costs that the hon. Gentleman originally asked about—the costs for enforcement officers—and more general costs. Some of those general costs are covered by the extra funding made available, but others are not, precisely because local authorities knew what they were getting themselves into when they made bids for those events. They knew what the likely cost would be at the bidding stage. It would be ridiculous for anyone who made a bid, for example, for the Olympic sailing event, to say that they did not know that there would be some associated security costs.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 527 c370
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Armed forces Companies Advertising Fines Football Internet Police Local government finance Powers Public transport Marketing Sales Trade Sportsgrounds Roads Road traffic control Touting Street trading Tickets Seized articles Sponsorship Olympic Delivery Authority Olympic Games 2012 Paralympic Games 2012 Statutory instruments Weymouth
- Legislation
- London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 15:44:21 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_736641
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_736641
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_736641