Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from John Penrose (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 21 February 2012. It occurred during Adjournment debate on London Olympics.


London Olympics

Thank you, Mr Dobbin. I am, indeed, aware that I have only two minutes. I am very sad about that, because many important points have been raised and there is virtually no time to respond to them. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) start his remarks by pointing out that there has been a great deal of cross-party support for the entire Olympic bid process, of which he is a long-standing supporter, and for maintaining and delivering the most sustainable Olympics ever. I completely agree with his support for that, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will continue to provide such support. Incidentally, I should mention that the reason why I am responding to the debate rather than the Minister for Sport and the Olympics is that he is opening an iconic sports facility in Durham, which will be part of the nation's sporting legacy. I am therefore responding on his behalf. The limited amount of time available means that all I can say is this. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, LOCOG is an independent company. The Government have one board member out of 19 or 20. Most of the decisions he is criticising were taken by LOCOG, and asking the Government to respond on behalf of a private organisation on which we have one board seat is, I am afraid, shooting at entirely the wrong target. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns and, indeed, I doubt anybody here would disagree with his point. I am sure that everybody here shares his concern to ensure that there is justice for the victims of the Bhopal disaster. As another contributor to the debate mentioned, there is a difference between legal liability for the company that Dow Chemical bought after the awful tragedy at Bhopal—as he rightly observes, that persists; when someone buys a company, they inherit its legal liabilities as well as its assets—and being morally responsible for causing the problem. Those two things are linked but distinct. We need to be careful in how we talk about responsibility. He was using that term rather loosely throughout his remarks. I am terribly sorry to have run out of time but, fundamentally, the answer to the vast majority of the hon. Gentleman's questions is: ask LOCOG.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
540 c257-8WH 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Subjects
Contracts for services Environment protection Procurement Sports London 2012 Organising Committee Olympic Delivery Authority Olympic Games 2012 Union Carbide Dow
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk