| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): Now that the Secretary of State has introduced the subject of money, can she give us—as she develops her argument on the Bill—her estimate of the total cost of the entire project and some idea of the cost to London council tax payers per year, and for how many years?
Tessa Jowell: The answers to both parts of that question have already been clearly set out in the submissions to the IOC and before the House. We have before us a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, not just to develop excellent Olympic facilities, but—working closely with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister—to deliver sustainable communities and a powerful legacy for one of the most deprived areas of Britain. I pay the warmest tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister for the imagination that he has shown in understanding the potential of the Olympic development for the east end of London.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South) (Con):
I apologise to the Secretary of State if she was planning to discuss this point, but when she addresses regeneration will she consider the several hundred businesses that will have to be displaced? Many of them feel that the level of
21 Jul 2005 : Column 1434
compensation they are being offered is inadequate. Will she give an undertaking to look at the issue and ensure that no one loses out in that process?
Tessa Jowell: I believe that the figure is lower than 700—
Richard Ottaway: Several hundred.
Tessa Jowell: It is about 350. The matter is one for negotiation between the LDA and the businesses concerned, and I am aware of the progress of those negotiations.
The Government were clear and consistent in their support for London's bid, and I also pay tribute to all the major political parties in the House who were such strong and consistent supporters of the bid—
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) rose—
Tessa Jowell: With the exception of the hon. Gentleman.
I underline the importance of cross-party support and consensus in securing the bid but it is absolutely clear that we cannot bid for, win or stage the Olympic games without clear and unequivocal Government support.
Mr. Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab): I am slightly concerned about the magnanimity shown by my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who is not in the Chamber today, is the shadow Chancellor for his party. He said:
He also objected to people in Twickenham paying for facilities in the east end of London, some of which will be used for only 18 days and then demolished. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we do not mind everyone jumping on the bandwagon as long as they can eat some humble pie?
Tessa Jowell: I can assume only that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) was not speaking for his party, but it would not be the first time that we have heard a chorus of different voices from that party—the flexible approach to policy.
Tessa Jowell: I shall allow more interventions later but I want to make some progress, as many people want to speak in the debate.
I may be counting my chickens but I believe that the Bill is evidence of cross-party support for the games and of our determination to get moving with their staging, to set up the structures to deliver them and to make sure that the public interest is protected and that public money is properly spent, so that the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games are delivered on time and within budget.
Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab):
Investigations by Robert Booth, a freelance journalist,
21 Jul 2005 : Column 1435
showed that towards the end of 2003 a heads of term agreement was reached between the London Development Agency, acting on behalf of the bid team, and Stratford City Developments that neither would frustrate the planning applications of the other. At the time, Sir Stuart Lipton was a director of Stratford City Developments and also chairman of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, which was conducting a design review of the Olympic bid team's proposals. There is no evidence that Sir Stuart took part in the design review, but does it not show the need for complete transparency in all the many public-private sector arrangements that will be needed to deliver the project? There should be proper parliamentary scrutiny of such arrangements.
Tessa Jowell: I have noted my hon. Friend's intervention and I shall be happy to write to him further. The important thing is that substantial sums of public money and, through the lottery, of the public's money will be invested in the games.
Tessa Jowell: The public sector undertaking in relation to the staging and to building the infrastructure is £2.375 billion. There will be additional investment arising from regeneration in the area immediately surrounding the Olympic park and further investment in London's transport structure, so the long-term benefits for London will be considerable. No one could deny that transparency has already been established in setting out the costs of the games.
Tessa Jowell: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), but that is the last intervention I shall take for quite some time.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con): I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene. I am extremely pleased to see Lord Coe in the Gallery this afternoon—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. May I explain to the hon. Gentleman and to the House generally that we do not normally refer to people outside the Chamber during debates?
Daniel Kawczynski: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Secretary of State is talking about London, which is the key part of the Olympic bid, but places throughout the country want to take part in our great success, and in Shrewsbury we hope that we can host a rowing event on the River Severn, so will the right hon. Lady discuss how Shrewsbury and Shropshire can take part?
Tessa Jowell:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I note that he joined the tribute that I made to Lord Coe and his colleagues at the beginning of my remarks. If he can contain himself, I shall come back to the point about the importance of the whole UK benefiting from London's hosting the games.
21 Jul 2005 : Column 1436
I want to set out for the House the shape of the Bill. The Bill does three things: it creates the public body that will get London ready to stage the games—the Olympic delivery authority; it provides the powers needed to meet IOC requirements for the way that the games and the Olympic environment are managed; and it provides the Mayor with an Olympic-specific power so that he can meet his obligations as the signatory to the IOC's host city contract. I shall provide an outline of the scope of the legislation in each of those areas, before describing in more detail how some of the clauses will work.
The Olympic delivery authority will be the body that manages the Government's interest in the Olympic construction project and the public money going into it. It will make sure that the necessary infrastructure is in place by 2012, and that all the venues are built. Clauses 3 to 6 and schedule 1 allow for the authority to be created, grant it the necessary powers and functions and specify how it will be structured, organised and funded. Clauses 8 to 16 deal with transport, and establish the ODA as the co-ordinating authority for the Olympic transport plan. Existing transport authorities will be under a duty to co-operate with the ODA in order to implement the plan and to deliver Olympic transport services.
The Bill also provides for the creation of an Olympic route network and the ODA will be able to issue traffic regulation orders on that network; for example, to establish Olympic lanes or parking restrictions. Obviously, the authority's role will need to evolve over time. Before 2012, the ODA will focus on acquiring land—80 per cent. of which is already under public control—constructing venues and planning transport.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |