Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
DCMS
25 JULY 2006
Q20 Adam Price: Which country?
Tessa Jowell: In the United Kingdom,
which is where identities are many and varied, but also I can
have a discussion abut Britishness with my constituents who are
perhaps among the most diverse communities in the country. Whether
I am talking to somebody who is of African descent, Caribbean
descent, Asian descent or was born and grew up in Peckham, these
are all people who will have a view about what it means to be
British today. I think the important point is that identity is
not something that can be prescribed. I think that the role of
culture in identity is that it creates the opportunity for the
private experience and definition of who you are and then at moments
for that private sense of who I am and where I come from to be
shared on a collective basis. I am absolutely against any more
prescription than that. I would add though, and these are areas
that we are working with the Foreign Office to develop further,
that I am struck particularly, in the amount of international
negotiation and discussion I have to do as part of the Olympic
bid and in the follow-up from that, by the role that culture can
play as a surrogate for more formal forms of diplomacy. I was
the first Cabinet Minister to visit Egypt after the invasion of
Iraq and I was very struck there by how, in a context where Muslim
feelings were very raw indeed, there was a real willingness to
engage in debate about culture and identity and what we share
in common. As diplomacy becomes fraught you still see regular
cultural exchange between our great institutions and other countries'
and I think that is an extraordinarily important and valuable
force ultimately for peace, greater stability and greater understanding.
Q21 Mr Sanders: Turning to the Olympics,
you announced earlier in the London 2012 bid that you would be
prepared to divert £410 million from non-Olympic Lottery
games. Are you confident that there will be no further diversion
of funds from non-Olympic good causes?
Tessa Jowell: No, I do not think
that is at all certain, and before our friends in the media get
very excited about this, this is by no means new. You will have
studied the memorandum of understanding as closely as I have,
which set out the terms under which the public contribution to
funding the infrastructure costs of the Games would be met, and
it allows for sharing between the Mayor and the Lottery in the
event of cost over-run, so at this stage in planning the Olympics
I cannot say that there is no question that there may need to
be an additional call on the Lottery. What I can tell you is that
the discipline that applies to the staging of the Olympics starts
and finishes with the importance of cost control associated with
legacy and regeneration. You will know that the exercise that
we have already conducted in relation to the reconfiguration of
the Olympic site has seen us take £600 million out of the
costs both in relation to the cost of land acquisition and the
cost of facilities themselves. You will know that I asked for
the design of the aquatic centre to be reconsidered in the light
of what appeared to be increased costs. You will also know that
we are seeking to increase the value of the Olympic site by increasing
the housing density and by other means, and making judgments about
the short term costs were we to build an IKEA-type Olympics rather
than one which focuses on legacy, what in the long term the costs
would be, and we are also doing work on the long term value of
the Olympics so that we develop a robust assessment of the net
present value of the Olympic site in 2015. All that discipline
has to be set against the facts that formed part of the bid and
part of the memorandum of understanding between the various stakeholders
as to how this would be managed.
Q22 Mr Sanders: What are the main
factors causing cost estimates for the Games to be revised?
Tessa Jowell: There are a number
of factors, security being one, not just, if you like, the security
of the Games themselves but the security of construction. I probably
do not need to remind everyone of this but we won the bid on 6
July on one proposition and one assessment of security and the
next day London was bombed and 52 innocent people lost their lives,
so we have obviously had to review fundamentally the security
costs. The second is that—and again this is important to
remember in terms of the timescale—we submitted the bid
book in November 2004 and therefore, in the seven or eight months
after that time, no further work was done on the assessment of
costs, and particularly no work was done on assessing the state
of the land that would be the Olympic Park. That was constrained
by a number of things but very particularly the CPO negotiation
in relation to the development of Stratford City. Having won the
bid, we obviously had to subject all the costs to review and we
are doing that. There will be further review work when the delivery
partner is appointed next month.
Q23 Mr Sanders: Is that the KPMG
cost review that is being undertaken?
Tessa Jowell: No. The KPMG cost
review is continuing advice to the ODA and to Government on the
cost of the Olympics, so that is not a once-and-for-all cost review;
it is a continuing process. By November this year the Olympic
Delivery Authority will have a budget, but that budget will continue
to be subject to the discipline of cost review and cost reduction
throughout the life of the development of those facilities. The
final point that I make is also the judgments that we have to
make between the Games for legacy and regeneration as opposed
to the costs of developing the Park and mounting the Olympic Games
and the Paralympic Games for 31 days. I will give you two examples
which I hope will illustrate that point. If we were simply developing
the Olympic Park for the Olympic Games, and it is highly contaminated
land which is why there has been no development, you could more
or less just lay down a layer of topsoil on the basis that most
of the facilities were going to be dismantled afterwards. Given
that something in the region of 40,000 homes are going to be built
adjacent to the site, and the Olympic Park will by 2015 be a fairly
small part of this enormous new development in the lower Lea Valley,
if we simply laid down topsoil and did not remediate the land
you would then, when you wanted to develop it on a permanent basis
for homes, have to dig it all up again and at greater cost remediate
the land then, but at some point you would have to do it. Our
judgment is that that is almost certainly best done at the same
time that we are developing the Park for the Olympics. A second
perhaps more tangible example is the media centre, which we had
originally intended would be a kind of IKEA, put it up and then
take it down at the end of the Games. Actually, by relocating
it, it is both more secure but also has a better legacy value.
If I say to you that this will provide office space equivalent
to Canary Wharf, it gives you a sense of the sheer scale, so we
have decided that although the costs will be greater the legacy
will be infinitely greater and that this will be developed as
a permanent building that will then be available for commercial
rent at the end of the Games and will provide the focus of what
we expect to be a vibrant cluster of new businesses there. I have
gone into that at some length, Chairman, but I hope that explains
to you the approach that we are taking, and again will be a dynamic
approach throughout the next six years.
Q24 Mr Sanders: One of the things
that comes across, representing a constituency 200 miles from
London, is a sense of, "We want to be involved in this but
we get conflicting messages as to how we can get involved in the
Olympic Games". One of the things is the sports themselves,
their governing bodies, saying one thing and the Olympic organisations
saying another. Where does responsibility and decision-making
actually lie in relation to areas outside of London putting in
bids either for training camps or for specific Olympic sport training
needs? Is it through the governing bodies or is it through the
Olympic bodies?
Tessa Jowell: In relation to training
camps, the Local Organising Committee will be publishing the proposals
and beginning to take bids after 2008. I think, and I can confirm
this for you, that they intend to publish this in a prospectus
earlier than that but that is the point at which the West Country
will be able to put in their bid. In relation to the first point,
are you talking about bidding for money for facilities or bidding
for coaching facilities, bidding for scholarship funds or Olympic
sports?
Q25 Mr Sanders: No. It is bidding
to offer a facility to a specific sport that will be represented
in the Olympic Games but will take place elsewhere.
Tessa Jowell: Other than a training
camp?
Q26 Mr Sanders: It would be as a
training facility for a specific sport, not for a compendium of
sports.
Tessa Jowell: You would certainly
do that as part of the programme of bidding for training camps.
If I can just reassure you, the Olympic road show, which completes
its tour of the UK at the end of this week, has been to the West
Country. I think they have been to Torbay; I have not got all
the 65 stops in my head, but they have certainly been to the West
Country and the Olympic road show has had the express purpose
of making clear right across the UK the economic potential benefits,
and the tourism premium is one which I know the West Country will
want to develop. I pay tribute to the groundbreaking work that
the Regional Sports Board has done in boosting participation and
mapping and therefore making a reality the close access to facilities
that enable participation. There are many ways in which the constituencies
of honourable Members right around the Committee can benefit,
very practical ways that every RDA is developing in what I would
describe as its Olympic business plan, so I would recommend that
anybody who wants to look at what more can be done be in touch
with them.
Q27 Paul Farrelly: Tessa, I just
wanted to go back to the original question, which is the limit
on the extent to which the Lottery can be raided to support the
Olympic Games. Earlier this year in Newcastle-under-Lyme I brought
the Amateur Swimming Association up because we are looking at
replacing our old Victorian baths with at least a 25-metre pool
that is capable of clubs racing in. We were looking at the prospect
of a 50-metre pool and the expert from the ASA went down and said,
"All the wonderful grants that have been had from the Lottery,
unfortunately those are no longer available because of the Olympics",
so in our area we face an uphill struggle for having a sporting
legacy, let alone any other. Then we go to the heritage report
which we just issued and we see the extent to which the Heritage
Lottery Fund will reduce the number of successful bidders in the
future, so there is real concern around the country about this
limit and the extent to which any cost overruns will be absorbed
by the Lottery and I think people around the country would like
to hear some positive and firm words that that is not going to
happen.
Tessa Jowell: Well, I cannot
do that because that is not the basis on which we constructed
the funding package that was part of our bid, but what I would
say is that there is a very specific and technical issue about
the balance of desirability of 50-metre pools versus 25-metre
or 30-metre pools if you are boosting participation.
Q28 Paul Farrelly: That was just
an example.
Tessa Jowell: The effort over
the last five years has gone into making sure that 50-metre pools
which are needed for the preparation for competition are both
constructed so that they have the maximum flexibility, but also
that they are located so that there is reasonable and equal access
across the country. The second point that you make about the balance
between boosting participation in sport and the Olympics themselves,
they are part of a whole just as heritage is part of the whole.
I think that if the mindset is one which sees the Olympics as
a kind of alien cuckoo in what was previously a very comfortable
nest, then every single organisation that takes that view will
fail to exploit the unique, and I mean unique, national benefits
that being the host city and the host country of the Olympic Games
brings. I am enormously impressed by the imagination that has
been shown by our English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund
and you can go right round my sectors and I have been enormously
uplifted by the enthusiasm that people have expressed about the
possibility of the Olympic Games.
Q29 Paul Farrelly: But there needs
to be a limit.
Tessa Jowell: Well, there is a
formula and the formula comes in judgment, but with a project
which is as fast-moving as staging the Olympic Games, building
the infrastructure, securing the regeneration, but achieving the
softer legacy which is boosting participation in sport, you have
to constantly make the judgments in the light of how the circumstances
change and develop. We have made fantastic progress in relation
to school sport. We have made fantastic progress in relation to
the development of young talent and for all we get beaten about
as a country for not having gold medallists and silver medallists
in the World Athletics Championships or whatever, just look at
the young talent that is coming up, look at the number of young
sports athletes that we had in the top 10 at Turin; this is where
you have got to be looking for 2008 and 2012 and I am confident
about that.
Q30 Paul Farrelly: Through the process
that you are going on about now, and you have mentioned the lower
than expected costs from the CPO process, if there are cost savings
against the budget, will they be put back into other Lottery-linked
causes?
Tessa Jowell: Would savings?
Q31 Paul Farrelly: Be put back into
the Lottery pot for dispensation to other good causes?
Tessa Jowell: What happens in
the event of any surplus on any of the budgets would be a matter
for decision at the time. I would just ask the Committee to understand
the difficulty and indeed the foolishness of making firm commitments
now about circumstances that will materialise in six or seven
years' time. We can be confident in our approach, but these will
be matters for judgment at the time.
Q32 Rosemary McKenna: Earlier on
in July this year you launched the DCMS consultation document
on a Strategy for Tourism for London 2012, a very good idea, to
make sure that the experience is a very positive one for the many,
many people who will be coming to London and hopefully going on
to visit the rest of the country. I think there is some concern
around the suggestion that you will be offering support to people
in the front line, such as taxi drivers and given that we all
love our London taxi drivers, but occasionally we do get a Victor
Meldrew, what kind of support are you going to offer to people
like that to make it a positive experience which we all want it
to be?
Tessa Jowell: I know most of you
will have been in Manchester at some point during the Commonwealth
Games and I think one of the unforgettable features of Manchester
over that 11 days was the sense of welcome that everybody had
whether they arrived by air, by car or by rail, and that was very
much created by the volunteers. We have all just got to imagine
what it is going to be like to be a Londoner, to live in London,
to work in London during 2012 and what it is going to be like
in fact to live anywhere in the United Kingdom and to be affected
by this sense that our country and our city is the centre of the
world. The fact is that people will rise to the challenge. I remember
talking to a taxi driver in Athens on the day of the Opening Ceremony
and he could hardly speak with the pride and emotion about his
city and he said, "My city used to be a series of villages
and it has now become a modern European capital". The sort
of example that gets picked up, and of course it gets picked up
about the role of taxi drivers, but taxi drivers may be the first
Londoners that people travelling and arriving at Waterloo or arriving
at Heathrow have contact with. In Beijing I understand that taxi
drivers have been subjected to classes in English in order that
they can be in a position to welcome. This is a way of saying
that if we are going to make the Games a success, everybody has
got a part to play.
Q33 Rosemary McKenna: And there will
be training and support for volunteers? I know the effort and
training that went in, and I would hope that this would be starting
fairly soon because it does take a long time—
Tessa Jowell: Yes, exactly.
Q34 Rosemary McKenna: —and
it takes a lot of commitment and even though there are volunteers,
there are a lot of costs surrounding that. Is the finance in place
to do that because it seems to me, given we have within London
such a wonderful, cosmopolitan city, that you would be able to
draw on all sorts of organisations, voluntary organisations, national
organisations, Afro-Caribbean organisations, to be able to take
part in that but on a voluntary basis, so is there work going
on just now to do that?
Tessa Jowell: It is indeed. You
are probably aware that people have been registering their interest
in being volunteers on the website and the last figure I saw,
I have not personally checked the website for this, but the last
figure I saw was that 80,000 people have already logged their
interest in being volunteers for the Games. Yes, you are right
that volunteers will be trained, and this is a staging cost of
the Games. The question for us a bit further down the line is
what efforts we might make to maintain this volunteer force after
the Games. Certainly in the run-up to the Manchester Games, I
met volunteers who had been associated for three to four years,
so they had got involved very early on, but again this is a major
recruitment exercise, it will be a major training exercise and
I hope that volunteers also will come not just from London, but
from right across the UK.
Q35 Rosemary McKenna: Can I ask you
now about the hospitality industry in particular with reference
to the Olympic Games. There is a clear commitment to training
and everyone, I think, has seen vast improvements in hospitality
training and in the industry which is really important for the
experience of the people coming in. One of the areas of concern
is, I think, recently throughout the UK and in Ireland, because
I visited there recently, the number of people working in the
hospitality industry who do not speak English. What work is going
on because I think that it is very, very important that you are
actually able to order a meal and the person taking the order
understands the order to relay it properly to the kitchen? These
are the kinds of small things that really matter to people and
can make things a very good experience, so is there work going
on in that area?
Tessa Jowell: This is very much
work that is the responsibility of the Sector Skills Council for
Tourism and they are taking forward work in this area. Whether
English-language teaching has been specifically commissioned,
I will have to write to the Committee about that. [1]
Q36 Rosemary McKenna: I think it is important
because we welcome the people coming from all over Europe—
Tessa Jowell: Sure.
Q37 Rosemary McKenna: —with
the opened-up borders now, that is great, but I do think that
these are areas that we have to look at, particularly in relation
to the hospitality industry.
Tessa Jowell: Certainly and the
architecture of the tourism industry's policy and strategy for
the Olympics is very clear. I have referred to the Round Table
with the Prime Minister, I think it was, at the end of last year
or earlier this year and then the consultation document which
has been published about the further development of the Tourism
Strategy for 2012 and the role of Visit Britain in translating
those responses into a programme of action and, as I say, what
we accept is that the benefits to the tourism industry will only
come with the kind of planning that a six-year timescale can create.
Q38 Chairman: Just before we leave
the Olympics, can I be clear that the good causes that are benefiting
from the National Lottery have already seen the likelihood of
5% or more being diverted to the Olympic Games and they have had
£410 million top-sliced from the main Game proceeds and your
message now is that they should at least prepare themselves for
seeing a further diversion of resources away for the Olympics?
Tessa Jowell: No. My message is
yes, to accept the first two, and that was the subject of considerable
consultation with the distributing bodies, and at the Lottery
Monitoring Conference at the beginning of this month, I reaffirmed
the fact that £410 million would be top-sliced at the same
time that I confirmed that the shares for good causes would remain
unaltered, so as the good causes have remained unaltered, so have
the shares remained unaltered, and I share your concern about
the stability, in order precisely to meet this stability point.
In relation to the first part of your question, I would say no
more at this stage than that there is a very clear formula to
meet any further costs arising from the Olympics which is set
out in the Memorandum of Understanding, and it is simply not possible
at this stage to go further than that. The final, final point
I would make is that all those good causes, whether it is Sport
England and sporting participation, whether it is the Arts Council
and culture, whether it is heritage, whether it is film, all stand
to benefit from hosting the Olympics and all have a contribution
to make to the Olympic Games, so, as a nation, I think we have
increasingly to see expenditure in these areas over the next six
years as being shaped and influenced by the unique opportunity
of being the host country for the Olympic Games.
Q39 Chairman: Having said all that,
I think my interpretation of your answer is yes, that they should
at least be prepared, under your formula, for maybe a further
diversion away in order to fund the Olympics.
Tessa Jowell: Well, the distributing
bodies who, I think, have been enormously collegiate in the way
that they have engaged in this discussion know as well as I do
and you do what the Memorandum of Understanding provides.
1 See supplementary memorandum submitted by DCMS on
Ev 21. Back
|
