Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340-359)
MR RICHARD
CABORN MP, MS
KAREN BUCK
MP AND MR
BEN STAFFORD
9 NOVEMBER 2005
Q340 Mr Martlew: Does that say that we
are not going to be bringing people in from abroad?
Ms Buck: If you look at all the
major construction projects that are going on all over the country,
of course you are using skills, some of which are being brought
in from abroad. We are not looking at a scenario where in 2011-12
you are going to be needing a massive workforce to complete your
transport projects. That is absolutely integral to the way this
transport delivery has been planned. It is phased over a very
long period of time and it is primarily utilising a transport
investment programme that was already planned for London's benefit.
Q341 Mr Martlew: If I can go back to
the Jubilee Line and the Dome, because there was a deadline, there
was a cost over-run and the people working on the line knew it
had to be completed. There is a concern already. Transport construction
costs are rising and we will be in a situation where, because
we need to have it ready by the Olympics, the costs will even
rise further. If that is the case, who is going to pay for this?
Ms Buck: It is a question of phasing
in the construction of those improvements over the course of a
very long time. There has been a recent report by a team of quantity
surveyors looking at that issue and the possibility of pressures
as a consequence of the programme. It concluded that, for exactly
the reasons I have outlined, that is not any significant risk.
On the Jubilee Line, you have the seventh car upgrade this Christmas.
You have an up to 45% increase in capacity on the Jubilee Line
by 2009 and a programme of improvements rolling through year by
year from now on. That does make a very fundamental difference.
To compare that with the Dome would be fundamentally misleading.
Mr Caborn: We visited a lot of
cities that had run the Olympics and they said, first of all,
get the land, get planning. What you do in the first two years
of running the Games is absolutely crucially important to the
delivery seven years down the line. That is why on 14 July we
introduced the Olympics Bill which had been drafted even before
6 July, before we won the bid. We have been working with the LDA
to make sure that we acquire the land. I give credit to all the
local authorities in that area because we got outline planning
well before we had won the Olympics. We had put quite a lot of
this in place even before we knew the decision on 6 July. I think
that will pay a lot of dividends because we do not want to get
into crisis, when we get to the end date in 2012. The classic
example of that was Athens when they had some real difficulties
that cost huge amounts of money because it got into crisis management.
We are determined not to do that. That is why we have done what
we have done. That is what the ODA is there for. That is what
LOCOG is there for.
Q342 Mr Martlew: You have not answered
the question about who is going to pay if it does over-run. I
have declared an interest that I live in Greenwich. The transport
system from that part of London is very good in comparison with
many constituencies in the country. How do you justify improving
it even more just for the Olympics?
Ms Buck: The overwhelming bulk
of the transport package—I can hear snorting from Mr Efford—in
the Olympic bid comprised proposals that improved transport provision
anyway. On top of that, there is a layer of specific Olympic funded
modifications which are running—additional trains and so
forth—to deliver the spectators to the Games.
Q343 Mr Clelland: Regarding what the
Minister said about some of these transport infrastructure projects
being underway anyway, regardless of the Olympics, one of the
great benefits of the Olympics, we have all been told, is that
it will create a huge number of jobs in construction over the
period. We have heard what has been said about retraining etc.,
but what danger is there that we will see, in so far as this country
is concerned, let alone people coming from abroad, a drain on
skills in construction in the regions? How will that affect the
regions over the period?
Mr Caborn: One of the big construction
projects, just under £5 billion, is now coming to an end
and that is terminal five. Some of the skilled personnel employed
there could well be coming over to start on this construction.
I was talking to CITB and they told me it would only increase
by about 2.5%, the workforce in construction, over the period
because of the vast amount of work that is already going on, which
is huge in terms of that investment. This is one of the issues
we have taken up. We believe in upskilling. There are massive
pockets of unemployment in the East End of London. We are trying
to get into those pockets to retrain and train. That is what we
are trying to do through the London Development Agency.
Q344 Mr Clelland: If the construction
costs because of the Olympics do rise in terms of transport, how
is this going to affect local transport plans? Will they still
be adequately funded? There may be some local transport plans
related to the Olympics.
Ms Buck: If you are asking me:
if there is a cost over-run despite everything that has been built
in in terms of bearing down on costs, which I feel absolutely
confident about, will that lead to a withdrawal of money from
your constituency, the answer is no. There was a contingency built
in, as there would always be for any scheme of this size, and
underlying that there is a memorandum of understanding which ensures
that, in the event of cost over-run, it would be shared between
the Mayor and the National Lottery fund.
Q345 Mr Clelland: I was not asking so
much about the normal, standard, local transport plans that local
authorities develop but plans that they might specifically have
to develop in order to get enough transport because of their involvement
with the Olympics, these training camps etc.
Ms Buck: So much of this is building
on a transport plan which was underway already. The Mayor of London
is underway with a £10 billion, five year transport investment
programme. So much of what is being put into the Olympics is already
part of that, or indeed some of the other transport infrastructure
like the Channel Tunnel Rail Link which is due to be completed
in 2007, which further underpins the argument that this is a phased
delivery of projects which means that skills bottlenecks are not
likely to be on the scale that you are fearing.
Q346 Clive Efford: Mr Martlew is in the
peculiar position of having lived in my constituency and now lives
in the north of Greenwich. He now enjoys far better transport
links than he experienced in my constituency. The peninsula, for
instance, at Greenwich is going to be a major construction site
and it is going to prove a number of venues for the Olympics.
If you were to leave the Dome today—we have had the Jubilee
Line at north Greenwich for more than five years—you could
get to St John's Wood and be in your comfortable flat in St John's
Wood overlooking Lords Cricket Ground by public transport more
quickly than you could get to the high street in my constituency
in the same borough as the Dome. That, to me, is an absolute disgrace.
We are investing an enormous amount of money in large infrastructure
projects but what are we doing to widen out the benefits of those
projects so that people from my constituency—I am in the
peculiar position that I can see this because I am just on the
edge of the Thames Gateway development area—can access the
jobs now, the construction jobs that are going on now that they
need to access to benefit from this regeneration? What are we
doing about that?
Ms Buck: You are a fearless champion
of improved transport access to south east London. That is in
danger of straying beyond the Olympics into how do we improve
transport in south east London. That is part of the transport
for London general planning of improving accessibility across
the capital. We know, do we not, that that is exactly why we were
very pleased to be able to deliver the investment programme to
the Mayor. There are parts of London, of which south east London
is probably the top, and parts of east London where the Olympics
are going to be sited, which are extraordinarily badly connected
for a modern capital city. So much of what is going on in terms
of the DLR extension, the upgrading of the East London Line and
the North London Line, is about improving transport links into
an area which, although it is inner London, as you say with your
example, could be hundreds of miles away in terms of how hard
it is to connect.
Q347 Clive Efford: As you know, this
is an issue that gets under my skin more than most. The fact is
that the legacy of the Olympic Games is a large part of the bid.
The Olympic Committee looked for sustainability. At the same time
as we are seeing this regeneration taking place before our very
eyes now—and we would be foolish not to welcome all the
large infrastructure projects that we are investing in, in that
part of London; I accept that they are necessary—if they
are not immediately accessible, how do we think that second phase
through to make sure that even now, before these infrastructure
projects are completed, people can travel to the Thames Gateway
are where there are large amounts of employment opportunities?
What are we doing to address that now, talking to TFL about bus
routes etc?
Ms Buck: I cannot say to you that
I am conscious of there being a TFL or pre-Olympic plan for specific
transport programmes to deliver people from, say, south east London
to the jobs in the major infrastructure projects and to the Olympics.
If that is something that you feel is a very distinct gap and
you are conscious of there being estates or neighbourhoods that
a particular small, transport programme—
Q348 Chairman: I do not think the point
is being made about a specific estate. The point being made is
that that part of London needs to have efficient transport links.
Ms Buck: Of course. I completely
agree. We have a programme of major infrastructure projects and,
try as we might, we cannot bring them forward.
Q349 Chairman: You have just been telling
us how well you are coordinated. All we require is a clear statement
of how those coordinations are going to work beyond the immediate
rather projected, tightly controlled Olympic areas.
Ms Buck: We will take that point
away to see if there is something we can look at in conjunction
with the LDA of particular interest in terms of skills and employment.
Chairman: Perhaps you would give us a
note on that too.
Q350 Mr Scott: Do you think it is possible
for Crossrail construction to take place at the same time as the
other Olympic transport projects?
Ms Buck: Yes. Crossrail was never
part of the Olympics delivery plan. The earliest that Crossrail
would be delivered is 2013. Knowing that as we do and having as
detailed specification on construction works as we have, we are
absolutely confident that, should that go ahead, the two can be
delivered together.
Q351 Mr Clelland: Do you think that the
effects of the Crossrail project in terms of its construction,
dust, pollution and everything else, will affect the Games?
Ms Buck: No. The team of people
delivering and planning Crossrail are looking at the transport
infrastructure projects which, for the most part, are within TFL
and the major construction projects on the CTRL, are very conscious
of how these schemes would need to interact should those construction
projects be running alongside one another.
Q352 Mr Clelland: We will have huge boring
machines boring tunnels. There is going to be a huge amount of
dust and waste carried about all over the place while the Games
are going on, is there not?
Ms Buck: I have absolutely no
doubt whatsoever that, were we to be at a critical point of Crossrail
construction during the time that the sports are going on, it
would be possible to work out a programme to make sure that we
did not have dust and lorries at critical places and at critical
times during the Games.
Q353 Mr Goodwill: In relation to the
Arup report, I am sure you are being very wise in drawing lessons
from Athens where there was a lot of very tacky paint around at
the start of the Olympics and cost over-runs, for example, in
relation to the Dome or dare I mention the World Student Games
in Sheffield. The Arup report is a report that this Committee
has consistently tried to get hold of and we have only so far
had the executive summary. Is it that this report is now past
its sell-by date and no longer relevant? If so, is it possible
we could have a timetable in terms of reaching particular targets
by particular dates and the budgeting, because you already mentioned
the possibility of cost over-runs. I think most people rather
expect the Olympics to over-run. We need to have an early indication
if that is likely to happen.
Mr Caborn: It is a DCMS report.
We will try and give you as much information as possible. If we
give you the full report, there is a lot of confidential information
in it but I have no doubt there are rules about who can have access
to that. If it is germane to your inquiry, we will try and give
as much information as possible to you.
Q354 Chairman: We would like the answer
to why, when you were asked under the Freedom of Information Act
for access, you said that you had not decided whether it was in
the public interest to release the information. Have you come
to that conclusion yet?
Mr Caborn: No. We are currently
still examining the report as to whether the information might
be released into the public domain.
Q355 Chairman: You would be prepared
to offer it to us on the basis of confidentiality?
Mr Caborn: I will take that away
and I think we will be able to accommodate the Committee in that
sense.
Q356 Mr Goodwill: The second question
relates to a perception which is emerging certainly in Yorkshire—it
may well be round the country as well—which is linking,
for example, the cancellation of a road project in my constituency
or the cancellation of the Leeds super tram scheme to the Olympics.
Could our Transport Minister comment on this because it does seem
that certainly the regional press are latching on to this. Is
there any truth in these worries?
Ms Buck: There really is not any
truth in it. The Olympics transport plan has been fully costed,
assessed in its own right and very much of it is already in plans
which build on existing projects: the CTRL, the transport for
London's ten year delivery plan. That is not in any way influencing
the delivery of projects in other parts of the country. Each major
programme in other regions or if they were to be in London would
need to stand on its own merit and demonstrate value for money
amongst other objectives. The budgets for that are separate and
ring fenced away from the Olympics.
Q357 Mr Leech: Would you not accept though
that there is a public perception that schemes throughout the
country including Metrolink in Greater Manchester, for instance—the
£900 million was considered to be too expensive—yet
when a scheme in London comes along something like Crossrail for
instance, that is going to cost 10 billion or a round figure like
that, that is considered perfectly reasonable? Money appears to
be being thrown at London transport initiatives but not at ones
throughout the regions.
Ms Buck: There is now and has
always been a healthy and creative tension between London and
the regions.
Q358 Chairman: You will not mind if those
of us who are not part of that regard that as a slightly sophisticated
interpretation of everything goes to the south east and the rest
of us get the crumbs.
Ms Buck: Those are your words,
not mine. I do accept that perception is there. I do not accept
that perception is real. As a government, we have two duties to
run alongside each other, one of which is to make the best use
of the opportunities for economic growth, which include the role
London and the south east have as drivers in the economy; and,
secondly and very explicitly, to grow the economy in the regions.
Transport has a critical role in that which is why this summer
we announced the indicative allocations for the major projects
for the regions which include the transport, housing and economic
development resources. I am conscious of the fact that Londoners
and people living in the regions always feel, possibly not unreasonably,
that there should always be more done.
Q359 Mr Leech: Is it not the case that,
if Crossrail were suddenly to jump from ten billion to 14 or 15
billion, you would still be looking to fund that, whereas other
schemes that have suddenly become more expensive have been cancelled?
Ms Buck: At the moment, we are
examining ways in which Crossrail can be funded and the basis
of the cost profile we have. If that changed, who knows?
Mr Scott: Just to redress the balance,
as a London constituency MP obviously welcoming Crossrail, as
you quite rightly said, there is no funding there at the moment.
There is still a question mark for how it is going to be funded.
This service, which admittedly we are not here to discuss today,
is vital as a cross-London link.
| 
