Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Second Report

5   Legacy

92. It has been claimed that the legacy planning for the London Olympic and Paralympic Games was more central to London's bid than it had been to any previous host city bid. The ODA argued that this was "the first time that Games and legacy planning has worked hand in hand".[195] We commend the bid team for the enormous weight placed upon sporting and community legacy: this was one of the great strengths of the bid and may have been decisive in the award by the IOC in Singapore. It is all the more important, therefore, that it should be delivered.

Regeneration of East London

93. The Mayor of London has described a "lasting legacy of benefits for London and Londoners" as being central to his vision for London 2012.[196] The contribution which the development of the Olympic Park site will make towards the economic regeneration of East London is a major factor in this vision and was articulated in the bid document: "By staging the Games in this part of the city, the most enduring legacy of the Olympics will be the regeneration of an entire community for the direct benefit of everyone who lives there".[197] When the Games have concluded, the London Development Agency will have responsibility for delivering the commercial and residential future envisaged for the Park, which will form part of a wider regeneration of the Lower Lea Valley. The detail of the redevelopment of the Park itself is still being drawn up, but it will include commercial space, new affordable homes and open parkland in addition to the sports venues which will be retained in legacy mode.[198] Mr Higgins told us that the Mayor of London would launch an area framework for the Lea Valley, possibly in January 2007, and that 40,000 new homes and over 50,000 new jobs were planned for the area.[199]

94. For these purposes, we interpret regeneration in its broadest sense, extending beyond the redevelopment of infrastructure and the provision of new residential and commercial space. The Host Boroughs, for instance, see the Games as providing opportunities for jobs and business creation both before and during the Games, generating a legacy of skills, jobs and businesses after 2012.[200] The London Borough of Tower Hamlets expanded on this theme in its submission, noting the potential for "improvements in the education, skills and knowledge of the local labour force in an area of very high unemployment".[201] It also identified a softer legacy: "to change the area and the life chances and experiences of many".[202]

95. The Mayor of London and local boroughs have all recognised the scope for using the Games as a lever for local benefit.[203] The Greater London Authority has co-ordinated the preparation of a detailed delivery plan for each sub-objective of the Programme Objectives for the Games for which the Mayor of London is responsible. Drafts of each plan have been sent to key stakeholders in London, and the GLA intends "to revise and consolidate the plans into a single regional plan that will guide all work in this area over the coming months and years".[204]

96. We have not considered in detail these draft Delivery Plans or the prospects for the benefits outlined in them actually to be realised. We do, however, note the belief expressed by Host Boroughs - particularly Tower Hamlets - that the role of relevant local authorities should be more clearly recognised and that host boroughs and local government would be better reflected as "Lead Stakeholders" in the set of Olympic Objectives and Sub-objectives agreed by the Olympic Board. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets also argued that "nowhere in the institutional framework [for delivering the Games] is an agency charged with sole responsibility for delivering the regeneration legacy for East and South East London".[205]

97. While we accept that local authorities should be closely involved in identifying benefits and helping to deliver them, and that those roles should be recognised, we do not believe that the omission of any explicit mention of local authorities in the Olympic Objectives need necessarily mean that their role and value is ignored. Nor do we accept entirely the second point, as the Programme Objectives agreed by the Olympic Board set out clearly sub-objectives for maximising employment and skills benefits for Londoners as well as wider economic, cultural and social benefits; and responsibility for these outcomes is clearly attributed to the Mayor of London.[206] We are satisfied that responsibility for delivering the regeneration legacy for London rests clearly with the Mayor of London. However, the Mayor must acknowledge that local authorities, as the bodies most aware of local needs, are best placed to convey local opinion.


98. The Olympic Park will contain five permanent new sporting venues, described in the Candidature File[207] as follows:

—  The Olympic Stadium: to be converted to a 25,000 seat multi-purpose venue with athletics at its core, containing training facilities, offices and sports science and sports medicine facilities;

—  The Aquatics Centre, comprising two 50-metre pools, a 25 metre diving pool and a fitness centre, to accommodate elite, development, local club and community use in legacy mode;

—  A velodrome, offering seating for 3,000 and including competition and recreational BMX tracks and a mountain biking course for use by all levels of cyclists;

—  A hockey centre, providing training and competition facilities for hockey at all levels; and

—  An Indoor Sport Centre, converted from Arena 3 (to be used for handball competition at the Games) and to become a training and competition venue and regional home for a range of indoor sports, with flexible seating for up to 10,000 people.

We note that the hockey centre pitches will be relocated and merged with the Paralympic tennis facilities to become dual purpose hockey/tennis centre after the Games.[208]

Olympic Stadium

99. As we note above, the Candidature File stated clearly that athletics would be at the core of its legacy use. The ODA is working to a concept of a "Living Stadium", with permanent seating for 25,000, to form a centrepiece for the local community, with a programme of events and a mix of uses that make sure that it is used throughout the year.[209] The ODA has commissioned a feasibility study on stadium legacy, and consultations have been held with community groups and sporting associations to explore likely legacy use and demand.[210] The ultimate decision on legacy use of the stadium will, however, be made by the Olympic Board.[211]

100. The ODA announced on 13 October 2006 that it was to enter negotiations with the Team McAlpine Consortium, with a view to appointing it early in 2007 to design and construct the Stadium. The ODA stated that the submission by Team McAlpine was the only one which met all of its pre-qualification criteria.[212]

101. There is some controversy over the proposed legacy use for the stadium. The local authority, the London Borough of Newham, would prefer to see a major football club (such as West Ham United) as an anchor tenant for the Stadium once the Games have concluded. It implies that the "Living Stadium" concept advanced by the ODA might not be realistic or sustainable, and it argues that a financial strategy to base capacity at 25,000 seats and expand to 45,000 temporarily when required "appears more risk-laden and open to policy change".[213]

102. No progress has been made so far with any plans for any football club to become "resident" at the Stadium. The cost of increasing the permanent seating capacity to the levels required for a major football club is substantial - possibly £100 million[214] - and no club has come forward with an offer to meet that cost. Intriguingly, it may yet prove a workable solution for a smaller club, for which a permanent seating capacity of 25,000 would be enough.

103. The commitment to retain an athletics facility at the Stadium once the Games had finished may have been a deciding factor when the decision on Host City was made in Singapore. In any case, London needs a world-class athletics stadium: Crystal Palace would need huge investment to bring it up to the standard required; the decision was taken not to build athletics facilities into the Wembley design;[215] and the proposed national athletics centre at Picketts Lock was of course never built, which drew heavy criticism from our predecessor Committee.[216] We see considerable attractions, however, in a football or rugby club adopting the stadium as its home, provided that it will guarantee to accommodate major athletics events if notified in good time. Having a permanent athletics track around the pitch would not be every football fan's first choice; but that does not present an insuperable obstacle. We understand that the Olympic stadium in Sydney includes a lower tier of 25,000 seats which can be retracted to provide more space for athletics.[217] The Committee visited the Olympic Stadium in Berlin, designed for the 1936 Olympic Games but now serving as an impressive home stadium to FC Hertha Berlin. The stadium was of course used to host the FIFA World Cup final in July 2006. The Committee also most recently saw the Olympic Stadium in Athens which serves as the temporary home of two teams as well as being used for athletics events and concerts.

104. The Government has not closed the door to a football or rugby club becoming "anchor tenant"; and Mr Higgins told us that "if we can get football clubs in there to help mitigate the operating costs, we will certainly be very open to that".[218] Time is now running out, though, as the Secretary of State made clear.[219] The concerns of the London Borough of Newham about the long-term sustainability of the Stadium seem to us to be justified, and we recommend that, if no club comes forward in the near future with a viable proposal to become "anchor tenant" in the Olympic Stadium once the Games have concluded, an effort should nonetheless be made to allow scope in the final design for use as a home ground for a club with a significant and regular following. We note that, in some countries, the Olympic Stadium has become the national centre for team sports, such as football or rugby. However, the significant development of Twickenham and the construction of the new Wembley stadium remove this option and will undoubtedly make its legacy use a much greater challenge, since Wembley will be competing to host many of the events which the Olympic Stadium might hope to attract.

Aquatics Centre

105. The plans for the Aquatics Centre have evolved from those included in the Candidature File.[220] The London Borough of Newham told us that "the majority of changes are sensible and make economic sense, while not fundamentally altering the functionality of the facility".[221] The ODA pointed out that changes had allowed for a significant reduction in running costs.[222]

106. The submission from the London Borough of Newham voiced concern that the design being proposed at the time that the submission was being prepared did not provide for "leisure water" when in community legacy use. It cited a number of arguments in favour of leisure water as an element of legacy provision: the local population was very young, with 42% being under the age of 25; there was clear evidence of leisure pools being most used by the local community, and comparable water spaces (such as Beijing and Sheffield) had made significant provision for leisure water; and a mixed leisure and traditional use was more in line with a Government focus on sporting activity rather than "organised" sport.[223] It observed that the ODA appeared open to the inclusion of leisure water and had agreed to re-assess options, the obstacles being capital cost and site constraints.

107. We have considerable sympathy with the views expressed by Newham Borough Council on legacy use of the Aquatics Centre. When visiting Seoul in May 2006, the Committee saw the pool used to host aquatic events at the Seoul Games in 1988. The main pool was used largely for teaching swimming and had little or no provision for "leisure water". The pool did not appear busy when the Committee visited, and the impression gained was that the site was under-used. In Athens too, there appeared to be only limited community use of the Aquatics Centre. We note that discussions are still under way between the Olympic Delivery Authority and the Host Boroughs, and we strongly recommend that the design for the Aquatics Centre should provide for a mix of leisure use and traditional "lane" swimming.

Broadcast and press centre

108. It was announced in January 2006 that the International Broadcast Centre/Main Press Centre, with an initial budget of £134 million (at 2004 prices), would be relocated to a site within the Olympic Park.[224] The ODA is currently exploring options for legacy use, aiming "to maximise its integration into local regeneration strategies in Hackney Wick".[225] The Olympic Master Plan envisages that the Centre "will provide high quality workspace, supporting the London Borough of Hackney's development plans".[226] In Athens, the Committee learnt that the International Broadcasting Centre was being converted into an Olympic Museum and a shopping mall. Understandably the £134 million price attached to the Broadcast and Press Centre has attracted some controversy. The authorities should justify the cost. Again, too, its future value should be taken into account, along with the other venues, when funding the rising cost of the Olympics is being considered.

Overall view on venues

109. Planning a sustainable legacy use for venues is challenging. The Minister for Sport acknowledged this during the passage of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill, noting that "there has not always been a good legacy of using buildings and facilities … indeed the record is not good for sport per se".[227] Our experience in Seoul bore out this statement: some large venues were used for concerts and other events; but smaller venues (such as the weightlifting stadium) seemed to have no future, and the velodrome appeared virtually derelict. In Athens, the Committee was told that mistakes had been made in not planning for the legacy use of venues from the beginning and in making too many of the venues permanent rather than temporary, considerably increasing the cost. We were also told that the international sporting federations had applied pressure for very high-specification facilities to be built for the Athens Games, which had increased costs considerably. We are not aware that LOCOG has come under such pressure.

110. A useful summary of post-Games use of stadia built for Sydney, Barcelona and Atlanta was prepared for the Joint Planning Applications Team for the four Host Boroughs north of the Thames. In Sydney, a strong focus was placed on the use of facilities after the Games; the Olympic Park was the setting for some 1,750 events in 2002 and hosted the Rugby World Cup in 2003. However, there has since been a shift towards a greater use for cultural and business events. Smaller venues such as the Tennis Centre and the SuperDome "have been fighting publicly for too few events". The Olympic site is now undergoing further reconstruction, this time to provide residential and commercial developments. In Atlanta, the main Olympic Stadium has become a permanent home for a local baseball team; and the Tennis and Rowing Centres have had some success as elite sports centres. In Barcelona, the number of legacy venues had been kept low; they had been flexible in their re-use and had responded well to market demands. The Olympic Stadium itself had become the home of a local football club.[228]

111. The ODA told us that "a tough review of individual venues" had ensured that permanent venues would only be built if the ODA was confident that there would be a legacy use.[229] We believe that the decision to limit to five the number of permanent venues remaining within the Park after the Games was sound. Any pressure from international sporting federations - or indeed from the International Olympic Committee - to build unnecessarily high-specification venues should be strongly resisted. We are reasonably confident that a mixed legacy use should provide a sustainable future for the Aquatics Centre and the Olympic Stadium, although we believe that the latter would be rather more secure if it were also to become the home stadium for a football club, possibly in conjunction with a major rugby club. The smaller permanent venues - for hockey/tennis and for cycling - face a tougher struggle if they are to be commercially successful, although we note the popularity of hockey at community level and the tradition of excellence at cycling in the UK. We are less certain about the future of the indoor sports arena, which may face direct competition with established venues nearby.

Legacy for participation in sport

112. Possibly the greatest prize to emerge from the Games would be a demonstrable increase in participation in sport throughout the community, stimulated by the display and, we hope, by a set of inspiring performances by UK competitors. We heard of anecdotal evidence that the success of the bid itself had triggered "a huge increase in the number of young people who joined sports clubs".[230] The Government is the lead stakeholder identified in the list of Olympic and Paralympic Games Objectives as having responsibility for maximising any increase in UK participation at community and grassroots level in all sport and across all groups.[231] Sport England has been designated by the Government as the Lead Delivery partner to work towards this objective.[232] The Government has been careful not to make extravagant claims about what can be achieved, although the Minister for Sport has stated that anticipated benefits of the Games include "increased interest and participation in sport".[233]

113. The Central Council for Physical Recreation (CCPR) described a legacy of participation as "a main plank in the success of the bid" to host the Games,[234] and we recall Lord Coe's pledge in Singapore in July 2005, reinforced by the presence of groups of children from the UK, to work to ensure that the Games had a positive impact on participation at community level,[235] a commitment which may have been decisive in gathering support. The precedents are not good, however. The CCPR told us that it did not believe that there was any evidence so far that any Olympic Games had "instilled that long-term legacy of participation".[236] Skills Active, the sector skills council for active leisure and learning, warned that it should not be presumed that hosting the Games would naturally inspire inactive people to "change their ways".[237] Research by ippr and Demos in 2004 found that, although hosting the Games in London could deliver a sustained increase in participation, past Olympics had not automatically done so: although seven Olympic sports had experienced a small increase in participation following the Sydney 2000 Games, nine experienced a decline.[238] No host country has yet been able to demonstrate a direct benefit from the Olympic Games in the form of a lasting increase in participation. While we offer every encouragement to the Government and to other stakeholders in achieving such an increase, we believe that lasting success is most likely to be attained through an expansion of school sport and through a greater priority being attached by local authorities to developing community sport. Nonetheless, we note the view of the CCPR that a lasting increase in participation can be achieved as a result of the Games, if the necessary resources are committed and co-ordinated planning at a national level takes place from an early stage.[239] We recommend that DCMS and Sport England should publish a joint plan as soon as possible on implementation of Olympic Sub-Objective 4.4, namely, achieving the maximum increase in UK participation at community and grass-roots level in all sport and across all groups. We further believe that the 'legacy' of the Olympics should not start after 2012, but rather right now. The UK's bid stressed local community participation, yet the Olympics are to take place in some of London's poorest boroughs where many of the inner city schools enjoy not so much as a blade of grass. We recommend, therefore, that DCMS works with the Department for Education and Skills, LOCOG and sponsors to address the lack of sports facilities open to schoolchildren, in particular, on whose doorstep the Olympics will be held.

Economic legacy

114. The potential economic benefits from the Games are very varied and include: commercial opportunities from the Games themselves (some regions have set targets for securing a percentage of procurement opportunities);[240] opportunities for businesses to take advantage of new commercial space in the Olympic Park following the Games; and an expectation that skill levels among the local workforce will improve, assisted by the London 2012 Employment and Skills Taskforce established by the Greater London Authority and the London Development Agency.[241] The Candidature File estimated that 7,000 full-time equivalent jobs might be created in the construction industry and that 12,000 might be created as a result of legacy development of the Olympic Park.[242] In addition, a pre-volunteer programme will seek to prepare those who are in "hard to reach groups with low levels of skills and qualifications" with the skills needed for volunteering roles (and subsequently for employment).[243]

115. Some of these benefits will accrue largely or exclusively to London. However, a substantial slice of the funding for the Games will come from the National Lottery, which draws revenue from across the country. As Mr O'Connor, the Interim Chief Executive of the Olympic Lottery Distributor, said to us, the goal of a long-term legacy in inspiring young people all over the country needed to be delivered if Lottery players were to continue to play Olympic Lottery games.[244] We have therefore concentrated, at this stage, on two areas of economic impact which offer potential benefits for the whole of the UK: tourism and hosting training camps for visiting teams.


116. There is considerable uncertainty surrounding the impact of the 2012 Games on tourism. Various attempts have been made to quantify the effects. At the top end is VisitBritain, which suggests that between 50% and 70% of the net economic benefit of staging the Games, measured over a 7 to 10 year period, could accrue through tourism; in purely monetary terms, VisitBritain calculates that there is a potential benefit "of at least £2 billion for the visitor economy from overseas visitors, plus an even greater benefit to the domestic visitor economy".[245] DCMS is a little more conservative, citing (but not identifying) estimates indicating a benefit to the UK tourism sector of between £1.4 billion and £2 billion.[246] An Olympic Games Impact Study commissioned by DCMS from PriceWaterhouseCoopers reported in December 2005 and concluded that the expected impact on tourism, expressed as an overall change in Gross Value Added over the period 2005-2016, was a rather lower figure: £762 million across UK, £146 million of which would occur during the events themselves.[247]

117. There does seem to be agreement within the industry that the period of the Games themselves will not be a bonanza for tourist traffic. The Tourism Alliance, comprising almost 50 industry associations which in turn represent almost 200,000 businesses, believed that "most inbound Olympics-related tourism will be in substitution for leisure and business tourism that would otherwise occur"; and it cited the experience of previous Games that potential leisure and business visitors would perceive - rightly or wrongly - that London and the UK would be overrun with Olympic-related visitors in 2012.[248] Tourism South East made the same point;[249] and the Tourism Management Institute (the professional body for destination managers) spoke of the need to reassure non-Olympic visitors that Britain "still provides value for money, to counteract fears that accommodation will be scarce and overpriced".[250] Witnesses from the Nations and Regions Group confirmed that there could be a substitution effect during the Games themselves, with not necessarily any net gain in numbers.[251] We agree that fears of overcrowding, high prices and poor availability of accommodation may well deter visitors from coming to London during the period of the Games. To be successful, London must have sufficient capacity, acceptable prices and good quality accommodation to attract visitors during the period of the Games.

118. The Tourism Alliance calculated that any 5% decrease in "normal" visitor traffic in 2012 would lead to a reduction in tourism expenditure of £1.1 billion; and it predicted that any further 5% decrease in UK domestic visitors would reduce tourism expenditure by a further £1.35 billion.[252] The Alliance concluded that an effort was needed to protect existing tourism levels during 2012 and that the UK "should be the first Olympic host to comprehensively plan to mitigate the potential negative effects on regular tourism". The Tourism Management Institute echoed this point, saying that non-Olympic visitors "must be made aware that the rest of Britain is open for business as usual" during 2012.[253]

119. There was much more optimism about scope for increasing tourist traffic after the Games. Mr Castle, the East of England representative on the Nations and Regions Group, described the Games as a "shop window" for the UK. Both he and the Tourism Management Institute saw scope for the Games to generate business tourism.[254] The DCMS memorandum stated that "experience from recent host cities indicates that tourism will increase significantly across the UK, most notably after the Games";[255] and the Tourism Alliance told us that DCMS expected that up to 80% of the legacy benefit to be derived from hosting the Games would be gained through "increased tourism as a result of [the] high degree of international media exposure".[256] The Tourism Alliance itself agreed that the main way that lasting benefits would be reaped would be through media exposure; but it saw Government investment in a tourism strategy as being a necessary part of drawing on that exposure; and it spoke of a "lack of realisation within DCMS that additional funds need to be committed … to marketing and media support". The Government has pledged that the interests of tourism "will be taken into account in all Olympic policy decisions"; underlying this pledge, however, was a statement by the Secretary of State that, in order to increase the number of visitors as a result of the Games, the tourism industry needed "to improve the consistency of its quality, raise the level of skill and, through imaginative marketing, showcase Britain's heritage and its dynamic, 21st century cities".[257]

120. In July 2006, DCMS issued a consultation on a tourism strategy for the 2012 Games: Welcome > Legacy: Tourism Strategy for the 2012 Games - A Consultation. It seeks views on many issues, including:

—   How to ensure that tourism's interests are fully represented in preparations;

—   How to ensure that the sector's marketing structures are ready;

—   How to exploit opportunities for business tourism;

—   How to improve the quality of the welcome; and

—   The setting of "appropriate strategic targets" to replace the existing aim of a £100 billion tourist industry by 2010.

The consultation closed on 17 November, and copies of responses have been placed in the House Library.[258]

121. We very much welcome the effort by DCMS to develop a tourism strategy for the 2012 Games. Although the consultation paper claims not to be designed to inform a comprehensive tourism development strategy and to concentrate merely on what will be needed to deliver improvements by 2012, we note that the consultation invites views on possible new targets to replace the existing ambition of a £1 billion tourist industry by 2010. In doing so, it ranges well beyond the Games and may presage a different approach to tourism by DCMS.

122. The Games will advertise the UK and London in particular; they represent an opportunity to raise profile and invest in future tourism rather than to generate short-term gains. There may well be a need for more investment in tourism by the Government if full advantage is to be taken of that opportunity. We plan to make tourism a subject for inquiry in the near future.

Training camps

123. Lord Coe told us in October 2005 that 139 teams had based themselves in Australia before the Sydney Games in 2000.[259] He described pre-Games preparation as being no longer "an add-on luxury" but "an absolutely essential part of delivering Olympians". He described the contributions made by Team GB to the Queensland economy as "quite sizeable"[260] and cited an estimate by the host country that teams basing themselves in Australia before the Games had added about 80 million Australian dollars to the economy.

124. Local authorities throughout the UK have been quick to build on the potential benefits to be gained from hosting either full national teams or teams for particular sports. Some local authorities and Regional Development Agencies have already devoted time and significant budgets towards attracting teams: we were told that Yorkshire Forward had visited China twice to make Olympic-related links,[261] and Birmingham City Council has made no secret of its attempt to attract the interest of the Chinese Olympic Association, which could bring 1,200 competitors, officials and media, with an estimated benefit of £10 million.[262]

125. The approach taken by some local authorities was criticised by the Central Council for Physical Recreation (CCPR), which told us that "most local authorities seem to have an Olympic director who is travelling around the place trying to attract teams to come and train in their locality". The CCPR argued that local authorities would do better to spend their time and money on developing plans to increase participation.[263]

126. It may be necessary, however, to manage expectations. The Scottish Affairs Committee held an inquiry into the benefits of the 2012 Games for Scotland and took evidence from Mr David Williams, now Chief Executive of EventScotland but previously director-general of the Department for Tourism, Sport and Racing in Queensland in Australia. He told the Scottish Affairs Committee that "in respect of the Games in London there will not be as many teams running pre-Olympic training camps, bearing in mind that the bulk of the wealthy national Olympic committees that would travel are in the northern hemisphere and the time zones are pretty good for them". He added that adjusting to climate would be less of an issue for London, and he concluded by saying "I do not think we will see many training camps in the UK".[264]

127. Julia Bracewell, the Scotland representative on the London 2012 Nations and Regions Group, confirmed this argument in evidence to us, saying that it was mistaken to imagine that National Olympic Committees "will come in their droves and in their entirety to training events": she said that this "is not going to happen", although individual teams or groups of sports would come. She described the experience in Australia as "very unique" and pointed out that the British team was unusual in travelling together as a team.[265] Other representatives from the Nations and Regions Group took a similar line in playing down expectations.[266]

128. London 2012 is playing an active part in linking overseas Olympic and Paralympic teams to pre-Games training facilities in the UK. In July 2006, it announced plans to publish a guide to sporting facilities in the UK, to be issued to all National Olympic Committees and National Paralympic Committees in July 2008. The guide will enable competitor nations to take an informed decision on where to base their teams in training camps, if indeed they planned any training in the UK. The first step will be for interested parties to assess whether they can provide the necessary services and facilities, such as an exclusive training environment, comfortable but affordable accommodation, and security. The deadline for expressions of interest is January 2007, although the final selection by LOCOG would not be made until January 2008.[267] We heard that 13 applications had already been received from interested parties in the South West region alone, with "about 40" applications expected to go forward.[268]

129. London 2012 announced in October that grants totalling approximately £9 million would be made available to encourage overseas Olympic and Paralympic teams to use training camps in the UK in the period leading up to the Games themselves. All National Olympic Committees and Paralympic Committees will be eligible to apply for a credit of up to £26,000 towards the cost of preparation at training camps featured in the guide to facilities being produced in 2008; grants are to be allocated "fairly and equitably".[269] Julia Bracewell described the facility as "fantastic" for "some of the smaller countries".[270]

130. We conclude that training camps are unlikely to be of great economic benefit to the nations and regions; and local authorities should be disabused of any notion that vast sums of money are to be made from the presence of national teams training in advance of the Games. We believe, however, that where they are established the presence of a training team will foster a sense of involvement in the Games in the regions and will provide opportunities for cultural links and for local schools to glimpse elite sport at first hand. The principal benefits of hosting training teams will be through involving the local community rather than generating economic gains.


131. A substantial part of funding for staging the Games - 12% - is expected to be raised through agreements between the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and long-term partners - "TOP sponsors". The IOC therefore requires that steps be taken by host countries and by Organising Committees to protect the commercial gain through association with the Olympics and Paralympics which TOP sponsors expect in exchange. The Olympic rings - the most powerful symbol for the Games - are already statutorily protected in the UK;[271] further measures to protect the Olympic brand were agreed to by Parliament last year and are enshrined in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006.

132. The 2006 Act applies the principle of an Olympic association right to the London 2012 Games. The association right confers exclusive rights in relation to the use of any representation in a manner likely to suggest to the public that there is an association between the London Olympics and goods or services (or a person who provides goods or services). That right is infringed if such an association has not been authorised by LOCOG. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Act specifies words and expressions which may, when combined, be deemed by a court to infringe the association right if used by a person not authorised by LOCOG.

133. The extension of the Olympic association right was one of the more contentious parts of the 2006 Act and was seen as a potential threat to the scope for businesses, voluntary bodies, schools and organisers of events to use certain expressions in their normal course of work. The Central Council for Physical Recreation, while recognising the need to protect Olympic marks and symbols, was anxious that non-commercial use of terms and symbols in the course of generating grassroots enthusiasm for sport as a result of the Games should not be prevented.[272] Others who submitted evidence to us took a similar view,[273] including Mr Castle, representing the East of England on the Nations and Regions Group. While acknowledging that sponsorship revenue was "absolutely critical" for delivery of the Games and that it had to be duly protected, he pointed out that there was a real opportunity, "perhaps in a fairly unique way" for civic society to drive the benefits into the nation generally. In order to do that, he believed that there had to be some association with the Games themselves.[274] We note that, in theory, the promotion of a school or village event termed "Summer Games" or "2012 Competition" might be caught under the Act. A paper from West Sussex County Council provided to us by Tourism South East argued that "it does make it difficult to generate widespread involvement and ownership if we cannot use the Olympic emblems to badge our activity and to give people something to rally around".[275] The CCPR made it clear in oral evidence, however, that it did not with to "overplay the point"; and it commended LOCOG for having clarified to sports governing bodies some of the regulation on the protection of symbols.[276] Mr Castle was similarly impressed with the work done so far in this area by the LOCOG Brand Protection Team.[277]

134. When we raised this issue with the Secretary of State in October 2005, before the relevant legislation had received Royal Assent, she stated that the principles would be applied in a way which was "consistent with all our expectations of proportionality" and on a "case-by-case basis".[278] Interpretation will be for the courts, and the Secretary of State signalled clearly that a commonsense approach should be taken, something which she expected would be borne out as case law was established.[279] LOCOG has not, as yet, had to issue proceedings for breach of the association right.[280] We note that the Sydney Organising Committee sought to resolve through dialogue any cases of possible infringement, with only one case being decided in the Australian courts.[281]

135. When appearing before the Committee in November 2006, the Secretary of State told us that she was "very exercised" by concerns that towns, villages and cities across the country should feel involvement and an association with the Games, and she said that "we are looking at how we can create a brand which does not fall foul of the commercial relationship as part of sponsorship that people can use, that schools can use, that local sports clubs … drama groups …[and] village schools can use".[282] We note that local authorities are already attempting to devise such brands.[283] We conclude that an ability to associate with the 2012 Games on a non-commercial basis is essential if community involvement and legacy is to be realised to its full potential. We recommend to the International Olympic Committee that it should work with LOCOG to identify ways of permitting this.

Cultural Olympiad

136. The Cultural Olympiad is a comparatively new concept and has not traditionally been a significant part of Olympic or Paralympic Games.[284] Described as "a four-year period celebration of culture, reflecting the diverse communities which make up London and the UK",[285] the London 2012 Cultural Olympiad will open as soon as the Beijing Games close in 2008. The intention is that it should "encourage more people, particularly children and young people, to experience and participate in cultural activity".[286] Some ingredients of the Cultural Olympiad were described in the Candidature File, including the Friend-ship, "a full-size, ocean-going clipper, crewed by young people, artists, philosophers and students under the command of professional officers". The ship would be launched at the end of the Beijing Games and would "travel the world in the lead-up to the 2012 Games".[287] Other elements include a festival of world youth culture, to be "staged along the waterways, bridges and streets of a revitalised Lower Lea Valley"; a "major exhibition of world art and artefacts" in London museums; a five-day Olympic carnival; and a series of Olympic Proms in the Royal Albert Hall.[288]

137. The Voluntary Arts Network listed a number of suggestions made by its members for possible cultural events and activities, including an international theatre festival for amateurs, digital story telling, more prominence for crafts, a world choir, and work with the BBC to provide young sports commentators with TV and radio presenting skills.[289] The Museums, Libraries and Archives partnership contributed further ideas, such as developing engagement of athletes from previous Olympics as well as from the 2012 Games with local museums, and developing fashion-based projects such as competitions for sportswear and involving higher education and further education courses.[290]

138. The London Borough of Newham suggested to us that "opportunities for a wider cultural legacy for the Park are currently being overlooked in the legacy planning processes", and it claimed that cultural planning for the Olympics "currently only identifies a narrow spread of stakeholders, largely excluding representation from local authorities and key local and regional cultural partners".[291] Heritage Link also relayed to us anxiety felt among smaller voluntary sector organisations that they were somewhat marginalised in discussions on maximising the benefits of the Olympics.[292] We put this latter point to witnesses representing the Nations and Regions Group, who sought to reassure us that within the various regional groups culture was "very much embedded" and that (at least in the case of the East of England and the South West) the Regional Cultural Consortium was "one of the key partners" or was the source of cultural initiatives for the regional group. [293]

139. The Museums, Libraries and Archives partnership pointed out that engagement with the Cultural Olympiad would rely largely on local authority cultural services, observing that it was "critical that local government is able to support the role of the sector in the Games and its potential legacy".[294] When we raised this point with witnesses from the Nations and Regions Group, they suggested that there was a general principle to be followed: "it is not necessarily about doing lots of new things; it is about achieving existing targets and priorities and using the Games … as the magic dust to try and actually accelerate the delivery of some of those existing priorities".[295]

140. The Cultural Olympiad has received comparatively little attention so far. We recommend that the Government should do more to publicise and co-ordinate it, drawing together ideas, sharing good practice, and increasing awareness of some of the more practical and imaginative suggestions which are being made .

Olympic Trust

141. A trust fund, endowed with a total of £40 million in residual income from the Millennium Commission and grant funding from Arts Council England, the Big Lottery and DCMS, has been established to support activities across the country associated with the Olympics. The trust will have the power to fund projects which will:

—  promote the Olympic and Paralympic ideals celebrating mind, body and spirit;

—  foster innovation and creativity;

—  strengthen the creative and technical skills base across the UK;

—  encourage a joined-up approach across sport, physical activity, culture and education;

—  offer young people and diverse communities the opportunity to fully participate in the build up and delivery of the wider vision for the Games in 2012, and

—  leave a lasting positive legacy of the 2012 Games for future generations.[296]

142. The contribution from DCMS, amounting to £6 million, will be ring-fenced to support a series of UK School Games, the first of which were held in Glasgow in September 2006.[297] The philosophy for the School Games is that it should be "a multi-sport event for the most talented young people in the country of school age in an environment designed to replicate the feel of major events such as the Olympic and Paralympic Games".[298] Further Games are to be held in Coventry in 2007 and in other cities yet to be determined from 2008 to 2011.[299]

Legacy for the nations and regions

143. The right to host the 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games was won by London. Under the Olympic Charter, all sports on the Games programme should be held in the Host City, with the regular exception of sailing and the agreed exception of football.[300] Much public support, however, was secured on the understanding that the benefits would be spread beyond London to all the nations and regions of the UK. The Lottery tickets which will make a substantial contribution to meeting the costs of the Games are being bought across the country. An effort has been made, within the constraints imposed by the International Olympic Committee, to disperse events.[301]

144. The decision to establish a Nations and Regions Group, to "provide leadership and strategic direction in ensuring that the whole of the UK is engaged" with the anticipated benefits of the Games[302] was a far-sighted one. Witnesses from the Group described the 2012 Games as "a UK Games hosted in London".[303] Indeed, the nations and regions stand to benefit in many of the ways outlined above, if achieved - increased participation in sport, increased awareness of the UK as a tourist destination, engagement with elite sport through contact with national teams in training, and cultural spin-offs. Working groups have been formed in each of the nations and regions and have developed individual strategies to maximise the benefits locally: these initial strategies have been submitted to Government and to LOCOG[304] for comment and are likely to be confirmed in the near future. The strategies are expected to evolve as circumstances change.

145. Membership of the working groups includes representatives of sport, business, local government, culture, tourism, education, the voluntary sector and other key interest groups.[305] We were assured by representatives of the Nations and Regions Group that the working groups' strategies were based upon a "bottom-up" approach driven by grassroots interests.[306] We note that a decision was taken at an early stage of the bid that engagement outside London would be led by Regional Development Agencies and by Regional Sports Boards, and we heard that local authorities were only now being "brought into it".[307] We welcome the Nations and Regions Group's recognition that local and community interests must underlie national and regional strategies, and we are encouraged by the Group's account of work under way. We also endorse the concept articulated by the group that the Games should be a UK Games hosted in London. We will in time, however, seek further evidence that the working groups formed in each nation and region truly reflect all elements of their communities in their work.

195   Ev 1 Back

196   Ev 84 Back

197   Candidature File, Volume 1, page 19 Back

198   Ev 85; see also ODA memorandum, Ev 5 Back

199   Q 12 Back

200   Ev 81 Back

201   Ev 126 Back

202   Ev 128 Back

203   See for instance Ev 127 and Q 165, HC 552-iii, Session 2005-06 Back

204   Ev 85 Back

205   Ev 129 Back

206   Ev 60 Back

207   Volume 1, page 23 Back

208   Ev 4: see also Olympic Masterplan, London 2012 website. Back

209   Ev 5 Back

210   Q 43 Back

211   HC Deb, 26 October 2006, col. 2006W Back

212   London 2012 Media Release, 13 October 2006 Back

213   Ev 92-3 Back

214   Mr Higgins: See transcript of plenary meeting of the London Assembly, 15 November 2006 Back

215   See HC Deb, 15 March 2000, col. 250W Back

216   Unpicking the Lock: First Report of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 2001-02, HC 264; see also Secretary of State, Q 151 Back

217   Sunday Times 15 October 2006 Back

218   Q 43 Back

219   Q 199 Back

220   See ODA Press Release, 27 November 2006 Back

221   Ev 93 Back

222   Ev 5 Back

223   Ev 93 Back

224   HC Deb, 30 January 2006, cols. 1-2WS Back

225   Ev 5 Back

226   See London 2012 website Back

227   HC Deb, Standing Committee D, 13 October 2005, col. 53 Back

228   Available until late November 2006 at Back

229   Ev 4 Back

230   Mr Moorcroft, Q 72, HC 552-i, Session 2005-06 Back

231   Sub-Objective 4.4; Ev 60 Back

232   Ev 112 Back

233   HC Deb,18 July 2006, col. 329W Back

234   Mr Lamb Q 94 Back

235   See London 2012 Media Release, 27 June 2005  Back

236   Q 90 Back

237   Ev 109 Back

238   ippr Press Release: London Olympics can deliver a sporting legacy, 30 August 2004 Back

239   QQ 90, 93 and 113 Back

240   Mr Castle, East of England representative on the Nations and Regions Group told us that the East of England was aiming to secure 10% of Olympic procurement; but Juliet Williams, the South West representative, said that the South West did not expect a large percentage: Q 132 Back

241   Ev 58 Back

242   Candidature File Volume 1 p 25. The 12,000 figure was confirmed in the DCMS memorandum, Ev 57 Back

243   Ev 58; see also Mr Deighton, Q 52 Back

244   Q 77 Back

245   Ev 133 Back

246   Ev 59 Back

247   Olympic Games Impact Study: Final Report, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, December 2005 Back

248   Ev 117 Back

249   Ev 126 Back

250   Ev 124 Back

251   QQ 126 and 127 Back

252   Ev 117; figures in 2005 prices Back

253   Ev 124 Back

254   Ev 51; also Ev 123 Back

255   Ev 59 Back

256   Ev 118 Back

257   DCMS Press Release 158/05, 15 November 2005 Back

258   HC Deb, 22 November 2006, Col. 115W. Back

259   Q 54, HC 552-i, Session 2005-06 Back

260   A DTI Minister cited a figure of £6 million in benefits to the Brisbane economy due to the presence of the British team: HC Deb, 19 October 2006, col. 1002 Back

261   Information from West Sussex County Council, provided to the Committee by Tourism South East [not printed]  Back

262   See for instance Birmingham Mail 22 November 2006 Back

263   Mr Lamb Q 97 Back

264   Q 147, Evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee on 22 November 2005, HC 658-iii, Session 2005-06 Back

265   Q 119 Back

266   Ms Williams and Mr Castle, Q 128 Back

267   London 2012 Media Release 20 July 2006 Back

268   Ms Williams, Q 119 Back

269   London 2012 Media Release, 23 October 2006; also Mr Deighton, Q 54 Back

270   Q 119 Back

271   Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995 Back

272   Ev 37 Back

273   For instance Sport England Ev 112 Back

274   Q 133 Back

275   Paper from West Sussex County Council to Tourism South East [not printed]  Back

276   Q 107 Back

277   Q 133 Back

278   Q 134, HC 552-ii, Session 2005-06 Back

279   Q 138 HC 552-ii, Session 2005-06 Back

280   Supplementary memorandum from the Secretary of State, Ev 74 Back

281   HC Deb, Standing Committee D, London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill, 18 October 2005, col. 118. Back

282   Q 185 Back

283   Paper from West Sussex County Council to Tourism South East [not printed]  Back

284   Julia Bracewell, Q 134 Back

285   DCMS memorandum, Ev 58 Back

286   DCMS memorandum, Ev 58 Back

287   Candidature File section 17.1 Back

288   Candidature File section 17.1 Back

289   Voluntary Arts Network memorandum [not printed] Back

290   Ev 104 Back

291   Ev 95 Back

292   Ev 88 Back

293   Mr Castle and Ms Williams Q 134 Back

294   Ev 102 Back

295   Mr Castle Q 136 Back

296   Millennium Commission Press Release 16 October 2006 Back

297   Memorandum from the Millennium Commission, Ev 100 Back

298   Millennium Commission memorandum Ev 100 Back

299   Mr O'Connor, Q78 Back

300   Memorandum by Mr Craig Reedie CBE, Ev 28, HC 552, Session 2005-06 Back

301   Sailing events will take place at Weymouth; rowing events at Eton Dorney; football matches at Glasgow, Newcastle, Manchester, Cardiff and Birmingham; and further events at Weald Country Park in Essex and Broxbourne in Hertfordshire.  Back

302   HC Deb, 18 July 2006, col. 329W Back

303   Mr Castle, Q 114 Back

304   Q 115 Back

305   Letter from London 2012 to the Chief Executive of the Central Council for Physical Recreation, 31 October 2006 [not printed] Back

306   Q 116 Back

307   Q 117 Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 24 January 2007