1 Introduction
1. This is the second Report from this Committee
to examine the preparations for the London 2012 Olympic Games
and Paralympic Games. In January 2007, we published a substantial
Report on the funding of the Games and their potential legacies—sporting,
economic and regenerative. One year later, we are returning to
the subject, drawing on oral evidence taken from November 2007
to January 2008,[1] together
with written evidence submitted in response to a press notice
issued by the Committee on 16 October 2007. This Report also takes
into account information published by the Government, the London
Organising Committee for the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games
(LOCOG), the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), and others, during
the past twelve months.
2. We have undertaken two visits which have helped
in forming our views. In November 2007, we held a private meeting
with key figures in LOCOG and the ODA at the London 2012 offices
at Canary Wharf, before travelling to the site of the future Olympic
Park in East London. In June 2007, while in Canada (principally
for meetings relevant to a separate inquiry, into public service
content) we took the opportunity to meet officials from the Organising
Committee for the Vancouver Winter Games in 2010, as well as representatives
of the government of British Columbia, the host province.
3. Our earlier Report was published at a time of
considerable apprehension and uncertainty about the costs of the
Games and how those costs would be met. The bid to host the Games
had been won only 18 months earlier, and while work to assemble
the land and the project planning was well advanced, few of the
"milestones" marking the various stages of the programme
had been passed.
4. This Report is being published at a time when
the climate is quite different: difficult decisions have been
taken on how much the Games should cost and how that cost should
be met; signs of progress in preparation of the site are very
visible; and the contracts for constructing venues and infrastructure
are either being let or are to be let shortly. The programme overall
is running according to timetable, if not marginally ahead of
it.[2] We
commend LOCOG and the ODA for wha
There are signs that the
London 2012 Games programme is working to a realistic timetable
and that strenuous efforts are being made to fulfil the vision
set out in the bid. However, a lot of thinking still needs to
be done, particularly on how to extract the maximum legacy value;
and we continue to have serious reservations about the costs of
the Games and their impact upon Lottery distributors.
5. In this Report, we do not attempt to provide a
commentary on every aspect of the London 2012 Games programme.
We dwell at some length on the financing of the Games, the legacy
use for individual venues, progress in defining and delivering
the benefits for sport throughout the country at all levels, both
in the years leading up to the Games and in the Games' aftermath,
and prospects for performance by British athletes at the Beijing
and London Games. We plan to examine in a future Report the extent
to which expectations of benefits from the Games in the nations
and regions are likely to be met.
1 Witnesses included the national governing bodies
for cycling, swimming and athletics, UK Sport, LOCOG, the Olympic
Delivery Authority, the British Olympic Association and the British
Paralympic Association, the Mayor of London's Office, the London
Development Agency, the Five Host Boroughs, Greenwich Leisure
Limited, Sport England, Gerry Sutcliffe MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the
Rt Hon. Tessa Jowell MP, Minister for the Olympics and London. Back
2
Q 81 Back
|
