Examination of Witnesses (Questions 480
- 493)
TUESDAY 29 JANUARY 2008
RT HON
TESSA JOWELL
MP, MR JONATHAN
STEPHENS AND
MR JEREMY
BEETON
Q480 Adam Price:
The agreements are already in place in terms of the private finance?
Tessa Jowell: They are being negotiated
now. Again, Chairman, I am very happy for the Committee to be
kept informed of the progress of negotiations which may for public
purposes be commercial in confidence. You would be very welcome
to have them.[4]
Q481 Adam Price:
In terms of the original timetable, when did you expect to sign
off on these agreements on private finance for the Olympic village
and the media centres?
Mr Beeton: There are three big
areas: the retail area is imminent with Westfield. That is pretty
well known. They are investing about £1.5 billion of their
money in the huge retail centre built around Stratford Station.
We are in negotiations with Lend Lease, Australia. We expect that
deal to be done in two parts actually, probably a commercial part
first, pretty imminent, in a few weeks, and then a financial close
at the end of this financial year. That is about the same amount
of money, £1.5 billion, that they are putting in. There is
a slight difference in that Westfield are funding it probably
from the balance sheet and Lend Lease will be part balance sheet,
part debt. Then with the media centre, we are still in the process
of evaluation. We have two teams that we are taking to the wire
and that deal we expect to be in place probably by April. So that
is going well.
Q482 Helen Southworth:
Can I move on to the issues around the future of the Olympic Park?
Earlier on this month the LDA told the Committee that no decision
on tenancy arrangements for the Olympic Park venues after the
Games were going to be taken before March 2009. Certainly in the
North West region one of the things we are intensely proud about
the Commonwealth Games was how very effective not just the Games
but the legacy contribution of the Games was to our region. I
cannot help but believe that a lot of that was because the initial
design and preparation work was taken with a very clear understanding
of what the outcome was going to be and who was going to be using
it and how that was going to be financed. When you are working
on something of such complexity as this is, surely those things
are even more important because every design change is going to
have such a knock-on cost. What is the Government's role in getting
the LDA to move along a little?
Tessa Jowell: Let me just try
and answer that. First of all, legacy is part of the specification
that is being negotiated now for every venue, so the legacy use
of the Aquatics Centre is clear. The British Swimming Association
say that this is going to be like their Wembley. It will be the
finest aquatic centre in Europe. The cyclists feel exactly the
same about the velodrome; it will be the best in the world, as
Manchester is at the moment, but Manchester is bursting at the
seams because its presence in Manchester has had such an impact
on participation in cycling that its size is exceeded by the demand.
If we look right across the Olympic Park, the legacy plans are
clear and there is also provision within the £9.325 billion
for legacy conversion. There is a legacy conversion cost for the
stadium to take it down from 80,000 to 25,000. There is a legacy
conversion for the Aquatics Centre. There are very little legacy
conversion costs for the velopark and so forth. Of course, with
the temporary venues, there is the possibility of their relocation
in other parts of the country, creating also legacy condition
to the sports equipment. So the design of the Park now for its
legacy use is absolutely fundamental and what we are currently
engaged in, and you will have heard about this from the leaders
of the five boroughs, and I am passionate about this, is the importance
of the engagement of the local community in the process of determining
the nature and type of the legacy so that people who live in that
area feel that this is their park, that this is not some monster
which has been imposed on them over which they have had no influence
and no control. That is why, as of now, legacy is being steered
by a committee chaired by the Mayor on which the five borough
leaders sit together with the LDA, myself, and the Minister for
Housing and Planning. That will then translate come 2009 into
the permanent legacy management body for the Park. The legacy
masterplan will be published in 2009. The Legacy Director has
been appointed by the LDA and the outline plan will be published
in the course of this year and then that will be subject to very
extensive negotiation and discussion and local involvement in
the run-up to the publication of the final masterplan in 2009,
but with lots of lessons learned from Manchester.
Q483 Chairman:
The ODA you say is going to meet the cost of conversion to post-legacy
use. What about the ongoing revenue costs of these facilities?
Tessa Jowell: Those will be negotiated
on a venue by venue basis. The Mayor has already committed a sum
of money to meeting the ongoing costs of legacy. This again is
part of the discussion and the negotiation that we will have in
the context of the overall management of the Park: who will be
responsible for running the Aquatics Centre, who will be responsible
for running the velopark, and obviously the running costs in the
legacy period will be part of that negotiation.
Q484 Chairman:
Can I ask you about the temporary venues? It was suggested they
could be relocated elsewhere after the Games. Can you tell us
what progress has been made in determining their future?
Tessa Jowell: Yes. Sport England
has been helping with this consultation and I think it is again
important to be clear that the cost of relocating a venue would
be a cost that would be borne by the recipient, and that is clearly
material to whether a local authority actually feels they want
a basketball hangar or whatever the venue might be. You will also
know that there are a very substantial number of temporary venues
both off-Park and within the Park. A number of these are still
subject to discussion with the governing bodies about the extent,
even though they are temporary venues, of their legacy use. As
those discussions progress, again, I would be very happy to keep
the Committee updated with negotiations that it is not necessarily
appropriate to make public at this moment. So market testing will
be carried out during the course of this year. That will be very
much led by Sport England. The criteria that Sport England are
applying to the relocation of venues is, first of all, the capacity
to increase participation, the impact on elite sport, the contribution
to the wider legacy priorities—promoting health, social
cohesion—the costs to the recipient, the potential for commercial
sponsorship in other parts of the country, and obviously, the
borough or the organisation that takes responsibility must have
the capacity and the competence to operate the venue. So this
is work in hand. We expect there to be fairly major progress in
this during the course of this year and, as I say, I am very happy
to keep the Committee updated.[5]
Q485 Chairman:
Why should the ODA pay the conversion cost for post-legacy use
for the permanent fixtures but not the relocation costs for a
temporary fixture?
Mr Stephens: The ODA has in its
budget the cost of removing the temporary venues, so returning
the Park to a basis for future development. It does not have in
its budget the cost of transporting them. Indeed, we do not know
where they might be transported to, whether that is actually the
economic, value for money outcome or not. So the cost of removing
the venues is in the budget; the cost of relocating them elsewhere
is not.
Q486 Chairman:
You would be looking for a local authority perhaps to bid for
that?
Tessa Jowell: Absolutely, a local
authority or a local authority in partnership with a commercial
organisation.
Q487 Chairman:
That is what your soft market testing is all about?
Tessa Jowell: Yes, exactly, but
this is virgin territory because we are so far ahead of other
cities on the scale of our legacy vision that this is uncharted.
Q488 Mr Evans:
I know you want to get the community as much involved with the
Olympics as you possibly can throughout the whole of the UK. There
has been a problem up to now about the use of the symbols by non-commercial
organisations. Have you made any progress with your discussions
with LOCOG on that?
Tessa Jowell: There is a lot of
discussion and negotiation about this. LOCOG are as committed
as we are to making what is called the non-endorsement brand available
for community use. I am sure that the Committee will understand
that the pressure on LOCOG at the moment is to secure all their
tier sponsors in order that the sponsorship income which they
have budgeted to come from private supporters, private sponsors,
is secured and, for those private sponsors to come on board, being
a sponsor has to be worth the very considerable amount of money
that they are being asked for. We are looking as of now at a phased
implementation of use of the community brand with, in a sense,
access increasing the closer we get to the Games. The other tension
is to make sure that the use of the community brand continues
to be worth something and that, whether it is for schools, local
sports clubs, volunteer organisations, lunch clubs, any enterprise,
actually winning the right to use the community brand means that
you have done more than what you would do in the normal course
of every day. This is part of the great motivational drive that
we are also keen to harness for the Olympics but, again, this
is very much work in action. We are also discussing with the sponsors
their contribution to community programmes which will produce,
we hope, very substantial value in kind for communities around
the country and, as I say, Chairman, I am very happy to keep the
Committee up to date on the progress of negotiation on that.[6]
Q489 Mr Evans:
You are also happy for some of the smaller British organisations
or companies that they will be able to at least get an affordable
part of the Olympic Games somewhere along the line—clearly
not first tier? Somebody was saying that some of the costs at
first tier are actually huge.
Tessa Jowell: Yes, exactly. These
are global companies that want to be very clearly associated over
four years with the Olympics. Yes, there will be opportunities
as the tier two and tier three sponsors are brought on board for
smaller businesses to have a part to play. It is just worth underlining
the significance of this non-commercial brand. This is the first
time that any Games has developed this non-commercial brand and
it is very clearly driven by two things: what we were talking
about earlier, the inspiration for the whole of the country, the
involvement of local communities and the creation of legacy.
Q490 Mr Evans: Good. We wish you well
with that. In October 2005 you said, "We have taken the view
that there should not be an exemption at this point in the seven
years between now and 2012 in relationship to pistol shooting
and people being able to practise in this country." I have
read recently that you may have had a change of heart.
Tessa Jowell: This is a very difficult
and sensitive area, as I am sure the Committee will understand,
and actually only three of the 15 shooting sports are actually
affected by the firearms restrictions but for people who compete
in those sports it is an enormous inconvenience to have to go
and train in Switzerland. However, we have to be mindful all the
time about public attitudes, public sensitivity, both in the wake
of Dunblane, which is still fresh in people's memories, but also
because of the anxiety about gun crime. In the public mind, any
lessening of the restrictions on this and the anxiety about gun
crime can very easily elide. I believe that we have to tread very
carefully here. There have been discussions between the governing
body and the Home Secretary and the Ministry of Defence, and at
this point it is likely that it may be possible under very restricted
conditions for some pistol shooters to have access to MoD sites
in order that they can practise in this country, but I have to
stress that public safety will be the overriding concern in this
and confidence about the level of control that would be applied.
Q491 Mr Evans:
You are right. There is clearly great sensitivity about it but
the United Kingdom is not the only country to suffer from gun
crime and perhaps a common-sense compromise can be found somewhere
along the line which would have public support and indeed support
from the shooters themselves. Finally, I think it is great news
for London that the Games are coming and great news for Britain
and Brand Britain should benefit from it but there was one report
in a London paper last week that said a piazza would be created
outside in Parliament Square instead of the traditional Parliament
Square as part of the 2012 Games, and indeed, there is a possibility
that Churchill's statue would be moved. In a week where we learn
Britannia is being removed from our currency, do you not believe
that this would be damaging the British brand, tourism, et cetera?
Tessa Jowell: I think this is
a highly speculative report. Britannia can rule supreme and confident
that the Olympic Games in the UK are going to be the greatest
celebration of the United Kingdom that most of us will be in a
position to remember.
Q492 Mr Evans:
And Churchill will be staying in Parliament Square?
Tessa Jowell: I do not think there
will be any question that during the Olympic Games he is going
anywhere!
Q493 Chairman:
While we are on that theme, just reassure us on another point
which I have received a large number of e-mails on but I believe
is based on a misunderstanding. There is no question of the Red
Arrows being banned from participating, is there?
Tessa Jowell: Categorically, absolutely,
100 % not!
Chairman: Excellent! On that note, thank
you very much, Minister.
4 Ev 146 Back
5
Ev 146 Back
6
Ev 146 Back
| 
