Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
MR BORIS
JOHNSON, MR
NEALE COLEMAN
AND MR
PETER ROGERS
7 OCTOBER 2008
Q40 Alan Keen: Can I come on to the
legacy of the national stadium. This Committee, before John was
Chairman, spent hours and hours, weeks and weeks, looking at the
possibility of Wembley. Not the possibility: Wembley was given
money to host athletics, but we have moved away from that. There
has been talk of West Ham or another football team taking the
stadium afterwards, which does not really fit in with athletics.
What is the latest on that?
Mr Johnson: On the negotiations
with West Ham?
Q41 Alan Keen: Yes, is it West Ham?
Mr Johnson: This is one of the
big questions of the Games. We are spending, as you rightly say,
large sums of money on a stadium. It has got to be a fantastic
stadium. I would like to see proper legacy use for that stadium
and, as you can imagine, there are discussions going on with football
clubs, with rugby clubs, to see if we can get some kind of permanent
benefit for the LDA, for the investment we are making. I cannot,
in all honesty, tell you those negotiations have yet been successful
or fruitful. There is no single deal that has emerged. One thing
we have got to have in the mix is athletics. There has got to
be some athletics. The stadium has got to be capable of being
used as a world-class athletics venue, and of course it will be.
The issue is how can you make that happen whilst satisfying the
needs of Premiership football? That is extremely expensive and
something that, frankly, we have not yet solved. There may be
other football clubs who could, nonetheless, be interested; there
may be rugby clubs who could be interested. We are exploring all
those options. I would say, I do think that there is great scope
in the stadium for legacy as in the form of an athletics school
or an academy. There is huge potential there, using the undercroft
of the stadium, which will be vast, for developments of all kinds,
and of course we are looking at that as well.
Q42 Alan Keen: An athletics stadium
and a Premier League football club do not really mix?
Mr Johnson: That is the point.
Q43 Alan Keen: That is why the FA
insisted Wembley had to have the seats coming right to the edge
of the pitch, with a temporary platform?
Mr Johnson: That is the problem.
In theory you can do a massive excavation in order to make it
possible for them both to be viewed in the same stadium, but that
is extremely expensive, and in the current economic conditions,
to get back to Mr Farrelly's point, that is going to be one of
those things I think would be more that the budget can bear. The
issue is how to get the stadium to deliver lasting value given
the difficulties we have got of accommodating Premiership football.
Q44 Alan Keen: We are also going
to try to save money as well as the legacy. The sport is forecasting
West Ham are going to have to pay Sheffield United something like
£30 million in compensation for the Tevez affair and Sheffield
United have been relegated instead of West Ham. West Ham are not
going to have very much spare money. There is no point in having
a legacy if it costs us money. In the Commonwealth Games, Manchester
City were really gifted the stadium. It is really ironic: now
they are owned by some of the richest people in the world. We
do not want to give the stadium away. It is a problem.
Mr Johnson: It is a problem. I
do not dispute that for a minute. It is something I have been
looking at from day one of my mayoral duties.
Q45 Alan Keen: It has got to be solved
quickly, has it not, because construction has to start? The Stade
de France version of a stadium with seats that pull out for football
and go back for athletics, but the thing has got to be designed
and built. When will the decision be made? It is getting closer
and closer to it now?
Mr Johnson: Construction is beginning
on the stadium, has begun. If you go there you can see it already
sprouting up there. The thing about the Stade de France, I think
it cost roughly twice as much, if not more, precisely because
it has that double capability. The issue for us is how to build
a stadium that costs much less, which we will, and still have
legacy from it. That is what we are trying to do.
Q46 Alan Keen: Have you dismissed
the idea of saying, "Look, we are not going to have 80,000
people to the opening and the closing ceremony. We are going to
hold the opening and the closing ceremonies in Hyde Park and,
therefore, build a smaller stadium?" Have you dismissed that?
Mr Johnson: No, the stadium will
have the capacity of 80-81,000.
Q47 Alan Keen: Can I come to something
else before I move on. I ask the same question all the time because
I think it is very important. Have you thought about the fact
that it is costing London a massive amount of extra money because
it is a city Games and not a national Games? We have got stadia
around the country which could have been used. I keep asking this
question because now we have got the Games, the preparations are
well on the way, so the Olympic Committee cannot take it away
from us now. We could make the point that it would be much cheaper
for any nation who stages the Olympics to hold it, not in 2012
but in the future, developing nations could hold it, simply on
a national basis. We have got a chance to make that point. Nobody
ever answers. I was flattered last time I raised this. The first
time I raised it, Sir Simon Jenkins had it in his article within
three days, and he agrees with me, I am pleased to say. All I
am saying is I would like you to think about it.
Mr Johnson: To make it a national
thing, so that the country wins it, not the city?
Q48 Alan Keen: Yes, and then you
would not have the argument about: is it just London and it will
save a vast amount of money. That is true, is it not?
Mr Johnson: It is certainly something
that is worth thinking about. As you say, it might be very advantageous
to developing nations, but at the moment the rules of the Olympic
system are that the flag is passed from city to city, and that
is how it works. Hence the particular obligations that fall on
London.
Q49 Alan Keen: Would that not be
a great legacy for you, Boris, if you were the one who got them
to change it for the future?
Mr Johnson: I take your point.
I still think that there is a great impact. If cities get it right
and if they use the Olympic Games in the way that they can be
used, like Sydney and some of the recent successes, they can be
powerful forces for regeneration within that city, and that is
the advantage of the Olympic Games for London. I think that is
the advantage of having this site in a part of London that has
been really neglected and run down for a very long time. I hear
your point. It is not something that, I have to confess, I have
thought about a great deal, but I think I would defend and support
the idea of the Olympics being passed from city to city.
Q50 Adam Price: On that very point,
as we say, of course, in Beijing the equestrian activities were
in Hong Kong, were they not, several thousand miles away?
Mr Johnson: And the sailing is
going to be in Weymouth. Of course, there will be—
Q51 Adam Price: I am certain we would
still like the mountain biking in Wales. We have a few more mountains
than Essex! I want to ask you quickly, in an early interview after
becoming Mayor, you said there was no legacy masterplan. You were
horrified at that. Presumably somebody from the ODA took a slightly
different view with their legacy directive. For instance, the
aquatics centre. You said it was going to be very difficult at
this stage to redesign it to incorporate a gigantic curly wurly
slide. I do not know what you think about that, but is that not
part of the problem? It is a bit late in the day now to modify.
As you said yourself, there is a trade-off. If you try to change
the design so late in the day for legacy, then you actually run
the risk of pushing up the cost?
Mr Johnson: That is exactly right,
and looking very much at the aquatics centre and thinking about
the long-term legacy of that, actually, funnily enough, if you
compare, the Olympic Games in Beijing were wonderful but I think
if you look at the long-term use of that Water Cube, I wonder
whether it will actually be quite as splendid in ten or 20 years'
time. I have some questions in my mind about that, particularly
about the sheer scale of it. I do think that the aquatics centre
in London will be—our evidence is that it will have a million
visitors a year swimming in those pools. There has been a huge
loss of swimming pools around London. There will be two 50-metre
pools and I think they will be very well used. You are perfectly
correct that we cannot now afford a curly-wurly slide because
it needs a roof, but there will still be many other attractions
in the aquatics centre.
Q52 Adam Price: There was a story
that you were being leaned upon by Seb Coe. What is it like to
be leaned upon by Seb Coe? Is there a tension?
Mr Johnson: No, he is a feast
of reason as well! We work hand in glove, the Olympic Board, it
all goes incredibly smoothly, and we share a common objective,
which is to bear down on the cost of these Games whilst delivering
a fantastic experience for the spectator and a fantastic regeneration
in East London.
Q53 Adam Price: Is there any chance
that you might cut the precept to London council tax payers?
Mr Johnson: Well, as you know,
it is kind of you to mention, I am of course freezing the council
tax precept for London, or hope very much to freeze it, this year
because I think it right to bear down on the cost being borne
by people across the city, but I will not be immediately cutting
the Olympic part of that precept.
Q54 Helen Southworth: Can I get clarity
on the issue of the Olympic stadium? You have told us a lot about
how you want to bear down on cost, but it is a fairly fundamental
thing that if you are entering into a major construction project
you know what you want to build before you start because costs
are monumental if you keep changing your mind as you are going
along, and they are the worst possible kind of client?
Mr Johnson: That is absolutely
right.
Q55 Helen Southworth: So what is
the legacy use of the stadium? Work has already started on it.
Mr Johnson: That is right.
Q56 Helen Southworth: What is the
legacy use?
Mr Johnson: The way to reduce
costs now—there is going to be no change in the structure
of the stadium.
Q57 Helen Southworth: What is it
going to be?
Mr Johnson: The way to reduce
costs is to have a long-term legacy use and to fray those costs
over the long term by having some future use and, as I was saying
to Mr Keen, that is exactly where the negotiations are now going.
We are trying to negotiate either with football clubs or with
rugby clubs or, you know, some solution like that, in order to
have a long-term legacy value. As you rightly say, there is considerable
investment being made, but I want to clarify something because
you said you wanted clarity. There is no adjustment now being
made to the specifications of the stadium. That has been settled.
The question now is how do we make sure that the structure we
are creating is of use in the future and of value in the future
and returns benefit and income in the future. That is the issue.
Q58 Helen Southworth: So if it were
to be a Premier League football club that were to use it, there
will be no need to change the structure?
Mr Johnson: We are not going to
change the structure because, I think, as you said in your own
remarks, the worst thing you can possibly do when you are trying
to get a project done under a tight budget with a deadline is
to start to monkey around with the specifications because that
obviously drives the builders mad.
Q59 Paul Farrelly: We have covered
the aquatics centre in our last report. The next big project is
the media and press broadcasting centre. A developer has been
appointed, Carillion.
Mr Johnson: Yes.
| 
