Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
144-159)
RT HON
TESSA JOWELL
MP, MR DAVID
BROOKER, MR
SHAHID MALIK
MP AND MR
PHILIP COX
17 MARCH 2010
Q144 Chair: Good morning. Can I welcome
for the second part of this morning's session Tessa Jowell, the
Minister for the Olympics, Shahid Malik, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary
in the Department for Communities and Local Government, David
Brooker of the Government Olympic Executive, and Philip Cox, also
from DCLG. Can I start off by asking you just to set out for us,
Tessa, where your responsibilities end and where Shahid's start.
Tessa Jowell: Well, in time, I
am responsible until the Olympic Games, but obviously, as we are
planning the long-term legacy now, Shahid and I and our two Departments
work very closely together on the seamless transition of the oversight
of the Legacy Company and the management of the park after the
Games, but you will know that constitutionally the Legacy Company
is jointly owned by the Mayor and the Government, and the Government's
share is shared between the Olympic Executive and DCLG. Would
it help if I made a short opening statement?
Q145 Chair: Yes, if you would like
to, please do.
Tessa Jowell: Thank you very much
indeed. We are delighted to be able to come and give this evidence
to the Committee and obviously you have received our written submission.
It is very clear to me and, I am sure, to members of the Committee
that the London 2012 Games have become synonymous with legacy
in a way that has not been the case in any previous Olympics and
it is important to remember that it was the legacy potential that
was material in the Government taking the decision back in 2003
to back the bid to host the Games. However, `legacy' is a very
spongy term and I am somewhat concerned, but will take any responsibility
which falls to me, about the lack of definition and I am very
keen that in this session we define very precisely the terms by
which the success of our legacy in preparing for, hosting and
managing the aftermath of 2012 will be judged. It is very simply
this: when we won the right to host the Games, we made two fundamental
commitments, first, that the Olympics would transform the heart
of East London through regeneration and, secondly, that we would
use the motivational power of the Games to inspire a generation
of young people through sport. Now, obviously there are other
legacy benefits which will flow from that, and the Committee,
I know, has in the past expressed an interest in the sustainability,
the very high standards of sustainability that are being applied
throughout the Park, but at the centre of our ambition for legacy
and what we mean when we talk about legacy is the regeneration
of East London and the inspiration of a generation of young people
through sport, and by our success in those two respects we will
be judged. If I can just very quickly elaborate on the transformation
of East London. It is well-known to the Committee that the Olympic
Park sits almost in the centre of five of the most deprived parts
of the country and I know that you have fairly recently visited
the park, so you can see the transformation that is taking place
of what was a contaminated brownfield site approximately the size
of Hyde Park. Last year, Shahid's Department and mine established
the Olympic Park Legacy Company, more than three years ahead of
the Games, to safeguard the commercial, the sporting and the cultural
future of the park, and the Board is appointed and in place. In
addition, there will be up to 12,000 new homes, 35% of which will
be affordable, and 12,000 new jobs, of which we anticipate 8,000
to be in the digital sector, and it is our expectation that the
investment in particularly the Press and Broadcast Centres will
begin to act as a driver for the reshaping of aspects of London's
economy, particularly post the downturn, but that will take time.
Then, in addition, there will be the iconic sporting facilities,
all of which have been designed and are being constructed with
their legacy adaptation incorporated and, in addition to that,
new education and health facilities. In 2010, our key milestones
are planning decisions for post-Games transformation, beginning
the soft marketing for the legacy uses of the stadium and the
Press and Broadcast Centres, continuing the investment in the
workforce and exceeding the benchmarks for the proportion of workers
from the host boroughs who were previously unemployed, who are
women or from black and minority ethnic communities. I am obviously
happy in questions to answer more detailed points about the nature
and scale of regeneration, but just one other fact which the Committee
may find interesting is about Stratford Station, and this is really
what sets the scale of regeneration of the Olympic Park apart
from any other Olympic city ambition, and that is the infrastructure.
Yes, there is the sporting infrastructure, yes, there are up to
12,000 new homes by 2025, yes, there is the commercial infrastructure,
Westfield and the development beyond that, but there is also the
public transport infrastructure and Stratford Station which will,
as you have heard many times before, make Stratford one of the
best-connected parts of the South East, so you can get on a train
to Stratford and go to 120 different destinations. That, as I
am sure you understand, will make the Olympic Park commercially
attractive. The second ambition, which I really want to set out
briefly, is of inspiring a generation of young people through
sport. It has been very much our ambition to get sport back into
the life of every child in state schools and already 90% of children
are doing two hours a week of sport, but that is compared with
less than 25% taking part in sport at that level seven years ago,
so this year the key milestones are that five hours a week will
be on offer in 100% of the sports partnerships in England, 80%
of children will be doing three hours a week and 40% will be doing
five hours a week by the end of the next academic year. We will
continue our progress towards getting two million more people
physically active by 2012. We can go later, if you like, into
the Active People Survey results which are published today which
give us great cause for optimism that we are on course to meet
that target by 2012-13. The final figures will be published in
December of 2013 and we are on course to show two million more
people playing more sport and being physically active. Then, of
course you will know of the International Inspiration Programme
which is now established in, I think it is, nine countries, and
we have a meeting with sponsors over breakfast tomorrow morning
and we hope that will be up to 20 countries by the time that we
get to 2012. That is honouring our commitment that children around
the world will benefit and I am very happy to say a little bit
more about that. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) recognise
and admire the scale of our legacy ambition. It has changed the
expectations of future Olympic cities, and I have tried to set
out quite briefly the benchmarks by which we will be judged in
our legacy ambition.
Q146 Chair: Thank you for that. We
do have questions on a number of those aspects, but can I turn
to Shahid Malik because you have had responsibility in DCLG since
November for the Olympic legacy, and I am sure you have been beavering
away behind the scenes, but it has been observed that you have
not actually said anything about it yet, so would you like to
do so this morning?
Mr Malik: I suppose I would just
really say that you are not to read the right-wing press, but
I suppose that is quite difficult in your case! I am the Thames
Gateway and Olympic Legacy Minister not since November, but since
June of last year, and only this morning in fact before getting
here we signed a MAA with the five host boroughs to focus on worklessness
amongst a number of areas which will make a massive difference
to that area and will give a legacy that leads to the aspiration
of convergence within 20 years. I have visited a number of Olympic
areas and, as the Thames Gateway Minister, my focus is on the
key economic drivers in the Thames Gateway, which starts at Stratford
and goes out to the Thames Estuary. The Olympics obviously is
one of the key drivers. The other key driver, where I was this
morning, is Westfield Shopping Centre, a £1.45 billion investment
which will lead to some 15,000 jobs, 8,500 of which will be retail.
Yesterday, I was at DP World in Thurrock which is the largest
foreign investment in this country, some £1.85 billion which
will lead to 36,000 jobs. Ebbsfleet is the third economic driver,
a £3 billion project, and Crossrail has been mentioned,
I think, before as something which will unlock Canary Wharf and
expand the jobs potential there by an extra 100,000 jobs. Those
are the economic drivers. I have worked very closely with the
five leaders of the host boroughs, with the Mayor, the LDA and
of course the OPLC, but I am very clear that, although my Department
is contributing more than any other department in Government to
the Olympics, some £2.8 billion, Tessa, as the Olympics Minister,
leads on the Olympics and I am very, very happy to be in the background
because I know that she is utterly competent in her role and,
when she speaks, she speaks not just for herself, but she speaks
for the whole of Government, including me as well. Our work has
really been focused on working with regional government, with
local government and many of the agencies out there to make sure
that we have got a partnership and a holistic approach to this.
It probably has not escaped any of your attention that this is
the largest scale peacetime logistical exercise that this country
has seen, so it needs everybody working together, and the DCLG
has got a key role to play and we are very proud to be playing
that key role. I have to say, we are probably as joined-up in
government terms as we have ever been on any single issue, so
I am happy to play second fiddle to Tessa who, after all, was
instrumental in getting the Olympics here in the first place.
Q147 Chair: Thank you for that. Your
title, therefore, of Minister with responsibility for the Olympic
legacy, you see the Olympic legacy as one of a number of initiatives
which are part of the Thames Gateway initiative?
Mr Malik: It is part of the Thames
Gateway Olympic legacy. The Olympics is one of five key economic
drivers in the Thames Gateway. My focus ostensibly is in and around
the OPLC, but also quite clearly, as a Department, we have got
a very key role to play, as indeed we are playing, with the various
tiers of Government at a local level in London, obviously with
the Mayor and at a central Government level, but also with the
ODA, the LDA and the private sector as well just trying to ensure
that we have got a holistic approach to this because the truth
is that our ambitions are high, and I think they ought to be,
but we will never deliver unless we work in that holistic partnership
fashion, so that is really where DCLG comes from as well as the
£2.8 billion of the £9.325 billion that the Olympics
will cost.
Q148 Chair: We will want to come
back to the economic legacy, but before we do can I just turn
to the sporting legacy which is the second one, Tessa, which you
identified. You appointed Steve Redgrave as the Government's Legacy
Champion and the Legacy Board has now been created. Steve Redgrave
has been slightly critical in saying that the focus appears to
be very short-term and nobody seems to have given a lot of thought
to what happens beyond 2013/14. Do you recognise that as a fair
criticism?
Tessa Jowell: I do not think it
is a fair criticism actually. I am not sure if you are taking
evidence from Gerry Sutcliffe, who is the Sports Minister who
is responsible for the sports legacy and the Legacy Board, but
if you appoint a Legacy Champion you want it to be somebody of
stature, as Steve Redgrave is, a household name and somebody who
is a bit of grit in the system, not somebody who is going to allow
the Government and all the agencies responsible for delivering
this to get away unchallenged. I welcome his challenge, but I
am also very proud of the fact that by the time we get to 2012
we will have seen nothing short of a transformation in the way
in which children are playing sport and very particularly, and
it is a particular passion of mine, allowing children to compete.
There are people who are called `competition managers' who do
the kind of practical things which are essential to setting up
schedules of inter and intra-school matches, tournaments and so
forth and help children to reconcile because it used to be the
case that, if you were, say, a 12-year-old and you were an excellent
swimmer it was a sort of guilty secret and children did say they
had to go to the dentist when they might be going to compete in
a regional heat or something like that, so for children really
to be supported in managing a potential sporting talent alongside
their schoolwork requires a degree of help and assistance, just
as it takes somebody to book the buses and make sure that children
get to and from competitions. When I say that it will have taken
10 years to see through this transformation in sport in school,
this is complicated. It is complex and requires sustained investment
because it is no longer just the chemistry teacher volunteering
after school, but increasingly trained, proper coaches and, for
younger children, PE teachers. This is a legacy that does not
stop at 2012, and this may be the impact of the Spending Round
but I would really dare any Government, this having been established
with 10 years of investment, to start unwinding it and denying
the majority of children in this country the opportunity to play,
to succeed and to be champions in the sport of their choice.
Chair: We will come back to the sporting
legacy in a little while.
Q149 Mr Ainsworth: I hope, Chairman,
you will forgive me if I pick up on the points that Tessa has
made. You said in your opening remarks, Tessa, that all those
iconic sporting venues have been built with legacy uses in mind.
Now, I do not know whether you had a spy in the audience for the
previous session, but we were categorically informed just now
by Sir Robin Wales, the Mayor of Newham, that the Aquatics Centre
was not suitable for their purposes post the Games and that in
fact they had no interest in it at all and would be looking to
build another leisure pool for the use of their locals some time
after the Games had finished, so what has gone wrong with the
Aquatics Centre, which is very expensive?
Tessa Jowell: Absolutely nothing
has gone wrong with the Aquatics Centre, and £9 million has
been spent on putting in the booms and the other equipment that
mean that you can do two things in that you can have a floor of
variable levels in the main swimming pool, but also you can divide
the 50-metre pool in two because actually in legacy that is much
more useful. Now, I am very familiar with my very dear friend
Robin Wales's views about the flume and the leisure pool.
Q150 Mr Ainsworth: He had a problem
about the design of the roof, which he said made it unsuitable
for community use.
Tessa Jowell: No, no. The argument
was two-fold. First of all, whether there could be, as you rightly
say, a leisure pool, and I think they wanted a flume as well.
The cost was going to be £40 million and the bid for this
came after the designs for the Aquatics Centre were really pretty
well-advanced, so we said no, we could not do this. We could not
build another £40 million into the cost of the Aquatics Centre,
but what we are doing with the Aquatics Centre is making sure,
as other major Olympic-sized pools are, that it is adaptable for
school use and for community use. I am absolutely sure that the
children of Newham will look forward to swimming in it and using
the diving facilities too.
Q151 Mr Ainsworth: Well, I hope that
you are right and Sir Robin is wrong, but, if you look at the
transcript when it appears, you will see that he was very strong
on it.
Tessa Jowell: With respect, I
am very well aware of this and he is also very well aware of the
discussions that we had about two years ago about it and it was
just too late and too expensive.
Q152 Chair: His point was that the
iconic nature of the building with this rather extraordinary and,
indeed, striking roof, which has pushed the cost up enormously,
one of the consequences is that it has also prevented the adaptation
for his flume and leisure pool, so we are spending a lot more
to build the building which then cannot be used for leisure purposes.
Tessa Jowell: Well, there will
be adaptation of the Aquatics Centre, which is a beautiful, iconic
building built by one of the most eminent architects in the world,
and it might have been even bigger, the roof might have been even
bigger, but we did decide that we would scale that back and it
is, nonetheless, probably the signature building of the Olympic
Park and I think we should be very proud of that. I come back
to my point that, had the original brief been one to incorporate
flumes and leisure pools, which also I think get a bit of a mixed
press, and I may get into trouble for this, this is going to be
a first-class community swimming and diving facility and a competition
facility for local pools, and you know how we have stressed from
the outset the affordability of admission prices for children
who live in the area. We are not going to have local children
pressing their noses against the glass unable to afford to use
the facilities on their doorstep.
Q153 Chair: You do not feel at all
embarrassed that you are going to spend £9.3 billion on the
Olympic Park and the Mayor of Newham comes to us and says that
actually he thinks he is going to have to spend some more money
to build the leisure pool at Stratford?
Tessa Jowell: I think it is perfectly
possible that, as the park develops, and Robin is on the Board
of the Olympic Park Legacy Company as is Jules Pipe as Mayor of
Hackney because the then Secretary of State for Communities and
I were very keen that the local communities were represented,
they will have a role in shaping the park in the future and they
may decide that they want to put other facilities in. It is important
to remember that we are designing a park for the Olympics and
we are doing more than any other country, any host city has ever
done before to anticipate, plan and invest in legacy use. That
does not mean that after the Games are over the structure and
content of the Park is going to be set in amber; it will develop
in the light of what the local community wants, what is commercially
attractive, what the kind of latest sporting craze is, I am absolutely
sure of that, but you cannot lay all that responsibility at the
door of the Olympics.
Q154 Mr Ainsworth: Can we move on
to the structure of the thing.
Tessa Jowell: The structure of
the?
Q155 Mr Ainsworth: Of the way—
Tessa Jowell: Of the Aquatics
Centre?
Q156 Mr Ainsworth: No, moving away
from the Aquatics Centre and flume to the actual sort of structure
of the Olympic Park Legacy Company which itself received a bit
of a mixed press when it was set up with accusations that here
goes another Olympic gravy train and all this kind of thing. What
actually has the new company achieved that could not have been
achieved if the whole matter had been left with the LDA?
Mr Malik: Well, the LDA pretty
obviously has a much broader focus; the LDA is for the whole of
London. It is pretty obvious what is achieved by having the OPLC;
it is a specific focus on that area, but not just for the short
term because the ODA obviously, from May 2013, will be handing
over to the OPLC and their job will be working with the ODA in
terms of marketing the site and ensuring that there is a master
plan in place.
Q157 Mr Ainsworth: Hang on. If the
chief benefit is to have brought focus, whatever that may have
delivered, would it not have been a good idea to have set up the
Legacy Company earlier than May last year, or did you not need
to be focused before then?
Mr Malik: I think the point that
Tessa was making, and it is the only way you can put this in perspective,
is whatever you think we are and whatever you think we started,
it is an undeniable truth that we are far ahead of any previous
Olympic venue in terms of legacy, so we can say, "Well, maybe
it should have started earlier", and maybe it should, or
"Maybe it should have started later" or "Maybe
we shouldn't have it", but the point is undeniable that we
are light years ahead of any other Olympic venue in terms of thinking
about legacy and getting structures in place now. In fact, the
legacy has already started and the benefits are already there
and they will accrue considerably over the next 20 years or so,
but I think, and forgive me, my background is regeneration, so
it is very unusual to have a ministerial role that you have got
some expertise in, I know, but to me it makes absolute sense to
have a focused outfit, probably an NDPB when we get to that stage,
that oversees the development and which has got local stakeholders
who are making decisions as well as experts, so I think there
is a tremendous regeneration and economic logic for having it,
and perhaps it could have been earlier.
Q158 Mr Ainsworth: What were the
start-up costs of the OPLC?
Mr Malik: Well, in 2009/10 approximately
£5 million for the OPLC.
Mr Cox: The start-up costs were
actually very small, basically staff time inside DCLG, the GLA
and then in DCMS. Their running costs are around about £7.5
million a year and about £5 million of that is coming from
the LDA because the LDA has transferred staff across to the OPLC,
so the LDA is saving money by doing that. The extra is to meet
the costs of their senior staff and other running costs.
Q159 Mr Ainsworth: There seems to
be some mystery over the salaries of senior people, including
the Chairman and the Chief Executive. Are you prepared to tell
us what they are today?
Mr Cox: I think the Chief Executive,
from memory, is on about—
Mr Malik: We can write to you
rather than give you a figure here which we are not sure about.
|
