Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Much of what we are talking about in the Olympics’ ability to achieve a legacy will be to do with how far they go beyond their immediate groups. As I said, any original thought here was immediately trumped by everybody who spoke before me, but I have come to the conclusion that this should be mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, got there before me. He said that the Olympic Games are being held here only as a result of the Commonwealth Games in Manchester, which proved that Britain, after several quite spectacular failures and mismanagements, could deliver a major project on time and make it a success. Other major projects have occurred and others will, but how do we tie them in? This is probably one of the few questions that I can fairly deliver to the noble Lord, Lord Davies. What are the Government doing to make sure that we have something that is ongoing, beyond 2012,

18 Jun 2009 : Column 1218

and that new Commonwealth Games and new sporting events are tied into the same sort of structure, making sure that there is an ongoing legacy for all of them? The idea is bigger than the Olympic park and it is that idea that must carry on. The fact that we can get government engagement with sporting activity is much more important even than this event. We must take it on from there.

I think that it was Ken Livingstone who expected X number of years of argument and screaming, with a wonderful party for the Olympics at the end. I forget the exact phrase. We have got rid of most of the arguments, but I now address the one running sore about the Olympics: Bisley. I do not know exactly what was said in the document that rejected Bisley as a permanent site, but I have tabled a Question to find out. I ask the two noble Lords who will be at the Olympic Board meeting today to ask the board please to publish this information and come back with it so that we can find out. I fully accept that there may be good reasons for rejecting Bisley, but the noble Lords who have spoken today deserve to know what they are, even though they may not agree with them. I have always felt that as many events as possible should be held within the main park and that they should be held outside only if this cannot be done. Everybody deserves to know the reasons. I encourage those noble Lords who are yet to speak to ask about this. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, of course has a huge advantage. If we get a good answer, I will remove the Question that I have tabled for a week today. We can carry on and deal with this problem, but it is one of the few outstanding matters to do with the construction.

The ODA deserves much credit for having made the building of the Olympic park quite boring. We are on time and within budget. We are ahead of budget. It is working. I wonder how many journalists sat there with their practised themes of “Waste of money” and “We can’t organise anything” in a huge run-up to decrying our achievement. They cannot do it. If they could, politicians might have had a slightly easier time over the last few weeks because it would have absorbed their energy, but they have not. The ODA has delivered more or less everything so far on time and within budget.

I also encourage the Olympic movement as a whole not to be frightened of admitting it when one or two things go wrong, as they will. We should remember that 75 per cent in any exam is still a damned good pass. I ask those involved to engage more with us in the political scene, as we have had to dig out too much information. I have had that discussion—or occasional row—with the Olympic movement and I say again: let us know more about what is going on.

Can the noble Lord, Lord Davies, tell us how much encouragement is being given to sporting bodies to increase their legacy participation rates? Are models being prepared and, if so, which are the best ones to take forward? Have they gone in-house or outside? I have spoken about this subject on numerous occasions. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I can probably banter about what is going on here but there are some extremely good models. Once again, I mention the Go Play Rugby programme. Get Into Football is another

18 Jun 2009 : Column 1219

good scheme; it is less focused but more general. What are the best models for these sports to take outside? Which ones have worked best in the past and which do the Government think have the best development potential outside the Olympics? If we know that, we can encourage Ministers and hold them to task. We need to ensure that there is continuation of effort and that those who are encouraging people to back up the legacy in terms of involvement have a model to work to. Can the noble Lord reassure us on that point?

Finally, the Olympics seem to be shaping up to be a tremendous success. Let us enjoy that success, having got involved with the entire process leading up to it, and then make sure that the ideas are lasting and are taken forward to the next project, or aim and objective. If they are not, we will be throwing away at least some of the legacy.

1.52 pm

Lord Luke: My Lords, first, I must mention my father, who, with the late Lord Exeter, as members of the International Olympic Committee, struggled for many years to try to bring the Olympics back to Britain. How proud he would have been of the efforts and success of my noble friend, whom I thank for introducing this important debate. I congratulate him on his leadership and his impressive and continuing enthusiasm for the cause. I also congratulate from these Benches the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, on her excellent maiden speech. I look forward to hearing her in the future.

I applaud all those delivering the Games for their successes in the development of the Olympic village and other Olympic sites—in particular, the outstanding and ongoing transformation of the Lower Lea Valley. In addition, I state the obvious: policy on the Olympics is not Tory, Labour or Liberal but British. We on the opposition Benches have a responsibility to hold the Government to account for the decisions that they make. We should support and encourage those concerned when we believe that they are doing the right thing, but we should also probe and challenge when we believe that there is room for improvement.

As we all know, parts of the journey towards 2012 have not been straightforward. The Government’s budget miscalculations are common knowledge: the budget has soared from approximately £2.3 billion to £9.3 billion, leading to unprecedented raids on good-causes money from the National Lottery; over half the contingency fund has already been spent delivering only a third of the Olympic programme; there have been funding cuts to sports such as shooting and water polo due to the £50 million shortfall brought about by the Government’s failure to raise a single penny from the private sector; and, most significantly, there is a continuing absence of a fully costed, and probably extremely expensive, security plan. My noble friend Lord Patten had some extremely effective questions on security, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer.

In February this year, the Home Office produced the safety and security strategy for the 2012 Games. Now that the strategy has been in place for four months, can the Minister say whether all key security

18 Jun 2009 : Column 1220

appointments relating to the Olympics have been made? If not, why not? This is an important point because the Government regard the delivery of the safety and security strategy for the Olympics as very much the delegated responsibility of the ODA and LOCOG. I have been hearing concerns that the specifications for the security projects of these organisations, which were set following a threat assessment by the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, are not being adhered to. Is that true or is it perhaps a “not yet” situation?

I should also like the Minister to say whether the delay in producing the safety and security strategy means that there is less time for embedding security and resilience technologies at Olympic sites. There will of course have to be a reliance on a large number of police officers coming in from around the country. We already know that the Metropolitan Police will be under significant stress, with each borough having to accept a 2.5 per cent reduction in policing 12 months prior to and six months after the Games. The Metropolitan Police Authority has to recruit 10,000 extra specials to compensate for this extraction. Can the Minister say what progress it has made? My concern, if many officers have to be brought in from outside London, is that there will be little capability to meet any—although of course one hopes that there will not be any—attacks outside the Olympic areas. Also, what about the security of the sailing events at Weymouth and, indeed, the rowing at Eton?

A related issue is the Government’s security budget for the Games. Senior police officers have expressed concern that security costs will escalate beyond the £600 million allocated, pushing the entire Olympic budget over the £10 billion mark. Can the Minister say what the £600 million set aside by the Government actually includes? Does it, for example, include the cost of deploying not only the police but all other emergency responders? What is the true cost likely to be?

Despite that, I have no doubt that we will deliver an excellent Olympic park. The build will be completed on time and construction of the venues by the Olympic Delivery Authority is on track. In addition, as my noble friend Lord Coe said, organisation of the Games by LOCOG is on track to raise the £2 billion needed to stage the Games; it has, this week, signed up its 20th commercial sponsor. Surely the Olympics will attract a great number of tourists and it is hoped that our Olympic teams will be successful as well.

One major thing for which the Government are responsible is the legacy, but so far they do not seem to be achieving very much. The Olympics were won on a commitment to use the Games to inspire a whole generation to take up sport. Nearly four years on, the Government have yet to deliver any coherent plans to deliver this mass-participation sports legacy.

Does the Minister share the opinion of my noble friend Lord Moynihan that participation in sport is tremendously important to society, especially to the young and especially in the light of recent statistics that show that children now spend just two hours per week playing sport, compared with the 45 hours per week that they spend in front of a television or computer

18 Jun 2009 : Column 1221

screen? The Government’s own statistics predict that, by 2050, 90 per cent of schoolchildren will be overweight. Participation in sport has the ability to change social patterns, improve health and transform lives. The likes of double Olympic gold medal sailor Sarah Ayton OBE and double Olympic gold medal swimmer Rebecca Adlington OBE pay testament to this fact. It would be criminal to deny such brilliant opportunities to the rest of British youth, especially when, through the Olympics, we have such potential for positive exposure and state-of-the-art facilities at our disposal around the country. My noble friend Lord Bates emphasised all the multifarious activities in the north-east of England.

Apart from the mass-participation legacy, there is also the issue of delivering a physical legacy for each Olympic sport. It has become clear that this will not be delivered in every case—for example, in shooting and equestrianism. Every person in the UK is contributing to the £9.3 billion public sector budget for the regeneration of east London, which is why the Olympics must benefit people throughout the country as well. A sporting legacy is not just an aspiration. It is a matter of basic fairness, both to Londoners living near the Olympic park and to people who do not happen to live near the new facilities that are being built.

Can the Minister confirm that, in the equestrian events in Greenwich Park, there will be no moving or cutting down of trees? There is a rumour going round that they are all going to be moved or removed altogether. I hope that that will not be the case. What plans are in place to make sure that, once the athletes’ village has been sold off, money is ring-fenced so that taxpayers can see the maximum return on their investment? What extra efforts are being made to seek buyers in the first instance? For example, I understand that there is still no anchor tenant for the Olympic stadium.

Overall, I am afraid, this paints a sad picture of the importance that the Government place on their legacy responsibilities, evidenced by their lack of concrete progress. Can the Minister tell the House what advances have been made to drive a genuine grass-roots legacy for sport off the back of the 2012 Games? The 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games give the whole nation enormous opportunities for progress in so many areas. Let us hope that they can be exploited to the full.

2.02 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Davies of Oldham): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Luke, used the word “sad” in his summing-up—a singularly inappropriate stance when we look at the progress that has been made since London won the right to host the summer Olympic and Paralympic Games. The noble Lord, Lord Coe, led the team whose inspired presentation won the bid against what we all regarded at the time to be the odds in Singapore. It is difficult to believe that four years have passed since then and we are only three years away from the Games coming back to London.

Progress has been made. Although I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Luke, said, and one or two other critics of certain aspects of the progress and development of the Games, I take sustenance and joy

18 Jun 2009 : Column 1222

from the fact that the vast majority of contributors to this debate have followed the noble Lord, Lord Coe, in his opening presentation, exemplifying optimism with regard to the future and genuine and proper pride in what has been achieved already. That is the prevailing tone of this debate.

Of course, there are issues still to be resolved and we have to address ourselves to the points of criticism. I will attempt to meet the most forceful and important of those as I develop my speech, but I want this debate to be recognised for what it is—one which displays hope and genuine confidence with regard to the future, based on some extraordinary achievements since the bid was won a few years ago. That is why I appreciated the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bates, that it all too easy to suffuse ourselves with criticism. I recognise that the Opposition has a duty to put the Government under scrutiny, but it ill behoves us to undersell achievement when in fact achievement is what we need to present to the nation.

We have made very significant progress, as reflected in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Coe, covered most of the ground that I would otherwise have felt obliged to cover in terms of achievements. All five major venues—the stadium, the aquatic centre, the Olympic village, the velopark, the international broadcasting centre—are under construction, either on or ahead of schedule. I know that at present the site has a rather daunting blue fence around it, keeping out all comers except those authorised for entry. It is a construction site, so of course it presents that face. But once construction has moved ahead, we will be on the brink of developing an Olympic park which will be the glory of that part of London and will match the glories of our great parks in London, which were bequeathed to us in centuries past in different circumstances and socioeconomic conditions. Let us recognise the size of this potential achievement and appreciate the work that has been done.

Let us particularly appreciate the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, in her maiden speech. She comes to us, as we all know, with very substantial achievements with regard to sport. I have not the slightest doubt that she will make a contribution which we will all value in the future. Today she emphasised the importance of the development of sport in schools. Of course it is right that our biggest legacy to the next generation will be enthusiasm and opportunity for sport. That means in schools now we must use the Olympic Games as the inspiration and, for the future, we must commit to ensuring that sufficient resources are made available for schoolchildren to get a requisite amount of sport.

The Government are proud of their record in these terms, and we are pleased to be associated with the considerable work that the noble Baroness has done in promoting this necessity, which was reflected in her speech. Not only do I agree with everything she said, I also want to bring to the House’s attention that school sport will be celebrated across the country at the end of this month. Over 10,000 schools are taking part in National School Sport Week. This is only the second time that we have done this and it is a reflection of the

18 Jun 2009 : Column 1223

fact that we are catching the imagination of schoolchildren and also providing the opportunities for them to play their full part.

I want to mention in this context how important it is that we awaken the enthusiasm of children and adults in the locality. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for emphasising the fact that the boroughs immediately adjacent to the Olympic site have a great deal to contribute in terms of their welcome. I bear in mind the point he made about the number of languages which are spoken and that the welcome could be given in those terms. I accept entirely what the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, says about how important it is that we put emphasis on language training and skills. We must have those available when the world comes to London in 2012, and that was an important and insightful contribution.

I recognise that there are several pinch points, the sharpest of which was introduced by my noble friend Lord Corbett and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the question of Bisley. I answered a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about why Woolwich has been chosen against Bisley. It is on the basis of a carefully researched report. I do not want to reiterate all the various points again, particularly as the noble Lord made it fairly clear that he was not convinced by my argument.

Have the Government got anything to hide with regard to the KPMG report, which was the basis for the decision in favour of Woolwich? No. That has been made quite clear in the other place by my right honourable friend Tessa Jowell in her role as the Olympics Minister. When we can publish that report without compromising sensitive, ongoing commercial negotiations, we intend to do so. We have not the slightest hesitation about making sure that that report is published in due course, but in everything, there is an evaluation about competing commercial opportunities. That is why we cannot release the report at present.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, what commercial danger could in any sense come from publishing the Government’s costings relating to Bisley, as they have no current intent of proceeding in that direction?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I will look at that particular section. I was talking about the KPMG report in general. If the noble Lord is saying that there is value in one particular section being published, that may or may not be possible. The point is that the judgment was arrived at knowing full well the obvious claims of Bisley. That is true of other sports. The same issues obtain with regard to Greenwich and the horse-riding events. Of course, we all know Badminton and Burghley. We know that we have existing facilities considerable distances away from London.

What has to be balanced is the fact that these are the London Games, won by London as a city against other competing cities. There is obviously, therefore, an intention to concentrate as much of the Games as possible within the confines of London, as close to the Olympic village as possible. That is for the benefit of spectators and athletes and reflects the fact that it is a

18 Jun 2009 : Column 1224

London bid won by London. There are bound to be compromises and difficult decisions. The decision on which I have been challenged most vigorously today is one that we reached on the basis of very careful research and on judgments that will stand the test of time.

A number of other points were raised. First my noble friend Lord Pendry and then the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford raised the question of voluntary support for the Games. We need 70,000 volunteers. It is absolutely clear that we hope to attract a substantial number from the local boroughs, making their contribution to the celebration of an event happening in their area, but we will need volunteers from all across the country. We will certainly need volunteers who display the language skills mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. That work must go ahead. I emphasise that we are fully charged of the necessity of involving the country in those opportunities.

The Games are the London Games, but there are opportunities for the country in voluntary support and—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—tourism. Of course we want large numbers of tourists coming to London, but we want to capitalise on that by ensuring that people who have come from all over the world appreciate the other joys of the United Kingdom and its tourist opportunities beyond London. That means that we have to make strenuous efforts to upgrade our tourist facilities as much as we can. We have to increase our marketing. We must see that 2012 is a unique opportunity for the tourist industry and of course the Government will play our full part in helping the industry to realise those benefits.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, while modestly recognising the successes of those who have contributed directly towards the development of the structure of the Olympic Games, was a little carping about finance. He knows very well that the financial failure is not a matter of government finance, it is not the plans that we have had for contribution from the lottery; it is private industry which has not been able to produce the resources that we had hoped. That is not entirely surprising when the United Kingdom, as is the rest of the world, is suffering grievously in recession at present.

I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, for saying that in that part of London, the impact of the recession has been cushioned by development for the Games. I emphasise that there is a very substantial amount of activity associated with the development for the Games in east London. I also emphasise that the Olympic Games budget looks relatively healthy. I know that noble Lords will identify those marginal elements where there are weaknesses, but the £9.325 billion, which has been the subject of constant scrutiny ever since it was established as the budget, remains on target. The Games remain on target to come within that figure.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, just for clarification, I am sure the Minister did not intend to suggest that funding Team GB and making sure that it is comprehensively prepared for both the Olympic and Paralympic Games was marginal to the budget.

18 Jun 2009 : Column 1225

Lord Davies of Oldham: No, my Lords. I am emphasising that there is no cause for concern about the budgetary support for the Games and the ability of the Games to fall within the budget provision. Nor is there any cause for pessimism about the position of the Games in this recessionary period in relation to the local economy. The contracts are being handed out. Considerable progress is being made. To take the most obvious thing locally, there is a significant, multi-million pound investment in the area, which will guarantee one dimension of the legacy that will not be directly attributable to the Games but would never have occurred if that uplift in the east London economy were not occurring because of the Games. The Games are creating thousands of jobs, along with apprenticeships and training places, just at that time that we need them most. Significant numbers are coming from the locality, but that also reflects a significant investment injection into London. Westfield is investing £1.5 billion in the Stratford City retail-led development adjacent to the Olympic park.

This is therefore a developing picture of considerable success in what the Games can represent for the local economy, as well as their greater significance for the wider economy. Of course, I have listened carefully to the issues raised about legacy, which are very important for the Games. I am grateful that the position that my noble friend Lady Ford holds gave her the opportunity to assure the House on those matters. There is not the slightest doubt that we are better placed to fulfil a legacy from the Games than any Games of recent years.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page