UK Parliament / Open data

London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

As if I dared to forget that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was present. I share the concerns of all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. One of the bleakest sights in sport is the relics of some former stadia and facilities a short time after the Olympic Games are over. I remember a feature in one newspaper which showed the facilities which had been constructed for the Athens Olympics. It represented a vast car park and an unused facility. A solitary car was parked in the car park, which could have held 7,000 cars. Nothing was going on because the facility had not been developed in such a way as to be of meaningful use after the games. It was utterly derelict. That is a lesson that we have learnt. The Olympic Games have not always left behind a legacy of which the city concerned has been proud. We were very conscious of this. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, pointed out quite explicitly that one of the attractive and winning features of the London bid was its emphasis on the after-games legacy. I bear in mind his point that not just infrastructure but sport itself should be the beneficiary. The ODA, in exercising its functions, must have regard to the desirability of maximising the benefits to be derived from the games and to ensure that these benefits are not an add-on at the end, but integral to the whole development of the games’ structure. That is essential; otherwise, we could replicate the experience of some other cities. The ODA will be responsible for delivering all major infrastructure. It will work with key stakeholders, including the Mayor and other London bodies, to deliver agreed legacy plans for the Olympic park and other venues. I stress that it will do so in consultation, because the ODA has a limited life. It expires shortly after the games, but the legacy, by definition, is inherited by a range of other authorities which have a persistent interest in what is left behind. The ODA cannot be the owner of this legacy; it will not last long enough to be in any way, shape or form the beneficiary of it. The owners will be those other authorities. That is why we are concerned that they work actively to maximise the potential benefits from the games and that the ODA take on the necessary consultation. Key figures and key bodies also are concerned to ensure that the legacy is proper development. The Olympic board consists of the Government in the form of the Secretary of State, the Mayor of London, the chairman of the London Olympic Games Organising Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Coe, the chairman of the British Olympic Association, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. They share the ultimate responsibility for fulfilling the commitment in the bid to ensure that the wider legacy of the games is to be delivered in the sporting field, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, emphasised, as well as in the economic and social fields—but also, bearing in mind the representations of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in the environmental field. It also means that the benefits are spread as far and as fairly as possible around the country, not just in London. There have recently been meetings on this. For example, there was a business summit at which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, together with the Mayor of London, met businessmen and discussed how businesses large and small can benefit from the games. We are going to hold a further conference in Leeds in July to consider how the benefits can be spread more widely around the country. We all bear in mind—a point that arose in the context of Greenwich—that the Olympic year creates a unique opportunity for British tourism and for a range of British businesses around the country because of the anticipated increase in visits to this country. At Second Reading, I brought to the attention of the House the extraordinary statistic of the number of people who, having been to the Olympic Games in Sydney, went there again within two years of the games. A very high percentage returned. That is the kind of development that we hope to replicate in London.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

678 c218-20GC 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top