It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), particularly as it is not a Friday, when he is not constrained by a time limit. I noticed the passion with which he spoke about the Health and Safety Executive, which we will hang on to with great interest.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) on an excellent maiden speech. I did not go to Cheadle during the campaign, although I have to admit to spending a lot of time on the telephone, talking to his now constituents. He should not take it for granted that I will not call in future, but I congratulate him and look forward to hearing his contributions in the years to come.
Like others, I congratulate the bid team on a fantastic triumph. Seb Coe and the others deserve every accolade. We should not forget the efforts of Barbara Cassani, who laid the foundations at the beginning of the bid. For Londoners it was a rollercoaster week with such euphoria on 6 July and such depression on 7 July. It is up to the people of London to make a success of this. It is the greatest honour that the world can bestow on a city and we must make the best of it.
London will reap tremendous benefits: the legacy, the development of the facilities and the inspiration to our young people. I agree with the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) that we must involve the boroughs as much as possible. I should be interested to hear from the Minister how parts of London with facilities to offer can put them forward. Will there be a sort of clearing house? In the Croydon and Bromley area there is Crystal Palace, which has already been mentioned and does not need a clearing house, and schools such as the Whitgift with tremendous national-class facilities, which it would love to make available. Guidance is needed on how that is best achieved.
Plans for London are undoubtedly ambitious. There will be a number of temporary facilities, such as Lords, Wimbledon and Horseguards Parade. There will be places around the country, such as Weymouth for rowing and sailing, in which I take a particular interest. The Lea valley site is extremely large. Canary wharf is only 85 acres; Lea valley will be 500 acres. It will need top-class management to fulfil its potential and to bring about the necessary restoration and regeneration of the east end. I do not want to make party political points, but lessons can be learned from the Jubilee line and the dome. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt) held out the dome as a triumph; others might not see it that way. The lessons of development and project management have to be learned from those projects.
A lesson is to start building early. If we leave it to the last minute, as in Athens, there will be the inevitable scramble that we want to avoid. A key player will be the mayor of London. I am pleased that he is given substantial powers to cut through bureaucracy. With a major development, many organisations feel obliged to be consulted and want to have their finger in the pie. It will take a fairly ruthless so-and-so to cut through that and drive the project forward.
The people of London still need clarity about finance. The Secretary of State said in her opening speech that the position was clear. It is clear if the games are on budget, but if the cost overruns, it is not clear who will pay and how the contributions will be found. If the Minister is not in a position to elaborate tonight, will he provide a steer in the coming months?
I want to consider the affected businesses. I have taken a particular interest in one company, F. H. Brundle, whose sole proprietor is a constituent of mine. He has run a business in the relevant area for several years and owns a freehold site. However, he is obliged to relocate. He is a builder’s merchant who picks up passing trade that comes from the east end of London into the development sites of the City and the west end. The London Development Agency is offering to relocate him five miles away in Beckton or 12 miles away in Rainham Marshes. Neither site has freehold available. My constituent has a freehold site and there is therefore no question of like-for-like compensation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) made the point in relation to clause 4 that the sums of money are equivalent to those that would be paid if the land were purchased compulsorily. If that is the cap, the businesses will lose money. They have to find a new site and build on it and relocate factories. Not all the staff will be able to move with them. There will be redundancy payments and relocation costs. Investment value will be lost because the businesses have freeholds but will end up with leaseholds. Business will be lost in the transition and because the firms are no longer on such a prominent site. My constituent estimates that he will lose several million pounds.
I know that the Minister has an open mind and that he does not want such consequences. However, the Bill suggests that, with all the good will in the world, there will be losses. I hope that I have either read it wrongly or that the matter can be tackled in Committee. I hope that there will be scope for proper compensation for the businesses that are affected by the problem.
Before the bid was successful, the line was always that the matter was for the LDA to determine. The Minister knows that I asked about that on several occasions. The Secretary of State claimed that it was a matter for the LDA. However, the LDA says that it is constrained by statute and finance. We are going around in circles and only two people can cut through the problem—the Minister and the Secretary of State. I would be grateful if the Minister could tackle the matter as a priority because businesses will be seriously affected. There is a lack of suitable alternative sites nearby. The sites on offer from the LDA are not ready to plan for or start development. There is uncertainty about the available funding and compensation. Many businesses are already worried about the time frame for their location.
The Olympic games will be a major project, subject to the scrutiny of the nation and the world. There are bound to be problems. There will be scandals, accusations of corruption and issues that we have not anticipated. It is incumbent on us all to keep our nerve when the going gets rough. We are not considering a political issue. All the parties want to get behind the games and make them a success. London has the ability to put on a great games, but we must deliver.
London Olympics Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Richard Ottaway
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 21 July 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on London Olympics Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
436 c1473-5 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:31:48 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_263003
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_263003
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_263003