I have a great deal of sympathy with the points raised by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway). In the Westminster Hall debate on this issue last week, he set out very eloquently the concerns of his constituent and the business that he runs. There has been a huge amount of support for the games from the business community and from individuals in London and the rest of the UK, but we need to ensure that the business community will be compensated appropriately.
The amendment raises certain questions. How is the compensation to be applied? What levels will be set? Where is the money to come from? Ultimately, who is to be the judge? Businesses have set forth their case for being injured by the games and suggested the amount of compensation that they believe to be appropriate. The Sunday Express on 27 November carried the example of a concrete-crushing business that had claimed that it needed £20 million of compensation. It had been offered £1.5 million, so there was obviously a difference of opinion as to what the business should be entitled to.
Certain unscrupulous companies or individuals might seek to benefit unduly from the games by submitting cases that do not have sufficient merit, and we need to find a way of arbitrating all the cases. One sensible suggestion is that we should appoint an independent arbitrator who could address the problem. They would evaluate the loss to the business and examine the case that had been presented. Each business will probably have a unique case. The arbitrator’s judgment could then be presented to the Department or agency that would be required to pay the compensation. That would present an accurate and fair fee for transferring land to the games, and a process in which all those involved could have faith. About 300 businesses might be affected, and such a process could instil faith in them that they would receive the compensation that they were due.
We spoke earlier about the sound financial management required to ensure that the games come in on budget. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that we must ensure that those businesses that will genuinely be affected can get the support that they need. At the same time, however, we must ensure that the LDA is not held hostage and that we do not leave ourselves vulnerable to ever-escalating costs. I suggest that an independent arbitrator would provide a good answer to this problem.
London Olympics Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Jo Swinson
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 6 December 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on London Olympics Bill 2005-06.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
440 c795-6 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:32:32 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_284258
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_284258
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_284258