Sandra Radford by keara


									                                                                                          Appendix 1

                        London Assembly (Plenary) – 19 November 2008

  Transcript of Question and Answer Session with the London Organising Committee of the
                  Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Ltd (LOCOG)

Darren Johnson (Deputy Chair): We welcome Seb Coe and Paul Deighton. We are going to
receive a brief introductory statement first from Seb.

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): Thank you, Chair, and good morning Members. Thank you from
the very outset for your continued support and interest in this project. So much has happened since
we last appeared in front of you in October 2007. It has been a year of progress and learning and I
was equally delighted that so many of you took the time and trouble to join us at the Olympic Park
during last summer. As I said on that occasion, we have hit all our major milestones; the removal
last week of the first of the 52 pylons was exactly one of those.

We are, I think we can say, where we would want to be and this was recognised earlier this summer
when the International Olympic Committee‟s (IOC) Coordination Committee, the Committee that
scrutinises our progress and works with us on the delivery of the Games, awarded us 9.75 out of 10
for our progress to date. That is said with not a vestige of complacency, however.

We have now gained a crucial insight into the complexity and scale of delivering an Olympic
Games and Paralympic Games. Beijing presented the only chance for us as a team at LOCOG to
witness close at hand the workings of a summer Olympic Games and Paralympic Games in action
before we host our own. We will come onto our learnings in your questions but one thing is clear;
the performance of both our teams in Beijing, Olympic and Paralympic, inspired the nation and the
city. Their success was unparalleled and demonstrated the impact of the Games for us all. We will
put the athletes, as you have heard before, at the centre of our Games.

Since the Coordination Committee‟s visit in May we have delivered a comprehensive learning
programme in Beijing, the handover ceremonies in Beijing - Olympic and of course Paralympic -
and handover activities, just as crucially, across London and the UK. We launched the Cultural
Olympiad with the Open Weekend - 286 cultural events in London were involved - and our „Get
Set‟ domestic education programme to celebrate the handover of the Paralympic Games reached
400 London schools and 5,000 UK-wide.

However, I do not need to tell you that the world is a very different place from this time last year.
We are very aware of that and that the current state of the economy raises issues for all of us. The
public investment in the regeneration of East London will provide a much needed economic
stimulus and guaranteed employment for thousands of people. It is vitally important that all of us
reinforce to the general public, and particularly Londoners, that 75 pence in every £1 spent by the
Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) is on regeneration and investment, providing much needed
employment and skills.

The onus on those of us organising the Games is to continue to ensure that we remain on track, to
budget and seek efficiencies in all the planning that we undertake. The only costs that are truly
spent on nothing other than the Games are ours and continue to be raised from the private sector.
Because we began our Tier One negotiations early, we have already secured the majority of our
domestic sponsorship. This is a notable achievement for any Games four years out, but we are not
complacent and still, of course, have funds to secure.

Despite the turbulent economic situation we continue to see strong interest from potential sponsors.
2012 still provides a unique opportunity and the success of Beijing this year demonstrated to
companies the power of being associated with the Games. We are still seeing a lot of interest and
we announced Cadbury as our second Tier Two partner only last month.

Of our other income streams, contributions from the IOC and broadcasting revenues are already
fixed and we have always planned for the merchandising and ticketing elements of our income to
come in much closer to 2012. We therefore continue to budget and plan on our ability, even in
these difficult times, to raise our privately financed budget of £2 billion.

Over the next year we will focus on consolidating our learnings from Beijing, continuing our
sponsorship drive, developing our operation on venue planning, and engaging with stakeholders to
dovetail our plans into those of the city and other locations in the United Kingdom. We have
1,346 days to go until the opening ceremony - that is 192 Wednesdays. We are on track and we are
in a good place to move forward with the massive job ahead of us to make sure the Games are great
for the city and for the country, and we, of course, look forward to working with you in partnership
over the coming four years. Thank you, Chair.

Darren Johnson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much. Brian has signalled he has a question
from the update. I must stress to Members we are only going to cover matters that are not covered
on the themed questions on the order paper.

Brian Coleman (AM): Lord Coe, you mentioned sponsorship and your level-two agreement with
Cadbury. Which of Cadbury‟s products support the healthy living agenda of the Olympics?

Jenny Jones (AM): Good question!

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): We are delighted that Cadbury have come to the table. We are
delighted for a number of reasons. First of all they have a pre-eminent track record in supporting
grassroots sport in this country and community programmes for over 100 years; they were involved
with the Manchester Commonwealth Games in an extraordinarily constructive way.

When the 800,000 or so visitors or so come to the UK to the Games, many will want confectionary
on the day. I think it is important that that confectionary is British. Cadbury is a huge employer of
the length and breadth of the country and we are delighted to be working with them. They make a
large contribution to the private sector staging of these Games which, as you know, is our
responsibility, and I for one welcome them to the Olympic family.

Brian Coleman (AM): Well, indeed. You mentioned they are a large employer; they were just
sacking 500 workers at Keynsham down in Bristol and closing their factory and yet they are
spending £20 million on Olympic sponsorship. Although I am partial to a bit of Dairy Milk myself,
how does it fit in with the healthy agenda that the Olympic bid was supposed to promote?

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): I am quite comfortable actually that it does and I am not going to
become theological about this. Of course, we have all sorts of issues socially and domestically to
deal with. We will work closely with all our partners in everything from ethical sourcing through to
the social responsibility agenda, and I am absolutely convinced in those early conversations with
Cadbury, as with all our partners, that that is an agenda that will be delivered.

Brian Coleman (AM): So where are you going to draw the line on sponsorship? Who would you
turn down? Presumably you would turn down tobacco manufacturers. Would you turn down
brewers? Would you turn down operators of online gambling if they came to you with sponsorship

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): Well, tobacco of course is prohibited as a sponsorship category by
the International Olympic Committee and the vast majority of international federations, including
my own, the International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF). We would not set our face
against a brewing category. They have been a regular feature in sporting events and Olympic
events for many years. Of course on-line gambling, and the whole issue of gambling, in the
Olympic Games is something that the IOC and national Olympic committees are currently studying.

Brian Coleman (AM): Isn‟t the truth of the situation that, with the economic climate as it is, you
are desperate for any sponsors and all the high-flying ideas of getting a nation fit and all the rest of
it have just gone out the window in the desperation for private sponsorship?

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): No, I could not actually disagree more with you on that. Our
sponsors come to the table for any number of reasons and we tend to look at them as partners rather
than sponsors. These are not classic sponsorships. A classic sponsorship is a name or a brand on a
T-shirt and a relationship that probably lasts only two or three years. This is, in some cases, a four
and five-year partnership. There is no advertising in the stadiums, so for these partnerships to work
it is about the quality of the activation and a lot of that activation meets very closely our Singapore
legacy and ambitions that we set.

Of course, a partner coming to the table to help us stage a great Games is about marketing spend;
yes, of course it is. It is about activation; it is also about bringing in smart, great companies with
commercially savvy people - creative people - that can actually help us deliver these Games. Just
the other day our Head of Human Resources (HR), Jean Tomlin, sat down with all our partners, and
indeed the London Development Agency (LDA), to work on programmes to develop the career
pathways and skills of workforces inside and outside those organisations. It is something we take
extremely seriously.

Brian Coleman (AM): Presumably you pass the chocolate bars around! No further questions.

Richard Barnbrook (AM): Good morning, Lord Coe and Paul Deighton. Could you assure the
Assembly here that all of the Olympic Games will be available on terrestrial television and not
cherry-picked by subscribers on a pay-per-view service?

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): Yes, we can.

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): The BBC are the rights holders.

Richard Barnbrook (AM): Thank you. Rights holders? Thanks very much.

John Biggs (AM): I hesitate to come in but it is always nice to follow the flat earth wing of the
Tory Party. Would you not agree that a different interpretation of the sponsorship issue is that the
Olympics must grandstand British business if at all possible, and be used to highlight our success,
and that we should celebrate that? Indeed, if we wanted to be pernickety about this we could
highlight the fact that historically Cadbury, I think, come from a Quaker background and they
actually have a very strong history in terms of ploughing the furrow of early social concern as an

I do not want to waste Labour time on that. I was interested, though, in whether in the current
economic climate you think you are going to have a challenge with reaching the necessary levels of

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): Firstly, we are actually extremely proud of
our group of sponsors who represent the very best of British business. There is also some overseas
representation as well, but these are really companies with a great tradition of supporting the
community at large. So unleashing their resources, expertise, enthusiasm onto this project and all
its broad objectives is actually one of the most powerful things we have to bring to bear. Thank you
for bringing everybody‟s attention to that.

There is no question that if you compare a situation where you have a strong raging economy to one
where you have a weakening economy, that must be a more difficult environment in which to raise
sponsorship. That is why, of course, having two-thirds of our target already in the bank is a very
good thing to have accomplished. It was not by accident that the first sector we addressed over two
years ago was the banking sector, because it was evident to us that the conditions in that particular
sector were never going to be more propitious for raising sponsorship. I do not think we had the
foresight to realise quite what the decline would be but we went early because we understood that
that sector was very strong. It is also interesting that one of the last Tier One sponsors we raised
money from was BP in the oil sector, which of course operates in a slightly different cycle, so we
were able to consummate that deal when that was strong too.

In front of us, to raise the remaining third, we are principally looking now at Tier Two and Tier
Three sponsors, which provide a smaller amount of either cash or value in kind. Principally we are
looking at sponsors who provide their contribution through the goods and services we need to put
on the Games. Actually, contributing a value in that way is an easier thing to negotiate in difficult
economic circumstances than raising cash from those companies, because, for example, in many
cases they are just making available to you capacity that is actually unused in a weaker economic
environment, which means the marginal cost of supply to them is very low, even though the value
to us is its full market price. So you can actually work your way through this cycle in an intelligent
way to get the right result.

John Biggs (AM): Just to reassure many concerned people out there, would you confirm that there
are some organisations from whom you would not accept sponsorship?

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): We would confirm that, yes.

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): Yes, absolutely.
Richard Barnbrook (AM): Considering the increase in severity of the economic downturn and
also the reduction in the value of the pound, can we be assured that there will be no more burden
put on Londoners with regards an increase in the Council Tax to actually cover the Olympic

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): Just to be clear, I think the Assembly does
understand this, but there are essentially two Olympic budgets: the Olympic budget for the venues
and infrastructure, which is the investment principally in the regeneration of East London, which is
Government-provided and where the London Council Taxpayer makes his contribution. That, of
course, is the ODA‟s budget.

Then there is the Organising Committee‟s budget, which is privately financed. We have three
principal sources of financing; one we have already talked about, domestic sponsorship, and that is
the one which is exposed in the way we described to the economic cycle. The second is money we
raise from or are granted by the International Olympic Committee, which is a share of their
broadcasting rights which they have sold and the proceeds they raise from their worldwide
sponsors. Those are already done and in the bank so there is no economic exposure. Then the third
strand is money we raise from selling tickets and from royalties on merchandise that is sold. That is
principally raised in 2011 and 2012, by which point we would expect that the economic cycle is
somewhat normalised.

So, I think we are comfortable by that point that that part of our target will be attainable. That is
how we raise our money and we are confident, as Seb said in his opening comments, that we would
achieve our £2 billion target. The only way in which we are financed by the Government is that it
is a traditional part of Olympic financing for the Organising Committee that the host Government
provides a 50% contribution to the marginal cost of the Paralympic Games, which we have
consistently estimated as approximately £70 million, and that continues to be £70 million. That is
the only public sector contribution to the LOCOG budget.

Richard Barnbrook (AM): I understand where you are coming from, but I am still not feeling
very comfortable. The fact is that maybe your body will have to go back to the Government and
say that the X% that was guaranteed from Londoners in Council Tax may have to actually go up.
Now, I know the Mayor is not putting up the Council Tax this year from the GLA‟s part of the
workings, but can we be guaranteed that the percentage allotted from the public purse - Council Tax
I am referring to here - is sufficient and you will not be going back to ask for more money from

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): I think that really is a question which
address the Olympic Delivery Authority‟s budget, not ours. So, I really do not think we are the
right people to be answering that question.

Richard Barnbrook (AM): OK, I appreciate that. Thank you.

Murad Qureshi (AM): This is not my attempt to get the gold medal for bean counting but you
gave us an update on the sponsorship - Paul mentioned the ticket revenues - but the big cash cow is
really TV revenue.

My experience out in Beijing was certainly that the Chinese are hooked on Olympic gold and I dare
say China Central Television (CCTV), Chinese national TV, will pay quite a big price for the rights
in London 2012. In some ways we are fortunate to be in this position with two markets:
North America and the Chinese market. Given they only paid £5 million for the TV rights in
Beijing, surely one of the things should be going back to LOCOG for a bigger percentage of that
rather than a set amount as you have already agreed?

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): The broadcast rights and the proceeds of sale
from the broadcast rights - all aspects of that - are handled by the International Olympic Committee.
Broadcast rights are traditionally sold in two Games‟ packages, so London and Vancouver, the 2010
Winter Games, come together; 2010 and 2012.

Those transactions are virtually all done right around the world and crystallised and agreed, so, the
only remaining question is how those proceeds are distributed between the IOC itself, the sports
federations and the national Olympic committees they support, and putting money in reserve for the
International Olympic Committee. So, we are not really in a position to influence the proceeds that
come out of the Chinese deal. I am sure when they go back to negotiate 2014, 2016, the points you
make will be very clear in their minds if there is an opportunity for them to raise more money for
the next quadrennium.

Murad Qureshi (AM): Paul, you say that, it is just that we do live in unusual times - the state of
the world economy - and most things in the financial sector are up for negotiation. I just would like
to see LOCOG make an attempt on this front. I think it makes a lot of sense; it means less pressure
on Londoners to pick up the tab in some very difficult times when we are having to cut down on
costs generally.

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): I think it is unlikely, though, that the
Chinese TV companies are going to agree to pay more having already agreed what it was they were
going to pay. In their position you can see it is just not a negotiation that they are likely to agree to.

Darren Johnson (Deputy Chair): OK, thank you. Thank you for that update. We will move now
onto the questions on the order paper.

12/2008 - Lessons Learned from Beijing

John Biggs

What lessons has LOCOG learned from the Beijing Games?

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): The number one lesson we learned was that when you have a very
successful Team GB and Paralympic Team GB, then you have the most extraordinary platform that
is created to move forward for the next four years.

What did we learn from Beijing? We learned that from the very outset when Paul and I visited
Beijing in 2006 and introduced ourselves to the Beijing Organising Committee, we sensed then -
and there was clear manifestation of that Games time - that there was a real eye for detail; that there
was nothing left to chance. That is why we had such a spectacular Games, that is why the venues
were so spectacular, but, more importantly, that is why so many athletes performed so much better
in the Beijing Games than they did elsewhere.

I did say in my opening remarks that that was the big opportunity for us to gain those learnings. We
had a team of over 100 people there covering all the operational areas in terms of the observer
programme, and as secondments. They were not there for the entire length of the Games.

What did we learn? Well, in a way what we learned was, apart from the eye for detailed planning,
that for the athletes these were a very good Games. If you went into the Village, if you talked to the
athletes about the venues, if you talked to them about the transportation programmes, if you talked
generally about their welfare they thought they had a very, very good deal out of that.

What does a good deal mean? It means that all energy is total; you want athletes as competitors not
commuters; you want them in and out of venues quickly; you want close proximity to training
venues; you want them to have the all-encompassing performance. That is what they did and that
is, of course, why we placed athletes absolutely at the centre of our project thinking from the very
outset and they will remain there. It is a very simple concept; if you get it right for the competitors
you will, by implication, have to get it right for so much else in the project.

Spectator experience is another important one for us. This is not just simply about the Games. It is
about the need to have spectators that have good information about transport; it is about well-
trained volunteers. The difference between a good Games and a great Games is the quality of the
volunteers; it is about the good food choices; it is about really encouraging innovative sports
presentation to fall in behind our participation agenda - you introduce sport to young people that
they have probably never witnessed before and that they will witness in 2012 and in a creative way
in the lead up to that. That is a very important part. It is about using technology in and outside
those venues. We want full venues; we want innovative ticketing programmes. It is about listening
to the experts. That is one of the other things: the International Olympic Committee, the
international federations, the national Olympic committees, they understand sport. It is also about
listening, as Paul said a moment ago, to the quality of advice that we will get from international

Looking very closely at one other very important learning; the fully integrated programmes and
simplicity of planning that clearly had taken place between the Olympic and the Paralympic Games.
What in essence does that mean? Arriving back in Beijing a week and a half after the closing of the
Olympic Games you are no longer in an Olympic city; you are in a Paralympic city. You are in a
Paralympic city in terms of look and feel. Beijing described it as two events of equal quality. That
is exactly how we look at that. So it is the transition as well.

I think those key learnings are about athletes, about spectators, about listening to the experts and it
is about the simplicity of planning across both additions.

John Biggs (AM): It did cross my mind, actually, in relation to the Cadbury‟s thing that these
might well become the Walnut Whip Olympics as someone who used to sit in that chair did once

I had two questions on lessons from Beijing: one is about what I call expectations management.
Aside from the sport - a minor detail the sport, of course - the Beijing Olympics made a very clear
statement about China coming out on the world stage, if you like, showing what a powerful,
potentially wealthy nation it was. No expense was spared on the infrastructure.

The message from London is very different. There is quite a lot of money being spent obviously,
but it is not going to have 27 iconic venues. How do you feel at present about the --?

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): If I had spent a little more time I think I would have made exactly
the point that you have actually, if I may say so, absolutely nailed. I think we look at this project in
three ways. Firstly there are the things that we witnessed that we will not be replicating, there were
the things that we witnessed that we can replicate and there are those things that we can do

Clearly in the first basket, you are right; we are not going to leave behind a „bird‟s nest‟ [Beijing
Olympic Stadium] in East London. That is why from the very outset we were very keen to establish
that legacy is deeply enshrined in this programme. Every city does these things differently. 80% of
the project management is uniform to a Games; 20%, or thereabouts, is the uniqueness of the city,
the things that you want to showcase, the creativity, the other stuff that you bring to the table. What
I do not want to hear are teams coming back and saying, “Well, of course, that was China,” because
actually 80% of what we witnessed we will have to do and we can do it extremely well.

The areas that I think that we really can build on, as I have talked about, are the athlete experience,
the spectator experience, the process of planning and then there are things that we can look at that
are intrinsically about London. It may be the way we view opening and closing ceremonies, our
live sites, the way we use our parks creatively both in the build-up and during Games time. I think
there are all those things that we can look at and I think that they are probably the easiest ways to
look at those three areas in those tiers.

John Biggs (AM): Are you spending serious time looking at legacy management in Beijing as

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): We have looked at it, but for very obvious reasons it is a very
different concept. Legacy does not come in easily bundled packages.

John Biggs (AM): Is China going to be full of white elephants, or whatever the Chinese equivalent

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): I am not saying that. I mean, if you look at the way that they have
looked at the Aquatic Centre I think they have actually done some quite creative thinking on that.
They are clearly comfortable about leaving 100,000 seater-plus stadium in the centre of Beijing; I
do not think that would work within the grain of what Londoners expect. I think that this is a
sophisticated city and we have made it very clear that a large part of what we want out of this is
sensibly what we leave behind for communities to have access to.

John Biggs (AM): The other part of my question is about ticketing. I think there are two ends to
this. The first one is: on the TV it was fairly clear that there were large areas of unseated stadium
space which did not look very good. Maybe there are good or bad reasons for that, but presumably
you are going to make sure that corporate clients do not have loads of empty seats and people for
whom there is a great demand for seating are able to enjoy that.
The second part of it, which is a question that loads of people are asking all of us as Assembly
Members and other politicians, is: what concessionary accessible rates will there be for Londoners
and for people who are putting up with the pain, in particular, of the construction and the pain on
their wallets for the Olympics? What will they get in return in terms of being able to access the

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): We are working very hard at the moment on devising a ticketing
strategy and we have just appointed a Head of Ticketing. It is not simply, as you would understand,
about the price of ticket, although that is important. It is also about what you put alongside that
ticket: the accessibility both to the Olympic and the Paralympic Games and it is about freedom of
transport that day within a public transport programme. The price of a ticket is only one issue that
we are looking at. Of course, we want venues that are full.

We also recognise that we are going to be showcasing sports for which we have never sold a
commercial ticket in this country before, something like handball. So, although that provides a
challenge it also provides a massive opportunity. Paul will certainly want to add to this, but we are
looking at some very serious technologies; we want to make sure that those venues are full and that,
yes, the corporate clients play a part of that. They are a large part of the income stream and they are
a large part of how we bring the staging of the Games to the table, so these are all balances that we
are acutely conscious of and getting the ticket strategy right for Londoners and people more broadly
throughout the UK is a very large chunk of what we will be doing.

John Biggs (AM): Is there a risk that Londoners who would like to obtain tickets for the Games
will instead be stuck at home watching loads of empty seats on their TV screens?

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): I sincerely hope not and I do not think that that will happen if we
utilise the technology that we know is available and those technological developments over the next
four years and we have got some very smart people looking at that. That has to be our objective.
We do not, of course, want empty venues.

John Biggs (AM): Would you describe that as a success criterion for your tenure there?

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): Yes, I think it is.

John Biggs (AM): OK, that is very helpful.

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): I mean what is it that I went to Singapore to say? I went to
Singapore effectively to say that we wanted to drive attitudinal change. We wanted to drive
attitudinal change to sport participation, to elite sport and, through the Paralympic Games, to
attitudes towards disability. The most spectacular way that you can achieve some of those
objectives is actually getting young people into those venues - bearing in mind that we will also
have live sites, the marathon, the triathlon, and road cycling which will actually be free, of course -
and making the most of explaining what those sports are with the technology that is available either
in the stadium or outside the stadium in live sites. So it is the whole thing we see as a holistic

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): Let me give you a specific example, if I
may, of some of the work we are doing. On Monday morning I was at Wimbledon with our
ticketing team looking at the way in which they resell the seats of people who leave early, because
you can sell a ticket but you never know (a) when they are going to turn up and (b) when they are
going to leave, and that leaves you with an empty seat if they go home after lunch for whatever

We were looking at how Wimbledon has developed this technique of scanning tickets when people
are leaving and quickly being able to resell them to get those seats filled up again. That requires a
number of things: it requires the technology, it requires you to be able to get people to own up to the
fact that they are really leaving and not coming back in; it requires you to have a waiting pool of
potential spectators who are prepared to queue up or somehow be available to buy those seats at
very short notice; and then it requires an operational capability to very quickly get them from where
they have bought the ticket into that seat so that the empty time is as short as possible. That is just
one example of the variety of things we are doing to solve precisely the problem that you have
pointed out.

Richard Tracey (AM): Can I just say, first of all, I am very pleased you have been to Wimbledon
to talk to them and to start to look at their ticketing because it is something that you, Paul, will
know we are very proud of in South West London, the techniques that have been built up at

The question I want to ask you, though, in terms of lessons from Beijing is this one: there was,
frankly, some disappointment expressed at the way London was symbolised at the Closing
Ceremony in Beijing. I do not know whether you two were proud of it or not, but there were
certainly some criticisms and some certain amount of disappointment. I wonder if you can give us
some early thoughts on how you propose properly to represent the London characteristics and
images at the opening ceremony of the 2012 Games.

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): Firstly, the handover segments at the closing
ceremony are very, very, very different propositions to the opening ceremony. One is an eight-
minute segment in the middle of somebody else‟s huge show, which I would not encourage you to
overanalyse. You have got to get in, get out, leave an impression; “That was London and London is
going to be fun”.

The opening ceremony - and our work is already beginning on this - obviously is a much, much
broader tapestry to paint where there will be many more elements that will be able to put on show,
for example, the rich heritage that this city and this country has to show to the world. The process
by which we will evolve the show begins now and really, if you like, the first year is a period of
what we will call consultation, where we will try to really define what our ambition is, really set the
objectives, the terms of reference - we like to call it the ambition - for that opening ceremony and
we will consult very broadly to really get people‟s best ideas. Then we will pool that process into
one which will allow us to deliver a really top class ceremony with all the rehearsal and
involvement that you will need in the subsequent three years that takes you up to the opening itself.

Richard Tracey (AM): OK, thank you.

Roger Evans (AM): Just watching the Games you got the impression that it was a very top-down
operation. Obviously the authorities in Beijing were able to direct the activities of their population,
even down to telling them that they could only protest in one particular park and that type of thing.
London, as you know, is very much more complex and rebellious than that.

What plans have you got in place to ensure the Games can take place without making it a
completely claustrophobic event for the people who have to live and work here?

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): The whole question of how you bring the
city alive and how the city participates in the Games, we will not have the opportunity to manage it
in quite the same top-down way from here, but where the similarity does exist is the absolute need
for the integration of all the different agencies who are involved, whether it is the Organising
Committee - and our responsibilities will be very much around the sports events themselves - or
whether it is the city, the different parts of the city; the transport organisation Transport for London
(TfL); or whether it is the police. The need for those delivery agencies to be totally integrated in
managing the experience right across the city is one of the absolute key requirements for a
successful Games.

So, I think one of the big developments as we move from a pre-Beijing to a post-Beijing planning
stage is that we now move into that period of what I call „operational integration‟, so sitting down
with the Mayor and his team, sitting down with TfL, sitting down with the police and looking at
London as one overall theatre which we have to make sure works both for those who are attending
the Games but also for those who are trying to go about their normal business. It is very important
to get that balance absolutely right across all those - whether it is transport, whether it is getting to
the theatre, whether it is going to a venue.

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): If I may say so, I think that is a concept that is probably no more
critical than in the way that we integrate our planning for disability and disability access and that
really does have to be a multi-agency approach that is city-wide.

Navin Shah (AM): Cultural diversity of London was seen as a great strength and virtue of our bid
for London 2012, something which we understand clinched the success that we have had in getting
the bid. What I would like to know is what progress has been made towards showcasing and
promoting this unique strength that London offers and what is the current status of that?

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): Well, within our own organisation we want our teams to reflect
exactly the diversity. If you look at the work of Jean Tomlin and our Human Resource teams, with
leadership right the way from the management teams downwards, I think we have made some very
good inroads into that. If you look at the senior management team, if you look at the diversity of
our teams throughout the LOCOG organisation that actually, I think, reflects very well. There is of
course more work to do and we recognise that.

I think also there is a broader approach that we take within our communications and engagement
strategies that we do want to make sure that there is no community that feels that there is no part of
this Games that should not be for them. I think that is actually reflected in any number of ambitions
that we set in Singapore. We were very proud to talk about London, its 200 different languages and
communities; we did talk and we will talk in more detail about home stay programmes, about the
ability to link the communities in London into the teams that are visiting here.
In simple terms what does that mean? We do not want any national Olympic committee to come
here and not be competing in front of a home crowd. London can achieve that. So, across many,
many agenda fronts I think we have made good progress but there is inevitably always more work
to be done.

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): I would just like to say that personally, for
me, this is a massive advantage and opportunity. The great strength of London, not only in its bid
but in its delivery, is its diversity. I think the way in which it will particularly manifest itself at
Games time will be through the volunteer force and we will make sure that the volunteer force
reflects the diversity of this city and the country more broadly because it is the volunteer force
which really engages with the visitors and which creates that impression of the city and it is a great
way for people around the city to get involved.

I also think the Paralympics, and Seb touched on it but it is really important to bring it out, was a
wonderful success in Beijing. I think people were really surprised at what a magnificent event it
was and how effectively Beijing used it to raise awareness around disability issues. I think it is
such an obvious point from a diversity point of view, using the Olympic Games and Paralympic
Games really to create deadlines around improving things with respect to disability. It is a once in a
lifetime opportunity that it would be a terrible mistake for us to miss.

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): If I may - and I know James Cleverly was very gracious in his
remarks the other night at „Personal Best‟ which is a volunteer programme that we have formed
with Government and with training agencies in London across any number of boroughs to be
widened - but to actually go to the graduation programme at Wembley Stadium the other night and
to see the diversity of those communities, of those boroughs and the people that are actually
volunteering. 43% of the first wave of volunteers went into further training, 20 something % have
actually got into employment, another 20% have got into fulltime volunteering. It is a programme
that really does reflect that diversity and it is important.

Kit Malthouse (AM): You will have to forgive me for being easily confused but I am anxious
about lines of decision taking and responsibility around some of the decisions that are being taken
and, indeed, learning about who is taking those decisions.

I have become a bit confused this morning. You talked about not being responsible for the ODA
budget, that is nothing to do with you, and yet you are talking about decisions that will affect their
budget. You, Lord Coe, have gone on record about there being certain legacy issues around the
stadium, for instance, which will affect the budget and recoverability of money after the Games, and
you obviously have an influence over some of those issues. I know we are going to come onto
issues around venues and where they go and you have very strong views around that and you
obviously see yourself as having an influence and therefore being part of the decision taking on
where those venues are.

I do not fully understand who is going to now take those decisions. Obviously the Mayor of
London is representing the taxpayer in London and to my mind ultimately, since they are the people
who are broadly most at risk on an individual basis, they should have the biggest say. To my mind
that does not seem to be what is happening at the moment and I do not understand who is

fundamentally going to take the decision about chopping down the trees in Greenwich Park or
whatever may or may not happen with certain venues, or where things go.

I understand and I appreciate what you say about greater integration across the piece and I do think
one of the things that is missing so far is this notion of any guiding mind around the Games
generally that will integrate all of those organisations. I suppose the second part of my question
about that is do you think that LOCOG‟s relationships with those other organisations is such that
you will be able to persuade them to come in, in a constructive way? It may come as a surprise to
you, but one of the words I hear used around the London community about LOCOG is that there is
a certain amount of arrogance about the way they go about their business and I just wanted to know
what you were planning to do in terms of tackling that as well.

So, the notion of who at the moment is taking the decisions, is it the Minister, is it you, is it the
Mayor, is it everybody muddling along together? Secondly, how do you think, if it is you, and you
need to coordinate all these other groups, how do you think you are going to manage what is, as
many of us who are councillors know, a very fractious atmosphere?

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): Well, first of all I will come to the second part of your question first,
because that is an easy one. The Olympic Board - and you know that comprises of coordinating
committee, which is us, the British Olympic Association (BOA), the Mayor of London and of
course Government, has I have to say I think worked in a extraordinarily cohesive way. The
remarks of the International Olympic Committee, not ours, are actually that this has been the most
coherent beginning to a Games and I think that if you look at the progress that we have made I think
that is a very clear manifestation that those relationships, both structurally and personally, work
extremely well.

If I had actually had slightly longer in my opening remarks I think I would probably have added to
our achievements in the last year that there is more than ever a greater clarity over roles and
responsibilities and who is in essence responsible for what. Of course, there will occasionally be
issues that are project-wide that the Olympic Board will, and have in the past, sit down and focus
on. This is not a case of one organisation driving through decisions at the expense of other
organisations [involved in the project].

The real achievement in the early days was to recognise that we all shared a joint vision,
recognising that there will be political pinch-points, there will be issues that the British Olympic
Association in terms of design, in terms of all things with athlete welfare in mind, but our
recognition of actually what is our task. Our task, narrowly defined, is to stage a memorable
Games. We raise all our money; we spend everything that we raise, and in legacy terms we leave
nothing behind, [and our privately-funded costs are] probably the only true cost of the Games.

So, in terms of the landscape that you have painted, I think when you are operating in that
landscape, I have to tell you that actually there is a great deal more coherence in those decisions
than you have perhaps alluded to.

We work very, very closely with communities. I mean a lot of our time, both collectively and
individually, is spent - hours of our week - with those issues. You raised the issue of Greenwich;
probably more community time in London has been spent dealing with that particularly issue,
speaking to some of those neighbourhood groups, the different councils. Just to put it firmly on the
record, we are not hacking down any trees in Greenwich Park. Yesterday evening for an hour and a
half I was sitting there with a cross-party group of MPs and Tim Hadaway, our Equestrian
Competition Manager, taking any number of MPs through those issues.

One of the values that we drive through our organisation is that we want to be transparent, we want
to be accessible and I think in large part we are. Of course, there are always going to be areas
where, as an organisation, we can improve and that is very important but on the key issues I think
those roles and responsibilities are very clear. I am not going to walk away from some of those
commitments that we made in a bid document that formed the basis of the host city contract. This
was not a political manifesto to be dusted down every few years and cherished only for its
irrelevance. That was a document that was very well thought through and set out some very
important legacy ambitions.

Some of those ambitions will be met through the local organising committee; some of those legacy
ambitions London-wide will be picked up and delivered through some of the agencies that you all
represent actually outside of your particular role this morning. That is why it is so important that
we work London-wide with you. If you are looking at the responsibility to drive sporting
participation UK-wide then that is a Government responsibility through the sport boards and the
ability to bring the nations together as well.

So, I do not think there is any real confusion over those roles and responsibilities. The Olympic
Board is there to actually make sure that we drive those decisions that are project-wide and have a
clear, coherence for that project.

Kit Malthouse (AM): In terms of the Olympic Board and its constitution, is it a board in the -
again, forgive my ignorance - proper sense of a board? In other words, all members have an equal
vote and therefore is it possible for those people who are executing the Games to outvote people
who are paying for the Games?

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): I will not put all my democratic credentials on the table, but I have
always held the view that any board that ever has to take something to a vote is probably not
working that well. We have not ever been in that situation. We have always reached a sensible
accommodation and an understanding that actually the broader picture often transcends any of those
individual agendas.

We have worked extraordinarily well together, the International Olympic Committee themselves
and all our partners, whether it is the broadcasters, whether it is our business partners, whether it is
the boroughs. Remember the local organising committee board is probably about as diverse a board
as you will find: it comprises Government; it comprises the Mayor‟s Office; it comprises the British
Olympic Association; the Paralympic Association; the Mayor of Newham is on it; I have got the
Chief Executive of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). We have a very broad board that drives
the strategy and the generation of decision through the Organising Committee, but more broadly
those are all issues that are occasionally met and dealt with at an Olympic board level. We have an
Olympic board this afternoon that will be doing exactly that.

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): Can I just add a point which directly
addresses your question. In terms of protecting the budget there is of course a whole mechanism
behind that from the Treasury called the Funders Committee which actually has control over
drawdown of the budget and the contingency. That has complete and independent sanction over
making sure that we cannot spend the budget.

Kit Malthouse (AM): On decisions that are made around venues that might have budgetary
implications, it is that committee that effectively calls the shots? So the Olympic board may say,
“We want to do this,” with a certain venue and this has a certain budgetary implication, but you
then may go to this Treasury committee - I do not know if the Mayor is represented in that at all -
and that then actually says yes or no? It is the Treasury who are effectively making decisions about
venues because mucking about with a venue has a budgetary implication, plus or minus?

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): Yes. Just to understand the background,
right from the very beginning of this project all the parties involved - particularly from the funding
side together with the ODA on the building side and us on, if you like, the user side for the venues -
have worked together to try to drive cost out of the project.

Kit Malthouse (AM): No, I understand that. I am just asking about where the fundamental
decision will be made because there is a huge game of smoke and mirrors around venues going on
and a lot of confusion and uncertainty in London about it, and it would just be nice to know in
which particular forum the specific decision is going to be made. What you are indicating to me is
that fundamentally the person who signs the cheque will make the decision and that will be the

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): We will ultimately have control of the --

Darren Johnson (Deputy Chair): We are going to be moving onto venues so if we can just have a
very brief answer to this and I will call another Member.

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): Yes. The answer is that decision will be
taken at the Olympic Board. Of course, at the moment we are searching for additional cost savings
rather than looking to spend additional money. If we can find additional savings then we will
pursue those paths. If, in a different situation, there were actually increases in budget which
required drawdowns of the contingency then that would have to be cleared through the Funders

Murad Qureshi (AM): I think, looking back at Beijing, the bar has been put very high,
particularly by the athletes. I think we should not forget that something like 43 World Records and
120 Olympic Records were broken, so they certainly felt comfortable. It is probably the best
answer for the Beijing bashers who suggested the air pollution may affect their performance; it
probably enhanced it.

Coming to the spectators‟ experience, what I found as a foreigner there was that it was actually
much easier for me to get hold of a ticket and I think the Olympic Authority should look at their
relationship with people like CoSport, but there was one particular thing as a spectator which was
difficult and that was that when you were there you were very often not sure what was happening. I
think we need to look at programmes and things like this, which we have got a lot of. We have
actually got quite a strong cottage industry if you see the number of fanzines you can buy outside a
football match. I would suggest it is something we could do. I was just wondering what thoughts
you have got on that to improve the experience for spectators.
Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): I could not agree more with you. That is absolutely central. I think
in my opening remarks I talked about the spectator experience to John Biggs and I made the point
that that was one of our key learnings. You are right, there are technologies available. It is really
important that people that are going into a stadium get a great experience and part of that experience
is not just witnessing Usain Bolt [Jamaican sprinter] breaking the World Record - which was
probably the most staggering thing most of us have seen in an Olympics for many years - but it is
also educating a young audience.

Part of our target is to retain the audience long beyond 2012 so that they are actually interested in
those Olympic sports, explaining to youngsters what is going on in a stadium or going on outside a
stadium, and it is the process leading up to that as well, that is why our education programmes are
so important. I absolutely agree with you. It is a key part of what we are doing. We can bring new
technologies to bear; we can form partnerships with groups out there that can actually access those
younger markets. It is a very important part of the process.

Dee Doocey (AM): Just following on from Navin‟s [Shah] comment, on the cultural side you
mentioned in your opening remarks that 286 cultural events had taken place in the Cultural
Olympiad, which is great. Have you got an indication of how many of those were run by the third
sector and how many of them were run by ethnic minorities?

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): I think the best way to deal with the answer
to that is to say that I don‟t have those numbers in front of me, but we would be delighted to come
back to you so you get the right answer.

Dee Doocey (AM): Great, thank you.

13/2008 - Access to the Games

Dee Doocey

How will you make sure that spectators with disabilities and those who are less able bodied can
access all aspects of the Games?

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): Dee, from the very outset you know where we have stood on this.
This has been a fully integrated project legally, branding-wise, visionary and actually from the bid
right the way through to the task of now delivering, and if I may say so, one of the consistencies has
been your championing of this cause from the very outset that we came to sit in front of you.

Where do we start off from this? We start off with the commitment and the vision that we took to
Singapore that we wanted the Games to change attitudes. We wanted to change attitudes to sports
participation, to the way host cities actually deliver a Games, what they leave behind, elite-level
funding, raising sport higher up the political and social agenda, the cultural agenda, but crucially to
change attitudes through the Paralympics to disability. I think in large part we can do that. The
Paralympic movement, I think, has a very proud tradition of having achieved those attitudinal
changes in certainly the last four or five of the six Paralympic Games.

What is it that drives our values? I think it is actually our practical commitment to, for instance,
things like the educational programme that we launched off the back of the Paralympic handover on
17 September, but what is it that we can do in practical terms? What are we going to do? We are
going to appoint a Head of Special Services, to have a bespoke service Games time, to focus
absolutely on ticketing options; accessibility; travel; transport advice; one single issue as an
example - if you are blind and you are sitting in a stadium you will need a guide that can give you
something in more than the one-dimensional PA address system; the technology; the city-wide

I know you have had the Olympic Delivery Authority in here and they will have taken you through
their transport plans. That is clearly in this area, as I said a moment ago, a partnership; Whether it
is ODA, whether it is TfL, whether it is about working with the Mayor and the LDA on
accessibility, whether it is about hotel access, visitor attraction access, we see that that is very much
a part of the partnership but there are practical things in LOCOG that we are doing now that, I
think, meet your agenda.

Dee Doocey (AM): Right. First of all can I say I have absolutely no doubt at all about your total
commitment to doing what you can for people with disabilities, but I do want to ask some specific
questions, if I may.

My concern is that the Park is about the same size as Hyde Park - it is quite a large area - and in
order for people to get round your Accessible Transport Strategy talks about the possible use of a
land train, for example. Is that still a runner and will everyone be able to use it?

If I could just ask you a series of questions, if that is all right. I would also like to know, when you
are looking at ticket pricing presumably you are going to have some concessionary tickets for
people with disabilities, but will you also look at what a lot of the sports clubs do and have
concessionary tickets for their carers? The third question I would like to ask, and then I will break,
is I know that a lot of your sponsors are doing good work providing funding for programmes for
local sports clubs and I think I am correct in saying that they do this in consultation with you. How
many local sports clubs that specialise in providing facilities for people with disabilities have you
got sponsors funding at the moment?

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): Generally most of these issues are all in
development and evolution, so we are not in the final stage with any of them. I think the question
of having a land train, whether you call it a land train or some buggy, that will be available for
people who need some help in getting around the Park, that will certainly be a part of the provision
in the Park.

On ticket pricing, as Seb said earlier, we are now in the stage of developing our ticketing strategy so
quite how we develop that for both people with disabilities and their carers and how we tie sports
clubs into it, I think that is something we will feed into the process and as we develop the plans we
will tell you how we are coming out.

Dee Doocey (AM): Will you look at that positively?

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): Well absolutely. Of course we will look at
that as a possibility. I think on sponsors and their support of people with disabilities and the
Paralympic Games I will just make a broader comment first.

We have found amongst our sponsor group very significant interest in being our corporate partner
and getting a significant involvement with the Paralympic Games. It has been a very attractive way
for them to create a platform for that aspect of their corporate/social responsibility objectives, so it
is a powerful theme of the work that is going on and they have a very strong interest in the
Paralympics and other related issues. There are already a number of things going on. For example,
one of the sponsors is already working with the ParalympicsGB [the fromer British Paralympic
Association] on an information system to help people find where they can participate in disabled
sport. Another one has already signed up as a sponsor of ParalympicsGB post-2012, which, from
their financial perspective, is a huge, huge advantage.

On the specific question of how we can tie them into local sports clubs; I think that is something at
its very early stages, so again we will follow through on that and feed back to you where that goes,
but that, I think, is still at its early stages.

Dee Doocey (AM): OK, my final question is about the Zil lanes [lanes for Olympic traffic]. I
understand the need for them; I recognise that you have got to get people from A to B and I have no
problem with the principle of it. What I would like you to consider, though, is would you allow
disabled people who are blue badge holders to apply to drive to the Games, if they have got a ticket
for the Games, using those lanes subject, obviously, to appropriate checks? My concern is that it is
going to be exceedingly difficult to get people from somewhere in the outskirts of London to
Stratford, where there are not good interchanges, and there will be a lot of people who will need to
drive. I know there is disabled parking, but I do think it would make their journey so much better if
they do not have to get caught up in traffic.

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): The only answer is I tend to agree with you. In terms of the
Olympic Route Network (ORN), as you know, we are going into that consultation programme that
has to kick off Parliamentary time to make some of those adjustments to allow us to do that. Yes,
we have a very clear idea of how, within the public transport structure, we want proper and full
accessibility. We will look at the use of the Olympic Route Network for blue badges.

Dee Doocey (AM): OK, thank you very much.

Victoria Borwick (AM): Just to follow up, although I have to say most of the questions on a
particular point have been addressed; I think there were great concerns when we talked about this in
our subcommittees about people who are mobility impaired as opposed to necessarily disabled. The
idea of just having a buggy that people can order on demand or book on demand I do not think is
satisfactory, and my question to you is to ask you to look again at the transportation of people,
particularly late at night when the Games finish. We are not quite clear yet, as to what times the
transport system is going to run, as to how people are actually going to get around the Olympic Park
that do not actually find it easy to walk - they are not necessarily disabled; they just find it difficult.
We have all seen the Disney-esque type land trains that were referred to and I think we would like
to feel that it was a bit more open than having to book a buggy.

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): That will be done. That is an integral part of our planning within the
Park now, whether it is about wheelchair access, whether it is about guidance, whether it is about
guides and disability help support. No, that is a key part of it. We recognise that this an Olympic
Park and that between 14% and 23% of the UK population is disabled. We want that reflected also
in our volunteer programmes too so that is an essential part of what we are looking at now.

Victoria Borwick (AM): Yes, I do not think it is just wheelchairs. I think we are just talking about

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): No, no, I do recognise the distinction you make.

Victoria Borwick (AM): Thank you.

Kit Malthouse (AM): Just on the lanes, would you agree with me that the „Zil lanes‟ are likely to
be the biggest PR problem for the Games in London, particularly when they are on and in the
preparation up to them? What lessons are you learning from John Prescott‟s [Former Deputy Prime
Minister] ministerial lane on the M4 and the public relations disaster that was? Also what
contingency arrangements will you make for getting around London if, as I expect - and I obviously
I represent large parts of Central London - there is some kind of protest from irate commuters,
drivers, delivery people in terms of blocking the lanes during the Games? Is there meant to be a
penal enforcement regime or is there some other method of getting people to and from the site that
might be a little more pleasing to Londoners? I would urge you to look at it because I do think it is
the one thing that would discredit the Games in the minds of certainly those of my residents who
live in Central London.

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): Well, particularly if they are referred to as „Zil lanes‟.

Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, there you are, it has started already. You have got a PR problem

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): Look, let us be very clear about it. The Olympic Route Network, the
Olympic lanes are not a new manifestation. They have been an inseparable part of the proper and
effective working of an Olympic city. Let us be very clear also of their purpose: these are moving
athletes around, they are moving 15,000-16,000 coaches, officials, technical delegates, your drug
testing units. This is a route to work. That is important and that is something that is actually
understood and enshrined and has worked extraordinarily well in other cities that have left actually
a very, very good impression of the way that the city has managed to implement that.

I have made the point just a few moments ago that we are shortly to enter that consultation phase
and that will be a deep phase and it is very important that we get not only the nuts and bolts of that
across and we put something together that really genuinely does work, ever mindful that there is
another client group out there that needs to also operate alongside the Games and they may have no
interest in the Games and not be taking part in that. So, that is what we have now entered.

Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, I am pleased to hear that and I think it would be helpful to see the
consultation because London, unlike many other cities where the Games have been sited, does have
an extremely large residential population living right in its very centre. The huge amount of
inconvenience and problems that could be caused to them during the period of the Games -- There
are similar, much small-scale events that cause major problems such as Notting Hill Carnival and
quite a lot of residents evacuate during the weekend of the Notting Hill Carnival for precisely that
reason. Obviously the length of the Games and the Paralympic Games makes that impractical. I
just hope that as part of the consultation it is at a very low-level residential base, because obviously
a large amount of the movement will be effectively from the West End through to the site and that
covers a huge area of residents and we will need to bear their ability to deliver the kids to school
and go to the shops.

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): Well, of course, during the Olympic Games and for a large chunk of
the Paralympic Games the schools will not be operating. I do make the broader point that London
passenger journey miles are down about 20%, both in private and in the public sector during that
time, even with an estimated 800,000 and 1 million visitors, you are still significantly below the
peak rates of February and March.

On the broader point: of course we recognise that this has to be a consultation, that we have to
explain exactly why these lanes make the effective delivery of a Games more important, why it will
help showcase London in a better way. There is another tier of decision that will be needed to be
made between the Mayor‟s Office and the boroughs, and that is that if we are going to make the
most of some of our live sites, what access do you want for people who simply think, “Well, it‟s fun
but I‟m going to take my car there.”

You are absolutely right; this is a consultation we have to have. Every city has gone through that.
My experience of that is that the earlier you start that process and the more open you are about why
these are not a luxurious add-on the better. They are actually going-to-work lanes. There are
20,000 officials; 15,000 competitors; you have everything from technical officials through to the
volunteer programme. This is a very essential part of delivering a successful and, actually, a well-
respected Games.

Kit Malthouse (AM): No, I completely buy that. All I would point you to is that in theory the M4
bus lane makes absolute sense but it was a PR disaster for the Government. I just think you need to
bear that in mind.

Richard Tracey (AM): I think I should just add to what Kit Malthouse has said. I agree
absolutely about the PR disasters like the M4 Corridor, but the other one, I think, is in your
consultation will you please make sure that all that army of IOC committee members are not going
to occupy one car each to go down these lanes to the Games?

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): Well, far be it for me to be sitting here defending any particular
group, but actually that army of IOC members also are presidents of international federations; they
are involved in the delivery of any number of that aspect, you have got chairmen of medical
commissions. The IOC are also here to work as well.

Brian Coleman (AM): Can‟t they take the bus?

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): Well, they are actually probably visiting on balance anything up to
seven or eight venues a day in the delivery of those --

Brian Coleman (AM): Oh please. My heart bleeds! That is always my defence for taxis; you lot
never buy it then, do you?

Darren Johnson (Deputy Chair): Brian, let Lord Coe answer the question please. Thank you.

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): No, I think I probably have answered the question.

14/2008 - Security During Games Time

Roger Evans on behalf of Richard Barnes

Would you give us a brief update on your discussion with authorities concerned with security
during Games time?

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): I think the first topic for our discussion with
authorities on security has been to clarify the respective roles and responsibilities of the different
organisations that are involved. So the initial thing we have done is to clarify absolutely the role of
the Organising Committee, and our responsibility with respect to security is in-venue security and
that is consistent with the standard protocol around sports events in the UK, where, if you like, the
club or the event manager takes care of the venue and the police in general take care of the rest of
the city. That is consistent with the existing protocol. That means the kinds of things we have to do
are searching and securing venues, making sure that the people in our venues are safe and secure
and making sure that our own assets are safe.

The overall responsibility for security for the Games rests with the Home Office. So, they have a
director of safety and security for 2012 and it is their job to devise the entire programme and to
make sure that all the agencies who contribute to that programme do so in the appropriate and
coordinated way. The organisation or the agency or, if you like, the body through which that
coordination is being affected has been called the Olympic Security Directorate, the OSD, which is
under the auspices of the Home Office. If the first thing we have done has been to establish exactly
what our role is and how that fits in with the rest of the agencies involved, the second thing we have
done is to make sure that we are an effective part of that group of organisations that are being
coordinated within the OSD. So we sit on all the appropriate working bodies within the OSD. The
other contributors to the OSD are the various police forces; the emergency services; the ODA, of
course, from the perspective of protecting the construction site. So, making sure we are plugged
into that and the governance processes which oversee it.

The third level of interaction we have had with the other security bodies has been to make sure that
we are discussing fully with them the areas which we lead on which have important security
implications. So, the best examples of those are probably, what with our emerging thinking on
ticketing and how that works, how we would handle accreditation - accreditation are the badges you
get which give you privileged access to certain areas around the Games, which also at Games time,
of course, represents the visa that lets you into the country. So, of course, the way we manage that
has to be appropriately developed together with the Borders and Immigration Authorities. Of
course, transport: it is important that all security and transport work hand in glove.

Taking it in the whole, we know what we are doing, we know exactly how structurally we make
sure that we are coordinated with all the other people who are part of delivering security in its
entirety, and that coordination is important, and we absolutely understand how to share information
about the parts of the planning which have important security implications. Security is all about
really coordination, integrating with the agencies and making sure that our planning proceeds at an
equivalent pace right across all the bodies involved so that we are all making decisions together at
the same stage of planning so they can be properly integrated and consider the implications for the
other parts of the operation.

Roger Evans (AM): It is reassuring to hear that you know what you are doing but when will the
rest of us know? When will there be a fully costed security plan that we can all refer to?

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): Yes, the fully costed security plan which
you refer to is, of course, the responsibility of the Home Office. A considerable amount of work
has gone into that. It is led by the Home Office but it has gone through the Olympic Security
Directorate, which I referred to, so it has had input from all those other stakeholders and so we, of
course, are one of those. As I understand it that is pretty much in final form now and ready to
present to ministers, so I would assume relatively shortly that will be available for discussion on a
broader front.

Roger Evans (AM): Do you know what the final cost is going to be yet?

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): That has not been shared with me, but I do
understand that the objective - the marching orders - given to that group by the Home Secretary
were to deliver a plan which fits within the budget.

Roger Evans (AM): That budget will not take us above the £9.3 billion cap that we are all sworn
that we will not go beyond?

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): That is the target the Home Office was set so
I am sure they are trying very hard to comply with it.

Roger Evans (AM): Does it include the costs for resilience issues, capacity for ambulance
services, for example?

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): I would assume so, but again, that is
something that is being pulled together by the Home Office rather than by us.

Roger Evans (AM): It is a little bit worrying to hear that this is being dealt with outside the ambit
of London government largely and by the Home Office, whose relationship in the past has not been
brilliant with us.

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): That is why I was careful to explain the
structure of the Olympic Security Directorate whose real purpose is to ensure that the involvement
and coordination of all the other parties that are necessary to make sure that the security plan really
is both comprehensive and integrated.

Roger Evans (AM): Are they going to be coordinating foreign armed police on the streets of
London as well?

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): All these issues are issues for them rather
than for us.

Roger Evans (AM): Thank you. It may be useful if we have them here at some point.

Darren Johnson (Deputy Chair): We can look at that.

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): Yes, that is absolutely where to pursue those

Caroline Pidgeon (AM): You have made it very clear that when the Games are on you are
responsible for the security within venue, you said, so within, for example, the Park. Given that
there have been huge numbers of break-ins over the years into train and Tube depots, how are you
going to ensure that public transport does not pose a security threat, particularly when you have got
lines bisecting the Park, going around the Park and, I think, possibly even under the Park?

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): Well, I can add little to what Paul has just said other than the fact
that that is clearly a wider policing implication. It is about London-wide security. Transport police
will have an input into that and of course the transport police are integrated into this programme.
So as narrowly defined, our responsibility, our budget commitment is to in-venue security. Then
there will be, as we take charge of the Olympic Park, a broader security implication but some of the
London-wide, the transport, the stuff that in essence takes place in what we would call „a dirty
zone‟ which is anything before you get into the Olympic Park is a London-wide policing

Caroline Pidgeon (AM): Whilst I appreciate that I think you do have some responsibility because
some of the lines actually go through the Park, so it is actually in, as it were, the Park; it is in-venue,
so you do need to have some responsibility for that. What are you actually doing on it? You said
you were working with the Olympic Security Directorate, what work is progressing on that? Can
we be reassured? That is where I am very concerned.

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): No, I am sorry, that is exactly what Paul was saying; that this is
work in progress and this is the Directorate‟s responsibility and they are doing that to pull this
together in a coordinated way. Of course, going from a dirty zone into a clean zone, which is what
we live with in the delivery of an Olympic Park, is a complicated security matrix.

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): You make a very good point, which is that
as much as I would like to define things with very defined borders, there is obviously crossover and
that is why the whole approach to planning here is about coordination and integration. When it
comes to the transport system the lead will come from the transport police and the broader security
forces, but clearly we will have to work with them very closely where you have got the transport
network coming up right beside a venue because it plays right into our own transport policy.

So, for example, the way we organise the competition schedules will determine how many people
we have coming out at any one time and the kinds of crowds that we might potentially create at one
of the big stations, that will obviously have a security implication. So, all those things are really the
issues that we will address when we are trying to coordinate the different aspects of this planning.

Tony Arbour (AM): How confident are you in the competence of the Home Office to carry
through all the security procedures that are going to be required with the many tens of thousands of
volunteers that you are going to be using? I am referring particularly to Criminal Record Bureau
(CRB) checks. Currently when police officers are being recruited, teachers are being recruited,
social workers in Haringey are being recruited, it takes many months to go through all of this
process and that is just normal everyday work. So, do you actually think the Home Office are up to

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): All I can point to is our own experience over
the last six months where the focus they have brought to pulling together this particular plan has
been intense. We are very clear with them about our requirements. I think they understand the very
significant increase, if you like, on capacity demands that the Games creates because of its scale.
One of the things, just to give you a parallel reference, we will be working quite closely with some
private security firms which can provide the extra capacity and we are working very closely with
the British Security Industry Association (BSIA) and the Security Industry Authority (SIA) – the
industry body and the regulator - to make sure that licensing in training will allow for the capacity
and skill increases that we will need by 2012 in order to meet that requirement.

Tony Arbour (AM): I am very interested to hear you say that because I think that one‟s
confidence in the private security industry of this country with the people actually going through
Home Office checks has demonstrated, in fact, that those checks have not taken place. I refer to
raids on nightclub bouncers, the people who carry out security work even at the Home Office.
Have you built into your contingency the fact that these characters, the many volunteers - we think
it is a very praise-worthy thing to do to have the volunteers in - are actually not going to be cleared?
I mean, that must be at the back of your minds, mustn‟t it?

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): Yes, the issues around the large numbers of
people we need trained or cleared in all sorts of areas … one of the big challenges in every aspect of
the Games is the capacity. Almost everything we use pushes capacity to its limit. So, working with
the people who are responsible, in this case the Home Office, to ensure they have got the capacity
to, in this case, provide the clearance required is the work we are going through.

Tony Arbour (AM): Is it within your knowledge that the Home Office is actually planning to
recruit people themselves to carry through the checks which these volunteers are going to be
required to go through?

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): We have not got to that stage. As I
described earlier, their plan has not even been finalised and announced yet, so we are not working
with that degree of detail about their planning.

Tony Arbour (AM): On the face of it therefore you are much better prepared than the Home

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): I think we have very, very different roles in
terms of the Olympic Games with security issues.

15/2008 - Temporary Venues

Jenny Jones

Have you explored all options for using existing permanent venues in place of temporary venues in
the light of a changed economic climate?

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): This is an important question because I think
we have touched on this in a number of the other questions as well, so I will try to create a
comprehensive answer which will address, I think, some of the concerns that have been raised
elsewhere too.

Let me just remind you of the key bid principles in devising our venue portfolio. It was that we
would have no white elephants so we would stick to sustainability and it was that we would produce
a compact Games. A compact Games so that athletes, as Seb has said, could be competitors rather
than commuters. It was that combination of sustainability and having a compact Games which was
instrumental in us winning the Olympics and Paralympics and bringing them to London.

The result of that approach to our venue strategy, and what we did during the bid, was to assess
every venue in London to see whether or not it could play a part in the Olympic Games. What you
have to remember about the Olympic Games is that in terms of spectator capacity, the field of play
for athletes, all the back of house, whether it is for drug testing, whether it is for broadcast, whether
it is for warm up, is far, far greater than for any other sporting event. So, it is unlikely that a venue
that works perfectly for an Olympic Games would have other use beyond an Olympic Games and of
course you are unlikely to get more than one of those in a lifetime. So that creates a particular

So, you end up with a mix of portfolios, permanent new ones that you build, and in our case of
course the best examples of those in the Park, the Olympic Stadium, the Aquatic Centre, the Velo
Park for cycling, the Hockey Centre and just up in Broxbourne the Canoe Slalom, so there we felt
we could build new venues for which we would be able to devise a long term and sustainable
business plan and which actually produced facilities which London had been sadly lacking in
frankly. Here we are, the world‟s leading cycling nation, you have to go to Newport or to
Manchester to be able to find a Velodrome - so I would actually justify investing in those absent an
Olympic Games.

We are then left with using the permanent venues that actually work for an Olympic Games, and
there is a whole series of those: you would include the Dome, you would include Wembley for
football, Wimbledon for tennis and most significantly the ExCel Exhibition Centre, which is very
suitable for all the fighting sports and ping pong --

Jenny Jones (AM): Could I break in? It is just I am very concerned that you did actually decide to
put fencing into a permanent venue. I am just very concerned you appear to be basing some of your

decisions on a KPMG report that we have not seen. I gather it is not even finalised. I know you
cannot discuss it but will you not make any decisions until that report is finalised?

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): Yes, well I was getting exactly to that point
but I really thought it was important for people to understand the principles which had led us to
where we were. So that group of venues was crystallised in the bid document which formed part of
the candidate file for the host city contract and those were the sets of venues that we were obliged to
deliver as part of the Games.

Since we have won the Games we have continued to look at ways to deliver them more
economically to save more money. The first thing we did was to take a temporary volleyball arena,
decide not to build it and to move volleyball to Earl‟s Court - saved a significant amount of money.
The reason we did that, by the way, was to create other economies.

Jenny Jones (AM): I am really sorry but I am running out of time and I know all this you see, that
is why I am asking these questions. I am very concerned that you will not make any decisions until
that report is finalised. Is that something you are --?

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): No, I can tell you what the draft conclusions
are of the report which will be presented to the Olympic Board this afternoon and then, of course, it
is for the Olympic Board to make decisions.

Fencing, as you know, has moved to ExCel. So, again, that saved a lot of money because we did
not have to build a temporary venue for fencing. The temporary venues that we looked at by the
KPMG report were a venue that was to have been built on the peninsula in Greenwich, originally
for badminton and rhythmic gymnastics and volleyball. The draft conclusion of the KPMG report
is that there ought to be an economic opportunity to shift that to save some money and so over the
next few months we will be progressing that so that will be a cost saving that will emerge from that

The second venue they asked us to look at was the one remaining temporary venue in the Park
which is the basketball venue. The draft conclusion of KPMG is that it does not make economic
sense to move it because it is not just basketball, it is also the handball finals, wheelchair basketball
and rugby.

Jenny Jones (AM): Paul, I am so sorry but I am running out of time. I am glad you are telling us
about the draft recommendations but can you answer this then: is the report going to be made

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): Yes, absolutely, because if for no other
reason freedom of information will make it available.

Jenny Jones (AM): Fine, and that will be soon, will it?

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): It will be by the end of the year. The only
reason I am cautious about the timing of releasing it is that there are commercial implications
because, of course, if one of the conclusions to the report is that we have to negotiate an alternative

arrangement, it will actually cost taxpayers money if all that is made public, so that creates a little
bit of an issue in terms of all the conclusions in the report.

Jenny Jones (AM): Finally, are you yourself confident that the whole issue about environmental
impact and things like stored energy were taken into account by this report? Because I am very,
very dubious of that. I just do not believe that the environmental impact of purely temporary
venues that give no value to Londoners apart from the spectacle has been taken into account.

Paul Deighton (Chief Executive Officer, LOCOG): The principal consideration of KPMG was
to look at whether there were economic savings to be created by looking at other solutions to those
particular temporary venues.

Murad Qureshi (AM): Seb, it appears Jacques Rogge [IOC President] has changed his position on
the Olympic Stadium. Does that put you in a difficult position?

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): No, actually the president has not changed his view on that. We
were very clear from the outset that there was no sense in leaving an 85,000-seater stadium - you
have heard me talk about the reasons for that. We wanted to get Track and Field into the mix. We
share absolutely the same agenda that the president shares and that is that our primary legacy
concern is not to leave a white elephant behind but four years out this is absolutely the right
moment to be scoping multi-tenancy agreements and talking widely to sports, like track and field,
but to other sports as well.

We are looking at clearly, as you know, any number of legacies that can be attached to that. I
personally favour focusing on the ambitions of schools within East London that have for many,
many years been deprived of sporting facilities. I think this can serve in the community in a very
serious way, but these are all the issues that are being scoped at the moment. He is absolutely on the
same agenda and funnily enough we spoke about that only last night.

Valerie Shawcross (AM): I wanted to raise a local legacy matter. One of the temporary facilities
is, of course, going to be for the equestrian events. I would very much like to see a permanent
legacy around that sport, in particular in Brixton we have a very, very active club called the Ebony
Horse Club which trains local disadvantaged youngsters in horse-riding to a very high standard and
it has got a terrific social benefit for the area. They do have a very sound project which is supported
by the British Equestrian Federation (BEF) of Sport England to develop a permanent equestrian
centre in Brixton.

Now, is there any way that a sporting and social project like that can be linked in to thinking about
legacy for the temporary sports?

Lord Coe (Chair, LOCOG): Can I make the broader point - and you are absolutely spot on - that
one of the reasons that we were so keen to find a Central London location for this sport is that - if I
am being hard-nosed about it – we didn‟t want to move the sport, yet again, [far away from the
main site of the Games] which is what has happened so often … One of the opening conversations I
had when I became bid chairman was from the international event riders - many of them personal
friends of mine - who said, “Look, for goodness sake you are for the first time in a position to allow
us to be part of the Games”. Being part of the Games means actually sharing the Olympic spirit

within the village and all the other things. As you quite rightly say it is introducing equestrian sport
into not the most fertile territory, for very many reasons.

So, the first legacy, of course, is increased interest and participation in those sports, which will
present themselves not merely for the elite, but for all. As those of us who are involved in that sport
know, it is far from an elitist based sport but it does have that perception. So actually getting that
sport into a Central London location was a very important part of our Singapore vision, agreed with
by the Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI), certainly with the British Equestrian Federation -
and I am very conscious of the project that you have talked about that serves local communities
very well.

The broader issue about legacy is being scoped at the moment and it is important that we, yes,
increase that level of provision for the sport in London, and whether that is in some form a
temporary venue with borough cooperation, and we are certainly looking at that, there is a legacy
team out there looking specifically at the equestrian legacy for London. It is an important part of
the matrix for us.

Darren Johnson (Deputy Chair): OK, thank you. That now concludes our questioning, because
we are all out of time, so I would like to thank Paul Deighton and Lord Coe for taking the trouble to
come along and answer our questions today. Many thanks.


To top