Articles

Olympics legacy must focus on jobs

Email this to a friend Print Delicious Digg Facebook Reddit

by Anthony Vigor, senior research fellow, sustainability
Regeneration and Renewal - 24 February 2006

Why is London hosting the 2012 Olympic Games? Although many will be hoping for British medal success, even the most sport-mad readers of this magazine are more concerned about the Games’ regeneration opportunities (and challenges). Given this, what are we to make of the recent winding-up of the Olympic ‘Legacy Board’ run by Lord Carter of Coles?

Lord Carter’s board was established by London 2012 during the bid process to address the IOC’s concern that the Olympics were too often leaving host cities a legacy of under-used venues. ‘White Elephants’ not only monuments to missed opportunities in the host cities; they were tarnishing the Olympic brand.

The London bid seems to have addressed these issues well. There are questions over the main stadium, although alternative uses are being discussed. The imaginative post-Games use of (some temporary) facilities has been well received. Indeed, many saw London’s ‘legacy offer’ as the major reason it won the race. The Carter board seems to have done its job well.

Yet its winding-up is a positive move. Its remit was limited – it focused on this physical, post-Games use aspect of Olympic legacy. ippr/Demos research has shown that past Games have focused too much on such ‘hard infrastructure’ concerns. They have automatically assumed that the people and places most in need of any Olympic benefits will receive them. There is little evidence of this.

London cannot repeat these mistakes. The bid was presented as a ‘once in a lifetime opportunity to transform the Lower Lea Valley’. For real long-term benefits to be secured and the Lower Lea Valley to be ‘transformed’, attention to the ‘soft infrastructure’ is also fundamentally important.

What does this mean in practice? Employment and skills issues are particularly illuminating. Not only are they perhaps the most important ‘soft infrastructure’ issues within regeneration, they also demonstrate the scale of the challenge faced.

As we all know, the five East London boroughs hosting the Olympics are amongst the most deprived in the country. They have exceptionally high rates of unemployment and economic inactivity. The proportion of the population with low or no formal skills qualifications is significantly higher than the national average.

If the Lower Lea Valley is to be transformed – socially as well as physically – then these are the people that need to access new employment opportunities. Sustainable regeneration in the Lower Lea Valley will require an increase in the employment rate that is not only the result of one highly skilled population moving in and displacing the indigenous lower skilled one.

In addressing this issue, the early moves have been positive. Four ‘Olympic Objectives’ are to be announced soon. The first two obviously have to be stated objectives. But the more important and interesting objectives are the last two – those concerned with the economic, social, environmental and sporting legacies.

The third objective, ‘maximising economic, social and environmental benefits’, has two elements – London and the UK. The Mayor is responsible for delivering the benefits to London; Whitehall for the rest of the UK. The adoption of a cross-Whitehall approach is positive news. Each department is to be asked how the Olympics can be used to deliver on its existing objectives.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The desired outcomes are already government priorities. Targets and programmes to increase employment and skills amongst disadvantaged individuals and communities and raise sports participation rates already exist. The question rightly is: how can the Olympics better help your department deliver on these existing objectives?

The creation of a London 2012 Employment and Skills Taskforce by the Mayor is particularly encouraging. Its aims are to provide residents with skills so they can compete for any new jobs that arise and work with employers to change their recruitment procedures, which have sometimes discriminated against such individuals.

These positive early signs must also be balanced by some challenges ahead. Public finances are looking tight. The Olympics is one of a number of competing priorities for the government. While the approach to mainstream the Olympics in departments’ core business is sensible, what if extra resources are required to maximise, say, employment opportunities? Will extra money be available and who should pay for it, London or the UK as a whole? Furthermore, what if there is a trade-off between delivering the infrastructure to budget and ensuring it meets local needs? Which will be prioritised?

Six months after winning the race to host the 2012 Olympics, London has made good progress meeting its promises of ensuring legacy issues are taken seriously. The winding-up of the ‘Legacy Board’ represent a sensible step in the mainstreaming of legacy concerns into the delivery of the Olympics. It is not a sign that these concerns have been dropped. While these early signs are encouraging, there are real challenges ahead. As government spending and delivery dates become tighter the real importance of legacy issues will be known.

The Olympic organisation infrastructure has gradually been put in place over the last six months. Three bodies are central to the delivery of the Olympics:

Olympic Board – has overall responsibility for the Olympic project and is where the work of LOCOG and the ODA is joined-up. It is comprised of: Tessa Jowell (representing central government), Ken Livingstone (London), Seb Coe (LOCOG) and Colin Moynihan (British Olympic Association).

London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) – responsible for organising, publicising and staging the Games.

Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) – responsible for delivering the Olympics venues, facilities and infrastructure. Not formally established until the Olympic Bill has been passed.

Anthony Vigor is a senior research fellow in ippr's sustainability team find out more about their work at www.ippr.org/sustainability