Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Jo Swinson (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 6 December 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on London Olympics Bill 2005-06.


London Olympics Bill

I have a great deal of sympathy with the points raised by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway). In the Westminster Hall debate on this issue last week, he set out very eloquently the concerns of his constituent and the business that he runs. There has been a huge amount of support for the games from the business community and from individuals in London and the rest of the UK, but we need to ensure that the business community will be compensated appropriately. The amendment raises certain questions. How is the compensation to be applied? What levels will be set? Where is the money to come from? Ultimately, who is to be the judge? Businesses have set forth their case for being injured by the games and suggested the amount of compensation that they believe to be appropriate. The Sunday Express on 27 November carried the example of a concrete-crushing business that had claimed that it needed £20 million of compensation. It had been offered £1.5 million, so there was obviously a difference of opinion as to what the business should be entitled to. Certain unscrupulous companies or individuals might seek to benefit unduly from the games by submitting cases that do not have sufficient merit, and we need to find a way of arbitrating all the cases. One sensible suggestion is that we should appoint an independent arbitrator who could address the problem. They would evaluate the loss to the business and examine the case that had been presented. Each business will probably have a unique case. The arbitrator’s judgment could then be presented to the Department or agency that would be required to pay the compensation. That would present an accurate and fair fee for transferring land to the games, and a process in which all those involved could have faith. About 300 businesses might be affected, and such a process could instil faith in them that they would receive the compensation that they were due. We spoke earlier about the sound financial management required to ensure that the games come in on budget. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that we must ensure that those businesses that will genuinely be affected can get the support that they need. At the same time, however, we must ensure that the LDA is not held hostage and that we do not leave ourselves vulnerable to ever-escalating costs. I suggest that an independent arbitrator would provide a good answer to this problem.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
440 c795-6 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disability Compensation Compulsory purchase Betting Advertising Costs Business Council tax Contracts for services Finance Land Greater London Greater London Authority Infrastructure Facilities Local government Property transfer Planning Olympic Games National Lottery Location Paralympic Games Sales Regional planning and development Sports Touting Transport for London Tickets Regional development agencies London Development Agency London 2012 Organising Committee Olympic Delivery Authority
Legislation
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk