2012 Olympics (Legacy)

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on securing the debate. I am sure he is excited at the prospect of the Olympics being held in his backyard—a much-deprived part of east London that he has represented with great distinction over the past decade and a half.

Financial concerns were always at the heart of the issue for those of us who expressed some doubts, prior to 6 July 2005, about the wisdom of the London bid for the Olympics. Those doubts have not been entirely assuaged by the passage of time. We should face facts: we have the Olympics and we have to make the best of it. There is no doubt that, with all the planning in place, it will be a great, spectacular three-week festival in August 2012. However, that should not be at the expense of the legacy. When £9.2 billion of public money is being expended on the Olympics games, there ought to be a long-term physical legacy of interest. I shall touch on that in a moment.

The right hon. Gentleman understandably talked much about the future of the stadium. I very much share his views and concerns about what might happen. As vice-chairman of the all-party group on football, I believe that it would be right for West Ham to have the stadium, rather than it going further afield to Tottenham Hotspur. I understand many of the concerns expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on this matter. In 1997, I was my party’s candidate in Enfield North, where I reckoned at least two-thirds of the football fans were Spurs, rather than Arsenal supporters. I remember that in the Lea Valley area of the constituency there was a great passion for and pride in Tottenham Hotspur. For many football fans across the country, the notion of Tottenham Hotspur moving 4 or 5 miles away might seem to involve a small distance, but in the context of the villages that make up London it is very important. People would quickly forget the long-term history based around White Hart Lane.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that West Ham are an east London team, Tottenham are a north London team, and that the Olympic stadium is in east London?

[Mr Field]

I am sure that, as an expert on postcodes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, although one might ask, where does east turn to north? We will not go down that route, but he makes a good point. It would be encouraging for Twenty20 cricket in particular if Essex used that stadium. It is a tragedy that Essex have not regularly played cricket at either Valentine’s Park in Ilford or at Leyton, which still has a beautiful historic 1930s pavilion, for 20 or 30 years. It would be great to see the stadium being used for that purpose.

The right hon. Member for East Ham hit the nail right on the head in relation to the short-term issues that affect West Ham United and Tottenham Hotspur. It would be a great shame to look at this matter just in the context of where the two clubs are at the moment. I fear that I may be less of an optimist about the Hammers’ chances over the next four or five months, as they might well end up a championship club with financial problems in the very short term by the time the season ends in May. Tottenham Hotspur are having one of their most successful seasons since 1960-61, when they won the double. They now understandably regard themselves as a champions league team: they are in the last 16 and may well qualify as of right for the champions league next season. Therefore, there would be great passion for the idea of having a big stadium, not just because the Olympic stadium has a capacity of 60,000—well above the 37,000 to 38,000 at White Hart Lane—but because it will be seen as iconic. However, I strongly believe that that would be a short-term decision made with the facts of December 2010 and 2011 in mind, rather than the long-term historical perspective pointed out by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes).

I want to say a few words in passing about the commitment we are making to the Olympic movement with our bid. The right hon. Members for East Ham and for Tottenham, and the Minister, will have seen the well-researched, quite provocative article in The Spectator of 11 December, “The true cost of the Olympics”. Following a number of freedom of information requests, Ed Howker and Andrew Gilligan went into some detail about the precise nature of the commitment that we have made to the International Olympic Committee. We are now in a very different era—an era of austerity—from that we were in five and half years ago when we won the Olympic bid. The article identified some ludicrous situations: the money to be spent on having some 40,000 hotel rooms booked for IOC flunkies over three weeks in August 2012; the somewhat absurd brand-protection rights that are being insisted upon, not just in the Olympic stadium, but within a large, well-defined curtilage in that part of London. As Mr Howker and Mr Gilligan put it, there will almost be a “state within a state” in London during that month in 2012.

I firmly believe that the very scarce financial resources that we have for the Olympic games must not be used simply to placate the desire of a vast International Olympic Committee quangocracy. I want to see a much bigger and a proper legacy for the locality, particularly in that part of east London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, begin by declaring an interest. I am desperate for West Ham to win at Fulham on Boxing day and then at home to Everton and at home to Wolves. I have been a season ticket-holder in the Bobby Moore stand for many years. I have supported the club for 50 years and I know that there is a long tradition of fans being attached to our current ground. Indeed, there are some West Ham fans who do not want West Ham to move to the Olympic stadium either.

However, the fact is that if West Ham moves to the Olympic stadium site, it will fulfil not only the commitment made to athletics, but for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has given, it will be a commitment to the regeneration of east London and to the priorities of the community there.

If Tottenham Hotspur moves, it will be like Milton Keynes Dons; presumably, the team will rebrand itself as the “Stratford Spurs”. It will become a peripatetic football team, losing its roots and traditions. By contrast, if West Ham moves, it will still be a team from the east end, a team in the borough of Newham and a team with roots in the community, proud to have the claret and blue flying over the Olympic stadium in Stratford and proud to serve the community of east London, including the community in Ilford, where I live and where my constituency is located.

There are a few Tottenham fans in Ilford—not many—but I have not found a single Tottenham fan who wishes to travel to Stratford to go to football matches. I believe that Spurs fans should continue to travel to N17 and West Ham fans should continue to travel to the east end, to grounds in the communities from which they come and which represent their values for the future. One real winner will come from the West Ham bid: the legacy. That is why it is important that West Ham and Newham council’s bid is successful.