Since the Games, the same political impetus and agreed deadlines no longer exist and many aspects of legacy are in danger of faltering, whilst some have fallen by the wayside. There is confusion on the timeframes and targets involved in delivery and a lack of clear ownership of legacy as a whole. The committee recommends that a minister be given overall responsibility for the Olympic legacy, enabling greater co-ordination across Whitehall departments. It also believes the Mayor of London should be given control over further development of east London and the Olympic Park in Stratford. There is also a warning over the geographic disparity in the economic benefits stemming from the Games. While London and the south-east of England benefited with nearly 15,000 additional jobs, just seven were created in the North East. London 2012 may have promised to inspire a generation but the committee says it found little evidence [of a] step change in sports participation levels across the UK. UK Sport, the body that invests approximately GBP100m in high-performance athletes and teams each year and decides funding levels for Olympic and Paralympic sports, is also criticised. The committee believes not enough is being done by UK Sport to help both team and emerging sports. The ‘no compromise’ approach of UK Sport has delivered medals for Team GB and has clearly improved top-end importance. This approach, however, has an inherent bias against team sports, and fails to help emerging sports, some of which, such as handball and volleyball, generated real enthusiasm at London 2012.