We have been engaged in a rigorous review of costs since London was awarded the games in July 2005. Following the conclusion of discussions within Government, I announced on 15 March 2007, Official Report, column 450, a budget for the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) and on a number of issues including wider security, tax and contingency provision.
[holding answer 8 March 2007]: Private sector funding has never been part of the public sector funding package, but at the time of the bid, we were pursuing options for private sector funding. The bid reflected this potential, but in light of further work and advice after the bid, it seemed incompatible to achieve funding with the sort of time scale that was going to be necessary.
As I said when replying to the hon. Member’s questions on 15 March after making my statement to the House
“We have now allowed for a private sector contribution in the budget, but on a pessimistic basis against the full expectation of what might be raised ... Negotiations are underway ... with different private sector partners so it is possible, but not certain that that may change.—[Official Report, 15 March 2007; vol. 458, col. 455]”
This excludes the Olympic village where the major share of funding will come from the private sector.
The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) is responsible for construction at the Royal Artillery Barracks and the temporary Greenwich arena. The ODA is currently working with the London Organising Committee for the 2012 Olympic games and Paralympic games (LOCOG) to finalise each venue’s requirements for the games, which will inform the construction programme.
The remaining venues or sites are covered by LOCOG as part of their programme to deliver temporary additional facilities and services (e.g. temporary seating, platforms, signage) required to support all elements of operations during the games. Commencement of the delivery of these facilities is scheduled for early 2012.
There will also be some earlier work to provide for test events in 2011.
The Faithful and Gould report was not commissioned by DCMS and we are not aware of any estimates they may have made. All the other reports assumed that the level of private investment in the Olympic Village would be 100 per cent.
After bid win, I instituted a thorough cost review. As a result, it was clear that we would need to compensate private developers for the additional costs incurred in meeting the Olympic specifications and timing. In my evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 21 November 2006, I therefore said that we expected the majority of the financing for the development of the Olympic Village would come from the private sector, but the specific arrangements for this had yet to be finalised.
The Olympic Delivery Authority have since announced that they are in talks with Lend Lease for the development of the Olympic Village.
The £1.275 billion reported in the regulatory impact assessment for the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004 was not broken down in this degree of detail at that stage.
Following London winning the bid I have instituted a thorough review of costs and provisions, as I made clear I would, to the House of Commons on 15 May 2003. I made a statement on funding provision for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games on 15 March.
As a result the ODA will be given a budget to cover the construction costs as a whole of £5.3 billion up to 2012 comprising:
£3.1 billion for the building of Olympic Park and venues—the core Olympic costs;
£1.7 billion for the Olympic infrastructure and regeneration, linking the park to the rest of the Lower Lea Valley and;
£500 million for programme contingency.
(2) whether she has received any advice from the Treasury on the likely impact of the proposed planning gain supplement tax on the Olympic Games budget.
[holding answer 22 March 2007]: The Government are now carefully considering the responses to the consultations on the planning gain supplement (PGS) which closed recently. If, after further consideration, the Government decide to proceed with PGS then it would be introduced no earlier than 2009.
The Government announced at the 2006 pre-Budget report that transitional arrangements would aim to ensure that developments already formally in the planning process would not be subject to PGS.
The Government propose that for development where planning permission was granted before an appropriate appointed day in the future, including for outline planning permissions, PGS would not apply.
DCMS Ministers have not held discussions with shooting organisations on the siting of the Olympic shooting events. Ministers have received correspondence from the National Rifle Association, the British International Clay Target Shooting Federation and Southern Counties Shooting Ltd. over the selection of venue for the Olympic shooting events, and suggesting several alternative venues. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 14 March 2007, Official Report, column 324W, on the selection of the location for the Olympic shooting events.