Tight controls?

From the BBC 24 July (why do I feel that I should add "Oh, yeah?" to the comment that the £9.3 billion must not be exceeded? And, thanks government for the encouragement - they want us to be 4th in the overall medals table and 2nd in the paralympics. Why not first, eh?) Hey, did anyone see the cost of the tickets for the opening ceremony in Beijing? £1,200 a seat! Reassuring that the Games are held for the people - how many in China earn that much in a year? :

There must be "tight control over costs" in the run-up to the 2012 London Olympics, MPs have said.

An "eagle eye" is needed to ensure the £1bn contingency fund is not exceeded, the public accounts committee added.

But "arrangements to manage the whole programme and the associated risks are not yet in place", chairman Edward Leigh warned.

The government said its commitment to not exceeding the £9.3bn public funding budget for the Games was "unequivocal".

In its report the committee noted that the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), in charge of building and infrastructure for the Games, had not yet reached agreement with Lend Lease, its preferred developer for the Olympic Village.

Mr Leigh, Conservative MP for Gainsborough, said: "As legacy and security requirements are firmed up and as lessons from Beijing are taken on board, the delivery bodies must keep tight control over costs and time.

"There will be pressure to change venues and infrastructure, the delivery bodies must be quite clear about the costs of any such changes and their consequences for the programme.

"The rocky state of the financial and property markets has not helped efforts, so far unsuccessful, to reach a deal with the private sector to build the Olympic Village, expected to cost more than £1bn."

He added: "In the light of growing uncertainties, the Department [for Culture, Media and Sport] should keep an eagle eye on potential demands on the £1bn of contingency funds which have not yet been earmarked."

The government has set the Great Britain team the target of coming fourth in the 2012 medals table and second in the Paralympics.

But the government is not even "out of the starting blocks" in its drive to raise £100m to boost elite sport, Mr Leigh said.

The report suggested: "There is a risk that, unless the activities of a wide range of public, private and voluntary bodies are properly co-ordinated, the focus on winning medals could distract the department's attention from encouraging ordinary people to participate.

"There is no clear evidence that elite sporting achievement influences people to take up sport in the long term, and Olympic medallists in certain sports such as rowing and equestrianism do not represent the make-up of the wider population, with a disproportionate number coming from privileged backgrounds."

Efforts to raise the £100m from the private sector are expected to begin after next month's Beijing Olympics but the DCMS has not been able to say how it expects to attract private sector donors or provide any guarantees that the money would be raised, the committee noted.

A DCMS spokesman said: "Since the committee's last report, construction of the Olympic Stadium and the Aquatics Centre has begun ahead of schedule, construction of the Olympic Village has begun on time and three-quarters of the 2.5 square kilometre Olympic Park site has now been cleared.

"We told the committee that the £9.3bn budget for the Olympics cannot and will not be exceeded and that commitment is unequivocal.

"We have made progress in developing a range of proposals to raise the £100m private sector funding for elite sport with Fast Track as our official fund-raising partner.

"We are in discussions with a number of interested parties about a national sponsorship scheme to help our athletes prepare for London 2012."

Liberal Democrat sports spokesman Don Foster said: "Looking at the numerous holes in the Olympic project, one has to ask what on earth these various scrutiny bodies have been doing.

"Legacy plans must be finalised to ensure that the Games are a success. The government's inability to attract private investors for elite sport is also extremely disappointing."

The Beeb also quotes:
"There is no clear evidence that elite sporting achievement influences people to take up sport in the long term", a comment made by the Public accounts committee.

The Public Servant Daily was a bit more forthright in its observations. Again it is interesting that the committee brought in to keep the costs down cost us only £87million in the last year - wonder if they saved more than that...:

Preparations for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in London are not going as well as they could, in terms of improving the chances of success for Britain’s competitors and in making sure the project is delivered on time and to budget, according to the Committee of Public Accounts (PAC).

MPs felt that the medal table goals of fourth and second respectively are "demanding" and UK Sport should use the country’s performance in the Beijing Olympics as a benchmark to how much work needs to be done to meet these targets.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport itself is not yet off the starting blocks in its drive to raise the £100m it needs from the private sector, the committee said, and if the money that eventually comes in is too little or too late this could harm the teams’ chances of medals. There has to be a ‘Plan B’ for protecting funds for the sports most likely to win medals in 2012.

As for being ready to host the games, the committee welcomed the news that construction had begun and the programme was broadly on track but it was concerned that there were still no firm arrangements on managing the whole programme and the risks associated with it.

PAC chairman Edward Leigh said: "As legacy and security requirements are firmed up and as lessons from Beijing are taken on board, the delivery bodies must keep tight control over costs and time. There will be pressure to change venues and infrastructure; the delivery bodies must be quite clear about the costs of any such changes and their consequences for the programme."

He added: "The rocky state of the financial and property markets has not helped efforts, so far unsuccessful, to reach a deal with the private sector to build the Olympic Village, expected to cost more than £1bn. The [government] has unequivocally assured the committee that the present £9.3bn public funding budget for the games will not be exceeded. In the light of growing uncertainties, the [government] should keep an eagle eye on potential demands on the £1bn of contingency funds which have not yet been earmarked."

A consortium called in to look at keeping costs down when building arenas and the 2012 Olympic village cost the taxpayer £87m in the last financial year, according to a government report.

Made up of Laing O’Rourke, Mace, the British management company, and the programme manager CH2M Hill, the consortium was paid 15 per cent of the £563m the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) spent in the year. At the same time, staff costs at the ODA went up by 36 per cent from £18.7m to £29.2m. ODA chairman John Armitt defended the spending.

"This is a project without precedent," he said. "The remuneration of the senior management team reflects the scale of this challenge and is consistent with industry market levels. It also reflects the good progress that has been made in preparing the Olympic Park site in the last year."