Security costs for the London 2012 Olympics could rise to nearly £1bn, but fears of another rise in the overall budget proved false yesterday.
Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell confirmed that an extra £238m of contingency funds would be set aside for security during the games, in addition to a £600m sum previously announced.
She also revealed that the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), which oversees construction of Olympic venues and infrastructure, had already been given all the £500m earmarked for initial contingency for costs on early projects.
But she stressed that "months of careful scrutiny" had confirmed that the total cost of hosting the sporting event would remain within the £9.3bn figure which was announced in March.
There was speculation the statement in the House of Commons would reveal that there was a one-in-five chance of the budget rising again.
Costs have already spiralled to nearly four times the estimate of £2.4bn made in 2005 when the city won the right to host the games.
Opposition politicians welcomed the news that costs seemed to have stabilised, but claimed that key pledges remained uncosted.
Yesterday's financial breakdown for the games was the most detailed so far revealed by the government. It followed a request in July by the financial watchdog, the National Audit Office, to draw up a detailed baseline for controlling the budget.
Speaking in the Commons, the Olympics Minister said: "The budget is consistent with the funding package I outlined in March this year. Months of scrutiny have confirmed the ODA has the money to deliver the venues and infrastructure for a terrific summer of sport, as well as leaving a long-term legacy for one of the most deprived parts of the country."
The contingency was confirmed to be enough to cover the risks at both project and overall levels, she added.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article