Mayor of London logo London Assembly logo
Home

Search questions

Filter results

Asked of 2

Meeting type

Organisation

Question by

Status

Year

  • Potential for Further Budget Increases (Supplementary) [1]

    • Question by: Damian Hockney
    • Meeting date: 25 April 2007
    Sir Roy, how much of the £500 million construction contingency has so far been earmarked to be spent? There has been a lot of talk about this and a lot of rumours in the industry.

  • Potential for Further Budget Increases (Supplementary) [2]

    • Question by: Damian Hockney
    • Meeting date: 25 April 2007
    My only point really on this is that it is in that area where costs can so easily run away. In the industry, there are rumours; you speak to any of the major contractors or the journalists in the area, and they will tell you that £350 million of the £500 million has so far been earmarked, and that insiders within the ODA have told them this.

  • Potential for Further Budget Increases (Supplementary) [3]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 25 April 2007
    Does that include taking advice from the people on Lord James of Blackheath's team who had to bail out some of the consequences of the Dome? The police were involved in that.

  • Potential for Further Budget Increases (Supplementary) [4]

    • Question by: Damian Hockney
    • Meeting date: 25 April 2007
    So it will not go to CLM (CH2M Hill International, Laing O'Rourke, Mace)? They will not be the people who will do it?

  • Potential for Further Budget Increases (Supplementary) [5]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 25 April 2007
    The trouble that I have is that the more one departs from basic commercial practice, when we fall into public sector practice, the greater the risk, history tells us, of budget overruns.

  • Potential for Further Budget Increases (Supplementary) [6]

    • Question by: Damian Hockney
    • Meeting date: 25 April 2007
    The fact that so few people appear to have tendered for the Aquatic Centre does that not concern you in terms of possibilities?

  • Potential for Further Budget Increases (Supplementary) [7]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 25 April 2007
    Can I come, Sir Roy, back to a point that Mr Higgins made in relation to our earlier discussions? I am concerned about the extent to which bottom up budgeting is really being regarded as being acceptable at all. Would you not accept that one of the lessons I think that we have learned from projects like the Dome and other public sector projects is that, by and large, you should start from the revenue generation figure, and be very reluctant about bottom up budgeting, because that is where you get `creep'? If you have the revenue regeneration figure as...

  • Potential for Further Budget Increases (Supplementary) [8]

    • Question by: Richard Barnes
    • Meeting date: 25 April 2007
    How great is the budget for this security process, during the build phase of the building site?

  • Potential for Further Budget Increases (Supplementary) [9]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 25 April 2007
    ): I am grateful for that. When we looked at past history, things like Wembley and the Dome, one thing which tended to cause further increases in budgets was, regrettably, elements of fraud, sometimes sub-contractor fraud, and a lack of control over sub-contractor costs. What lessons have we learnt? What systems are being put in place to bear down upon that in a way which did not happen, perhaps, in some of those other projects?

  • Potential for Further Budget Increases (Supplementary) [10]

    • Question by: Richard Barnes
    • Meeting date: 25 April 2007
    So, at this moment, the total budgeting costs for security are approximately £1.4 billion then, if one conflates the two figures?