Having heard what the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) had to say, I have an opportunity to go a little further. I appreciate that many London Members, among others, will have a view on the level of council tax payments to the fund, but, as I said before, if the money does not come from London council tax payers, where is it to come from? The new clause makes no mention of that, which is why I offered the hon. Gentleman a chance to tell us.
I am quite confident about the £2.3 billion package, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm it. The figures that make up the package, which had cross-party support when we went to Singapore, represent a built-in flexibility based on the understanding that projects such as this always involve a cost overrun. The package assumes a potentially large overrun and builds in flexibility at a level that I consider acceptable.
I hope that the new clause will be rejected on the basis that, as I have said, it does not tell us where the rest of the contribution will come from. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am already anxious about the amount that will have to come from existing lottery funds. I should be more anxious if, as a result of the new clause, more money had to come from funds for grass-roots sport or other lottery contributions.
London Olympics Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Andy Reed
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 6 December 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on London Olympics Bill 2005-06.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
440 c765 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:32:36 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_284202
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_284202
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_284202