17 January 2003
She pointed to the 'harsh realities of finance' as the reason for Labour's growing scepticism towards a project that could cost more than £4bn.
Jowell appeared twice in the Commons to outline the government's growing antipathy towards bidding for a scheme that would be based around the capital's East End, and would include projects to regenerate parts of three London boroughs.
She told a committee of MPs that Labour was entertaining all possible funding options 'in the broadest possible sense,' including using extra National Lottery cash. She added: 'But at the end of the day, the provider of the last resort is the taxpayer. So we are looking at it, but as potentially major public expenditure [competing] alongside expenditure on schools and hospitals.'
Jowell said the cost of the project would be around £4.5bn, despite an independent report valuing the games at £2bn. She also raised concerns that the Olympics would not leave a lasting legacy and that the East End's transport systems could not cope with around 600,000 extra visitors alone.
But she vowed that the government 'would go hell-for-leather' and throw its full weight behind a bid, should the Treasury and Department of Culture, Media and Sport back the idea.
DCMS committee member John Thurso said: 'It's fair to say the [government's] mood music has been very black.'
Ministers must decide by January 30 if they will support a bid, but experts feel it is now unlikely. Rival bids are expected to be lodged by Spain, Germany, France, Russia and the US.
One funding scheme reportedly being entertained by the Treasury would allow London Mayor Ken Livingstone to raise cash through borrowing on the financial markets and to repay the debt by increasing taxes in the capital.
But Greater London Authority members poured scorn on the idea because it would double the current GLA precept from £150 to £300 a year for seven years.
Meg Hillier, chair of the GLA's sport and tourism committee, said she was 'staggered' by the suggestion that Londoners should foot the bill for the entire project. 'If I were cynical, I would say this was the chancellor's way of passing responsibility for what would be a controversial project on to the mayor,' she said.
PFjan2003
