1.  Good progress has been made in preparing the Olympic Park site and construction has started. There has been slippage in the planned completion of some projects, including the Main Stadium and the Aquatics Centre, but on current estimates the construction programme is broadly on track.

2.  The Department and Olympic Delivery Authority could come under pressure to change plans and designs as legacy and security requirements are firmed up, and in the light of the Beijing Games. The more the 2012 programme progresses, the harder it will be to incorporate changes without generating additional costs and delays, and, possibly, squeezing out legacy requirements. The Department and the Olympic Delivery Authority should be clear about the cost and funding of proposed changes, their impact on the programme and the assessment criteria to be used.

3.  Despite the previous recommendations of the Committee, effective programme management arrangements are not yet in place. Three years after London was awarded the Games, the Department's programme planning and risk management arrangements are still not fully developed. The arrangements, which the Department now expects to be fully embedded by the end of 2008, should include:

• A programme plan that brings together the key activities of the delivery organisations and identifies any overlaps, gaps or critical dependencies between different elements of the programme.
• Consolidated analyses of the risks identified by individual delivery organisations, with their significance rated on a consistent basis using common criteria, and clarity about the mitigating actions needed.
• Identification of risks beyond the control of the individual delivery organisations. There should be clear assessments of the likelihood of risks being realised and their potential impact. Mitigating actions should be identified, and responsibilities assigned.
• Regular and user friendly reporting of the more important risks (for individual organisations and programme-wide) to the Olympic Board, and records of decisions taken.
• Documented protocols for keeping up to date the overarching programme plan and assessments of risks.

4.  As well as the preparations for the London 2012 Games, there are other publicly funded programmes aimed at economic regeneration of East London, making it harder to isolate the impacts of the Games. The Department should determine the evaluative methods and criteria it will use to assess the impact of the Games so there is clarity now about how the benefits will be evaluated later. The Department will need to take account of regeneration that would have occurred in East London without the Games, and disentangle the impacts of the Games from those of other regeneration activities.

5.  The Olympic Delivery Authority has reduced the number of homes at the Olympic Village after the Games from 4,200 to 3,300. The reduction will affect athletes and officials during the Games, and reduce the contribution of the Village to the development of new and affordable housing in East London after the Games. As work to achieve a commercially viable deal for the Village is continuing, the Authority should establish a clear baseline for the accommodation standards the Village should deliver in time for the Games and afterwards as housing stock.

6.  To reimburse the £675 million to the National Lottery from land sales after the Games will require total sale revenues of around £1,800 million. In the light of the downturn in property prices and the house building market, the Department should reassess potential future revenues from land sales to see whether the assumptions about being able to reimburse the National Lottery hold good.

7.  The Department has assured the Committee it will deliver the Games within the £9,325 million budget. Half the remaining £2,000 million contingency is earmarked for the Olympic Delivery Authority, and it is already clear that the remaining £1,000 million will have to be sufficient to cover a number of residual risks. A deal with the private sector for the Olympic Village has not been secured, security and legacy plans are incomplete, there are inflationary pressures, there is an increased risk of insolvency amongst suppliers and the Government is guarantor if there were to be a gap between LOCOG's revenues and costs. The Department should maintain up to date quantified assessments of the potential demands on the remaining contingency.