Commonwealth Games 2014 Progress report 2: Planning for the delivery of the XXth Games

Prepared for the Auditor General for and the Accounts Commission March 2012 Auditor General for Scotland

The Auditor General for Scotland is the Parliament’s watchdog for helping to ensure propriety and value for money in the spending of public funds.

He is responsible for investigating whether public spending bodies achieve the best possible value for money and adhere to the highest standards of financial management.

He is independent and not subject to the control of any member of the or the Parliament.

The Auditor General is responsible for securing the audit of the Scottish Government and most other public sector bodies except local authorities and fire and police boards.

The following bodies fall within the remit of the Auditor General:

• directorates of the Scottish Government • government agencies, eg the Scottish Prison Service, Historic Scotland • NHS bodies • further education colleges • Scottish Water • NDPBs and others, eg Scottish Enterprise.

The Accounts Commission

The Accounts Commission is a statutory, independent body which, through the audit process, requests local authorities in Scotland to achieve the highest standards of financial stewardship and the economic, efficient and effective use of their resources. The Commission has four main responsibilities:

• securing the external audit, including the audit of Best Value and Community Planning

• following up issues of concern identified through the audit, to ensure satisfactory resolutions

• carrying out national performance studies to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness in local government

• issuing an annual direction to local authorities which sets out the range of performance information they are required to publish.

The Commission secures the audit of 32 councils and 45 joint boards and committees (including police and fire and rescue services).

Audit Scotland is a statutory body set up in April 2000 under the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000. It provides services to the Auditor General for Scotland and the Accounts Commission. Together they ensure that the Scottish Government and public sector bodies in Scotland are held to account for the proper, efficient and effective use of public funds. 2014 1 Contents

Summary Part 2. Delivering the Games on Part 3. Progress in planning for a Page 2 budget legacy Page 13 Page 24 Introduction Page 3 Key messages Key messages

About the audit There is inherent uncertainty in the The Scottish Government and budget as would be expected at City Council have Key messages this stage developed legacy plans for the Page 5 Page 14 Games

Key recommendations The strategic partners are Performance monitoring and Page 6 committed to delivering the Games evaluation need further work within the £524 million budget to demonstrate a return on Part 1. Progress in planning for the including inflation investment Games Page 25 Page 7 There is a risk that the Games security budget is insufficient The current economic climate may Key messages Page 16 affect wider investment in legacy

Planning for the Games was on Income targets are challenging in Recommendations track at November 2011 the current economic climate but so Page 30 far good progress has been made Police and other city-wide security Page 17 Part 4. Governance planning is progressing well but Page 31 more work is needed on venue Games venues were forecast to be security arrangements delivered within approved budgets Key messages Page 8 at November 2011 Page 18 The high-level governance structure The Organising Committee now is clear needs to increase its staff capacity The public sector contribution to Page 32 to remain on track the Athletes’ Village has increased The strategic partners continue to At November 2011, venues and The Games will have additional improve their risk-management other infrastructure were forecast to costs to the wider public sector arrangements be ready in time for the Games Page 22 Page 9 Recommendations Recommendations Page 34 The partners are developing Page 23 an overall programme plan Appendix 1. Project advisory showing the links between the key group members milestones Page 35

Recommendations Appendix 2. Partners’ progress Page 12 against previous recommendations Page 36

Appendix 3. Methodology Page 38 2 Summary

Glasgow will host the XXth Commonwealth Games from 23 July to 3 August 2014. Summary 3

Introduction delivery partners. While not a progress report, we highlighted a risk strategic partner, the Commonwealth that the £373 million budget may not 1. Glasgow will host the Games Federation has some be sufficient to deliver the approved Commonwealth Games 2014 (the specific responsibilities. Other Games plans and it did not include an Games) from 23 July to 3 August organisations, such as Strathclyde allowance for inflation. In November 2014. The Games are a major event Police, are also contributing to the 2009, the same week that we for Scotland and affect its international delivery of the Games. published our 2009 progress report, profile and reputation. They are the Organising Committee announced expected to provide significant 3. In November 2009, we published a budget increase of £81 million benefits to the Scottish population, our first report on the strategic (at 2007 prices). The Organising including contributing to economic partners’ progress in planning for the Committee subsequently restated the growth and improved health Games.3 Our report found that the budget to £524 million in its 2010/11 outcomes. However, the Games strategic partners had made progress business plan, published in May 2010, also involve significant amounts of in establishing their governance to include an allowance for inflation public money. The decision to bid arrangements, although some areas (Exhibit 1, overleaf).6, 7 and being awarded the right to host needed more work. The report them happened before the economic highlighted that, at that time, all 5. The Games budget remains at recession and the resulting squeeze venues, the Athletes’ Village and £524 million in cash terms.8 The on public sector budgets so it is now Games-related transport infrastructure core budget includes: £235 million even more important that the public projects were forecast to be delivered for the cost of providing some money invested in the Games is on time. However, it identified that venues and services for the Games; being spent properly and delivers the some capital projects presented a risk £129 million for supporting services intended benefits. and needed to be closely monitored. such as technology, marketing and The report included recommendations communications; £65 million for 2. Four strategic partners are to enable the strategic and delivery Games staff and volunteers; and a responsible for planning the Games: partners to improve their governance, further £95 million is reserved for the Scottish Government, Glasgow project and financial management contingency. By November 2011, only City Council, Glasgow 2014 Ltd arrangements to deliver the Games 17 per cent of the budget had been (the Organising Committee) and on time and within budget. The spent or committed but spending is Commonwealth Games Scotland.1 ’s Public Audit forecast to grow significantly over the In November 2007, these partners Committee (PAC) subsequently three years 2012/13 to 2014/15. signed a contract with the published its own report, including Commonwealth Games Federation recommendations on planning 6. The Scottish Government and to deliver the Games to an agreed for the Games, focusing on the are the standard. They also signed a Minute costs and risk management.4 Our main funding parties, contributing of Agreement in June 2008, which audit work has identified that 17 of around 81 per cent of the overall binds the partners to work together the recommendations have been Games budget. The Organising to deliver the Games and to fulfil completed, seven are in progress and Committee is responsible for raising their respective responsibilities.2 The one was not accepted. the remaining 19 per cent of the strategic partners have set up the budget through income from private Glasgow 2014 Strategic Group as the The Games budget was revised to sources, including broadcasting main mechanism for achieving this. £524 million in May 2010 rights, ticketing, sponsorship Commonwealth Games Scotland 4. The Scottish Parliament approved and merchandising. The Scottish is the host Commonwealth Games the Organising Committee’s Games Government and Glasgow City association for the Games, and the budget of £373 million (at 2007 Council have agreed to cover any other three bodies are the main prices) in January 2008.5 In our first potential shortfall of income on an

1 Glasgow 2014 Ltd, otherwise known as the Organising Committee, is a company limited by guarantee which was set up solely to plan and deliver the Games. The Organising Committee’s board of directors is chaired by an independent board member. Other members of the board include representatives from the three strategic partners, an athlete representative and four other independent members. 2 Minute of Agreement among the Commonwealth Games Council Scotland, Scottish Government Ministers, Glasgow City Council and Glasgow 2014 Limited, 2008. 3 Commonwealth Games 2014: Progress report on planning for the delivery of the XXth Games, Audit Scotland, 2009. 4 Progress on planning for the delivery of the Commonwealth Games 2014, 8th report, 2010 (session 3), Scottish Parliament Public Audit Committee, October 2010. 5 Report on the Financial Memorandum of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill, Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, January 2008. 6 Glasgow 2014 Annual Business Plan 2010/11, Glasgow 2014 Ltd, 2011. The revised budget was approved by the Strategic Group. The revised budget comprises a core budget, an operational contingency and a special reserve contingency. The budget increase was mainly due to increases in broadcasting costs and contingency allowances. 7 Inflation was calculated using the GDP index in December 2009. 8 Cash terms reflect the estimated or actual current prices in the year that the money is being spent. 4

Exhibit 1 Analysis of the changes to the Games budget since 2007 The Games budget increased from £373 million to £454 million in 2007 prices and has since been restated to £524 million at cash prices.

Revised Revised approved approved 2009 Approved budget in budget restated budget in 2008 November 2009 (estimated Income and expenditure (2007 prices) Increase (2007 prices) cash prices) £ million £ million £ million £ million Expenditure Core budget 333 41 374 429 General contingency 40 20 60 71 Special reserve contingency 0 20 20 24 Total budgeted expenditure 373 81 454 524 Income Scottish Government 238 58 296 344 Glasgow City Council 60 9 69 80 Income sub-total: 298 67 365 424 public funding Commercial income 75 14 89 100 Total income 373 81 454 524

Note: 1. All figures have been rounded. The final column restates the 2009 budget at estimated cash prices based on the year that the expenditure is expected to be spent. This effectively includes an allowance in the budget to cover the estimated effects of inflation using the GDP inflation index at December 2009. Source: Bid budget review, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), 2009; and 2010/11 Business plan, Organising Committee, 2010

80:20 cost-sharing ratio if cost savings 7. Within the £524 million cash changes necessary to ensure venues cannot be made instead. The Scottish Games budget, £75 million is now are suitable for hosting each event.12 Government is the principal guarantor allocated for permanent venue capital of the Games and has underwritten developments, increasing from 8. In addition to the Organising any potential additional costs outwith £64 million (at 2007 prices) when Committee’s Games budget, other the approved Games budget. The we previously looked at this in June investments are being made that will Scottish Government has also 2009.10,11 The budget also includes support the Games and contribute provided other financial guarantees a further £30 million for temporary to the Scottish Government’s and in relation to the Games, including capital works, such as installing Glasgow City Council’s legacy certain security costs.9 temporary walls or making other ambitions:

9 Glasgow Candidate City File Guarantees, May 2007. 10 Games detailed budget, Organising Committee, October 2011. The £75 million is made up of £35 million for non-Glasgow City Council venues and £40 million for Glasgow City Council owned venues including contingency allowances for these venues. 11 Commonwealth Games 2014: Progress report on planning for the delivery of the XXth Games, Audit Scotland, 2009. The £64 million reported in 2009 includes both individual project and overall programme contingency allowances. Temporary capital works are referred to in the Organising Committee’s plans as overlay but it is not clear whether the £64 million was intended to cover temporary capital works. 12 There is no specific contingency allowance for temporary capital works as this is included within the core operational contingency budget. Summary 5

• a further £307 million is being 12. This is a live audit of a programme provides further information on spent on developing venues that where the position is constantly our methodology. will be used during the Games13 changing and there will have been developments since we completed 16. This report is in four parts: • nine transport infrastructure the audit. For this reason, our opinion projects, such as the M74 and any assurance given at this stage • Part 1. Progress in planning for the extension and M80 extension, does not provide absolute assurance Games are expected to improve access that the Games will be delivered on to the Games14 budget. We will continue to monitor • Part 2. Delivering the Games on progress in the lead-up to the Games. budget • an Athletes’ Village is being built to provide accommodation and other 13. As part of the audit, we reviewed • Part 3. Progress in planning for a facilities for 6,500 athletes and detailed commercially sensitive legacy officials during the Games. information. We used this information to reach conclusions but are unable to • Part 4. Governance. 9. There are wider public sector costs disclose it. Our commentary on these associated with the Games, which areas is therefore limited. Key messages are not all included in the Organising Committee’s Games budget, for 14. The study involved: • At November 2011, the various example the cost of planning and delivery and infrastructure delivering certain emergency services. • reviewing documents provided by programmes were on track. the Scottish Government, Glasgow The Organising Committee About the audit City Council, the Organising now needs to increase its staff Committee, Commonwealth capacity to remain on schedule. 10. This report is the second in Games Federation and Her The partners recognise that a planned series of reports that Majesty’s Inspectorate of there are particular risks comment on progress in planning for Constabulary for Scotland in delivering the Athletes’ the Games. This second progress Village and report provides a position statement • reviewing the Games and developments. These projects on whether the strategic partners infrastructure budget and other are due to be completed less were on track, as at November financial information than five months before the 2011, to deliver the Games on time Games start, which increases and budget, including the separate • a literature review of reports on the risk of cost overruns to infrastructure programme. The report other Games and major sporting ensure they are ready on time. also includes an assessment of the events The partners are managing Scottish Government’s and Glasgow these risks but are unable to City Council’s plans to achieve a • conducting interviews with staff at eliminate them completely. lasting legacy from the Games. the Scottish Government, Glasgow City Council, the Organising • The strategic partners are 11. A large complex programme such Committee, Commonwealth Games committed to delivering the as the Games will inevitably have Scotland, the Commonwealth Games within the Games significant risks. An essential part of Games Federation and four other budget of £524 million. So far, good management is therefore for public sector bodies that have a key good progress has been made those responsible for the Games to role in planning for the Games. in securing income. As would have an awareness of these risks be expected at this stage, and have clear mitigating actions to 15. Appendix 1 lists the members there is inherent uncertainty manage these effectively. This report of our project advisory group who in the budget as only a small aims to provide assurance, where gave advice and provided challenge proportion of costs is spent possible, on the strategic partners’ and feedback at key stages of the or committed. Based on the current progress. It focuses on key audit. Appendix 2 of this report experience of previous Games, risks and comments on how well the provides an update on the partners’ security is particularly at risk of partners are managing these. progress in implementing our 2009 cost increases. The partners are recommendations and the PAC’s taking account of this risk in their recommendations. Appendix 3 operational planning for security.

13 Most of these venue developments were already planned before the bid and therefore the strategic partners do not consider these to be a direct cost of the Games. 14 Three of the transport projects are completed: M74 extension, M80 extension and the Airdrie to Bathgate rail upgrade. 6

• Legacy frameworks have been Key recommendations • ensure all mitigating actions developed both for Glasgow that have potentially significant and Scotland. There is no The strategic partners should: financial implications are specific funding for legacy costed and included in relevant but the strategic partners • ensure the Organising budgets. have aligned their existing Committee, and other partners initiatives to support legacy as appropriate, have the staffing The Scottish Government should: plans, and benefits are starting capacity to develop detailed to be achieved. In the current operational planning across all • ensure that other public sector economic climate other public key functions organisations have identified and private organisations and allocated the resources may find it difficult to invest • complete a strategic they need to be involved in to achieve a long-term assessment of the Games planning or delivering the legacy. More work is needed budget at least twice a year, Games, where these are not to evaluate the return on as operational plans develop, covered by the Games budget investment. looking at the cost pressures and uncertainties affecting the • encourage Community • The overarching governance overall Games budget and how Planning partners to adopt structure is clear with defined these can best be managed Glasgow City’s Single accountabilities and the Outcome Agreement (SOA) strategic partners continue to • ensure future budget reviews approach of aligning existing improve their risk-management include a thorough assessment initiatives and funding to arrangements. However, of the effect of inflation and ensure legacy benefits from joint working arrangements market conditions in the light of the Commonwealth Games at operational level are more tendering results throughout Scotland. complex. For example, there are a large number of working • continue to review contingency The Scottish Government and groups but the responsibilities budgets as new risks emerge Glasgow City Council should: and accountabilities are not and the costs of mitigating always defined and distinct actions are fully assessed • continue to develop their from each other. This increases monitoring and evaluation the risk of duplication and • review the terms of reference frameworks and, in particular, delayed decision-making. As for joint governance and gather baseline data and more staff and partners become working groups, ensuring the agree performance indicators, involved in planning and specific responsibilities and timescales and methods delivery, the likelihood of these accountabilities are clearly for assessing the return on risks occurring increases. documented, including their investment, including economic, delegated authority to make social, health, sport and decisions on planning and environmental impacts budgets • continue to review the risks • examine any opportunities to associated with achieving legacy reduce the number of groups by targets in light of the pressures combining their responsibilities on public and private sector to support effective and budgets and take mitigating efficient delivery of the overall action, including reprioritising programme plan their legacy objectives and revising targets if necessary. • continue to refine their individual and overall Games risk registers to ensure all risks are described clearly including cause and effect, and that specific mitigating actions are identified with clear due dates 7 Part 1. Progress in planning for the Games

Planning for the Games was on track at November 2011 but challenges lie ahead. 8

Key messages Planning for the Games was on Police and other city-wide security track at November 2011 planning is progressing well but • At November 2011, the various more work is needed on venue delivery and infrastructure The Glasgow Games preparations security arrangements programmes were on track, were where they should be at this with some rescheduling of a stage – phase two of operational 18. Strathclyde Police is responsible small number of milestones. planning for planning city-wide security for the 17. The Commonwealth Games Games. It also takes a lead role in • Police and other city-wide Federation (CGF) provides host coordinating security planning with security planning is progressing countries with a detailed project other emergency services planning well but more work is management manual for planning for the Games. The Organising needed on venue security the Games. The manual identifies Committee is responsible for planning arrangements. five planning stages in the lead-up to security at Games venues, including the Games (Exhibit 2). At November the provision of security guards and • A key priority for the Organising 2011, 33 months before the Games security equipment. All emergency Committee is increasing its start, the Glasgow preparations were service organisations, such as the staff capacity so that it is able to generally where they should be – Scottish Ambulance Service (SAS), remain on schedule. phase two of operational planning are responsible for their own service as set out in the CGF’s manual. planning for the Games, liaising • The partners are revising their This means they had moved on with each other through the Games overarching programme plan. from strategic planning to detailed Security Directorate hosted by This should enable them to operational planning for all functional Strathclyde Police. Strathclyde Police manage risk, cost and delivery areas, including sport, security, has pulled together the strategic more effectively. volunteering and transport.15 partners’ key milestones for security into a single high-level security plan. However, this plan does not yet cover other emergency services, therefore

Exhibit 2 Commonwealth Games planning process summary Planning for the Glasgow Games is generally at phase two of operational planning as would be expected 33 months before the Games.

G-84 to 73 mths G-72 to 61 G-60 to 49 G-48 to 37 G-36 to 25 G-24 to 13 G-12 to 0G to +12

Operational Operational planning Foundation planning phase one Mobilise phase two

Venue/infrastructure development programme (venue-by-venue delivery programme)

Planning position at November 2011, 33 months before the Games start

Note: The diagram provides a guide to the expected planning stages in the months leading up to and after the Games. Source: Amended from Commonwealth Games project management manual, Audit Scotland, 2012

15 The Organising Committee has many functional areas: Chief Executive’s Office, Commercial, Communications and marketing, Ceremonies, Programme management, Corporate services, Human resources, Games family services, Games services, Sport, Volunteers, Village and venues, Technology, Broadcast and Contingency. Part 1. Progress in planning for the Games 9

work is needed to further integrate 21. Our audit work supports the Organising Committee is carrying planning for security and other CGF’s findings. As at November 2011, out a comprehensive review of its emergency services. we found that progress was generally workforce plan which is due to be in line with the planning phases set updated early in 2012. 19. At October 2011, the CGF out in the CGF’s project management reported that it was satisfied with manual. The Organising Committee At November 2011, venues and Strathclyde Police’s progress in had completed 285 of 310 (92 per other infrastructure were forecast planning for security across the city. cent) of the milestones due for to be ready in time for the Games However, it said that the Organising completion, and where slippage had Committee needed to clarify the occurred this was mostly insignificant. 24. A key advantage of hosting approach to security at venues. This is the Games in Glasgow is that a lot needed to take forward procurement 22. There is still significant work to do of the infrastructure was already of security guards and security in relation to completing operational in place prior to Glasgow’s bid to equipment, and to inform decisions on planning.19 The Organising Committee host the Games. Therefore, the temporary changes to the design and has prioritised scoping outline additional investment in infrastructure layout of venues. The CGF also found operational plans for transport and developments and the risks associated that the Organising Committee had security functions, which it needs with major projects such as these still to identify the number of available to inform more detailed operational are less than for and security guards in the Glasgow region plans by March 2012. It has also Commonwealth Games and highlighted that due to potential prioritised identifying service levels, and the London 2012 Olympics. supply shortages, there would be workforce, budgets and procurement a substantial challenge in recruiting requirements across all functions by 25. At November 2011, three the required number of security this date.20 In our view, any significant venues were complete.22 At that guards.16 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate delays in completing these will increase time, all other venue projects were of Constabulary for Scotland (HMICS) the risk of not being able to deliver on schedule to be delivered in time highlighted a risk that venue security the Games to the required standard for the Games, with the majority of assessments may be delayed unless without increasing the budget. these venues forecast for completion the Organising Committee’s key by 2013 (Exhibit 3, overleaf).23 security planning staff were in post 23. The Organising Committee has Strathclyde Police Training Centre soon.17 The Organising Committee experienced delays recruiting a and Kelvin Hall Sports Arena were has since appointed three additional number of key staff. These include included as potential venues for staff within its security team, all of the Head of Venue Operations, the training or sporting events as part whom started in January 2012. Head of Village Operations, Head of the bid. However, these venues of Sport Competition, Director of are no longer needed and have been The Organising Committee now Ceremonies and functional area removed from the programme. needs to increase its staff capacity manager posts. Most of these posts to remain on track have now been filled, although the 26. The refurbishment of the Royal Head of Venue Operations only Commonwealth Pool had experienced 20. In October 2011, the CGF took up post in February 2012. At delays mainly due to complications produced a progress report on the its board meeting in November arising when asbestos was found Glasgow preparations, concluding 2011, the Organising Committee in the building. However, it was it was satisfied with progress at agreed that Glasgow City Council completed in February 2012. Planned that time.18 However, the report would be responsible for fulfilling changes have been made to the also highlighted that the Organising the role of Director of Ceremonies. construction timescales for most Committee needed to increase its The council has since subcontracted other venues. The completion dates staff capacity to remain on schedule. this role to Glasgow Life.21 The for National Stadium Hampden Park

16 Coordination Commission report, Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games, Commonwealth Games Federation, October 2011. 17 CG2014 Security Planning Review, update report, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland, October 2011. 18 Coordination Commission report, Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games, Commonwealth Games Federation, October 2011. The CGF report was based on a series of technical reviews and monitoring visits with the key partners responsible for the Games to assess their compliance and progress against the host city contract obligations, and to provide advice to the partners to enable them to manage any potential delays and meet their obligations. 19 Coordination Commission report, Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games, Commonwealth Games Federation, October 2011. 20 Written submission from Chief Executive, Organising Committee, 10 January 2012. 21 Glasgow Life is the operating name of Culture and Sport Glasgow. It is a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee which provides culture and sport activities for community benefit. 22 The three completed venues are Regional Football Centre, Kelvingrove Lawn Centre and Stadium. 23 Glasgow City Council is managing most of the major capital projects, including venues, the Athletes’ Village and local transport developments as part of its infrastructure programme. There are four exceptions to this: City of Council is managing the major refurbishment of the Royal Commonwealth Pool which will host the ; the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre (SECC) is managing the development of a new facility, which will be used for several events during the Games; and the Organising Committee is managing the development of National Stadium Hampden Park and . The Organising Committee is also responsible for making other temporary changes to venues and the Athletes’ Village that are specifically required for the Games period. 10

Exhibit 3 Games-related venues and the Athletes’ Village At November 2011, all venues and the Athletes’ Village were forecast to be delivered in time for the Games.

2007 2008 2009 2010 20112012 2013 2014

New venues

Commonwealth Sports Arena

Sir Velodrome

Cathkin Braes Mountain Bike Trail Start of Games

Scottish Hydro Arena

Toryglen Regional Football Centre

Glasgow Green National Hockey Centre

Refurbished or upgraded venues

Tollcross International Centre

Royal Commonwealth Pool

National Stadium Hampden Park

Kelvingrove Lawn Bowls Centre

Strathclyde Country Park

Glasgow Club Scotstoun

Scotstoun Stadium

Athletes’ Village

Actual/planned construction period at June 2009 Construction completion date from the original bid Actual/planned construction period at November 2011 Opening/handover date

Notes: 1. The Organising Committee is currently reviewing the Strathclyde Country Park course with the International Union and the scope of works is not finalised. The proposals are being developed in 2012 and the Organising Committee told us that the revised course will reduce the amount of work required. This means the dates may change. 2. The actual construction start date for the Athletes’ Village of July 2009 relates to advanced works and the contractor started work on site in October 2010. Source: Commonwealth Games 2014: Progress report on planning for the XXth Games, Audit Scotland, November 2009; Glasgow City Council infrastructure project highlight reports, Glasgow City Council, October 2011; Executive Committee report, Glasgow City Council, October 2011; Organising Committee programme plan, Organising Committee, November 2011

and Strathclyde Country Park have of temporary works and testing. The to explore the possibility of been brought forward slightly. Seven seven venues which are now planned Sportscotland relocating its other venues are now scheduled to to be completed later are: headquarters to CSA and SCHV.24 be completed later than originally The completion date for these was planned. However, there has been • Commonwealth Sports Arena subsequently rescheduled due to no delay to the planned dates for (CSA) and Sir Chris Hoy additional specialist work required. handing over these venues to the Velodrome (SCHV) construction Organising Committee for completion works were rescheduled initially

24 Sportscotland relocated to alternative accommodation and the West of Scotland Institute of Sport is in discussion with Glasgow Life to relocate to CSA and SCHV. Part 1. Progress in planning for the Games 11

• Mountain Bike 27. In the current economic climate, 2011, three of these had been Trail construction work was the risk of insolvency among private completed and the other six remained rescheduled to be completed as sector contractors and subcontractors on schedule for completion in time close as possible to the event, is likely to be higher than when the for the Games.27 The Scottish to ensure the course is in the Games were awarded to Glasgow. Government is responsible for best possible condition, while This risk and appropriate mitigating ensuring the major transport minimising operational costs. actions are identified on the partners’ infrastructure projects are completed Games risk register and partners’ in time for the Games and Transport • Scottish Hydro Arena individual risk registers. Mitigating Scotland is managing the majority of construction work was initially actions being carried out include due these.28 changed to allow further diligence checks, including a financial discussion on design prior to health assessment of contractors and 30. Glasgow City Council is also procurement. The main contractor subcontractors prior to appointing contributing to Games-related transport was appointed later than them, and monitoring any changes to infrastructure developments. For planned following an extended the situation. example, it completed the M74 project procurement process and revised on behalf of Transport Scotland and this timescales were agreed at this The Athletes’ Village and Hampden was opened in June 2011. It is also time. The completion date was Park present a higher risk if they managing the development of the East subsequently rescheduled to are delayed and the partners are End Regeneration Route (EERR). The allow sufficient time to carry out closely monitoring these projects council has rescheduled the completion additional construction of walls. 28. The Athletes’ Village and National dates for phase two of the EERR and Stadium Hampden Park (Hampden postponed phase three indefinitely. • National Hockey Park) present a higher risk if there However, the strategic partners do not Centre construction work was is any delay to their current planned consider phase three essential for the rescheduled to enable a longer timescales because these are due to Games because there are alternative consultation period with Scottish be completed less than five months access routes to venues. Hockey to achieve a better legacy. before the Games start. These developments also have specific 31. Glasgow City Council and the • Tollcross International financial and technical risks associated Organising Committee prepared Swimming Centre (TISC) work with them, increasing the risk that a draft strategic transport plan for was rescheduled to reduce the delays could lead to increased costs to the Games in 2011, covering the time this venue and the Royal be ready in time for the Games. In our Games route network, park and ride, Commonwealth Pool in Edinburgh 2009 report, we highlighted that many transport depots and hubs, walking were closed simultaneously, major capital projects experience and network and other public and to relocate Shettleston slippage and recommended that the transport routes.29 The final version Halls facilities into TISC. The strategic partners closely monitor of the transport plan is due to be construction work for TISC was these two developments. We found published in March 2014. However, a subsequently rescheduled to evidence that they are doing this.25 lot of work is still required to develop minimise the closure of the We report on the particular risks of operational plans by March 2012 and existing 50-metre pool. these developments further in this is now a priority. Case studies 1 and 2 in Part 2. • Glasgow Club Scotstoun 32. Transport planning is a major construction work was rescheduled At November 2011, all transport undertaking as it involves planning to allow a gap between this infrastructure developments were all methods of transportation and project and the on track to be delivered in time for access routes to and from venues construction works to minimise the Games and the Athletes’ Village, while disruption for local residents and 29. Nine major transport infrastructure maintaining emergency routes and users of the facility. projects are expected to improve ensuring security across all of these access to the Games.26 At November areas. It also involves the Organising

25 Commonwealth Games 2014: Progress report on planning for the delivery of the XXth Games, Audit Scotland, 2009; Games partners’ risk register, August 2011; Glasgow City Council infrastructure programme board report, August 2011; Minutes of the Organising Committee’s Hampden Working Group, September 2011. 26 The nine transport projects are the M80 extension, M74 extension, M8 completion, Airdrie to Bathgate rail upgrade, Paisley Corridor improvements, Station redevelopment, Integrated ticket and payment system, Fastlink and the East End Regeneration Route. The bid document also included a proposal to establish a Rail Link (GARL) at an estimated cost of £300–£400 million; however, this project was cancelled in September 2009. 27 The three completed transport projects are: M74 extension, M80 extension and the Airdrie to Bathgate rail upgrade. 28 Transport Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish Government. 29 The draft strategic transport plan version one is complete. Glasgow City Council, Commonwealth Games 2014 infrastructure programme business case update 31 August 2011, Glasgow City Council, September 2011. 12

Committee planning for the staff and programme plan. By December Olympics and other research. As at volunteer drivers and other support 2011, it had introduced specialist November 2011, there has been no staff it needs to meet the needs programme management software, critical impact on the overall Games of athletes, officials and the public which has the functionality needed programme as a result of changes to before, during and after the Games. to support effective programme the dates for these milestones. management. At this point, it had 33. A key lesson from the transferred its own programme 38. The Scottish Government Manchester 2002 Commonwealth milestones to the new system, and provides periodic reports on progress Games was the need to invest was in the process of adding the against its key milestones for internal time equally in planning the staffing other partners’ key milestones to governance forums, including its requirements and the routes and the system and mapping the links Commonwealth and Olympic Games methods to ensure transport to show the interdependencies Group (COGG), Glasgow 2014 operations run smoothly.30 There is between these. This work was still Cabinet Delivery Group and the evidence that Glasgow City Council in progress during the audit period Strategic Board.32 However, it needs and the Organising Committee are and therefore we were unable to improve its system for recording, considering staffing requirements at to assess whether this had been monitoring and reporting changes this stage. successfully implemented. However, to the programme plan, for example the Organising Committee’s internal changes to milestones or due dates. The partners are developing an auditors plan to carry out a post- This would help ensure that progress overall programme plan showing implementation review of the new reports provide a complete and the links between the key system in early 2012. accurate picture of progress. milestones 36. Glasgow City Council has Recommendations 34. Good programme management continued to make progress in is essential to deliver a major developing and monitoring against its The strategic partners should: programme such as the Games own infrastructure programme plan, successfully. This is because the which sets out its key milestones • ensure the Organising links and interdependencies between for venues, the Athletes’ Village and Committee, and other partners different activities mean delays in one other Games-related infrastructure as appropriate, have the staffing area increase the risk of delays and it is managing. It has set out a clear capacity to develop the detailed potential cost increases in another critical path for its infrastructure operational planning across all area. For example, security and programme and is effectively key functions transport plans cannot be finalised managing the dependencies between until decisions have been taken its key programme milestones. • continue to review their overall on which venues will be used for workforce plans to ensure each sporting event, the design and 37. Since our 2009 report, the they have the staff they need capacity of venues, and the expected Scottish Government has developed to deliver the overall Games number of athletes, officials and its own Games delivery and legacy programme successfully audience. Any delay in finalising programme plans covering its venue plans could lead to delays or key responsibilities. The Games • further develop the overall changes to security and transport delivery programme plan includes programme plan, identifying plans, which could in turn have key milestones related to transport, the links and interdependencies budget implications. security, legislation, and the Games between milestones. legacy programme plan includes key 35. Since our 2009 report, the milestones for various legacy projects. The Scottish Government should: Organising Committee has prepared a The Scottish Government completed draft programme plan, which includes all of its 20 key milestones due for • further develop its system all of its milestones and agreed key completion by November 2011 by the for recording, monitoring milestones for each partner.31 The due date, although some dates were and reporting changes to the strategic partners are now using this changed. The Scottish Government programme plan and ensure as the overall partners’ programme has rescheduled four of its 40 key progress reports provide a plan. The Organising Committee has delivery milestones, three of which complete and accurate picture been leading work with the other relate to legislation, to take account of progress. partners to further develop the overall of experiences from the London 2012

30 Post Games Report Volume 1, 2002 Manchester, The XVII Commonwealth Games, Organising Committee, 2002. 31 The overall programme plan included one Scottish Government milestone and six Glasgow City Council milestones at September 2011. 32 The Scottish Government Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games internal programme plan, Scottish Government, September 2011. 13 Part 2. Delivering the Games on budget

At November 2011, the Games were forecast to be delivered within the £524 million approved budget but inherent risks remain as would be expected at this stage. 14

Key messages • Other public bodies may incur budget assumptions will need to costs related to the Games be kept under review because all • The strategic partners are that are not all covered by the Games are different, and prices are committed to delivering the Games or infrastructure budgets dependent on supplier market and Games within the £524 million but these have not yet been other economic conditions including Games budget. This includes quantified. The other costs inflation rates. The experience of a core budget of £429 million include the costs of planning previous Commonwealth Games and and contingency budgets of certain emergency services. the London 2012 Olympic budgets is £95 million. The reduction in public sector that costs usually significantly exceed budgets is putting pressure original budgets.35 However, there is • There are inherent risks to on existing services and may less of a risk of capital cost increases delivering the Games within increase the risk of these bodies for the Glasgow 2014 Games in approved budgets at this being unable to contribute comparison to other Games because stage as only a small proportion effectively to the Games. a lot of the venues are already in of costs have been committed. place. The National Audit Office’s There is inherent uncertainty in the (NAO) 2008 report on the London • It is not clear whether the budget as would be expected at 2012 Olympics budget also concluded £27 million security budget is this stage that benchmarking costs for major intended to cover all security sporting events, while useful, has costs related to the Games. 39. The Games budget of limitations due to the differences Based on the experience of £524 million includes a core between Games.36 previous Games, security budget of £429 million, £71 million is particularly at risk of cost operational contingency allowance The approach used to calculate the increases. and a £24 million special reserve, £71 million operational contingency which can only be used under allowance is reasonable if budget • By September 2011, the exceptional circumstances. The assumptions hold Organising Committee had Scottish Government and Glasgow 42. The Games budget of £524 million already secured 33 per cent City Council are funding £344 million includes an operational contingency of its commercial income, and £80 million respectively and the allowance of £71 million and a special exceeding its target for Organising Committee is expected to reserve contingency of £24 million. this stage. This compares raise the remaining £100 million from The operational contingency is made favourably with previous commercial sources (Exhibit 4). up of £61 million general contingency Games’ progress 33 months allowances and just under £10 million before the Games start. 40. The Games budget remains specifically for capital. The £71 million inherently uncertain as would be represents an increase of £31 million in • There are particular risks expected at this stage. By September the operational contingency allowance in delivering the Athletes’ 2011, only 17 per cent of costs were since the bid budget (£20 million at Village and Hampden Park certain, with £44 million spent and a 2007 prices). The special reserve developments on budget and in further £44 million contracted.33 contingency of £24 million can only be time for the Games. They are used under special circumstances and due to be completed less than 41. Approximately £142 million requires the First Minister’s approval. five months before the Games (39 per cent) of the budgeted and there are specific financial operational costs are particularly 43. The £61 million general and technical risks related uncertain as they are based on contingency element of the to these developments. The many unknown factors and early operational contingency allowance partners are managing these planning assumptions. In line with has been calculated for each budget risks but are unable to eliminate good practice, the majority of these line using a risk scale of one to six. them completely. were benchmarked against previous Level one is used for budgets that Games expenditure.34 These early are committed, such as agency

33 Board financial report, Organising Committee, November 2011. 34 At November 2011, costs which were based on limited information and were not benchmarked against other Games included £1 million for logistics, £1 million for control and accountability programme management, and £1 million for other smaller items. A further £55 million is included for employee relations, £27 million for security, £5 million for publications and image and look, £3 million for accommodation, £5 million for cleaning and waste, £13 million for venue operations, £29 million for making temporary changes to venues, and £2 million for other items. All of these costs have been benchmarked against previous Games costs. 35 The costs for the Manchester Commonwealth Games 2002 increased by 120 per cent and the Beijing Olympics Games operating costs increased by 75 per cent. Commonwealth Games 2014: Progress report on planning for the XXth Games, Audit Scotland, 2009. The National Audit Office published reports on the London 2012 Olympics estimate overall security costs had risen from £600 million at the time of the bid to over £1 billion by December 2011. The budget for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, National Audit Office, July 2007; and London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games progress reports February 2011 and December 2011, National Audit Office, 2011. 36 http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0708/preparations_for_london_2012.aspx Part 2. Delivering the Games on budget 15

Exhibit 4 Games budget summary The Games budget remains at £524 million, and the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council will together contribute up to £424 million. By September 2011, £88 million had been spent or committed.

£524 million Overall Games budget (£ million) 0 100 200 300 400 500

13074653933332313910 95

Village and Games Staff and Broadcast Corporate Technology Ceremonies Comms and Sport OtherContingency venues services volunteers services marketing

£88 million Spending to date

44 44 341 95

Actual spending to Contracted spending Planned but uncommitted Contingency end September 2011 at September 2011 additional spending

£424 million Publicly funded spending

33 67 344 80

Commercial income received/contracted Planned but unsecured Scottish Government grant Glasgow City Council at end September 2011 commercial income contribution

£55 million Allowance for inflation and £95 million allowance for contingency

374 95 55

Total core budget in 2007 prices Contingency Allowance for inflation

Note: The core budget is made up of £374 million and £55 million for inflation (figures have been rounded). In addition, the £95 million contingency shown separately in the chart includes an allowance of £15 million for inflation. Source: Audit Scotland, 2012 commission costs for broadcasting higher level of contingency has been and the potential cost implications deals that have been secured and included for these budget lines.38 (see paragraphs 50–53). Since our represent no risk, therefore no 2009 report, the strategic partners contingency allowance has been 44. The overall approach to calculating have established clear procedures included in the budget for this. Level the general contingency budget is for monitoring and controlling the six is used where budgets are based reasonable if budget assumptions use of the three different elements on limited information, such as the hold and robust controls are in place of contingency.39 At November cost of logistics which has still to to monitor and control budgets. It will, 2011, these had still to be tested as be scoped, and therefore present a however, be important to take into there had been no requirement for higher risk.37 As would be expected, a account the risks relating to security contingency at that stage.40

37 Logistics include managing the delivery and storage of equipment and other materials and supplies needed for the Games. 38 Budget lines assessed as a level two on the risk scale have a contingency allowance equal to five per cent of their budget. For risk levels three, four, five and six, contingency allowances are equal to 7.5 per cent, ten per cent, 15 per cent and 20 per cent of their respective budgets. 39 The Organising Committee is responsible for managing the core contingency although Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government approve the draw-down of contingency funding. Where functional areas identify the need for contingency, a business case must be prepared and this requires approval by the Organising Committee Board and the Strategic Group. Glasgow City Council manages the capital contingency element of just under £10 million within its overall infrastructure programme arrangements. The Scottish Government manages the special reserve contingency of £24 million which can only be drawn down under exceptional circumstances. The special reserve is now fixed and will not be uplifted for inflation. 40 Board financial report, Organising Committee, November 2011. 16

The strategic partners are have risen significantly above the There is a risk that the Games committed to delivering the Games increase in the GDP deflator. For security budget is insufficient within the £524 million budget example, between 2006/07 and including inflation 2008/09, electricity prices rose by an 50. Security planning is at a relatively average of 28 per cent and gas prices early stage and therefore costs are 45. The Scottish Parliament approved rose by an average of 30 per cent.45 particularly uncertain. The cost of the Organising Committee’s Therefore, specialist price indices security will also be directly affected by Games budget of £373 million (at for these items may provide a more the prevailing national and international 2007 prices) in January 2008.41 In accurate estimate of inflation and security situation leading up to and November 2009, immediately before should be used where possible. during the Games, and developing cost our first progress report highlighting estimates requires the involvement the risk that the budget would be 48. In light of the changed economic of multiple Government departments, insufficient and that it excluded circumstances since the Games were associated agencies and the inflation, the Organising Committee awarded to Glasgow, the strategic emergency services.49 increased the budget by £81 million partners aim to deliver the Games to £454 million (at 2007 prices). without further inflationary uplifts. At 51. The Games budget includes the start of 2011/12, the Organising around £27 million for security 46. In May 2010, the Organising Committee estimated that it would be costs, which is equal to five per Committee restated the budget to able to absorb inflationary pressures cent of the £524 million Games £524 million, to include an allowance of up to one and a half per cent of the budget.50 The bid budget included of £70 million for inflation.42 The Games budget (almost £8 million).46 £26 million for security costs, equal £70 million comprised £55 million to However, the partners have agreed to seven per cent of the £373 million uplift the core budget for inflation; to review inflation rates annually, Games budget (at 2007 prices). An and £15 million, which was allocated and if inflation increases significantly, independent review of the bid budget to the contingency reserves. For the Games budget could potentially identified that not all security costs this adjustment, the Organising increase but this would require the had been included, for example Committee used the GDP deflator, Strategic Group’s approval. security costs related to some which is a Treasury index used to transport activities.51 There has been forecast future general inflation in the 49. The effect of inflation on the movement in the Games budget UK economy. Since the £524 million Games budget is particularly uncertain between police and security costs budget was approved, the Treasury because only 17 per cent of costs since the bid. However, the security has changed its GDP deflator were committed by September budget has only increased by forecasts and now anticipates slightly 2011. In addition, the Organising £1 million overall, therefore it is higher inflation in the coming years.43 Committee’s cash-flow projections unlikely to cover the full effect of estimate that over 70 per cent of the inflation and any items missing 47. It is appropriate to use the GDP budget will be spent in 2013/14 and from the bid budget. It is unclear deflator to assess the effect of future 2014/15 (Exhibit 5).47 The Games at this stage whether the budget is inflation. However, where prices are partners identified increased budget intended to cover all security costs expected to increase at a significantly pressures due to the effect of higher related to the Games. It is important higher or lower rate than general than expected inflation as a risk in that all security costs are identified, inflation, specialist price indices should November 2011 and are seeking to monitored and reported accurately to be considered.44 In recent years, develop specific actions to mitigate inform planning for similar events in prices for commodities such as fuel, this risk.48 the future. technology and construction materials

41 Report on the Financial Memorandum of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill, Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, January 2008. 42 The revised budget was approved by the Strategic Group and included a core budget, an operational contingency and a special reserve contingency. Glasgow 2014 Annual Business Plan 2010/11, Glasgow 2014 Ltd, 2011. http://www.glasgow2014.com/assets/e608992d-faa5-4de1-9144-ae437edb3eaa.pdf. 43 The percentage increase from 2011/12 to 2014/15 is forecast at 7.9 per cent. 44 The Green Book Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government, HM Treasury, July 2011. 45 Improving energy efficiency: A follow-up report, Audit Scotland, December 2010. 46 Organising Committee 2011/12 business plan, Glasgow 2014 Ltd, April 2011. 47 Games budget, Organising Committee, November 2011. The core Games budget in cash prices is £429 million, with an additional contingency of £95 million available. Of this core budget £31 million (7 per cent) was spent by 2010/11, £37 million (9 per cent) is forecast to be spent in 2011/12, £53 million (12 per cent) in 2012/13, £138 million (32 per cent) in 2013/14 and £170 million (40 per cent) in 2014/15. The contingency spending has been forecast as £3 million (3 per cent) in 2012/13, £12 million (13 per cent) in 2013/14 and £80 million (84 per cent) in 2014/15. 48 Glasgow 2014 Board risk report, Glasgow 2014 Ltd, November 2011. 49 Commonwealth Games Security Committee – Minutes of meeting, October 2011. The Games Security Committee identified that there could be cost implications should the current security threat level, which is substantial, increase further following the London 2012 Olympics. 50 Around half of the £27 million is the police security budget and the other half is the Organising Committee’s security budget. 51 Bid budget review for Glasgow 2014 Ltd, Deloitte, 2009. Part 2. Delivering the Games on budget 17

Games; however, there is evidence to Exhibit 5 show that security costs were higher Games budget forecast spending profile than expected: The Organising Committee estimates that over 70 per cent of the budget will be spent in 2013/14 and 2014/15. • Manchester’s security budget increased by £3 million in May £524m 2002. Security costs were 300 Total forecast spending by the end of the Games in 2015 Allowance for identified as one of four areas inflation accounting for the increase in the 250 13 (contingency) 27 Allowance for original Games budget. 200 inflation (core 67 expenditure) • Melbourne’s security budget 2 Contingency 150 19 increased by $6.6 million above 10 (2007 prices) the original budget. 100 Core expenditure (2007 prices)

utturn prices (£ million) 143 6 O 119 • London 2012 Olympics’ estimated 50 4 3 security costs had increased from 47 31 33 £600 million at the time of the bid to 0 Four years to 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 over £1 billion by December 2011. 2010/11 Year Income targets are challenging in Source: Organising Committee, November 2011 the current economic climate but so far good progress has been made

54. The Organising Committee is 52. In October 2011, HMICS agreed on a preferred option, which is expected to raise around £100 million highlighted that there is a real risk a new fourth option. However, it has income from commercial sources that some elements of security still to present the business case for towards the cost of the Games.56 The costs will be higher than budget. this to the CGF for approval. commercial income target is made up It recommended that the Games of individual targets for sponsorship, Security Committee, led by the 53. The strategic partners recorded broadcasting, merchandising and Scottish Government, commission a risk that the security budget may ticket sales. The individual targets work to understand these risks more not be sufficient on the partners’ from these sources are commercially fully.52 As mentioned in paragraph Games risk register in November sensitive, therefore we are unable 19, more work is needed to inform 2011 but at that stage mitigating to report on them. However, we the procurement approach for actions had not yet been agreed have examined income strategies, security guards and equipment. to manage this risk.54 The Scottish including targets and progress and we The CGF reported concerns about Government is ultimately responsible comment on these where appropriate. one of three procurement options for meeting any additional security that the Organising Committee was costs as it provided a guarantee that 55. By September 2011, the considering as it believed it would it would do this as part of the bid. Organising Committee had secured not provide the most cost-effective The experience of Manchester and income of £33 million (33 per cent security solution. The CGF requested Melbourne Commonwealth Games of the £100 million).57 Its overall that the Organising Committee and the 2012 Olympics Games is progress to September 2011 is ahead provided a detailed business case that original security budgets were of schedule and compares favourably justifying its recommended approach unrealistic and had to be increased.55 with previous Games.58 to the CGF for approval before it There is insufficient information to decided on its procurement solution.53 compare final costs of security against The Organising Committee has since the original budgets for all of these

52 CG2014 Security Planning Review, update report, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland, October 2011. 53 Coordination Commission report, Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games, Commonwealth Games Federation, October 2011 54 Glasgow 2014 Board risk report, November 2011. 55 Melbourne 2006, Finance Committee Meeting Number 20, June 2006; Select Committee on Media, Culture and Sport, Fifth report, May 2002. A comparison of Manchester 2002 final security costs is not available but security costs were identified as one of four areas accounting for the additional increase in the original budget; The budget for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, National Audit Office, July 2007; and Preparations for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games: progress reports February 2011 and December 2011, National Audit Office, 2011. 56 Organising Committee 2011/12 business plan, Glasgow 2014 Ltd, April 2011. 57 The income will be received in stages leading up to the Games. 58 Interviews and written comparative cost information provided on Melbourne 2006 Games, Commonwealth Games Federation, November 2011. 18

56. The strategic partners have made value of deals reflects market rates and local market research on the progress in identifying risks relating for the services and the timescales popularity of each sporting event in to securing private sector investment. for receiving the services support Scotland. The Organising Committee If these risks occur, the public sector the organisation’s needs. The is in the process of tendering contribution to the Games may need Organising Committee is updating its for a ticketing agent who will be to increase. The partners have also sponsorship strategy, which was due responsible for facilitating the sale and identified actions to mitigate most of to be completed by November 2011, distribution of tickets. these risks but not all of these actions but this has since been revised to are clear or costed. December 2011.60 Games venues were forecast to be delivered within approved budgets By September 2011, the Organising 60. By September 2011, the at November 2011 Committee had secured 33 per Organising Committee had signed cent of its overall income target a contract with the BBC to be 63. The Games budget includes from three sponsorship and two the broadcast rights holder for capital funding of £75 million at cash broadcasting deals the UK. It had also secured an prices for venues. The Organising 57. The Organising Committee has international broadcast rights deal Committee’s original cost estimate for set clear sponsorship targets with with Australia (Network Ten). The these venues was £62 million expected dates for securing this remaining broadcasting income is at 2007 prices, increasing by revenue.59 However, it has not yet expected through other international £2 million (at 2007 prices) for split the revenue targets between broadcasting rights deals. The income Hampden Park as part of the 2009 value-in-kind and cash because it can from the Australian broadcasting budget review process. The combined only do this once it has operational rights has been hedged to protect cost estimates were then restated to plans for each function, such as sport, against fluctuations in the foreign £75 million to include inflation in 2010. volunteering and security. These plans exchange rates, and the Organising At November 2011, the forecasted are due to be prepared by March 2012. Committee plans to do this with other total cost of these venues remained international deals.61 at £75 million (Exhibit 6).63 58. The targets have been informed by benchmarking information from Ticketing and merchandising 64. Glasgow City Council manages six previous Games. The expected dates targets are based on clear of the Games budget-funded projects. for securing revenue follow a similar assumptions but ticketing income The Organising Committee allocated pattern to Manchester 2002, although may be challenging in the current an initial total programme budget of Melbourne 2006 Games’ revenue economic climate around £36 million at 2007 prices for targets from sponsorship were more 61. The Organising Committee’s board the council to deliver these projects, heavily weighted to the 12 months approved its merchandising strategy in including contingency allowances.64 In prior to the Games. At this stage August 2011 and its ticketing strategy May 2010, the Organising Committee of planning, Manchester 2002 was in January 2012. The revenue targets restated the individual project cost slightly ahead of Glasgow in from ticket sales and merchandising estimates to include inflation, giving securing sponsorship deals, are based on clear assumptions at an overall programme budget for whereas Glasgow compares this early stage but need to be kept Glasgow City Council of around favourably with Melbourne 2006. under review because of the current £40 million in cash prices. economic climate.62 59. By September 2011, the 65. Glasgow City Council has Organising Committee had secured 62. Ticket prices are only indicative approved individual project budgets, three value-in-kind deals for at this stage and will not be set including contingency allowances professional, legal and recruitment until detailed market research has based on an assessment of the services. The Organising Committee been completed, which is due in project risks. Glasgow City Council’s has signed confidentiality agreements the winter of 2012. However, the programme contingency has reduced with sponsors, which means we are current estimates were informed to around £4.5 million. This is to be unable to report the value of these by benchmarking information from expected at this stage as 90 per cent deals. However, we have reviewed previous Commonwealth and Olympic of projects are committed. Glasgow these deals and are satisfied that the Games, other relevant sporting events City Council receives £1.2 million to

59 Joint Marketing Strategy, Glasgow 2014 Ltd, 2009; and Games budget, Glasgow 2014 Ltd, 2011. 60 Programme plan milestone monitoring report, Organising Committee, November 2011. 61 Hedging is an action which manages the risk of potential losses of money, investments, goods or services due to changes in foreign exchange rates. 62 The assumptions are based on available seating capacity, ticket sale volumes and a range of indicative ticket prices (inclusive of VAT) which aim to ensure accessibility and maximum attendance. It also assumes the majority of ticket sales are expected to be made to a target population within a three-hour travelling distance to the venue. 63 The £75 million includes capital contingency allowances to cover project-specific risks, optimism bias and other unknown risks. 64 The £36 million included contingency allowances to cover project-specific risks, optimism bias and other unknown risks. Part 2. Delivering the Games on budget 19

Exhibit 6 Analysis of the changes in the planned costs of venues funded from the Games budget At November 2011, all venues were forecast to be delivered within their approved budgets.

Approved Approved OC Total OC Total OC Approved Forecast/ OC core contingency approved approved individual actual cost budget 2008 budget 2008 2008 budget 2008 budget project at November (project cost (project cost (A+B less PM restated budgets 2011 (at estimates at estimates at adjustment as at outturn (at outturn outturn 2007 prices) 2007 prices) appropriate) prices prices) prices) Glasgow City Council A B C D E F Venues (X) £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Cathkin Braes Mountain 580 0 563 624 643 643 Bike Trail Glasgow Green National 2,981 259 3,146 3,478 3,779 3,779 Hockey Centre Sir Chris Hoy Velodrome 10,011 989 10,680 11,682 13,200 13,200 Kelvingrove Lawn Bowls 1,080 0 1,049 1,152 1,181 1,181 Centre Tollcross International 11,582 918 12,135 13,525 13,587 13,587 Swimming Centre Glasgow Club Scotstoun 1,615 135 1,699 1,907 2,093 2,093 Programme Contingency 0 6,030 5,854 6,608 4,493 4,493 Programme 0 0 1,054 1,169 1,169 1,169 Management Fee Subtotal (X) 27,849 8,331 36,180 40,145 40,145 40,145 Organising Committee managed projects (Y) Strathclyde Country Park 818 0 818 1,080 1,080 1,080 National Stadium 19,852 0 19,852 27,581 27,581 27,581 Hampden Park Capital Programme Contingency non-GCC 0 5,195 5,195 6,028 6,028 6,028 projects Subtotal (Y) 20,670 5,195 25,865 34,689 34,689 34,689 Total Games budget funded venues 48,519 13,526 62,045 74,834 74,834 74,834 (Z = X+Y)

Notes: 1. Column A shows original project cost estimates at the time of the bid without contingency allowances. 2. Column B for GCC managed projects shows the original project cost estimates at the time of the bid including project specific contingency. Programme contingency is shown in a separate line of the exhibit. The Organising Committee (OC) managed projects do not include specific project contingency allowances, as contingency is held in a central capital programme contingency budget which is shown in a separate line of the exhibit. 3. Column C for GCC managed projects shows an adjustment to cost estimates to separately identify the amount to be paid to GCC to cover its programme management costs for these projects. 4. Column D shows the project cost estimates restated to include an allowance for inflation, based on HM Treasury GDP deflator indices as at 4 January 2010. The Organising Committee approved an overall programme budget of around £40 million (based on cost estimates) for Glasgow City Council to deliver six projects. 5. Column E for Glasgow City Council venues shows the council approved project budgets including project specific contingency allowances, and council approved programme contingency and programme management budgets. The council approves project budgets for different phases of each project, based on market analysis from pre-tender exercises. Column E for Organising Committee managed projects is the same as Column D. Source: Commonwealth Games 2014: Progress report on planning for the XXth Games, Audit Scotland, November, 2009; Project highlight reports, Glasgow City Council, November 2011; Executive Committee finance reports, Glasgow City Council (2007–11), and Organising Committee detailed budget, 2011 20

cover programme management costs, The innovative technical design for completion less than five months funded from the programme budget of Hampden Park carries more before the Games start. Final testing (Exhibit 6). At November 2011, all risks than other venues and the will be needed on completion which Glasgow City Council managed Organising Committee is taking runs the risk of cost increases at this projects were forecast to be delivered action to manage these late stage if remedial work is required within their approved budgets. 68. Hampden Park presents a (Case study 1). higher risk of cost increases. It is an 66. The Organising Committee innovative technical design and is due is managing Hampden Park and Strathclyde Park developments. The 2008 approved Games budget Case study 1 included individual project budgets Hampden Park of around £20 million and £800,000 (at 2007 prices) respectively and an Hampden Park is being used to stage the athletics, and for overall capital contingency allowance the closing ceremony. This involves the installation of a temporary track and of £5 million for these projects. The field facility by raising the level of the playing field by 1.5 metres. This is an Hampden Park project budget was innovative solution, which has not been tested anywhere before and therefore increased by £2 million in November presents a risk of potential increased costs if unforeseen problems emerge. 2009 as part of the 2009 Games The risk of increased costs is greater if the development is delayed as it is not budget review. In May 2010, the due to be ready until less than five months before the Games. Organising Committee restated Strathclyde Park and Hampden There are other components to the project which are interdependent, Park budgets to around £1 million therefore the risks to each need to be assessed and managed collectively: and £27 million at cash prices. At November 2011, there had been • the temporary conversion of ground as a warm-up facility no further change to the Organising • extension of the North and West stands to improve facilities including Committee’s forecasted costs for disabled seating these venues (Exhibit 6). • building a new clubhouse for Queen’s Park Football Club (QPFC) to relocate 67. The CGF approves the design during the construction period of Games venues and athletes’ • reinstating the playing field and other temporary works. representatives are also consulted on their requirements. There is a risk QPFC is building a new clubhouse where it will relocate prior to other therefore that these bodies request construction work. The clubhouse is also being used during the Games and changes to venue designs, which, will be funded from the Games budget and QPFC. There is a risk that the if agreed, could potentially lead to clubhouse construction work is not completed in sufficient time to relocate cost increases above the approved QPFC during other construction work. budgets. While the Organising Committee and Glasgow City The strategic partners are aware of the risks to the Hampden Park Council acknowledge that some development and have brought forward the completion date from June 2014 design changes may be necessary at the time of the bid to May 2014. They also commissioned a feasibility study to ensure venues are fit for purpose, in 2010. The study concluded that it was technically feasible to deliver the they are managing expectations to Hampden Park development on time and budget but identified significant risks. avoid unnecessary changes and have The report highlighted two feasible options and the risks and costs of these, agreed a process for design sign-off and recommended governance arrangements. The Organising Committee with the CGF. accepted the recommendations and is working with Hampden Park Limited and QPFC (the venue owners) to implement these governance arrangements.

In October 2011, the Organising Committee appointed its design team which suggested a third design option. It is carrying out feasibility studies to determine which option provides best value to inform the final design option and enable procurement to start on schedule. The Organising Committee has identified a risk that if the decision is not taken before the summer of 2012 this could lead to delays and cost increases. The Organising Committee plans to complete the feasibility studies and make this decision by May 2012.

Source: Audit Scotland, 2012. Part 2. Delivering the Games on budget 21

There is a risk of potential cost increases for the use of private Exhibit 7 venues Analysis of changes in planned costs of other developments for venues 69. The Organising Committee has that will be used during the Games signed leases with seven venue The forecasted estimated cost of other venue developments is £307 million. owners to use their facilities for 65 325 certain sporting events. However, Scottish Hydro Arena there is a risk that the lease terms 300 275 Royal Commonwealth expose it to potential liabilities and 250 Pool additional costs that are not covered 225 Toryglen Regional by existing guarantees. For example, 200 Football Centre if the handover of venues does 175 Scotstoun Stadium

£ millio n 150 not go according to plan, then this Glasgow Green 125 National Hockey Centre could potentially lead to additional 100 costs for the Organising Committee, 75 Tollcross International Swimming Centre including compensation payments to 50 venue owners. If this happens, the 25 Commonwealth Sports 0 Arena and Sir Chris Hoy Organising Committee may have to Estimated cost Approved budget Forecast/actual cost Velodrome find additional savings, compromise (at 2007 prices) (at outturn prices) at November 2011 its delivery plans or draw down (at outturn prices) contingency funds to cover this, if it is not able to renegotiate the Notes: 1. Funding for Glasgow Green National Hockey Centre, Sir Chris Hoy Velodrome and Tollcross agreements with venue owners. International Swimming Centre, are also partly funded from the Games budget as shown in Exhibit 5. 2. Scotstoun Stadium construction is complete and the venue is operational. A small retention is being held and the expected final cost is £17.6 million. 70. In January 2011, the Organising 3. The SECC initial cost estimate for the Scottish Hydro Arena was prepared at projected outturn prices. Committee signed a Venue Use Source: Commonwealth Games 2014: Progress report on planning for the XXth Games, Audit Scotland, November, 2009; Project highlight reports, Glasgow City Council, November 2011; and Agreement with Hampden Park Games detailed budget, Organising Committee, 2011 Limited; therefore the risk of potential liabilities and additional costs for this venue has been mitigated. At this point it was also negotiating similar formally approved at the time of additional funding to cover the cost agreements with the other six venue the bid. Its original combined cost of design enhancements for two owners. estimates of £128 million included Games venues (Tollcross International £11 million for Kelvin Hall Sports Swimming Centre and Glasgow An additional £307 million is being Arena which was included as a Green National Hockey Centre). These spent on venue developments that potential venue for at the time two venues were initially expected will be used during the Games of the bid. However, this venue is no to be fully funded from the Games 71. A further £269 million (at 2007 longer required to hold the boxing budget. The council committed the prices) was planned for venue event and it has been removed from additional funding to achieve a better developments prior to the Games the programme. legacy as a result of the design and therefore the strategic partners enhancements. The council-approved do not consider these to be a direct 72. The estimated cost of additional project budgets for venues include cost of the Games (Exhibit 7). The investment in venues is currently a contingency allowance to cover £269 million included Glasgow City £307 million. Since our 2009 report, specific risks related to the project. Council’s estimated venue costs of the council has updated its project A further contingency allowance for £128 million for new and refurbished business cases, including cost optimism bias is included within the venues; and two other venue owners’ estimates, and it has approved council’s overall capital investment combined estimated additional costs combined budgets of around programme. of £141 million to refurbish their £142 million (at cash prices) for existing venues.66 Glasgow City venue developments. The approved 73. At November 2011, there had Council’s estimated costs for its budgets are not directly comparable been no increase in the forecasted venue developments were mainly with the original cost estimates as costs of Glasgow City Council based on outline business cases but they are prepared on a different price venues above their approved budgets not all of these projects had been basis. The £142 million includes (Exhibit 7). At this time, the cost of

65 SECC, , , Hampden Park, Royal Commonwealth Pool, Strathclyde Country Park and Barry Buddon. 66 Glasgow City Council and the other two venue owners are responsible for meeting any potential cost overruns for their own developments. 22

the SECC’s new arena (Scottish Hydro unable to report on specific financial force. It will be important to review Arena) was projected to increase contributions of each party and other the budget assumptions regularly to by almost four per cent from aspects of the contract because this ensure these remain valid in light of this £112 million to £116 million. The information is commercially sensitive. change, as well as other factors such increase is mainly due to increased as the experience of London 2012 costs of the heliport and additional 76. At November 2011, the Athletes’ Olympics and the national security fees. The SECC also anticipates Village was on schedule to be situation leading up to the Games. further costs for landscaping work completed by February 2014. City and other additional items, which will Legacy has completed preparation 79. The Games budget includes enhance the development but these work on the site and started funding to cover the anticipated costs are not part of the contract.67, 68 construction work in June 2011. At for the Scottish Ambulance Service November 2011, there were (SAS) associated with providing 74. Scotstoun Stadium and Toryglen 37 recorded risks in the various additional services during the Games. Regional Football Centre were Games partners’ risk registers related It also includes funding towards the completed within their approved to the Athletes’ Village, some of cost of providing other emergency budgets. The difference between their which were significant. The Games services during the Games. But it approved budgets and the original delivery partners have agreed is not clear at this stage whether cost estimates is due to further mitigating actions for these risks. the budget is expected to cover development of the designs before However, risks remain in delivering all additional costs of providing the construction contracts were the Athletes’ Village to the required emergency services, such as fire and signed and construction inflation. standard on budget to meet the fixed rescue and hospital services during deadline. Ultimately, an increased the Games. The Games budget does The public sector contribution to public sector contribution may be not include an allowance for planning the Athletes’ Village has increased required to ensure the Village is ready time required prior to the Games for in time for the Games (Case study 2). the SAS or other emergency services. 75. An Athletes’ Village is being built which will provide accommodation The Games will have additional 80. The reduction in public sector for 6,500 athletes and officials during costs to the wider public sector budgets increases the risk of the Games. The contract for this organisations being unable to development includes 300 social 77. The Games budget includes contribute effectively, or puts pressure housing units, 100 mid-market houses funding for security, fire and rescue on existing services and budgets if and 300 private houses. The Athletes’ and other emergency services. The they are expected to meet these Village was originally expected to be security budget is at particular risk costs from their own budgets. The funded mainly from private sources. of cost increases and it is not clear Scottish Government confirmed that In 2010, Glasgow City Council whether this budget is intended to each organisation is responsible for signed a contract with City Legacy, a cover all costs associated with Games ensuring it has the capacity to deliver consortium of private developers, to security. The budgets for fire and and their contribution to the Games construct the Athletes’ Village. Due to rescue and other emergency services should be viewed as a priority. This the decline in the economy since the are based on assumptions at the time risk has not been identified on the Games were awarded to Glasgow, of the bid to host the Games. These partners’ Games risk register and at the funding package has changed budgets do not cover the full cost of November 2011, the potential costs and the public sector contribution planning and delivering emergency and risks had not been assessed. is significantly higher. However, the services during the Games. funding package has not changed since procurement started and the 78. Since the Games budget was public sector contribution is fixed. approved, the Scottish Government We have reviewed the contract announced that the police forces in for the Athletes’ Village but are Scotland will be merged into a single

67 Our 2009 report included projected costs at June 2009 of £128 million for the new arena. This included £12 million for landscaping and other additional work. We have agreed with the SECC to exclude these additional costs from Exhibit 7, page 21 in this report, as the developments are not part of the existing contract and are not required for the Games. 68 At November 2011, the estimated costs of the new arena including the additional work was £125 million, which is £3 million less than shown in our 2009 report. Commonwealth Games 2014: Progress report on planning for the delivery of the XXth Games, Audit Scotland, 2009. Part 2. Delivering the Games on budget 23

Recommendations Case study 2 The Athletes’ Village The Scottish Government should:

There are a number of risks to delivering the Athletes’ Village on budget and • ensure that other public sector to the required standard in time for the Games: organisations have identified and allocated the resources • A key risk arises from the fact that some of the Organising Committee’s they need to be involved in specific requirements for the temporary works were not built into planning and delivery of the the development agreement between Glasgow City Council and City Games, where these are not Legacy. This was mainly due to the need to begin procurement in covered by the Games budget. advance of the appointment of the Organising Committee’s key staff responsible for developing the specification for the temporary works The strategic partners should: within the Village. If changes are required to the design, this could lead to delays and potential cost increases to be met from the Games • complete a strategic budget. The Organising Committee has identified this risk and is taking assessment of the Games appropriate action to mitigate it. For example, it has prepared a brief budget at least twice a year, setting out its requirements which City Legacy has responded to. It has as operational plans develop, since completed a review to identify any unmet requirements which looking at the cost pressures are being negotiated with City Legacy. The Organising Committee has and uncertainties affecting the also developed a protocol and sign-off process for the Athletes’ Village overall Games budget and how setting out the responsibilities of all three parties for the delivery of the these can best be managed brief and meeting additional costs due to design changes. • ensure future budget reviews • Public sector funding for the Athletes’ Village is fixed as part of the include a thorough assessment contract. City Legacy has still to sign a loan finance agreement, which of the effect of inflation and it needs to make its full agreed contribution. The strategic partners are market conditions in the light of working with City Legacy to examine alternative loan finance. However, tendering results these arrangements do not necessarily mitigate the risk of the need for additional public sector funding. • continue to review contingency budgets as new risks emerge • The Village is also at risk of delay if the developer is unable to deliver and the costs of mitigating the construction work on schedule. Glasgow City Council has included actions are fully assessed. a term in the contract which allows it to end the contract if City Legacy fails to deliver its commitments. The council would then complete the The Organising Committee should: construction itself and retain ownership of the Athletes’ Village. This is an appropriate action but as the deadline is already tight, if this risk • further develop and continue occurs, there is a greater risk of cost increases to be ready in time. to monitor and review its sponsorship income targets, Source: Audit Scotland, 2012 specifically identifying the split between cash and value-in-kind income based on a detailed assessment of what is needed and when, to support operational plans, budgets and cash flow.

24 Part 3. Progress in planning for a legacy

The Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council have developed legacy plans and they are currently developing their approach to evaluate the return on investment from the Games. Part 3. Progress in planning for a legacy 25

Key messages The Scottish Government and 83. Glasgow City Council’s legacy Glasgow City Council have framework also sets outs a clear vision • The Scottish Government developed legacy plans for the for the Games (Exhibit 9, page 27).70 and Glasgow City Council Games It has identified six legacy themes: have developed legacy plans prosperous, international, accessible, for Scotland as a whole and 81. The Scottish Government and active, greener and inclusive. Forty Glasgow City which align with Glasgow City Council have said legacy projects have already been the National Performance that the Games will leave a lasting developed around these themes, Framework. legacy of benefits. The bid to host which aim to deliver the intended the Games stated that the Games legacy outcomes from the Games. • Some economic and social would contribute to the economic, legacy benefits have already social, cultural and environmental Performance monitoring and been achieved, including over development of the city and the evaluation need further work 2,000 young people starting country. Since then, the Scottish to demonstrate a return on apprenticeships and many Government has developed a investment Glasgow-based companies Scotland-wide legacy plan. Glasgow securing contracts to deliver City Council has also developed a 84. Both Scotland-wide and Glasgow Games construction projects. separate legacy plan for securing City legacy plans give a clear benefits for the city as a result of indication of the population groups • Legacy plans do not identify the Games. that are expected to benefit from the expected economic impact the Games and the benefits they are from the Games. Clear targets, 82. The Scottish Government has expected to receive. The expected baseline data and performance set out a clear vision for legacy legacy benefits in each plan are both indicators are in place for and its ambitions are identified tangible (increased job opportunities; some but not all projects. around four themes: Active, business opportunities; and new An evaluation framework is Connected, Flourishing and infrastructure investment) and currently being developed Sustainable (Exhibit 8, overleaf). It less tangible (an enhanced image; to demonstrate a return on is currently working with various civic pride; improved health; and investment in the Games. organisations, which are delivering improved community engagement). legacy projects and are expected The timescales for delivering the • There is no specific funding to contribute to achieving the expected benefits have not always for legacy but the strategic expected outcomes from the been identified, although it is clear partners have aligned their Games. The Scottish Government that benefits are expected to be existing initiatives to support has a coordination role with these achieved before, during and after the legacy plans. However, in the organisations to ensure that systems Games. The plans do not identify the current economic climate other are established that enable the expected economic impact of the public and private organisations progress of individual projects and Games although this is difficult to do. may find it difficult to invest to the overall legacy programme to be achieve a long-term legacy. effectively monitored. The Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council have aligned their respective plans where possible, and also with the outcomes and targets set out in the National Performance Framework and Scotland Performs. Glasgow City Council’s legacy plan also aligns with local Community Planning priorities as set out in the local Single Outcome Agreement (SOA).69

69 Community Planning is the process by which councils and other public sector bodies work together with local communities, the business and voluntary sectors, to plan and deliver better services and to improve the lives of people who live in Scotland. All councils have set up a Community Planning Partnership (CPP) to lead and manage community planning in their area. Each CPP should prepare an annual Single Outcome Agreement (SOA) for their area, setting out their strategic priorities, expressed as local outcomes, and identifying how these will contribute to the National Performance Framework. 70 Glasgow 2014 Legacy Framework: A Games legacy for Glasgow, Glasgow City Council, 2010. 26

Exhibit 8 Summary of the Scottish Government’s legacy framework The Scottish Government has a clear vision for achieving a legacy from the Games.

Commonwealth Games legacy Scottish Government’s vision for a legacy which helps people live longer, healthier lives in strong resilient and supportive communities, valuing and protecting the built and natural environment, with new and better skills development, employment and volunteering opportunities Legacy

Flourishing Active Sustainable Connected themes

Overall Celebrate our culture and Regenerate communities Promote Scotland, Inspire and enable people inspire our young people and enhance our enhance skills and to be more active to create and learn environment support our businesses outcomes

• Increase growth and • Inspire Scottish people • Improve the physical • Improve the profile and profitability of Scottish to become more active environment of the east perception of Scotland businesses and social • Increase participation end of Glasgow as a world-class cultural enterprises in sport among • Improve access to tourism destination • Increase movement into Scottish people suitable housing options • Celebrate the contribution employment via Games- • Improve the sports • Increase access to of Scotland’s places and related opportunities infrastructure (people attractive green space people in making it a • Increase volunteering and places) in Glasgow leading creative nation through Games-related • Ensure high-quality • Be seen as an example • Inspire the people of opportunities support for Scottish of environmental Scotland and visitors • Improve the profile and athletes (people and innovation and to participate in cultural activity

Intermediate outcomes perception of Scotland places) responsibility as a world-class • Increase understanding, business and tourism links and exchanges destination with Commonwealth countries

• Business Club Scotland • Community Sports • New and refurbished • Torch Relay • Community benefit Hubs CG venues and • Get Set Learning clauses in contracts • High-performance infrastructure programme • London 2012 and sport • Clyde Gateway • Schools’ international Glasgow portals • Let’s Make Scotland regeneration links • GCC’s Commonwealth More Active • Green Games • Cultural Olympiad 2012 management Jobs Fund and • New and refurbished • 2014 Cultural Apprenticeship venues • Commonwealth Programme programmes community woodlands Example projects • 2014 Games Time Volunteers • 2012 Games Makers

Notes: Blue box – Scottish Government legacy vision. Yellow boxes – Scottish Government legacy themes. Purple boxes – a summary of the overall outcomes and a summary of the intermediate outcomes the Scottish Government is hoping to achieve. Green boxes – examples of the projects in place to deliver the Commonwealth Games 2014 legacy. Source: Audit Scotland, 2012 Part 3. Progress in planning for a legacy 27

Exhibit 9 Summary of Glasgow City Council legacy framework Glasgow City Council has a clear legacy framework for the Games.

Glasgow City Council Legacy Vision Glasgow 2014 will help achieve a healthier, more vibrant city with its citizens enjoying and realising the benefits of sport and the wider, longer-term economic, social, cultural and environmental benefits that Glasgow 2014 can help to deliver.

Prosperous Active International Greener Accessible Inclusive

Improve Increase the Strengthen To be one Ensure our city To ensure the business capacity of reputation and of the most is accessible to maximum growth and the sports image, attract sustainable all during Games opportunity for performance infrastructure, cultural and cities in Europe, time, and as a the citizens of and the physical and increase sporting events. leading to legacy, further Glasgow to appearance participation Develop the improvements enhance the get involved of Glasgow in sport and tourism industry in environmental city’s transport and actively and increase physical activity. and strengthen outcomes for infrastructure, participate in employment Commonwealth the city, through including the the Games and and training. links. a low-carbon M74 and Games legacy. Games and East End sustainable Regeneration building design. Route.

Community Glasgow East End Strategic sport, coaching Low Emission Business portal Tourism Service Regeneration Volunteering strategy, and Zones initiative Route Framework active travel

Participation Commonwealth Project – active International Apprenticeship health and Dalmarnock Health World Media Relations Athletes’ Village Initiative and active schools, Station upgrade 2014 Programme Jobs Fund diversionary projects

Great Scottish Commonwealth Run as well as Connecting and International Walking Community the provision Waste classrooms Development and cycling Benefit Policy of new and diversion across the Cities network upgraded Commonwealth Programme venues

Notes: Blue box – Glasgow City Council’s vision. Yellow boxes – the themes Glasgow City Council has chosen for legacy. Purple boxes – summarised version of the outcomes Glasgow City Council is working towards. Green boxes – examples of the projects that have been or will be put in place to ensure a legacy from the Commonwealth Games 2014 for the people of Glasgow. Source: Audit Scotland, 2012 28

85. At November 2011, the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Case study 3 Council reported that some benefits Unity Enterprise were already being achieved through a range of projects and initiatives Glasgow City Council included a community benefits clause in the contract (Exhibit 10). Glasgow City Council with the private developer responsible for constructing the Commonwealth and the Scottish Government have Sports Arena and Sir Chris Hoy Velodrome. The private developer then set specific targets and performance contracted with Unity Enterprise, a Glasgow-based social enterprise to indicators for some but not all provide on-site catering at the construction site. projects. This is partly because baseline data are not available for An employee who works for Unity Enterprise and runs the workers canteen many of the projects, although at the construction site said: both partners are working towards “Being unemployed for six years took away a lot of my confidence. But addressing these issues where it’s great to be employed again, and working with and supporting some of possible. Glasgow City Council has my colleagues with learning difficulties is really rewarding. I feel like Unity established systems to monitor Enterprise has helped me and now I feel I am giving something back”. progress in delivering the legacy

benefits. The latest council legacy Source: Summarised from case studies, Glasgow City Council website performance report shows that 89 per cent of projects that have specific performance targets were on Glasgow City Council is working in Australia between 1985 and 2002 track at November 2011.71 partnership with Glasgow Life and provides some indicative data, which three universities in Glasgow to concluded that there is a mixed picture 86. The Scottish Government is at an coordinate research and consider and it was difficult to attribute change early stage of developing systems that the wider impact of the Games on directly to the 2000 Olympics.74 UK will enable it to effectively monitor the the economic and social health Sport commissioned research on the contributions of other organisations and well-being of the city.72 It is 2002 Manchester Commonwealth to delivering a Scotland-wide legacy. expected that this research will Games indicates broadly similar However, as they are working with a contribute to the overall legacy results.75 wide range of organisations to deliver evaluation of the Games. the legacy projects, their progress 90. The House of Commons Culture depends on the pace at which Measuring economic impact of Media and Sport Committee projects are developed. large sporting events is difficult acknowledged that legacy planning 89. The economic impact of multi- for the 2012 Olympic Games 87. Glasgow City Council has been able sporting events such as the Games had been better than previous to demonstrate benefits to individuals is difficult to assess. This is because Games. However, previous Games as a result of community benefits different methodological approaches experience is that there has not clauses included in contracts for can be used, based on various always been a good legacy of using Games infrastructure (Case study 3). assumptions, which are often buildings and facilities developed subjective and can lead to different for the Games and they are not 88. The Scottish Government and results.73 Assessing and attributing always economically viable.76 There is Glasgow City Council are currently other health and social benefits evidence that the strategic partners developing a joint evaluation directly to the Games will also be are learning from the experience framework for the Games which difficult. There is currently a lack of in London. There is also evidence is due early in 2012. Work is at an rigorous evaluations or research that that the strategic partners are using early stage and the framework will demonstrates the impact of major existing venues and only building aim to assess the expected benefits events on sports development or new facilities if necessary.77 as a result of the Games, including wider health and social benefits. An economic, health and social benefits. analysis of sports participation in

71 The council has 46 legacy projects and just over half of these have specific targets. 72 The three Glasgow-based universities are Glasgow Caledonian University, Strathclyde University and Glasgow University. 73 ‘A Review of Economic Impact Studies on Sporting Events’, The Sports Journal, ISSN: 1543-9518, 2001. http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/review-economic-impact-study-sport-events. 74 This shows that in the year following the 2000 Olympic Games, seven Olympic sports experienced a small increase in participation, while nine declined. The pattern for non-Olympic sports was broadly similar. London 2012: A sustainable sporting legacy? Professor J Coulter, Stirling University, 2004. 75 The sports development impact of the Commonwealth Games 2002: final report, MORI, 2004. Research Conducted for UK Sport in Greater Manchester, Blackburn, Congleton and Liverpool. London: MORI. 76 London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games: funding and legacy, Second report of session 2006–2007, Volume 1, House of Commons Culture Media and Sport, 2007. 77 Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games Candidate City File, May 2007. Part 3. Progress in planning for a legacy 29

Exhibit 10 Examples of benefits being delivered through legacy projects A number of initiatives are already delivering benefits for the people of Glasgow and Scotland.

Project description Expected outcomes/target Outcomes achieved as at November 2011

The Commonwealth Apprentice Initiative aims Target to maintain the number of 2,026 school leavers had started to assist suitably qualified school leavers in apprenticeships throughout the apprenticeships in the period Glasgow with routes into apprenticeships in the coming years with an aim of 700 between the initiative’s launch in public and private sectors new apprenticeships for 2011. 2009 and 30 September 2011. Targets for future years have still to be determined.

A business portal has been set up which Expected outcome target Glasgow-based companies aims to support Glasgow and Scotland-based is a general increase in the were awarded 69 per cent (over businesses to tender for Commonwealth number of contracts awarded to £178 million) of the £259 million Games contracts, thereby achieving community Glasgow-based companies. worth of tier one contracts benefits through procurement opportunities. advertised on the portal. Community benefits count for ten per cent of the overall evaluation score on relevant Games-related tenders.

Business Club Scotland (BCS) has been set up Expected number of businesses At the mid-year point of 2011/12 in order to facilitate contract opportunities and in Scotland to be registered with (30 September): business networking in Scotland, which are Business Club Scotland is 3,000 • 2,582 were registered with generated by major events leading up to and by 2011, 4,000 by 2011/12, the BCS website after the Games. 5,000 by 2012/13, 6,000 by • 18 through LinkedIn 2013/14 and 8,000 by 2014/15. • 850 through Twitter • 95 through Facebook.

Glasgow City Council has committed to Through the Commonwealth 57 people had been employed extending its provision of employment to Jobs Fund, Glasgow City Council between January 2011 and the long-term unemployed people aged 18-24 and aims to provide at least 1,000 jobs end of September 2011. unemployed people aged 50+. by July 2012 for 18–24-year-olds that have been unemployed for more than six months and those who are unemployed aged 50+.

There has been a growing focus on increasing Target of people completing By March 2011, there were the number of qualified sports coaches across sport coaching qualifications has 3,086 qualified sports coaches, Glasgow in order to promote an active Scotland been set at 2,487 for the year which exceeded the target at and the related health benefits. 2010/11 and 3,955 in 2011/12. this point.

Note: These figures do not include the details of any subcontracts. Source: Executive Committee report, Glasgow City Council, October 2011 30

The current economic climate may Recommendations affect wider investment in legacy The Scottish Government should: 91. The partners aim to deliver the legacy benefits without additional • encourage Community funding to support this. Instead, Planning partners to adopt they aim to align existing Scottish Glasgow City’s Single Government investment where Outcome Agreement (SOA) possible to those programmes that approach of aligning existing support the legacy aims and they are initiatives and funding to relying heavily on public sector and ensure legacy benefits from private sector organisations engaging the Commonwealth Games effectively to achieve this. The throughout Scotland. Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council have made good The Scottish Government and progress in this area, as many public, Glasgow City Council should: private and voluntary organisations are involved in delivering the various • continue to develop their legacy projects. monitoring and evaluation frameworks and, in particular, 92. Glasgow City Council has aligned gather baseline data and its existing initiatives and grants agree performance indicators, programmes towards delivering its timescales and methods legacy plans. For example, community for assessing the return on groups need to demonstrate they are investment, including economic, helping to achieve the council’s legacy social, health, sport and benefits to access grant funding from environmental impacts the council. This is a good approach, particularly as no specific legacy • continue to review the risks budget is available. associated with achieving legacy targets in light of the pressures 93. In the current economic climate, on public and private sector there is a risk that other public and budgets and take mitigating private sector investment in legacy is action, including reprioritising scaled down or withdrawn. However, their legacy objectives and the Scottish Government carried out revising targets if necessary. an impact analysis of the 2010 budget settlement which identified that no legacy programmes were at risk at that stage. It repeated the exercise in November 2011 to examine the impact of the 2011 Spending Review. It concluded that there had been no slippage or negative effect on priority projects as a result of the Spending Review. However, a small number of projects reported resource constraints and are now focusing on areas that they believe will provide the greatest benefit. The Scottish Government is also raising awareness among funders about the Games legacy plans and is working with them to identify ways for them to contribute. 31 Part 4. Governance

Governance arrangements have generally improved but joint working arrangements are becoming increasingly complex. 32

Key messages working structures on a programme contributions of relevant Government with multiple stakeholders need to directorates and agencies such as • The overarching Games be clear and as simple as possible, so Transport Scotland and Visit Scotland. governance structure and that they are understood by all those However, further work is needed to strategic partners’ high-level involved, and focus on the need for ensure all Government departments’ internal governance structures timely decision-making. and agencies’ responsibilities for are clear and each have defined key milestones are included in accountabilities. 95. At the time of our 2009 report, the its programme plan. The Scottish strategic partners had established a Government also needs to develop • Joint working arrangements clear high-level governance structure and implement a system for at operational level are more for the Games. There have been managing, monitoring and reporting complex and difficult to some changes to this structure changes to the programme plan and understand. For example, there since then. The revised high-level ensure progress reports provide a are a large number of working structure remains clear and allows complete and accurate picture of groups and the responsibilities the strategic partners to maintain progress. and accountabilities are not strategic oversight across the Games always defined and distinct (Exhibit 11). 98. When we reviewed the council’s from each other. infrastructure programme governance The strategic partners have arrangements in 2009, we found • As the Organising Committee established clear internal these to be robust. Since then, recruits more staff and more governance structures for the these have changed to include partners are engaged in Games governance arrangements for the planning or delivery, there is a 96. The Organising Committee is legacy programme and overall these risk that the complexity of joint governed by a board of directors, are still clear. working arrangements is not which includes the public sector clear to those involved, leading strategic partners. Six sub- Joint working arrangements are to duplication in effort and committees are in place below the becoming increasingly complex delays in decisions being taken. board of directors, which also have and difficult to understand representation from the strategic 99. Many joint working groups have • The strategic partners continue partners. Five of these committees been established to coordinate to improve their individual were already in place when we different workstreams. For example, and joint risk management published our 2009 report.78 The the Organising Committee has set arrangements. However, further Organising Committee established up 17 operational groups, covering work is needed to ensure all a new Games Delivery Committee functional areas such as venues, risks, mitigating actions, due (GDC) in January 2010, on which the Athletes’ Village, and transport. dates and costs related to the other strategic partners are Some of these are internal groups these actions are clear, so that represented. The GDC is responsible and others are joint working groups partners can effectively monitor, for monitoring and reviewing the with partners. Glasgow City Council manage and report on these. partners’ progress against the coordinates a further 46 working overall programme plan, as well as groups, some of which also cover The high-level governance reviewing the partners’ joint Games planning venues, the Athletes’ Village structure is clear risk register. The terms of reference and transport. and accountabilities for the six sub- 94. Good governance provides a committees are clear. 100. The partners are confident that framework for joint planning and they are clear about the purpose, managing performance, cost and 97. Following our 2009 report responsibilities and accountabilities risks, and ensuring accountability for recommendations, the Scottish of all their working groups and that securing efficiency and effectiveness. Government has implemented there is no duplication. However, It is critical to delivering a large multi- a clear high-level internal terms of reference do not always sporting event such as the Games, governance structure to manage its include details of the specific which is made up of a series of responsibilities for the Games. At this responsibilities and accountabilities projects that are interdependent stage, the high-level structure appears for all groups, including delegated and rely on the contribution of many to be appropriate to coordinate authority to make decisions on organisations. Governance and joint and maintain oversight of the planning and budgets. There is a risk

78 Organising Committee Management Committee, Joint Marketing Committee, Audit and Risk Committee, Remuneration Committee and Athletes’ Committee. Part 4. Governance 33

Exhibit 11 High-level joint governance structure for the Games The high-level governance structure is clear but joint working arrangements are becoming increasingly complex.

Commonwealth Glasgow 2014 Strategic Group Games Federation

Glasgow 2014 Working Group (subgroup of Glasgow 2014 Strategic Group)

Environmental Forum Subgroups of Glasgow 2014 Working Group

Commonwealth Security Committee Games Scotland

Glasgow City Council International Links Glasgow 2014 team Group

2012/14 Culture Strategic Scottish Government Overview Group Strategic partners

Glasgow 2014 Ltd Communications Organising Committee Working Group

Finance Working Group

68 working groups coordinate planning across key Games programme functions

Accountability Joint Working Escalation

Notes: 1. T he strategic partners are accountable to the Commonwealth Games Federation through the Strategic Group to deliver the Games to the required standard, as set out in the host city contract. 2. E ach of the four partners has its own internal governance structures. 3. T here are 68 working groups. Each of these is directly accountable to one or more strategic partners, and some may also be accountable to the subgroups which report to the Glasgow 2014 Working Group. 4. G lasgow City Council coordinates 46 working groups. Fourteen of these groups cover the development of individual venues and the Athletes’ Village, and procurement related to venues. Seven are responsible for risk reviews of major projects, 11 cover legacy, 11 cover transport and environment and three cover utilities, communications and benefits. 5. T he Organising Committee coordinates 17 working groups, some of which are internal working groups and others are joint working groups, focusing on venues and Athletes’ Village development and temporary capital works, culture, legacy, sports and corporate service functions such as human resources and technology. 6. The Scottish Government coordinates two working groups focusing on legacy and Scottish Government responsibilities. 7. T hree further working groups are in place covering security issues and the Athletes’ Village. However, other organisations such as Strathclyde Police coordinate these. Source: Audit Scotland, 2012

34

of duplication between some groups 103. The Scottish Government has Committee has appointed a dedicated as they cover similar areas, such as made changes to its internal risk risk manager to further improve risk venues and the Athletes’ Village. It management arrangements, which management arrangements both is therefore difficult to understand have supported a more cohesive within the organisation and across the distinct roles and responsibilities approach to managing joint risks the partners, including embedding a of each and how these interact. This across Government. This includes culture of effective risk management is exacerbated by the sheer number introducing a new cross-Government into everyday working practices. of groups. In addition to this, staff policy for managing and reporting capacity among partners is limited, risks. Under the new policy, the Recommendations therefore attending meetings of the approach to categorising and scoring various groups may not always be risks aligns more closely to the The strategic partners should: the best use of people’s time. The overall Games and other strategic partners should take any opportunities partners’ risk registers. The policy • review the terms of reference to reduce the number of groups by was approved in October 2011 and for joint governance and combining responsibilities which the Games Delivery and Legacy working groups, ensuring the would help simplify joint working Teams are currently working towards specific responsibilities and arrangements. implementing the new approach. accountabilities are clearly documented, including their 101. As the Organising Committee 104. Since our 2009 report, the delegated authority to make recruits more staff, and more partners council has completed a review decisions on planning and are engaged in planning or delivery, of individual project risk registers budgets there is a risk that the complex and updated them to ensure they joint working arrangements may be are consistent with the overall • take any opportunities to reduce unclear to those involved, leading programme approach. A quality the number of groups by to duplication of effort and delays assurance process has also been combining their responsibilities in decisions being taken. As the introduced to ensure consistency to support effective and Games gets closer, it will be even is maintained between project and efficient delivery of the overall more important to ensure planning programme risk registers. In our programme plan structures and arrangements support 2009 report, we recommended that efficient and effective planning and the council should assess the cost • continue to refine their decision-making. Since our 2009 of its mitigating actions to ensure individual and overall Games report, the strategic partners have these were realistic and affordable. risk registers to ensure all risks developed a protocol to enable quick However, the council has decided are described clearly, including decisions to be made on urgent not to cost its mitigating actions as it cause and effect, and that matters outside the standard process. believes these are adequately covered specific mitigating actions are within the overall programme identified with clear due dates The strategic partners continue to contingency budget. improve their risk-management • ensure that all mitigating actions arrangements 105. The Organising Committee that have potentially significant maintains its own risk register in financial implications are costed 102. Since our 2009 report, the addition to managing the strategic and included in relevant budgets. strategic partners have continued partners’ joint risk register on a day-to- to develop their individual and joint day basis on behalf of the partners. All risk-management arrangements. strategic risks and those which score Each organisation has its own risk- 15 or above are monitored through management policy, risk register and the Games Delivery Committee reporting arrangements. All partners and reported to the Organising manage and monitor their own risks Committee Board, Glasgow 2014 separately. Mitigating actions have Working Group and Strategic Group. been identified for the majority of The Organising Committee appointed risks on all risk registers. However, MARSH, a company with expertise further work needs to be done to in risk management of major sporting ensure all risks, mitigating actions, events similar to the Games, to due dates and costs related to these carry out a review and update its actions are clear, so that partners own risk policy and register and the can effectively monitor, manage and partners’ joint risk register in 2011. report on these. Since the review, the Organising 35 Appendix 1. Project advisory group members

Audit Scotland would like to thank members of the advisory group for their input and advice throughout the audit.

Member Organisation

Mary Allison Head of Strategic Planning, Sportscotland

Derek Bearhop Head of Games Delivery Team, Scottish Government

Jon Doig Chief Executive, Commonwealth Games Scotland

Carole Forrest Head of Council 2014 Team, Glasgow City Council

Keith Hawkswell Director Culture Media & Sports VFM, National Audit Office

David McCracken Chief Superintendent, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland

Ian Reid Director of Finance, Glasgow 2014 Ltd

Note: Members of the project advisory group sat in an advisory capacity only. The content and conclusions of this report are the sole responsibility of Audit Scotland. 36 Appendix 2. Partners’ progress against previous recommendations

The following table shows the strategic partners’ progress against our 2009 report and the Scottish Parliament Public Audit Committee’s recommendations. We have used a traffic light system to show the status of progress:

Fully implemented In progress Not accepted

Status of Recommendations progress Strategic partners should: Document the purpose, responsibilities, membership, and lines of reporting for all cross-partner working groups to ensure all partners have a consistent understanding and that the accountability of the groups is clear. Develop and continue to review plans for managing staff continuity and ensuring that knowledge is retained in the organisation following any changes in key staff. Review and update the overall Games risk register to ensure similar and related risks are scored consistently. Fully assess the potential consequences associated with the private sector contribution to, and investment in, the Games, including the potential impact on public sector funding. Agree actions to manage all of the risks that they are individually or jointly responsible for, and estimate the cost of their agreed plans to manage each risk to ensure these are realistic and affordable.

Develop formal arrangements or agreements for managing joint responsibilities between partners.

Develop protocols for dealing with urgent issues or decisions across the partners, at both strategic and operational levels. Approve the budget monitoring arrangements and ensure these are formalised in appropriate joint groups’ terms of reference, and include financial reports as a standing agenda item at Strategic Group meetings. Delivery partners should: Agree the required tasks to deliver on areas of joint responsibility and develop formal agreements to ensure these are allocated and managed appropriately. The Scottish Government should: Complete its programme plan to manage its responsibilities for the Games across its directorates by December 2009. Collate the key milestones from all partners’ plans into an overall Games programme plan to ensure it has appropriate oversight as the principal guarantor for the Games by March 2010. Coordinate its risk management approach, including aligning its risk registers and reporting systems for managing its own risks in relation to the Games across the Scottish Government. Develop an action plan that describes what needs to be decided by the various parts of Government, when and by whom, by December 2009. Review and update the business planning tool to ensure it is complete and consistent with its programme plan and the overall Games programme plan that it is developing. Appendix 2. Partners’ progress against previous recommendations 37

Status of Recommendations progress Glasgow City Council should: Estimate the cost of its plans to manage risks to its Games-related infrastructure programme to ensure these are realistic and affordable. Update its infrastructure programme plan to include the project budgets and interdependencies between projects, and complete this by December 2009. Complete its review of its infrastructure programme report template and revise this to improve the presentation of information by December 2009. Closely monitor the progress of the Athletes’ Village and agree actions to manage the risk of slippage on this to ensure it is ready in time for the Games. Complete its review of individual project risk registers and update these to ensure that risks are recorded, assessed and prioritised using the agreed programme approach to ensure consistency. The Organising Committee should: Review the underlying budget assumptions that are subject to uncertainty, at least annually, to determine whether these have changed materially and make recommendations to the Strategic Group on the budget accordingly. Continue to explore opportunities for making savings and increasing income, while delivering the Games to a good standard and fulfilling its obligations in the host contract with the Commonwealth Games Federation. Complete its programme plan to manage its responsibilities for the Games by the end of December 2009. Closely monitor the progress of the National Stadium Hampden Park and Strathclyde Country Park and agree actions to manage the risk of slippage on these to ensure they are ready in time for the Games.

Complete its budget review and develop detailed operational budgets by the end of March 2010.

Develop and implement procurement policies and strategies that are compliant with European Union regulations. 38 Appendix 3. Methodology

The focus of our work was examining • Association of Chief Police approved budgets and report on how the strategic partners’ progress Officers in Scotland well risks are being managed. We in planning for the delivery of the attempted to quantify the wider cost Commonwealth Games 2014, • Strathclyde Police of the Games to other public sector including an assessment of how organisations, such as the Scottish partners were managing the risks • Scottish Ambulance Service Ambulance Service; however, due to delivering the Games successfully to limited information, this was not on budget at November 2011. • Strathclyde Fire and Rescue. possible.

Our audit had four main components: We held a combination of group and Desk-based research individual interviews and undertook Desk-based research was carried • Interviews with representatives of some telephone interviews with staff out via internet searches of existing all the strategic partners. from these public bodies. information. Our research included reports on previous Commonwealth • Analysis of existing data including Data analysis Games such as those held in activity and performance against We reviewed documents, reports Manchester, and Melbourne targets. and other performance, risk and cost and previously held Olympics as well data supplied to us by the strategic as published material relating to work • Financial analysis of the costs partners to examine progress in ongoing for the London 2012 Olympics involved in the planning and establishing governance and joint and the Commonwealth Games 2014. delivery of the Games. working arrangements and progress against key milestones for the Games • Desk-based research of existing delivery and infrastructure. We information provided by the analysed benchmarking information strategic partners relating to the from previous Commonwealth delivery and legacy planning of the Games, including Manchester Games as well as internet-based 2002 and Melbourne 2006. This research. included comparing actual income from sponsorship and other income Audit work was completed between streams and costs compared to plans. August 2011 and January 2012. Financial analysis Interviews We carried out a high-level review of We conducted interviews with a the methodology and assumptions number of senior and strategic staff underpinning the Games budget, involved with the Commonwealth including an examination of Games 2014: contingency and inflation calculations. We reviewed in more detail the • Scottish Government various income strategies and targets for sponsorship, merchandising, • Glasgow 2014 Ltd (the Organising broadcasting and ticketing and Committee) assessed progress against these plans as at November 2011. Where • Glasgow City Council possible we benchmarked progress against previous Commonwealth • Commonwealth Games Scotland Games. We also compared the estimated costs of the venues and • Commonwealth Games the Athletes’ Village at the time of the Federation bid against the projected final cost as at November 2011. Our main focus • Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of of this work was to highlight the risks Constabulary for Scotland to delivering the Games within the Commonwealth Games 2014 Progress report 2: Planning for the delivery of the XXth Games

If you require this publication in an alternative format and/or language, please contact us to discuss your needs.

You can also download this document in PDF, black and white PDF or RTF at: www.audit-scotland.gov.uk

Audit Scotland, 110 George Street, Edinburgh EH2 4LH T: 0845 146 1010 E: [email protected] www.audit-scotland.gov.uk

ISBN 978 1 907916 57 1 AGS/2012/3

Printed on Revive 100 Uncoated, a Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified recycled grade containing 100% post consumer waste and manufactured at a mill certified with ISO 14001 environmental management standard. The pulp used in this product is bleached using an Elemental Chlorine Free process (ECF).