UK Parliament / Open data

London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I am sorry if I did not reply directly to Amendment No. 22, which concerns the question of consent before the ODA supplies funding to any other body to carry out work in connection with Olympic purposes. We want the ODA to have the flexibility to make financial arrangements, and of course it will do so. But really major projects cannot be commissioned without first checking with the Secretary of State, who will be responsible for them. Some of the contracts will be very large indeed. I do not doubt that the exercise of these powers will be limited, but we cannot hand over to a non-elected body answerable only to the Secretary of State significant powers to enable huge expenditures and say only that at some stage the National Audit Office will pick up aspects of its operation. The National Audit Office has a broad sweep of responsibility for a large number of public bodies. The Secretary of State is responsible for one of the most critical of all the functions over the new few years for the success of our Olympic Games. I seek merely to emphasise the obvious responsibility for big projects. Again, we hope that the ODA will develop such a degree of trust in its efficiency, judgment and capacity that none of these issues will ever arise. As I said earlier regarding the reserve power, I do not expect it to be exercised in the lifetime of the ODA. But the body must be accountable. The noble Baroness asked me to cite examples. Public bodies in other areas have exactly these responsibilities. I had the enormous good fortune to chair a public body—the Further Education Funding Council, which was responsible for investing billions of pounds in the further education sector. The council was open to challenge by the National Audit Office. It could look at our books to guard against the misuse of public money. But our accountability in terms of the role we played within our democracy was to the Secretary of State for Education, for the obvious reason that he—it was a ““he”” at the time—answered for the council in the House. The same applies to this body.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

678 c87GC 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top