London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I understand that and I was responding partly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, which was directed more to the immediate post-games situation. I accept entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said about the overall position during the intervening period and I am merely emphasising that the same considerations apply, namely that the actual responsibility to Parliament for public money lies with the Secretary of State—remember that there are several sources of public money for development that the ODA spends and will spend to some considerable extent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is all too well aware, the Mayor will have oversight of the authority’s activities, including disposal of land, because he will be on the Olympic board, which oversees the ODA. So he will be fully appraised of what the ODA is doing, and under the arrangement the Mayor will be aware of, and able to comment on, the ODA’s strategy for the disposal of land, because he will be in a critical position when the ODA makes its report to the Olympic board. So the Mayor has plenty of opportunities and sufficient involvement in the oversight of the ODA, but it is important—and I was grateful for the point that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith made—that not only in the build-up to the games but in the disposal of assets afterwards there are clear lines of responsibility. As the Bill is drafted, they lie properly with the Secretary of State. Whereas Amendment No. 21 would have increased the Mayor’s powers, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, would place further restrictions on the Mayor’s role. I emphasise that under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Mayor has responsibility for strategic planning across London and ensuring that the strategic planning interests of London as a whole are taken into account by decision makers. In order to carry out that responsibility, the Mayor must have a means of intervening in the decision-making process on issues of strategic importance. The Mayor has the right to direct a local planning authority to refuse a specific application for planning permission if he considers that the proposal would undermine the spatial development strategy or otherwise would be contrary to good strategic planning in London. When the noble Baroness asked what the specified cases were, that is what I meant. That is what is set out in Clause 5. It states that certain provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act do not apply where the ODA takes over functions that the planning authorities normally exercise. But perhaps I may stress by way of reassurance to the noble Baroness that we have reserved for the Mayor his right under that legislation to refuse applications in specified cases—and those specified cases relate to the special spatial development strategy; cases which are otherwise contrary to good strategic planning in London. I want to reassure her that the Mayor retains his position in that regard. I shall give way to the noble Lord.