London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I want to make it clear that within the framework of the Bill, the Mayor retains that power. In other words, when the ODA develops its plans it will have to square that particular interest. It may be that disagreements arise. We have already discussed what will happen to reconcile such disagreements. With the consent of the Secretary of State, the ODA may be able to override such a position, but we hope that that does not obtain. But the absolutely clear expectation is that the ODA would not automatically take responsibility as the planning authority; far from it. It will negotiate with the existing planning authorities and it is exactly in this area where the Mayor has a proper responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, argues that the Mayor ought not to be involved. I want to emphasise that these powers of the Mayor exist in a proper, well-defined, restricted area of planning which is already protected. We are not enhancing the Mayor’s powers here, if that is the anxiety of the noble Lord, we are merely defining them. On that basis I hope that he will feel able not to press Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 relating to the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has taken me down a different track. He too is anxious about the position of the Mayor. At Second Reading concerns were expressed from more than one quarter about the scope of the power. The Bill makes it clear that the Olympic specific power is just that. It allows the Greater London Authority to do things only for the purposes of complying with an obligation under the host city contract, signed by the Mayor on behalf of the authority, in preparing for or managing the games. In carrying out the power, the GLA is required to have regard to the legacy of the games. The power is time-limited and will be switched off once the games are over. Hence I was able to respond to the point made earlier by the noble Lord about the responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the ODA regarding the disposal of land after the games have finished. The power in Clause 34 is necessary for two main reasons. First, the GLA will be one of the funders of the ODA. The noble Baroness was very clear on that point when we discussed the council tax earlier today. The ODA will carry out work on venues across the UK, in addition to those in London. The GLA therefore needs to be able to fund such activity. I recognise that the GLA will be only a partial funder of these projects, but that is the position. Secondly, the GLA is directly liable to the International Olympic Committee for the delivery of the games in accordance with the successful London bid—and the Mayor is a signatory to that. However, he cannot be a signatory to the host city contract to ensure delivery of the games, and backed by the GLA, unless he has some responsibility for those sites and venues situated outside London. It is of course highly unlikely that the venues outside London will not be ready for the games, but if adequate preparations are not made and the Mayor and the GLA become anxious about delivery, the Bill gives the authority a locus to act to ensure their completion. It needs such a locus because it has signed the host city contract. Those are the limited areas in which the GLA, through the Mayor, has power to act. These requirements must be fulfilled and I do not think it appropriate to look for ways to curb or hamper the use of the new Olympic power on a day-to-day basis. Therefore the problem with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, while important and probing a difficult area in order to seek clarification, is that that is what they would achieve. The GLA is already carrying out a large amount of work on the Olympic project. We have provided the Olympic specific power to build on the powers already being used by the GLA to make it clear that the authority has a specified role in relation to the delivery of the games. We need to provide that power to minimise the risk of a legal challenge that might derail the whole Olympic project. For that reason, I cannot accept Amendment No. 77. It would require the GLA to secure the agreement of the ODA before being able to conduct any activity under these powers. The GLA bears responsibilities for the host city contract. Moreover, the noble Lord will recognise that we could have a strange situation in which the ODA would be able to dictate to the Greater London Authority, but the authority partially funds the ODA. That would raise some interesting relationship issues. I am also not able to accept Amendment No. 78, stipulating that all GLA Olympic activity should be carried out in co-operation with the ODA and local authorities. However, I expect that most of the activity will be carried out in a cooperative way; I cannot see how these obligations can be fulfilled without that level of cooperation. Turning to Amendment No. 80, in some cases where major activity is planned it will be appropriate for the GLA to consult the other Olympic stakeholders on the use of its Olympic power. The Olympic board provides the appropriate forum for those discussions, just as they are already taking place on the work the LDA is doing to acquire land for the Olympic park—and of course the Mayor sits on that board. There will be many other cases of day-to-day work that might involve GLA staff using the Olympic power, but it would not be proportionate to consult all other stakeholders. So, I cannot agree that the broad requirement to consult, which is imposed by Amendment No. 80, should be written into the Bill, although I accept the thinking behind the amendment that co-operation is essential for the fulfilment of the GLA and the Mayor’s purposes. Amendment No. 79 returns to a subject that was discussed extensively in the other place. The Government do not believe that Clause 34 can or should be amended to prevent the GLA using its narrow specific power to act outside London. We have put a great deal of thought into this matter as it is not a light issue for the GLA to exercise authority outside its boundaries. We of course listened carefully to representations made in forceful and clear terms in the other place. We have considered a number of different ways to limit the GLA’s powers outside London. We have concluded that the Bill makes it clear that the GLA can only act outside London for a purpose connected with preparing for or managing the London Olympics or complying with the host city contract. That gives an effective restriction to the GLA’s powers and provides a safeguard that an action outside London will only ever be in places connected with a London Olympics. Therefore, I hope that I have allayed those concerns that what might be vouchsafed to the Mayor and to the GLA by this legislation would be a very extensive power outside London. That is not so. Further safeguards are provided through the scrutiny of the GLA by the London Assembly and committees of Parliament. Such scrutiny ensures that the GLA will be accountable for any actions it undertakes in relation to the Olympics. I am sure that the Mayor and, indeed, all members of the GLA are all too well aware of the degree of scrutiny that will follow their actions on what is, after all, the greatest project that one can envisage the city undertaking in the foreseeable future. Finally, Clause 35 provides that the powers conferred on the GLA can be repealed by the Secretary of State, following consultation by the Mayor, by order using the negative resolution procedure. That provision ensures that the powers of the GLA can be terminated when no longer needed. We emphasise that they are Olympic specific, and, therefore, that termination proposal, which is only a requirement of an instrument of this House, would then be tabled. I hope I have offered the Committee some reassurance that we have considered very carefully the powers given to the GLA. We recognise that certain powers are essential for it to meet the requirements which the Mayor has signed up to on behalf of London as the host city, but we believe that the powers, as drafted, are necessary to ensure delivery of the games—but only to ensure the successful delivery of the games. I hope therefore that Amendment No. 73 can also be withdrawn.