London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. This is a complex area and he has unquestionably given us a great deal of reassurance. On the veto, almost from what he is saying—I hope that the Mayor is not listening—he is formally recognising a power which exists, but Heaven help us if he ever has to implement it. It seems to me that it is a power that will remain just that: it is a formal recognition of a position, which has to be maintained. That I understand. Equally, I am completely clear in my mind that if the Mayor ever found himself in a position of needing to exercise it, something would have failed—and failed very seriously. For the rest, I am very grateful for the explanation that we have had of the relationship between the ODA and the GLA and particularly the reasons for going outside London. The Minister has clarified my question about the funding stream. Clearly, if I understood the noble Lord correctly, he is envisaging that some of the London funding will be spent directly by the GLA on Olympic facilities rather than be remitted to the ODA and then go back again. That may well be a sensible way of doing things but there will have to be some fairly sophisticated accounting within the GLA if that is the case. I do not know whether I am prompting another whole line of inquiry but it will be very important as regards defining the cost of the games that the actual expenditure is very precisely identifiable and identified and cannot get confused with any other GLA expenditure.