London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

moved Amendment No. 30:"After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—" ““OPENNESS    Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) (access to meetings and documents of certain authorities, committees and sub-committees) shall have effect as if— (a)   the authority were a principal council, and (b)   any committee or sub-committee of the Authority were a committee or sub-committee of a principal council, within the meaning of that Part.”” The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 30 relates to the operation of the Olympic Delivery Authority. It would apply the local government model of meeting in public as a general matter and providing as much access to meetings as possible, subject to certain confidentialities or dealing with individuals, staffing matters, and so on. There is a presumption that meetings in local government are open, and this would be a good model to apply to the ODA. I accept, of course, that a fair amount of what the ODA does, particularly in land acquisition, will be confidential, but what is treated as confidential should be kept to an absolute minimum. It is important that a public body is forced to examine whether there is a good reason for each item—indeed, each aspect of each item—to be taken in closed session. It gives me no pleasure to say it, but I am particularly conscious of this because of how the London Development Agency operates: in my analysis, its agendas start with quite a lot of items taken in closed session. My assumption is that these are the most interesting items—they look, from the headings, as if they are the most significant—and that they are at the beginning of the agenda because the LDA meets at 8 am and that is a convenient time for many of its members, who have other interests in business and elsewhere. Local government takes only what bits it has to, not complete items, in closed session. The LDA seems to work on the presumption that items will be taken in closed session, with some exceptions. That has affected how the LDA works and, sadly, its reputation. I recall a number of my colleagues on the London Assembly, both Labour and Conservative, sitting outside LDA meetings in the early days to make the point that they were not allowed in. This affects the whole ethos of the LDA. There is a mindset about its business not being open in quite the same way as local government is. This is so serious that the London Assembly has passed a motion making the point. I will say for the record, because the LDA will no doubt read this, that I accept that it has put some new standing orders in place but the way it goes about its business, taking confidential matters first, militates against this. For balance, I refer to the letter I received from the chair of the LDA, following the Assembly’s motion, although I will not quote all of it, in the interests of time. She refers to information being on the website and meeting daily,"““with key stakeholders and partners to explain in detail what we are doing””." That is useful and welcome, but it does not meet the point completely. A public body should be public. I would not lay money on the Minister agreeing with this amendment, but I hope that he will take the opportunity to explain how the ODA will operate in this regard and meet the kind of complaints that I anticipate, but which I hope never to have to voice, about the ODA. I hope that it will be a good, open and transparent body, whose workings are understandable to those who not only wish to follow things up after the event, but who also, where possible, want to sit in and listen to the debate, the discussions and the arguments. I beg to move.