London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I am glad to have heard those two representations. They were not unexpected. I believe there is a misconception of what the ODA is. The ODA is not equivalent to a local government body, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, indicated when he said that the body would be answerable to the nation. There will be widespread interest in what the ODA is doing and in its responsibilities. He is so right. That is why the model of responsibility for the ODA is to send an annual report to the Secretary of State, who will lay it before Parliament, which will decide the manner in which it will scrutinise the report. It is a non-departmental public body; it is not a local government organisation. It would not be appropriate for such an agency to act, or to be expected to act, as noble Lords opposite described. I entirely accept the point that both noble Lords made that, in one very important planning area, the ODA takes on functions quite similar to what local governments do. In planning, we are making specific provisions. When the ODA planning committee takes on the responsibilities of the relevant local planning authorities for ““development control”” within the Olympic park, we see it acting in a specific relationship to local authorities. That is why we have imported the provisions of Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act so that the ODA, when acting in these terms, is required to publicise all applications for planning permission; invite comments and representations on those applications; take representations into account when reaching decisions; and place decisions in the public domain, on the planning register, for open inspection. That recognises that in the planning function there should be proper requirements that are applied to local government, which we have brought into the Bill to apply to the specific function of the ODA. The ODA, in all other respects, such as its accounting records and its annual statement of accounts, is the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the National Audit Office—and, through them, to Parliament. The chief executive will be the designated accounting officer, in line with government accounting rules, responsible for ensuring that moneys are properly accounted for, and will be answerable to the Public Accounts Committee of the other place on that basis. As a body receiving grants from the GLA, the ODA will certainly be subject to the scrutiny of the London Assembly, which I know will exercise the interests of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I shall come to the details of that in due course; but the London Assembly can ask for the ODA to be present and to be accountable to it on certain occasions. The ODA is not a local government body, nor is it in parallel with a local government body. It has functions with regard to planning which we recognise may be looked on as similar to how local government goes about planning, and we have made provisions in the Bill for that. But otherwise the answerability of this body is just as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, argued—through the Secretary of State to Parliament and its committees.