London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

That is a very generous offer. I am always prepared to discuss things further between stages of the Bill—even during stages of the Bill if it assists the Committee—so I shall certainly take that point on board. There are difficulties with geographical circumscription. After all, the games will be in different locations; one part of the games will be right on the junction of at least three authorities. I struggle to work out how one would circumscribe that geographically, although it might be done. In practice, there will be circumscription; otherwise we will end up with lighting in Glasgow being justified on the grounds that it helps people to get to the games. The point, surely, is this: the ODA will be operating within its budget. Let us say that the agency guaranteed that all Olympic sites will have reached the maximum standards of cleanliness and lighting and the adjoining local authorities also met their standards. If there was an approach road that extended a little further and the ODA had the resource to encourage the relevant authority to improve the quality, is the Committee saying that it should be restricted from going outside the boundary? That cannot be so, can it? If Members of the Committee would like the Bill to provide that the role of the ODA is geographically circumscribed, I will need a more specific amendment. As Members of the Committee will recognise, all Olympic expenditure groups, particularly the ODA, will be working within tight budgets. Ambition will always exceed resource and we will always be battling to reach these high standards within the framework we have set. I am not sure, therefore, that it is necessary to circumscribe further the role of the ODA at this stage.