London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I am grateful to the two Members of the Committee who have spoken although I think there is an element of misunderstanding about just how limited the clause is in its effect. I hear the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. He created the rather graphic figure of the Mayor of London having superior powers, in certain circumstances, to the Secretary of State. That clearly chilled his blood; it might have a different effect on this side of the Committee, although I would not dare ask. I reassure the noble Lord that that is not the position. The clause is very restricted. Before the ODA has come into existence, contracts are already being entered into to progress works for the games. Bodies such as the London Development Agency and Transport for London are engaged in this work as we speak. The transfer schemes provided by Clause 8 and Schedule 2 are needed to transfer these contracts to the ODA quickly once it is in existence. At present, the contracts are struck with different participants. Only three bodies will be required to make transfer schemes—the GLA, the LDA and Transport for London. All three are under the Mayor of London’s control. That is why the Mayor of London figures so significantly in the clause; it is entirely appropriate that he should give consent to transfer schemes for contracts struck in his name, preparatory and prior to the ODA being established and before it can take on this work. Amendment No. 39 would remove the need for this consent. Even the noble Lord might think that this was a little unfair to the Mayor, whoever that might be at any one time. The Mayor has only narrowly drawn powers to give his consent to schemes that involve bodies under his control. He will need to balance his duties to the bodies making the transfer with his obligations wearing his other hat under the host city contract and to the Olympic board on which he serves. So he has a duality of personality as well. We need not get greatly exercised that the Mayor is likely to exercise untrammelled authority, even that superior to the Secretary of State, in creating difficulties in an area involved in the functional transfer of schemes currently under his aegis. That is why he is obliged to give his consent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, indicated, her Amendment No. 41 comes at the situation from the opposite end. These issues are so limited that I do not think the collision is such as to cause the Committee to shudder or for me to be greatly anxious. On Amendment No. 41, the Mayor’s consent will be required for all transfer schemes. Paragraph 4(c) of Schedule 2, to which the amendment refers, does nothing to dispose of or amend this requirement. This paragraph provides that a transfer scheme may itself dispense with a requirement for consent on the part of third parties. It does not disapply the requirement for the Mayor to give his consent to the transfer scheme. I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness, but I do not think that the amendment is necessary. Amendment No. 40 seeks to stipulate that the transfer scheme should be on,"““agreed financial or other terms””." That is a reasonable point but we believe that the Bill already gives effect to that. When making transfer schemes, the Secretary of State must consult those whom he believes will be affected by the scheme, and the Mayor of London must consent to the scheme. This process of consultation and mayoral consent should provide the necessary assurances sought by the noble Baroness that the terms of any transfer scheme will be agreed in advance of it being put into effect. It provides a structured approach to the drawing-up of any scheme. At official level, preparatory steps are already being taken to achieve an agreed way forward on this issue. If either side were unhappy, they could make that known to either the Secretary of State or the Mayor, who could withhold consent until agreement had been reached. We think that the effect intended by Amendment No. 40 is already achieved within the Bill and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that it is not necessary to move the amendment.