London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I greatly respect those representations and the way in which they have been put forward, although, of all the definitions of government that I have heard, ““coy”” is not one that I automatically associate them with. I agree with the arguments. It goes without saying that the ODA will have an important duty to reconfigure venues to ensure the benefits of the Olympic legacy. We will discuss the importance of that legacy in due course. However, once the authority’s duties are fulfilled, it will clearly no longer be necessary for it to exist. It is likely that any assets it has in land will be transferred to other bodies. Before making an order to dissolve the authority, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State consult with the Mayor of London and any other person she thinks appropriate. The Mayor of London is specified for the obvious purpose. The category:"““Such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate””" is very important. As noble Lords have indicated, it is not conceivable that this action could be carried out without consultation with the ODA. However, the decision to dissolve is not the ODA’s but the Secretary of State’s. The clause provides for the Secretary of State to consult anyone she thinks appropriate. Just like noble Lords opposite, I cannot conceive how that could be done effectively without the chair of the authority being involved, not least because he will, by then, be having praise heaped on his head and will be regarded as one of the heroes of the nation for the successful completion of the games. Any idea, therefore, that the Secretary of State would not wind up the ODA without due regard to the opinion of the chair of the authority would be quite unthinkable. While we accept these points entirely, we do not think they need to be made explicit in the Bill or that we need the amendment.