UK Parliament / Open data

London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I am grateful for that. I hope I can give a belated, small reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I did not mean to suggest that only London should be the beneficiary of the legacy. Indeed, I do not think that my amendment ought to be read in that way, given paragraphs (c) and (d). I will read what the Minister said. I do not for a moment want to suggest that what he said did not contain goodwill or was in any way disingenuous. We have had many exchanges during the two days in Committee on the Bill in which there has been much expression of goodwill, but I have been left wondering what guarantee there is in the legislation. There should be a guarantee that the issues we have discussed will come to pass. I do not doubt the goodwill of all those involved, but the ODA, especially, and LOCOG will have the responsibility of delivering certain things. The Mayor has a clear political interest in ensuring that the games work well and that the public believe that the legacy is being delivered. But I am concerned to know that one can point to words in black and white which say that that will happen. As this is the Committee stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 19 agreed to. Clause 20 [Regulations: supplemental]:

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

678 c220GC 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top