London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

Perhaps I may intervene briefly before my noble friend Lord Glentoran and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—whose names are the first to appear before the amendment—utter, as one of them may in due course withdraw the amendment. I should remind the Committee of the words of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that preceded its observation about consultation. I declare an interest as a member of the committee:"““Clause 20(4) disapplies the hybrid instrument procedure for the regulations. The purpose of that procedure is to give those whose private interests may be specially affected the opportunity to petition against the regulations””." That is what is being disapplied. It seems to me not unreasonable to suggest that, if that is occurring, as the Delegated Powers Committee suggested, then—again, I will read out the committee’s words in heavy type—"““the House may wish to question why, in the light of this disapplication, organisations representative of those affected by the regulations have not been included among those required to be consulted on their content””." I realise that the arcane mysteries of private petitions and hybridity may be outside the ken of the Olympic authorities. But the fact remains that they are part of the laws of this land and, if they are to be disapplied in the Bill, perhaps the Minister needs both to say and think more about the objections of those whose interests are affected.