Greater London Authority Bill

I thank the Minister for his reply. Of course I will give him credit—low-carbon credit—for his very helpful suggestion; I am glad that he feels able to take that on board. I have learnt something in the debate about what a great centre of waste Essex is; I look forward to going to see the exemplary anaerobic digestion plant. I am grateful to the Minister for the time that he took to reply. The investment is crucial. For example, the London Climate Change Agency was to have a revolving £6 million fund for investment in renewables and energy efficiency. I am not entirely sure of the position now, but it was threatened because of the shortfall and the funding pressure from the Olympics. What a fantastic exemplar of renewable energy the Olympics would be for people from all over the world. I hope that the Minister will keep his eye closely on all the proposals that there are to exhibit a real range of renewable technologies on that site and that they will not be bulldozed in the rush. I appreciate that the timescale is very short, but there is a danger that in that short timescale the route of least resistance will be taken and that the technologies that are put in will hark backwards and will not be as forward-looking as they should be, especially for the venues that are going to remain on the site. If there is one thing that should be low carbon it is the Olympics. The Mayor has expressed the ambition that the Olympics should be low carbon, but the reality from the plans does not show so far that that will be the case. Perhaps we will return to that on another occasion. In the mean time, I look forward to having some more specific wording in this section on Report that will get to the heart of all our aims this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.