London Olympics Bill

That is a helpful suggestion. It might also be helpful to require the ODA to appear once or twice a year before the Assembly for scrutiny. That might be a way to facilitate understanding, rather than create potential conflict, which would not be helpful to progressing this important initiative. I am also concerned about how the ODA will proceed on issues such as decontamination of the land, burying the power lines and any problems left over from the small nuclear power station—the GLA raised that issue recently. All those issues have the potential to cause significant cost overruns, so it is important to have transparency on them. The role of the London Development Agency has not been mentioned positively so far in this debate, but the agency and the GLA should be congratulated on the positive role that they have played so far in the success of the bid. The LDA will have a significant role to play in the future and I shall be interested to see what the relative roles of the agency and the GLA will be, as laid out in the schedules to the Bill. Significant powers will be given to the GLA, and on balance that should be seen as a positive development. It is important that the LDA should also be required to report frequently on its performance with regard to the Olympic process. As someone who used to sit on the LDA board, I have noticed the significant transfers of spending from other parts of London that are not close to where the Olympics will take place, even areas of great social deprivation. Such developments should be closely followed. In conclusion, the Olympics offer the prospect of sporting excellence, but it is also important to ensure the greatest excellence in the way in which they are delivered, because London taxpayers cannot afford any kind of cost overrun when the gearing in the London tax schemes is so high.