London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

The noble Baroness has produced an amendment that goes to the heart of the important structures for the organisation of the games. I assure her that all models of potential governance were considered and her points were fully taken into consideration. I want her to recognise that the structure that we have is the product of some serious deliberation on how best to arrange the governance of the Olympic project. I hope that the Committee has had the chance to study the diagram to which the noble Baroness referred, which we placed in the Library of the House, setting out that governance structure. The structure makes clear that LOGOC and the ODA have separate, if mainly complementary, roles and responsibilities. Basically, LOGOC organises the games—the events themselves. The ODA gets everything else ready for the games—the venues, the transport and the infrastructure. Those two organisations are brought together at the level of the Olympic board which, as Members of the Committee will know, consists of the Secretary of State, the Mayor, the chair of the British Olympic Association and the chair of LOGOC. The chair of the ODA will also attend all the meetings of the Olympic board and will be expected to provide monthly progress reports on the project. The chair of LOGOC will have the opportunity to raise in that forum any concerns about the work of the ODA and its impact on the games themselves at the highest organisational level. That was the point that my right honourable friend sought to make in Committee in the other place. I hope that the Committee will recognise that we have thought the model through—where those two bodies have their separate and clear responsibilities; where they need to interlock and be made accountable; and where LOGOC can question the ODA effectively at the highest level. Of course, that model has been agreed with the International Olympic Committee, which has a very obvious interest in the preparations that we are making. We do not think that it would be appropriate to confuse the direct lines of accountability that we are establishing for the ODA by putting a LOGOC representative on the board, which would change the nature of that role. The ODA is directly accountable to the Secretary of State and to both Houses of Parliament. It is appropriate that a non-departmental public body should be so, because the ODA will be spending a very considerable amount of public money. It must remain independent of the London organising committee. It must be focused on its task, and it must bear down on costs. The ODA must work closely with all Olympic stakeholders. It will report on progress to those stakeholders at the Olympic board level, on which as I have indicated LOGOC will be represented through its chair. It is that board that will provide overall strategic co-ordination and monitoring of the entire Olympic project. That is why it is so important that we ensure that the chair of LOGOC has a seat on that board. I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making, and we considered it very carefully, but the accountability is on a model that has won the acceptance of the IOC and which will make sure that there is clear accountability for the two distinct roles of the bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, mentioned Amendment No. 4. I, too, regret the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, but we all understand the pressing business elsewhere, in which I am sure he takes a consuming interest. I am sure that everyone in this room takes a consuming interest in what is happening elsewhere, but we have rather more extensive obligations in regard to this matter. I recognise the point that noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, makes that the relationship with the London boroughs is important. The amendment would require the ODA board to include at least one member on the board who represents the interests of the London boroughs. We all recognise that the interests of the London boroughs will be of the greatest importance to the delivery of the games, and we are greatly heartened at the response of the key boroughs to the work that is going on. It is obviously essential that the ODA works closely with the borough councils. When we considered how the ODA ought to interact with the borough councils and with others that greatly impact on its work—and on which it is in many ways dependent—we took the decision that the ODA board members should be chosen not for their representative quality, which is not the role of the board, but for the expertise that they bring to the overall organisation of the infrastructure relating to the games. We do not think that that would be achieved by arguing that there should be representation of any particular group. The noble Baroness might, in all fairness, say that if the amendment were carried and the crucial local London boroughs were included on the board, she could think of other interests that had at least an equal representative right. We would be faced with the concept of a representative board rather than a functional board brought together for its expertise. It is that latter model that we are working on. If the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was here, that would be the reply that I would give him. By proxy, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to the amendment, that is our argument against that amendment. The ODA’s task will change and evolve over the next six years from planning and construction to co-ordination of games time arrangements, and to the reconfiguring of legacy venues when the games are concluded. It is probable that the membership of the board will need to change to reflect the different skills and expertise which will be required as these functions alter. That is why we want the board to be functional and task-related, not representative. I recognise it is important that the board must have a good level of local knowledge and awareness. That is why paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 stipulates that when appointing members, the Secretary of State shall have regard to their experience of the places where the authority will carry out its functions. Clearly, one could not expect the ODA to fail to consist of some individuals with a real knowledge of the part of London where the games will be mainly focused. In advertising for board members, we make clear that one of the specific appointments of expertise will be someone with experience of community liaison; with an understanding of key local, social and political issues in east London; with significant leadership experience in local government; and with a clear vision of how to ensure delivery of a legacy for the local area. We cannot get more explicit than that in indicating that we recognise the strength of the concept that has been put forward. We hope that these measures will ensure that the board is appointed with the right skills to carry out the changing tasks, but will also have a sufficiently high level of local knowledge to exercise its functions sensitively. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 would remove from the Bill the requirements for the ODA to appoint finance and transport directors and the requirements for the Secretary of State to approve those two appointments, which are of cardinal significance. They are the two key executive appointments. The director of transport will be the head of the Olympic Transport Authority, operating within the ODA, and co-ordinating all transport plans for the games. It is no secret that we had to overcome in the successful bid the real challenge with regard to transport and the games. It was always stated in the context of Paris, but also for other cities which were competitors in the last stages, that it had got a comparatively easy transport proforma in comparison to the challenge of London. I think that at Second Reading, noble Lords were at pain to point out what a challenge London presents in terms of transport. It is, which is why we will discuss how these transport challenges are to be met and the arrangements for them. There is no doubt that the emphasis that we placed on transport planning within the ODA played a key part in convincing the International Olympics Committee that London was equipped to stage the games and could meet the challenge of transport. We all recognise that it is one of the most complex and congested cities in the world. I might particularly refer to the east London position, although I dare not say that east London is more ill favoured at present than other areas, because all the other areas of London will say, ““Have you learnt anything at all in your role as transport spokesman in their Lordships’ House, if you have not recognised the problems of other parts of London?””. I think that the Committee will recognise that there is much to do about the infrastructure of transport and the plans that we will need, which is why we have put such a great emphasis on this role. It is painfully obvious that the finance director will manage very large sums of public money that the ODA will be spending and will bear down on the costs of the construction project. That is a massive challenge. These two figures are crucial to making the Olympic project work effectively, on time and on budget. These two appointments need to be specified in the Bill. From the good governance point of view, given that those appointments will be made very early on in the life of the ODA, the Secretary of State should approve the appointments. She eventually takes the ultimate responsibility with regard to the development of the games. The ODA will of course lead the recruitment process and make the appointments. The Bill provides only that the Secretary of State, with her ultimate responsibility, makes such key decisions. That is why it is included in the Bill. I hear what the noble Baroness says and hope that I have convinced her that in being specific about these two positions, we recognise their salience to the success of the project. These are early days and these appointments will be made in early days. They will need the confidence of the Secretary of State.