London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

moved Amendment No. 7:"Page 32, line 27, leave out ““, with the approval of the Secretary of State,””" The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 7, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 to 10, 13 to 18 and 22. What unites all the amendments is the issue of the autonomy—or otherwise—of the Olympic Delivery Authority. I have already said that there seems to be an extraordinary degree of control by the Secretary of State written into the Bill. The Secretary of State has the right to approve people who are not members of the ODA as members of an ODA committee. Amendment No. 7 addresses that by removing it. The Secretary of State has the right to approve people who are not members either of the ODA or of an ODA committee as members of an ODA sub-committee. That is addressed in Amendment No. 8. The Secretary of State has the right of direction of the Olympic Delivery Authority under Paragraph 18(1)(b) of Schedule 1. It is not just a question of giving guidance to the authority, but a direction with which the authority must comply. Sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) flesh out the issue of the direction by saying that:"““A direction may, in particular””—" it is a different particularity from the first amendment—do certain things. It requires the Olympic Delivery Authority to,"““obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before taking action of a specified kind””." In other words, this is a sort of negative power of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may also under a direction,"““require the Authority to accept or assume specified duties, rights or liabilities under contracts””." That is a positive power on the part of the Secretary of State. I appreciate that the Secretary of State is under certain obligations to consult. I realise that if I had been a little more sophisticated in my amendments, I would have changed sub-paragraphs (3) and (4). Although they may apply to directions, in particular they would apply to guidance. However, my general point concerns the level of directions. The Secretary of State’s control extends a very long way into the operation of the ODA, including board matters that one would expect an organisation just to get on with. The remuneration of the chair and members is dealt with in Amendment No. 13. On travelling and other allowances, dealt with under paragraph 28(1)(b), I wonder whether the Secretary of State will have to sign chitties allowing rail travel to Manchester and perhaps saying, ““Well, you can go, but only if you can go at a cheap rate””. I cannot imagine that that will be the case, but such a degree of potential intervention is beyond my comprehension. On pensions allowances or gratuities, it is hard to know how one should distinguish between some of the allowances referred to—in particular, what gratuities might be justified. Perhaps this is a hint that the Secretary of State will not agree to pay any members, so that they get gratuities instead. Are pensions allowances and gratuities a matter for the ODA? Given current controversies, one would think that a Secretary of State would wish to avoid getting involved in issues of compensation for loss of office, but perhaps that will die down before any of this becomes relevant. Amendment No. 22 refers to Clause 4(2)(k), which states that,"““financial assistance [to the ODA] in connection with anything done or to be done by another person for a purpose””" of the authority taking the actions that it considers necessary is also subject to the Secretary of State’s consent. That is in a different category from the other amendments in this group, but it raises questions about what sort of detail it is anticipated that the Secretary of State will be involved with. I may be wrong, but I read paragraph (k) as dealing with contracts which the ODA will sign. The amendment is intended to elicit how it is anticipated that that will work. For example, does the Secretary of State expect to approve every contract, or will approval of financial assistance up to a certain limit be given in a blanket way? The other amendments deal with the authority’s internal workings. The provisions anticipate that the Government will not trust the authority. If they cannot trust the authority to decide whom to co-opt to sub-committees, do they trust the ODA to deliver the 2012 Olympic Games? I beg to move.