London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I entirely agree with the thrust of the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with the minor exception of Amendment No. 10, where clarification and guidance is probably useful. When I read the Bill on the back of the noble Baroness’s amendments, on thinking about it, it is incomprehensible how the Government can think that a body that it intends to set up as an authority with, arguably, more powers than most local authorities—certainly in specific areas—could operate and work effectively with continuous and repeated departmental interference. That is what ““the Secretary of State’s approval”” means. She is not going to look at every decision that is made. It will be departmental interference on a massive scale. If the ODA is to work, it will need as part of it people who are determined and committed to delivering as we want it to. Those people will not brook interference. If the Government want an authority that will do the job that they ask it to do, to deliver and perform, it will not be a government department—with all due respect to members of the Civil Service present—it will be a group who have operated effectively and efficiently in the private sector and who are used to being supported well by their staff, but who make their own decisions for their own reasons and deliver. If there is one thing in the Bill that will guarantee failure of the ODA, it is that it will be messed about and continually interfered with, particularly in its early days when it is trying to get its act together, by the department. I have nothing against the department. I have worked with the department for many years and have had a happy relationship with it in many ways, but that happy relationship will not continue if the Bill’s provisions for the ODA remain as they are.