London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I enjoyed the degree of detail, particularly the signing of the railway chit. I am delighted that Members of the Committee opposite conceded one point: that an official rather than the Secretary of State might do that. This is not about trust, it is about accountability. The Secretary of State must be in that position in the Bill in relation to the functions of the Olympic Delivery Authority because that body will spend millions of pounds of public money. It must be accountable: it is accountable to the Secretary of State and through her to Parliament. That is why the Secretary of State is identified as the body to which the ODA is accountable. That is not the same as saying that every detailed decision that the ODA is involved in is subject to the Secretary of State. There could be decisions of very great significance. I am sure that Members of the Committee opposite do not envisage creating an ODA without accountability, with the Secretary of State having been deleted. How will that body be accountable?