London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I may not have been as accurate in my commonsense as I sought to be. I understand the noble Baroness’s anxiety. The Committee is concerned about whether the degree of control will be exercised at such a level as to be absurdly burdensome and interfere with the effective operation of the ODA and, what is more, whether the Secretary of State will have excessive power. I understand those reservations. I am seeking to indicate that we must have in the legislation the reserve position of the Secretary of State, but I must be able to assure the Committee about the pitch. I am having great difficulty with that and the noble Baroness is rightly reflecting that in her summing up of her amendments. The financial memorandum and management statement, the control mechanisms of the ODA, will be set. They will be the delegated levels of expenditure for the authority, and we will be talking in terms of millions. The Secretary of State will agree what is proper for the body to spend, like other public bodies which spend considerable amounts of public money. They are answerable to their relevant Secretary of State, but it is not expected that the Secretary of State signs the travel chits for any member of the body. That is the same with this organisation; there will be an agreement about the levels. As regards the reserve powers, I am talking about when things may go massively wrong with expenditure at that level. As regards contracts, I am not talking about the drawing-pin contracts but the big ones in which the Secretary of State would necessarily play a part if there were public anxiety about the way in which a contract had been awarded. The National Audit Commission would not move into action, but the other place and this House would ask questions and Ministers would be answerable.