London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

We are getting nearer agreement, but there is still room for much re-writing. I have read nowhere about the Government’s intention to present a set of financial directions to the ODA. In the Millennium Commission, we spent several billions over years—big money. One of the first things we were presented with, and which we debated with government, was a set of financial directions. That controlled the things that the Minister spoke of wanting to control without having continuous interference. That, and having to report to the committee in the other place, the overseeing of the NAO and the normal audit procedures is a better way of gaining accountability, which I clearly understand and support, than is proposed in the Bill. Of course the Minister needs accountability in considerable detail, but the way it is being tackled is not the best way. There are better ways and the use of financial directions and advice from the NAO and elsewhere will provide better and more succinct ways of assuring accountability without interference. We must bear in mind that this body will be under continuous time pressure to make decisions. We know that various government organisations and bodies are not good at delivering rapid decisions. It is very important for the success of this body that it is never held up waiting for decisions. We have also had some discussion of remuneration packages. Again, going back to the commission and other lottery bodies, every year the payroll for pay rises, remuneration packages, and so on was submitted to the Treasury. At times I had to ask a friendly Minister in this place whether he could extract the payroll from the Treasury as we needed it to submit the final accounts. The payroll was held up in the Treasury. Nevertheless, that was the process. It was not conducted by means of continual interference on the part of the DCMS but through a series of procedures that were well understood and laid down. I suggest that there is room for improvement.