London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I am grateful for the way in which noble Lords have spoken to their amendments. The thought crossed my mind at one moment that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, could slug it out between the two of them about the power of the Mayor, and I could sit here as a beneficiary of the resulting conflict. It is rare for governments to be able to take such an inactive stance, and therefore I am obliged to be fairly clear on where we stand regarding the amendments. It will be a bit of, ““On one hand and on the other””, but I will reject both cases, so at least in conflict the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will have the consolation that they are both opposed by the Minister. On Amendment No. 21, I emphasise that one of the key selling points in London’s bid was the regenerative effect that it would have on the east end of London. The Olympic Delivery Authority will be responsible for acquiring land and carrying out much of the critical regeneration work. After the games the ODA will no longer be required, and its land will have to be transferred to other bodies. It is likely that local authorities and other public sector organisations may take over much of the ODA’s land. In those cases, it may be desirable for the ODA to dispose of the land at a value below the usual commercial rates. The Bill sets out that the ODA can only dispose of land in that way with the consent of the Secretary of State. It will be recognised that we need a safeguard in these circumstances, as we are dealing with valuable land and valuable assets. It will be disposed of by a body that itself is due to disappear. Therefore, it is essential that the public purse has some security over a changing situation, so we do insist on the consent of the Secretary of State.