London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

The noble Lord is right—these are difficult issues because we cannot foresee with accuracy the situation that will obtain in 2012 after the Olympic Games. We do not know whether we are aiming for a surplus, as the noble Lord will recognise. LOGOC is setting itself the objective of a surplus. If there were a surplus, and we were in a benign state, it might well be that public authorities would be the beneficiary. After all, public authorities have been supporting this through their contributions. The noble Baroness was only too emphatic about that earlier on regarding council tax and other public contributions. Public authorities would have some expectation that the land might be disposed of at below market rate; but we might be at the other end of the spectrum. As the noble Lord indicated, we might have a substantial deficit that could be reduced by the sale of the land on market principles. We cannot foresee the accuracy of that, but we can say that there is a public interest in such an issue and it is important that these decisions are taken by a body that is responsible. All I am emphasising at this stage is that the ODA will be subject to the Secretary of State’s scrutiny during this critical period. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has a brighter wheeze than this, namely, that the Mayor of London should also be involved in giving consent alongside the Secretary of State for any such proposal. I understand her point that through the council tax of course London will have contributed. But only one person is responsible to Parliament for the actions of the ODA—the Secretary of State. That is a direct and clear line of responsibility. I hear what the noble Baroness said about the interests of Londoners and of the Mayor, which are important, but the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, indicated that he had reservations about how significant that was in relation to crucial decisions post the games. We think that responsibility rests with the Secretary of State.