London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

moved Amendment No. 23:"Page 3, line 30, leave out ““section”” and insert ““Act””" The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 23, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 and 27 and to Amendments Nos. 25 and 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. Clause 4(3) provides that the ODA shall have regard to certain matters when it is exercising its functions under that clause. My Amendment No. 23 asks why it does not have to have regard to those matters when it is exercising other functions. Is the answer that it cannot exercise any function unless subsection (3) allows it to? That might be the answer. Subsequent clauses dealing with, for instance, the transport plan, include important issues such as having regard to achieving sustainable development. I am not sure whether that is the answer, as Clause 23(6)(a) states that the ODA shall,"““prepare a strategy for the exercise of their functions under this section and under section 22””." As there is a similar reference elsewhere confined to a section rather than extending to the whole Act, it seems to me that if we are to ensure that the ODA has regard to legacy issues and to achieving sustainable development in everything that it does, we need to apply the relevant measure in Clause 4 to the whole of the Act. Amendment No. 24 continues a debate which we first started in this context in 1997 when regional development agencies were established. I have discovered that it reflects an amendment which my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer will move in connection with NERC. It escapes me what that acronym stands for, but Members of the Committee will recognise the reference to the Bill going through the House. This Bill states that these matters will be taken into account ““wherever relevant””. These issues are always relevant, so the amendment seeks to delete those words. Unless they are deleted, it is open to the ODA to say, ““Well, we have thought about these and they are not relevant””. The limitation under by the Bill in saying ““wherever relevant”” gives permission to the ODA, in effect, not to have regard to these matters. I think that there is not even a presumption that they are relevant, which the ODA might overturn. Amendment No. 27 continues an earlier debate today; that is,"““having regard to the functions of local authorities and other authorities””." The Minister may feel that he has said pretty much all that there is to say on that, so I will not press him to add to that unless he wants to. I am sorry that I cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and his Amendment No. 25. I normally do when I see the word ““environmental””, but as I read it, subsection (3)(a) rightly extends beyond environmental benefits to the sporting legacies and other facilities. I beg to move.