London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I am grateful for the discussion on these amendments. I understand that the noble Baroness, in her Amendments Nos. 23 and 24, seeks to strengthen the duties of the ODA to have regard to legacy and to contribute to sustainable development. I meant what I said in reply to both representations at Second Reading and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. We take these issues seriously. These duties are of paramount importance to the success of the games and they were an important element in London’s successful bid, where sustainability was emphasised. We have included this in the Bill in a prominent position, but I do not believe that the amendments help us in strengthening the provision. In drafting the Bill, we have been clear that in carrying out its general functions, the ODA must, wherever relevant, have regard to the legacy of the games, defined as,"““the desirability of maximising the benefits to be derived after the London Olympics from things done in preparation for them””." That definition was drawn broadly so as to include the economic and social legacy of the games as well as the sporting legacy. We wanted to ensure that due regard was paid by the ODA to the situation inherited on the conclusion of the games. We required the ODA to contribute, wherever relevant, to achieving sustainable development through the exercise of all its general functions. Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 highlight two aspects of these provisions. The first is that these requirements apply to all the general functions listed in Clause 4. Amendment No. 23 implies that this list could be broadened out by referring instead to all the functions set out in the Act. However, Clause 4 is where we have provided the broadest possible list of all the functions the ODA will need to carry out—all the headings under which other work will be done. While there may be more specific duties and requirements in other clauses, they are all subsumed under the general functions set out in Clause 4, particularly in subsection (1). This is a deliberate drafting decision, and I think it is the right one. The problem with the amendment is that it would apply across the board to all the functions of the ODA. Amendment No. 24 suggests that the phrase ““wherever relevant”” be deleted. The effect of such a change would be to require the ODA to have regard to legacy and to contribute to sustainable development in absolutely everything it does. We certainly want the ODA to have regard to sustainable development and the post-games legacy on a whole range of issues, but to suggest that everything done by the authority should have regard to those is to take things a little too far. Some duties are bound to be somewhat more mundane, and it is difficult to see how they relate directly to legacy; I suggest duties such as street cleaning and so forth. These are important areas so far as concerns the success of the games themselves, but they are limited in terms of a sustainable legacy. It does not make sense to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach. While we share with the noble Baroness the objectives of having regard to the legacy, given the breadth of Clause 4(1), the amendment would create an unrealistic aim. We are pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has been able to join us in our deliberations. He has arrived quite late, but we understand why the proceedings in the Chamber would have held some attraction for him. That has been the case for all Members of the Committee, and certainly for me when I was under some pressure here. I reiterate that we share with the noble Lord his objectives regarding the environmental benefits of the games, and we seek to maximise those as far as possible. We want the games to be the greenest ever. Indeed, we emphasised this element in our original bid. However, the purpose of the requirement in Clause 4(3)(a) is to ensure that the ODA, in exercising its functions, has regard to maximising the benefits to be derived from all the things it does in preparation for the games. This relates not only to environmental benefits, but also to the wider social and economic benefits, which also form an important part of the legacy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out, she was anxious that the effect of Amendment No. 25 would be to limit those aims. Instead of concerning ourselves with the broad benefits of the legacy, we would narrow them down to those concerning the environment. I am sure that the noble Lord recognises that while we share with him the importance of emphasising the protection of the environment, it should not be the exclusive aim of the legacy. Amendment No. 27 would require the ODA to have regard, in carrying out its functions, to the functions of local authorities and other authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out that we have already had a fairly substantial discussion on these points, and I hope that I have satisfied her with the broad argument. In that light, I hope that she will be happy to withdraw this amendment. On Amendment No. 29, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for raising the issue. We are keen to develop the greenest games ever, and that was integral to the commitments that we made in the candidature file for the International Olympic Committee and the document Towards a One Planet Olympics, which was prepared by London 2012 alongside the WWF and BioRegional. Those commitments included ensuring that the games will be low-carbon, zero waste, conserve biodiversity and promote environmental awareness. The ODA, LOGOC, and the main stakeholders—the Government and the Mayor—will not want to lose sight of what we said, and they will ensure that we can deliver on the commitments in the candidature file, which is an explicit description of our intention to observe the demands of the environmental legacy. Clause 4(3)(a) ensures that the ODA will have regard to maximise the benefits from all the preparations that it makes. That will include the environmental benefits, such as conserving biodiversity, in the way in which the noble Lord suggested when he argued for the amendments. On the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, raised with regard to the legacy beyond the ODA’s specific functions, the Olympic board has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the legacy of these games will be delivered. It will want to ensure that the benefits of the legacy are delivered as widely as possible, both in London and beyond. In addition, local authorities and RDAs will be working hard to maximise the benefits of the games beyond London and across the United Kingdom. The Government and the Olympic board will support that effort. We cannot commit ourselves to an exclusive concern with the environmental issues, but I reassure him that it is a prominent concern in terms of the overall legacy of the games. The social, economic and environmental legacy was an essential component of the successful bid.