London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

moved Amendment No. 82:"Page 25, line 3, at end insert—" ““(   )   References in sections 61 and 62 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) (attendance at Assembly meetings) to a functional body shall (with the exception of 61(2)(a)) be deemed to include the Olympic Delivery Authority and the London Organising Committee.”” The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment, I should repeat the declaration of interest I made at Second Reading, as I am a member, and currently, chair, of the London Assembly. This amendment deals with the scrutiny role of the London Assembly and its extension to the two bodies being set up by the Bill, and it refers to Sections 61 and 62 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Those sections give the London Assembly the power to summons people and documents and are a back-up power to the scrutiny role that can make the Assembly’s powers bite if there are recalcitrant people. It is a power that the Assembly uses routinely, but we have not had problems when requiring individuals to come before the Assembly. There has been only one difficulty in the life of the GLA and that was with regard to the date of a meeting. Indeed, the Assembly has had useful sessions with London 2012. However, the Assembly regards being able to summons the Olympic Delivery Authority and the London Organising Committee as a necessary addition to its powers. In order to discuss the issues, my colleagues and I met the Minister, Richard Caborn, towards the end of last year. I shall read some extracts from an exchange of correspondence because that will set out the issue. I am very grateful to Mr Caborn for having given us his time and his sympathy, in principle, for what the Assembly is seeking. I wrote to him on 9 December:"““The key issue for the Assembly is having the necessary powers to undertake our scrutiny functions on behalf of Londoners whom we represent and who, having elected us—" I think the electoral mandate is important—"““expect us to carry these out diligently””." I would add in parenthesis there, ““and effectively””."““You—" that is the Minister—"““rightly made this point yourself, and also commented on London as well as national taxpayers’ money being involved. We recognise that it would not be sensible for there to be a turf war over scrutiny, but we should reassure you that already there have been discussions between the Assembly and the Select Committee—" that is the DCMS Select Committee—"““to ensure that our work programmes are co-ordinated””." I went on to explain that it would not be adequate for the Assembly simply to question the Mayor about the games, although he has a particular role and the Assembly has the right—the duty—to question him and does so 10 times a year for two and a half hours at a time. It knocks Prime Minister’s Questions into a cocked hat. The Mayor has a huge range of responsibilities and it would not be sensible for questioning on the Olympics to be added as one item among questions on transport, the funding of the police and so on. In addition, although the Mayor is a signatory to the contract with the IOC and he will be represented on the ODA and LOGOC, a number of members questioning the Mayor will not be an adequate substitute for questioning those two organisations. There is a power for the Assembly to summons bodies that receive grants from the GLA but I am concerned that that will not be adequate to cover every situation. There could well be a query about what a ““grant”” is. I do not think that the natural meaning of the word will cover all the funding mechanisms for the ODA. The funding streams are quite complicated. Frankly, I would rather spend my time asking substantive questions than being drawn into legal arguments over the extent of the powers. The Assembly says that a clear provision giving it scrutiny powers would be consistent with its powers in respect of London’s transport, police, fire and development functional bodies, which the Assembly can question. The Minister responded that he agreed that,"““the Assembly needs to be confident that it will be able to scrutinise the Olympic project on Londoners’ behalf””." He talked about the use of grant funding and then said that he considered it,"““extremely unlikely that the ODA would ever try to wriggle out of this duty by arguing about what did or did not constitute a ‘grant’””." Then, importantly, he said that,"““if it did, the Government would be able to use its powers of direction over the ODA to ensure that it complied with any reasonable request from the Assembly””." He confirmed that with regard to LOGOC there are no plans for a direct GLA grant, but he said that the Government,"““have received assurances from LOCOG that it will comply with any reasonable request to appear before the Assembly and update it on progress. Again, I would be happy to reiterate that assurance in debate at Report stage if the point arises””." The Assembly was grateful to receive those assurances but, as noble Lords will appreciate, they were assurances in correspondence and not on the record of Parliament. The matter was referred to at Report stage in the Commons. It is common for those who are not involved in London’s government on a day-to-day basis to muddle up the names of its different parts. I have to say that it was my honourable friend Mr Foster who did exactly that and therefore probably muddled up what was said. My noble friend is tutt-tutting so I shall confess to it being a problem on our side as well as on others. The Minister responded to my honourable friend Mr Foster:"““On accountability, the elected authority is accountable to the ODA””." I have to say that that confuses me. He then said that,"““a lot of scrutiny is going on””.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/12/05; col. 761.]" That is so. In response to a question, the Minister said:"““I have no doubt that the ODA will want to make sure that its work is in the public domain and that it attracts a consensus.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/12/05; col. 762.]" I am not clear what some of that means. I think that he also made reference to a public session. The assurances were fewer than those given in the correspondence—perhaps understandably, given that my honourable friend started at the wrong place in this jigsaw. But, in any event, I believe that it is both appropriate and desirable to extend in respect of the ODA and LOGOC the powers under Sections 61 and 62. An exception is included in the amendment, and that is the paragraph which refers to politically restricted staff, which I did not consider to be appropriate in this context. The backstop to all this is that the Secretary of State uses powers of direction over the bodies to ensure that they comply with reasonable requests from the Assembly. I would hope to see the matter dealt with in the Bill. If not, then assurances will be welcome. I beg to move.