London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I may wear two hats, but at least they are consistent in this situation. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I accept that there are significant differences in constitutional status between the ODA and LOGOC. Clearly, I will read what he has said—sometimes things read slightly differently from the way one hears them—but perhaps I may take the opportunity to ask for assurances on two different situations. I agree with the Minister that it would be quite extraordinary if the ODA tried to wriggle out of being open and helpful in the way in which it works, but I am concerned to see as strong an assurance as possible on the record about the Secretary of State’s use of the power of direction. There are two circumstances in which difficulties might arise. The first is if the grant in question had been received more than three years previously; the second is if, because of the complicated funding streams to which I have referred, the precept is but a part of the funding towards the operation of the ODA. As I understand it, the money collected by the GLA goes into the central pot. It could be argued by the ODA—if it were, I think the Government would agree with me that it would be an attempt to wriggle out—that the money was mixed and that it was not a grant from the precept because what it had received two years previously came from the lottery, for instance. If an attempt was made to wriggle out of giving information to the public and producing documents to avoid the workings of Sections 61 and 62, would the Secretary of State use powers of direction to stop it? Is the Minister able to give me that assurance now?