London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

moved Amendment No. 2:"Page 3, line 30, leave out ““, wherever relevant””" The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 is grouped with Amendment No. 3. In Committee I sought to remove from Clause 4(3) the reference to relevance—first, that the Olympic Delivery Authority should ““wherever relevant”” have regard to maximising legacy benefits, although I am not seeking to pursue that now; and, secondly, that it should seek to,"““contribute to achieving sustainable development””." I find it hard to conceive of occasions when the legacy issue would not be relevant. My main concern is to hear from the Minister when contributing to sustainable development would not be relevant to the ODA, because the Bill as drafted provides the excuse not only to say that something is not relevant, but to brush it aside and hardly discuss the matter at all. My contention is that that is always relevant. In Committee, the Minister said that my suggestions were unrealistic. I was not persuaded then and, in response to his example, regarding the use of street cleaning products not being relevant to sustainable development, I took issue with him immediately and said that methods whereby certain products were swept down the drains was, indeed, relevant. Since then, the House has considered in Committee the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer tabled a similar amendment in relation to the duties of regional development agencies. The ODA has some similarities. One can see the genesis of some of the attributes of RDAs in this Bill and my noble friend’s amendment would have required RDAs always to have regard to sustainable development. The Minister sought to reassure her, but in a way that did not wholly reassure her and does not reassure me, at cols. 242 and 243 on 28 February. In mentioning what had occurred in 1995—that may have been an error and he meant 2005—he stated:"““The RDAs have already profiled a number of case studies demonstrating their contribution to sustainable development””," and that in addition to,"““tasking the RDAs to contribute to, and report on sustainable development, a range of other measures are in the train””." He added that my noble friend should,"““appreciate that over a number of years a lot of effort has gone into ensuring that sustainability plays an increased part in the RDAs’ role””.—[Official Report, 28/2/06; col. 242-243.]" Yes, indeed, but none of that is as good as primary legislation. Neither the Minister, in relation to the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill, nor the noble Lord, Lord Davies, have given your Lordships an example of where contributing to achieving sustainable development might not be relevant. Nor did he—and I invite him to do so—give any assurance that the Secretary of State would give guidance or even directions on this issue, in order to strengthen the position. Under our amendment, he can do so. I am not asking for anything that is extreme and I hope that the Minister, if he is unable to accept the amendment, will at least help those of us who think that this matter is important to understand where we are going wrong. Perhaps he can provide some assurance as to the thinking processes of the Secretary of State and the use of directions or guidance. I beg to move.