London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

moved Amendment No. 10:"After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—" ““LONDON ORGANISING COMMITTEE    The Secretary of State shall make an order under section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36) (further power to designate public authorities) designating the London Organising Committee as a public authority for the purposes of that Act.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Grand Committee, I moved an amendment that dealt with several aspects of the structure and constitution of LOCOG. I was not altogether surprised at the rejection of such a wide-ranging amendment. The Minister put it very robustly when he said:"““We will be involved in a conflict of perception, unless I can persuade her that the Government have got it right””.—[Official Report, 2/2/06; col. GC198.]" We may be involved in a conflict of principle on one aspect—freedom of information. The Minister argued then that LOCOG will be a private company funded privately, and therefore should not automatically come within FOI legislation. Indeed, he said:"““The Government have to take stock of the requirements under the Act over a range of their activities. As LOCOG is such a new organisation, and this pattern is still bedding down, we are reserving our position to review LOCOG in relation to the Freedom of Information Act””.—[Official Report, 2/2/06; col. GC199.]" We on these Benches do not think that it is appropriate to reserve that position; this matter should be settled now. Yes, LOCOG will be a private company, but for a very public purpose. Yes, it will be funded by private money, but as part of a much bigger public whole. Its whole rationale and raison d’être is public. It could not operate if central and local government had not decided to go for the bid and to stage the games. I believe that it is close to disingenuous to characterise it as separate and not public. I believe that it is public in almost every sense. Public money and public support will enable it to operate. LOCOG has a clear style and a simple vision which, according to its chairman the noble Lord, Lord Coe—one of the many Olympians on the Conservative Benches at the moment, which I always find a little fazing, because I know that they know so much more about all this than some of us do—is,"““to stage inspirational Olympic Games and Paralympic Games that capture the imagination of young people around the world and leave a lasting legacy””." Indeed, but I hope that that legacy will not contain an iota of secrecy. LOCOG has a long list of detailed responsibilities; I do not think that I have to read them out, because your Lordships are familiar with its remit. It is required to write a final report within two years after the games, but it would be very odd if public accountability and scrutiny were limited to this. Our amendment requires an order to be made under the Freedom of Information Act, which seems designed for just that purpose. Under Section 5, the Secretary of State may designate as a public authority a person who does not otherwise come under the Act. I accept implicitly for this purpose the Minister’s argument that LOCOG does not already come under the Act by virtue of Section 4, although there is quite an argument that it does. I have heard that the issue is what the Government will do with LOCOG after the games. I assume that, under the Freedom of Information Act, LOCOG can be designated for a limited period or de-designated but, even if that were not so, I do not think that that would be good argument for keeping private what the man in the street—a street possibly lit and cleansed under the Bill—travelling on London’s transport network, which has been improved to facilitate the games, to venues provided by the ODA, an authority created for the games under the Bill, would regard as a public event in any normal sense. Historically, the games have not been wholly free from controversy, and I do not suggest for a moment that anyone involved in the 2012 games would dream of doing anything that they would prefer to be kept secret, but not everyone is quite as trusting as I am, and the best way of dispelling distrust to facilitate information is to apply what every other public organisation—I use the word ““public”” advisedly—and body is subject to, subject of course to the long list of exemptions in the Act on commercial confidentiality, security issues and so on. These are London’s games and the UK’s games, and I believe that Londoners and UK citizens should, subject to those exceptions, be able to find out how they are being run. I beg to move.