---

London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

moved Amendment No. 21:"Page 3, line 7, after ““State”” insert ““and the Mayor of London””" The noble Baroness said: Clause 4(2)(b) permits the disposal of land at less than arm’s-length consideration with the consent of the Secretary of State. My amendment would also require the consent of the Mayor of London. The current Mayor of London has frequently explained that in assessing the funding available for the games as a whole, one needs to take into account that the land in the Olympic park area and perhaps other land too, will be subject to a big rise in value merely by virtue of the games. That future capital gain can be taken into account. It has become virtually a given with regard to one of the funding streams—perhaps a slightly dodgy one, but there it is. The ODA is a particular vehicle—I was going to say pot—for expenditure. This is all public funding. Although perhaps not going as far as requiring the consent of the Mayor of London, at least consultation might be appropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has tabled Amendment No. 31 in this group. I will not try to pre-empt his arguments about the Mayor’s role in planning, but I hope that when the Minister replies, as well as dealing with the principle of the issue, he can address the term ““specified case”” in which, under the Bill, the Mayor will have the power to direct refusal. Will he tell the Committee what the procedure is for specifying the case? Currently, the Mayor of London has powers to direct refusal in respect of strategic sites, as those are defined under an order. I would be interested to know whether an order is envisaged to specify the cases under the Bill. There are some points on association rights, but I will not trespass on to ground which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones might want to cover. I beg to move.