London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I support the thrust of the noble Baroness’s amendment. It reflects a great deal of the debate we had two days ago and which, I am afraid, we may have again on Report. The Bill is very light on explanation. The Minister spent a great deal of time two days ago—we thank him for it—explaining the issues and helping our understanding, but the Government would do well to look again at the wording of the Bill, particularly in the areas on which we had the lengthy debate on the previous occasion and which we may debate again today. The issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will have a direct impact on funding and where it is to come from. We have debated security before; it is one of the matters in which I am interested. It is difficult at this stage for LOGOC and the ODA to have any feel for the cost of providing the necessary security for the 2012 Olympic Games. I believe that that is absolutely wrong. I hope the noble Lord agrees that such a clause, or one very like it, should be included in the Bill. Even if such a clause is included and becomes part of the planning process, the actual cost of security will be difficult to estimate. The noble Baroness made the point that now is the time to think about planning and costing. Some planning and some costing is better than none. I would be very unhappy if the Government did not attend to this in the whole of the task of the ODA and LOGOC until several years on. I hope that that makes sense. I strongly support the thrust of the amendment, particularly that security should be part of planning and costing today rather than in 2010.