I am sorry that I was unable to attend the Committee last Tuesday. I was heavily involved in the Speakership debate on the Floor of the House.
As my noble friend has said, Clause 6 is very short on detail. I am concerned that it seems to refer exclusively, in one sense, to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and makes no reference to the security services more generally; nor, indeed, does the noble Baroness’s amendment. I assume that the security forces will be heavily engaged in maintaining the safety of competitors and the public during the Olympics. It seems strange that there is no reference to them whatever as their omission from the Bill may be taken, in one sense, to exclude them.
The hierarchy of responsibility is another matter but, by not referring to the security services at all—particularly if, for example, the Olympic Delivery Authority wanted to provide accommodation and equipment for them—it may be argued that the legislation does not cover something which needs to be covered.
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Higgins
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 2 February 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c183GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:43:11 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_297610
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_297610
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_297610