London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

My Amendment No. 38 is grouped with those of the noble Baroness because it deals with the same clause and to some extent relates to the same subject. I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness’s plea for reasonableness in this matter, but it was the detail of the clause that invited her amendments. However, I criticise the clause for the opposite reason—it is not too detailed; in my view, subsection (5) is unbelievably lax and casual. The clause states:"““The Olympic Delivery Authority may arrange with an authority responsible for cleaning or lighting a highway””," and so on. Subsection (5) sets out to whom the clause applies. It states:"““This section applies to any highway or other area to which the public have access and which the Authority reasonably expect to be used . . . in the course of a London Olympic event””—" I have no problem with that—"““by persons watching a London Olympic event””—" again, I have absolutely no problem with that—"““[and] by persons travelling to a London Olympic event””." I have a picture in my mind of some canny Scotsman getting dressed in full regalia and saying that he is setting out for the Olympics because he requires another street light. It seems to me that that would be permitted. There has to be some limitation, and I hope that the Minister will assure me that, by the time we finish with the Bill, there will be some limitation to the open-ended commitment in Clause 7(5)(c). Adding the words ““within five miles of”” or some such phrase would be reasonable but, as it is, the provision could cover every road in the country and is simply not what the Government intend. I am sure that the ODA would not wish to be burdened with that responsibility.