London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

moved Amendment No. 47:"Page 8, line 10, at end insert—" ““(   )   the London Assembly,”” The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 47 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 52 and 53. They relate to the Olympic Transport Plan. Amendment No. 47 makes the London Assembly a statutory consultee on the plan. I should repeat the declaration of interest that I made at an earlier stage as a member of the London Assembly and, currently, its chair. It may be that the Minister can satisfy me on this by reading the ODA’s mind, or the mind of the Secretary of State, as to her—or his, in future—direction to the ODA and by confirming that the London Assembly would fall within Clause 10(3)(k) as,"““such other persons as the Authority thinks appropriate””." Without that, there seems no guarantee or assurance that a particular ODA or Secretary of State will decide to consult the London Assembly. I accept that there has to be a natural limit to any consultation, but, on this matter, the Assembly is in a particular position. It has a responsibility to scrutinise the work of Transport for London and other bodies, including the Metropolitan Police Authority and the fire authority. That means that it will have a particular understanding not just of the strategies listed in Clause 10(4) but of the practicalities. It has an understanding of how London’s transport system works in practice and will have something significant to bring to the table on the Olympic Transport Plan. Moreover, as a full-time organisation, unlike the scrutiny bodies of local authorities, the London Assembly can devote a lot of attention to the issue. Amendment No. 49 would require the authority to consult the public,"““in areas which the Authority thinks is likely to be affected by the implementation of the plan””." Amendment No. 50 would require it to consult a local authority in whose area there is a waterway which may be affected by the plan. It has been pointed out to me that it would be reassuring to hear greater acknowledgement of the role that London’s waterways can play in the preparations for the games. They are part of the transport system—or, at any rate, they should be—and many of us would encourage their greater use, not just for transporting passengers, but also in transporting materials and waste during the construction work for the games. Amendment No. 52 would leave out ““if or””. The phrase could hardly be shorter, but it has quite some significance. Clause 10(5) states:"““The Authority shall publish the plan and any revision, except if or in so far as they think publication would be undesirable for reasons of security””." The amendment would except publication only to the extent that security reasons precluded it. As the provision is worded, the whole plan might go unpublished—which would be ludicrous, I accept—if some small element were to be caught by this provision. Amendment No. 53 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the Olympic transport plan in exercising his functions in relation to the Olympic route network. Will the Minister explain how the designation of the route network relates to the transport plan? It should follow from it and be created out of it, but it is not obvious to me, except by reading between the lines, that that causal link exists. I beg to move.