London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on this important issue, although I think the amendments would have a varying impact on the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, invited me to describe more effectively the way in which the Olympic transport plan would develop. It will be prepared by the ODA as part of the overall strategy for the delivery of safe, efficient and reliable transportation in connection with the games. As well as being a single repository of the transport plans, it will also contain sufficient technical detail to allow local authorities, transport operators and the IOC to understand thoroughly, and be consulted on, the requirements of Olympic transportation. As we discussed earlier on Amendment 48, Clause 10(3) lists the main persons and bodies likely to be affected by the preparation or revision of the OTP. We accept, of course, that there are others who should also be—and will be—consulted about the plan, either in whole or in part, and whose input will be required. But it is impossible to list in Clause 10 every person and body that might be affected in some way by the Olympic transport plan and might have a considerable amount to contribute to it. That is why Clause 10(3)(k) requires the ODA to consult ““such other persons”” as it thinks appropriate before the plan is prepared or revised. I can assure the Committee that we expect the ODA to consult widely with those likely to be affected by the implementation of the plan. I hear what the noble Baroness says with regard to her amendment on the waterway, but it is difficult to think of an authority concerned with a waterway which would not also be a highway authority. We have clearly identified the highway authorities so we think we have covered that matter. The noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Berkeley both believe that the waterways of London may have a considerable role to play in the development of the Olympic Games and that this may be an opportunity to exploit them more fully than has been the case in recent years, but we do not need an amendment to that effect. I recognise the role that the noble Baroness plays as chair of the London Assembly. She is right to champion the Assembly’s role as part of London’s elected government, and it would be surprising if she did not do so on many occasions in Committee. She has already done so and I have no doubt she will continue to do so. I am happy to put on record that the Government fully expect the London Assembly to be one of the organisations that the ODA should consult on its Olympic transport plan, in addition to local authorities in whose areas there are waterways to be used for the Olympics. The Committee will appreciate that the structure for the development of consultation is such that there is no way in which the role of the London Assembly could be ignored, given its significance as the local authority for London. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that the premise behind the whole operation of the ODA is that it should consult the bodies upon which it is dependent and from which it knows it will get valuable support in developing its proposals. The London Assembly, of course, is bound to be key to that process. The trouble, however, is that the moment we start to make a list, we start to produce a potentially unending Bill. My noble friend Lord Berkeley has touched upon only a fragment of his interest in the railways in his short and modest contribution and already he has identified that Network Rail must be on any list, should there be one. He could, of course, refer extensively—as could other Members of the Committee—to a whole range of extremely valuable interests which the ODA will have to consult, and the only way I can stop him from adding to the list is by not having a list at all. That is what I intend to do and I therefore resist the amendments. We discussed security earlier. It is an extremely important and sensitive part of the preparations for the games. As required by Clause 6, the ODA must, in exercising its functions, have regard to the importance of ensuring the safety of individuals participating in or attending the games and the security of property. This requirement embraces the ODA’s transport functions, including the preparation of the Olympic transport plan. After all, could one conceivably consider the security of the people of London—whether living there or visiting—and not the security of transport? It is of very great significance and we are all of one mind in that respect. Clause 10 sets out that the Olympic transport plan must include the construction of systems of, and facilities for, transport, the provision of transport to and from events, and for other purposes connected with the games, along with contingency plans. In all of those areas the ODA will need to consider the security implications. That is why, again, if we had a list, the necessary consultation would extend to a whole range of security authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, berated me a little earlier for the fact that we had identified only the Metropolitan Police in the Bill and indicated that it looked like we were cutting out the security services from consultation, which we certainly are not. But, once again, we are stuck with the issue of how inclusive we are meant to be in the Bill, when these issues can be satisfactorily resolved only by extensive consultation with the appropriate authorities. I can see that I am already enhancing the light of the Committee as I speak. I am therefore greatly cheered to continue this short peroration. We believe that the Bill deals with the security needs across the piece, including the crucial issue of transport. As to Amendment No. 53, the Olympic transport plan makes provision for the creation and maintenance of the Olympic route network. This will ensure that the network is developed as an integral part of the Olympic transport plan and, in the context of the other parts of the plan, take into account the interdependence and impact that each part of the plan may have with others. We will put all the relevant authorities on notice of what the Olympic route network is intended to be and how traffic is to be controlled on it. I can assure the Committee that, in exercising his functions under Clause 11(1) to designate a road as part of the Olympic route network, the Secretary of State will have regard to the Olympic transport plan. To do otherwise would undermine the plans being put in place by the ODA because roads that form part of the Olympic route network will have a special status in terms of traffic regulations and their enforcement. At the same time, the reason for making the Secretary of State a party to the designation of a road as part of the Olympic network is to ensure that the powers in Clauses 14 and 15 are restricted only to those roads that are absolutely necessary. The Secretary of State is the guarantor that the necessary restrictions are on only those roads that are necessary. It is important that the Secretary of State makes the decision whether to designate a road as part of the Olympic route network in a balanced and unfettered fashion and without presumption or pressure as to the outcome. That said, I repeat that the Secretary of State will consider the list of roads included in the Olympic transport plan or any roads necessary for the purposes of that plan. It is not necessary to impose that duty on the Secretary of State and the amendment is unnecessary. I emphasise again that it was brought to the Committee’s attention that it would be necessary to have due regard to the impact on the rail system of inevitable disturbances and restrictions that would be imposed during the build-up to and conduct of the games. That extends even more so to the road network, for obvious reasons, because the road network into the Olympic area and arenas will be directly used. I give the Committee the obvious assurance that the Secretary of State will take the overview of that position. We recognise that the Olympic route network is essential, but, at the same time, we must ensure that it is not enforced on roads that are not necessary to its purpose. I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.