London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I am somewhat puzzled by what is happening here, because the proposed grouping on the list says that Clause 10 has already been debated. As I have already explained, I could not be here the other day because I was speaking in a debate on the Floor of the House, but I have had some difficulty discovering in Hansard where this clause has been debated. In all events, what one would normally do is refer to the caveat that is always put on groupings, which says that a noble Lord may speak, whatever has been agreed. Oddly enough, those words have been omitted from this list but, if noble Lords will allow me, I shall make one or two comments. Following Second Reading, I received a very courteous letter from those responsible for the Docklands Light Railway, because I suggested in the debate that the DLR might not be able to cope adequately with the requirements of the Olympic Games. The letter is certainly reassuring in a number of respects with regard to capacity, the length of the trains and so on. Only one point still puzzles me. I frequently go to London Airport on the DLR, which has recently opened there, and what strikes one when coming from that area back to central London is that it is still faster to go by the shuttle bus to Canary Wharf and take the Jubilee line. The DLR has a very large number of stops. I am not clear to what extent the DLR proposes to run express trains from one end of the track to the other, rather than stopping all the way, and how that will fit in with the overall requirements for transport. It used to be the case with the Olympic Games that all wars stopped when they were taking place; I am not sure whether the same would be true with commuting. Perhaps one should declare a two-week holiday for the period, which would solve a number of the problems. The other matter, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, a moment ago, is the role of the waterways. My understanding is that there is something of a dispute going on between the Mayor’s Transport for London, which wants to use the waterways, and the London Development Agency, which wants to use trucks. I saw an article suggesting that something like 500,000 trucks will be used to shift the material and so on necessary to construct the Olympic village and surrounding sites. It is suggested that if it goes by water rather than by road, the cost is something like a third, which seems a very substantial saving. On the other hand, the waterways can apparently cope with barges of 120 tonnes alone, whereas what will be needed are barges of 350 tonnes. We then run into the problem of how quickly this could be done and still be on schedule with construction. I am also unclear, if there is a dispute of that kind, who will arbitrate on which of the views of the two bodies involved will prevail.