London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I am getting more and more confused about which amendments and groups have been debated but, in the absence of any advice from colleagues, I shall assume that Clause 10 stand part has not yet been debated. I shall comment on the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in a moment. Clause 10 in the round addresses transport matters relating to the London Olympics. I think that that is great. It covers the provision of the construction of systems or facilities, which means any road, railway, canal or lock on the river, or any other facility necessary for the construction itself or for the performance of the games or anything else. I am sure that later we shall come on to the question of the Olympic route network and the transport facilities. There are a few issues relating to the clause. First, I cannot find anything in the clause which says who pays for this. With street lighting and cleaning it was clear, under Clause 7(3)(a), that the authority would pay for it, but I cannot find a similar provision here. That worries me, but I may simply have missed the reference. I am also concerned about the relationship between the transport plan and those who live or work in the areas affected by the Olympic Games, because their businesses could be put seriously out of pocket or made impossible. I declare an interest at this point as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred to bringing materials in by water, as did the noble Baroness, but they could equally well come by rail freight. I have also heard about the tremendous debate between Transport for London, which wants to bring things in by more environmentally friendly means and those who say, ““We’ll do exactly as we like—we’ll bring everything in by truck and you can get knotted””. That is what I have heard from other sources. Do the Government believe that there should be any consideration of environmental methods of bringing in at least some of the material by rail or water? It is quite possible to do, but it would need planning. With water, it may need a lock or a few little jetties around the Thames; if it is rail, it needs a terminal. The best terminals on the Stratford site will be converted into car parks, as I was told by the LDA. I was told that there would be a car park so that the Queen could drive through to open the games. I asked whether there needed to be a car park for the Queen to drive through and suggested that it was put on two decks, to reduce the space. I also suggested that people might stop mixing concrete for the day so that she would not get her Rolls-Royce covered in cement. They did not really understand that—they said that there was a straight line on the map and that that was the limit of the site. I think that they have changed it now, so I do not know where Her Majesty is going to go, but I am sure that they will find some other route. So rail terminals would be necessary, and that needs planning now, otherwise it will be too late—and the figure for the number of trucks given by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will I am sure be exceeded. There is also the question of how people go about their business during construction, or during the games. That certainly applies to railways, and I suspect that applies to the roads as well. The games will be happening in east London in August, when there will be fewer activities, so it will not be so bad. But we were told in the rail freight industry, during preparation of the bid stage, that freight trains will have to stop going through the site for several months. It is one of the main routes from Felixstowe, the biggest container port in the UK, to the rest of the country. I was told that the railway line went under the Olympic village and that the trains could blow up. I asked when trains had last been blown up—and said that if freight trains could blow up, could not passenger trains blow up? What is the likelihood of that? I also pointed out that the site was where the Eurostar line crossed the freight line, and that if they were going to stop freight trains they would have to stop the Eurostars, because they might blow up. But I was told that they could not do that, because there would be passengers on them. When I asked them whether they had consulted the security department of the Department for Transport, or the Metropolitan Police, they said, ““Does the Department for Transport have a security department?”” My noble friend the Minister has at least given me some assurance that these very professional organisations will be consulted, but I still want to know that people’s businesses—such as the rail freight containers coming into this country, as well as the road freight and other businesses—will not be unduly affected. I hope that all that will go into the transport plan, because it is terribly important. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred to the Docklands Light Railway. I do not know whether he has been on it during the annual London boat show. I went last year and I was really impressed by the extra trains that they put on and the extra staff that they put on the platform. There were virtually no queues at all. I am sure that they will do the same for the games, provided that the franchise issue, which was debated on Tuesday, does not come up. I am happy with the idea of an Olympic transport plan, but I need some assurance from my noble friend the Minister that the wider issues will be taken into account and that somebody—presumably the Secretary of State—will give a little policy guidance on how the ODA, TfL or anybody should deliver to such an enormous construction site. It is possible to bring a lot of materials in by water and rail, as has been done for Terminal 5, the Channel Tunnel rail link and the Channel Tunnel, with an enormous benefit to the local road network.