London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I did not know that such a wide range of issues would suddenly emerge when we got to Clause 10. It will be recalled that we discussed the clause under another group of amendments, because Members of the Committee identified key amendments into which the issue of the clause fitted. That is why we discussed the broad issues at that time. I am happy to do the best that I can in responding to the interesting issues that have arisen. I am not terribly well briefed on the issue with regard to the Docklands Light Railway. I have travelled on it—and I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, says, when he points out that it has a multitude of stops. It has, but it has other advantages as well. It is one of the more exciting transport systems in London, and people quite enjoy travelling on it. He asked whether the service could be improved. There is no doubt at all, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, indicated, that there are certain ways in which the DLR can be pressed into more effective service in lengthening the trains, and so on—although there are limits to train length with regard to the stations. I am not sure that the DLR can create a fast through train, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, appeared to hint at; there would be real problems with that, on such a restricted railway, and the full duration of the journey is anyway not excessive. I can only say that it will be expected to play its part in the transport of those coming to London for the Olympics, and it will be concerned to ensure that it maximises its revenue and provides the best service that it can. My noble friend Lord Berkeley talked about where rail freight, and so on, fitted in. The London Development Agency and the Olympic Delivery Authority are developing a construction and waste transport strategy, as required by the outlying condition for the Olympic park. We understand that they aim to maximise the use of both rail and water as a way to move materials in and out. I hear what the noble Lord says—that there are discordant voices, who say that a great deal more could be shifted by road. I am not too sure that the Bill could impose a solution in that respect, save to say that we are concerned that we can provide services that are as environmentally friendly as possible. There are clearly opportunities for such bulk movements to be used by rail and water. In one of our earlier debates we discussed the potentially enhanced role for waterways in the development of the games and when the games are happening. It is quite difficult to discuss industrial relations in the year of grace which one inhabits at any one time, let alone to foresee issues that may arise six to eight years ahead. I understand the potential liveliness of the discourse—but at this point, I have nothing much to add, at least in the context of the Bill, except to say that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, or his colleagues, should table amendments, if they can think of a clear way in which to indicate how they could, through this Bill, ensure that there was no disruption on the industrial front to any aspect of the Olympic Games. I am sure that if they can, they will rush to table those amendments in the not-too-distant future, and the Government will, as ever, be receptive and constructive in their response to such ideas. I shall certainly give every assistance in seeing where such amendments could be placed in the Bill, if they proved to be acceptable. But we are debating Clause 10. Should it stand part of the Bill? Of course it should. After all, it requires the ODA to prepare, publish and keep under review an Olympic transport plan. We cannot meet any of the anxieties expressed in this Committee unless we have an Olympic transport plan. So the clause is essential, and I hope that noble Lords will not pursue the Question.