London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I shall resist the amendments, but I am nevertheless grateful to the noble Baroness for having tabled them, because I understand her concerns. The issues need to be addressed. The Olympic route network is an essential part of the Games; it was essential to our successful bid. It will comprise the key routes between Olympic venues and sites and allow for targeted traffic regulation measures to keep traffic moving on them. I shall express what may sound like a pious aspiration, but it nevertheless reflects how we intend to work. We will not introduce this operation any earlier than absolutely required and it will cease at the end of the Games. That does not alter the fact that we envisage a test run in 2011. It will take place over a restricted period, but in such a complex matter as London traffic, we need to stage a test run. Those tests will be restricted to certain days of the week. We are all too conscious of the need to keep the inconvenience that might be caused to Londoners to the absolute minimum. Our broad position is that this route will be there to service the games. The network will go after the games—not the roads themselves, but the concept of the network. Amendment No. 54 would duplicate provisions already in the Bill. Under Clause 40(6), Clauses 10 to 18 of the Bill will cease to have effect at the end of the London Olympics period. So that is quite definitive and the amendment is unnecessary. Amendment No. 55, on the other hand, will prevent the Olympic route network being established any earlier than 1 January 2012. I hear what the noble Baroness says. That is not her attempt at defining how things should be; it is a probing amendment to see what our thoughts are on this. The network will need to exist during the period of the games, we may need to implement parts of it for test events that will take place earlier than 2012 and certain parts will come into operation before the games. In addition to the games themselves, a cultural programme occurs before the games which will also need effective transport infrastructure. I can assure the Committee that orders to establish the Olympic route network will only be laid when it is absolutely necessary for the network to be in place. Clause 11(4)(c) allows for parliamentary scrutiny of the establishment of the Olympic route network and the list of roads that will comprise it. If we use the Olympic transport provisions before 2012, we shall do so with a light touch and as proportionately as possible. Parliament will have the chance to evaluate that position and give assent to any necessary orders. Amendment No. 56 relates to Clause 13 which is designed to allow the ODA to have a degree of control over the exercise of functions by local traffic, highway and street authorities where the exercise of those functions is likely to affect the games transport. There is no intention here to restrict the general development or maintenance of the roads, or to prevent normal traffic regulation on the roads, but we do need to let the ODA take a snapshot of the roads at a certain point in time, probably just before the commencement of the games, and to prevent that snapshot from being altered, so that it can work up its final plans with certainty. In other words, it will need to define what is necessary and that will have some impact. We do not intend to commence Clause 13 until it is absolutely necessary. We are very aware of the obvious fact that the noble Baroness made in her contribution that it could prove burdensome. Amendment No. 56 will cause Clause 13 not to begin until 1 January 2012. That is possibly too early. We may not actually be taking on anything of a nature directly related to the function of the games until later than that. The noble Baroness will just have to trust us that closer to the Games we shall know when we need to implement this clause. Our feeling is that if we accept the amendment, we would find that unnecessarily binding and potentially too early. I ask her to withdraw it because our expectation is that we may not need to act quite so early. Amendment No. 57 relates to Clause 15(1) which raises the maximum fine for offences committed in respect of traffic regulation orders made over roads designated as part of the Olympic route network. As I have already said, the network will be in place only when necessary. The provisions in Clause 15 are an integral part of the route network, so that we can enforce the necessary arrangements for that route. I do not believe that we can limit the fines to infringements of traffic regulations on the network only during the period of the games. If the network were to be used before the games period for test events, which I have indicated might take place earlier, or for the cultural programme, we might need to use those traffic regulation orders. The provisions in Clause 15 are a key part of that. We are well aware that the creation of the route network will cause disturbance and inconvenience and we will be very restrictive in the use of the clause. Amendment No. 58 limits road closures made in connection with the games to the London Olympic period defined in Clause 1. As with the creation of the Olympic route network, I do not believe that we should limit the use of the powers in Clause 16 to the Olympic period because we may need both tests. We may also need changes to the route structure for the cultural events around the games. Transport in London is difficult enough when no one interferes with it. It will be increasingly difficult during the Olympic period because considerable nterference will be necessary. Some of that interference will leave a long-term legacy of great advantage to Londoners. Because it creates difficulties, we want to keep the period of interference to the minimum. I shall therefore resist the blandishments of the generous timetable in one of the noble Baroness’s amendments—I am not even prepared to accept that.