London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she moved her amendment. My letters, although commented on favourably, never seem to achieve the desired result, which is to reduce debate on the issues that I discuss in them, but I hear what she says. She appreciated receipt of the letter in which I sought to give the most obvious commitment on the fact that security will be a concern of the ODA from the outset. The ODA has a duty to plan for safe and secure venues, and the interim ODA is already doing that. The authority has made a good start in planning for safety and security. The provisions in this Bill will ensure that it continues that work. I just do not believe that the amendments are necessary. I appreciate that security is of the greatest significance for the games. We could not have had a sharper reminder than on the day following the announcement of the wonderfully successful bid for the games, with the most catastrophic event in London of recent years. Everyone is well aware of the fact that security has to be to the fore. The ODA is already consulting the police on all major aspects of the Olympic park design. It is establishing a close working relationship, which will continue, because there is no way in which it can deliver these games in a safe and secure manner without the fullest possible such consultation. The point of this duty of consultation is to build security in from the very start of the Olympic project, and I want to reassure noble Lords that that is happening. We do not need a requirement to consult in the Bill. The interim authority is already acting in a way that should reassure noble Lords on this. Nor can the Bill specify in exact detail all the ways in which the ODA will discharge this security function. The Bill gives the authority the overarching duty; it is then for the ODA to fulfil that duty. That applies particularly to Amendment No. 8, but the same point applies for Amendment No. 6. We put the ODA under a duty to have regard to safety and security, and to consult. It is inevitable that it will need to agree with the police exactly what infrastructure and facilities are necessary to guarantee that these commitments are carried out. In Committee, I gave an indication of the sort of budget that we have already allocated for security—some £213 million. I am glad that the chairman of the London organising committee, the noble Lord, Lord Coe, is in his place. I hope that he will not feel moved to speak at great length on any of these amendments, because I hope that I am able to establish that he is both carrying out his duties in these terms and aware of the necessity for a budget. Some £23 million will come from LOCOG’s own budget, raised through private sponsorship. The remaining £190 million, as I have indicated, will come from the wider public sector funding package. In addition to this substantial budget, the police and security services will be working to ensure that London and the UK are kept safe and secure. The ODA will have regard to providing security arrangements through all its plans for the games and it is already carrying out this work. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was correct when she pointed out in Committee that the Secretary of State holds a power of direction over the ODA in reserve. However, I am confident that that reserve power will not need to be exercised. I cannot conceive of anyone concerned with the serious development of the games not putting security as their very highest objective. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, indicated to me that he was not able to be present this evening, but in Committee he raised an important point on whether the security services should be specified in the Bill as a statutory consultee. I indicated in Committee—and I reiterate the point today—that that is not necessary. It is achieved in the way in which the Bill is drafted. The Bill places an obligation on the ODA to consult those with the preponderant voice on security in its broadest sense—that is, the police. The police will take the advice that they need, including from the security services, in order to give their view on guaranteeing security for the games. It is not for the ODA to consult a range of interests and then to reach a view on its own about what security arrangements are needed. We would not expect the ODA to have the expertise to do that, nor would it be a proper burden to place upon it. Rather, it is for the ODA to consult the police, who will provide that co-ordinated view on how security is to be sustained. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that the Bill fully takes on board the very proper anxieties about security and that the noble Baroness will therefore feel able to withdraw her amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, when he reads Hansard, will share in the general reassurance.