London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill

May I begin by saying that I was mildly disappointed with the business managers—this is absolutely no criticism of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or Mr Speaker—for selecting today of all days to debate this important Bill, given that many of us who are here would far rather be celebrating with our Paralympians as today is Paralympics day? Perhaps there will be an opportunity later today to do that. The new clause and the consequent amendments are very important. During one of the excellent sittings in which the Committee took oral evidence from expert witnesses, I asked Mr Garrett Emmerson of London Streets, which is a Transport for London body,"““are you confident that we have sufficient powers, or that sufficient powers will be given to the right people, to deal with freight vehicles on our roads that are delivering to keep our city running smoothly?””" I stress the words about keeping the ““city running smoothly””, because this is not just about ensuring that what needs to be done for the 2012 games happens. He replied:"““We have identified a major concern about the ability of freight operators to service the business community at key times during the games.””" He went on to say:"““A single-day event, such as the royal wedding, is a very different proposition from three weeks of a continuous event. For a single day, it is not a particularly huge challenge to say, ““Well, actually, we can't make a delivery on Friday; it will have to come on Thursday or Saturday.”” But the sustained duration of this event creates a very different proposition for businesses.””––[Official Report, London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Public Bill Committee, 17 May 2011; c. 41, Q87.]" Because of those concerns, TfL and other bodies have been working hard to warn the business community of changes that will take place during the Olympic and Paralympic games, and to provide it with as much help and support as possible to alter its arrangements. That will of course impact on things such as deliveries to businesses. The examples are pretty obvious: pubs need beer, sandwich shops need bread and businesses need photocopier paper—the list is endless. Businesses that have planned will organise their deliveries to come at the right time. It is fabulous that TfL and others are giving plenty of notice to such organisations. Even today, TfL has had a session with more than 70 major freight operators to advise them that they should be working with the people they supply, so that those people, in turn, can plan accordingly. The issue is what happens if a business has not been far-sighted and efficient enough to plan with its supplier the deliveries that it needs in order to keep going. My question to the Minister is whether those circumstances are envisaged in the language that is used in the new clause, which states that the variation applied for"““has a connection with the London Olympics””." That is somewhat different from being influenced by the London Olympics. I assume from the Minister's response to an earlier intervention that that interpretation is the one that he is using. However, that would not necessarily fall within his other comments that something should be ““urgent”” and ““unforeseen””. In some cases, it might just be down to the incompetence of the person who needs the supplies. The Minister says that he hopes the new clause is reasonably self-evident. I am not convinced that it is. If he gives a very clear explanation that it will apply to circumstances that occur because of the London Olympics, with all the caveats that he set out—of course the traffic commissioners will consider whether it really is necessary—that will solve the problem. I look forward to him giving that assurance when he responds.