Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Berkeley: I shall be brief. My noble friend has answered one or two of my questions about this clause and the Olympic route network, but I am dying to know what it is going to be. It is my recollection that part of winning the bid was the vision of having routes across the capital. There was not a single car apart from those of the very important people, be they competitors or VIPs, skimming from Wembley to Stratford or Weymouth, or wherever else they need to go and wherever they may be staying. I am not clear about what the network is and how it will be developed.

This is a probing question because I accept that there must be some kind of routes, but what are we talking about? Are we talking about Weymouth to Bristol, or Weymouth to London? Are we talking about the North Circular road, the M1, or Stratford to everywhere else which could be of interest, as well as between the venues? I do not know where they are supposed to be.

Secondly, who is going to use them? The message has been that all the spectators should go by public transport. That is probably in the plan, because they will not be allowed to park on the site, so we are talking about competitors and VIPs. Perhaps cyclists could use them. That is a green thought and, as a keen cyclist, I would love to. When there is a procession around here, if you can get on the route, nobody stops you. The problem is getting off it again, but that is a minor point.
 
2 Feb 2006 : Column GC216
 

4.45 pm

When will we have the routes? The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was talking in terms of the period of the games. During the games, will the routes be open just from the start to finish periods or will they be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week? That will rather affect the people living in the vicinity. Which vehicles will use them? Will they just be authorised vehicles or will other vehicles be able to use them, and will they be able to use them in both directions or only in one direction?

Let us say that you went from Wembley to Stratford. Heaven knows how you would do that—I cannot think off hand—but let us suppose that you did. Would there be any facilities for traffic to cross the route? There is a ring of steel around most of central London, which is interesting but not terribly exciting. I suppose people will say, "Thank God it's August". Will people be allowed to cross the routes and how, physically, will they do that? Will there be a police road block at every junction or will waves of people be escorted by police on motorcycles with blue flashing lights?

My noble friend—thank goodness—said that the arrangements would be applied to roads with a light touch and only as absolutely necessary. But, until the games start, I am not sure that anyone will know which roads are necessary and which are not. The only thing is that there will be less traffic because it will be August. Potentially there is a serious problem here for the rest of the inhabitants of London and the surrounding areas at other venues. I can see why the Government want to have carte blanche in what they do, but it would be nice to know a little more about what is planned and when and how it will be implemented.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My noble friend is bound to accept that we seek to create some temporary improvement in transport related to the location of the games so that people can enjoy the experience. The moment that proposition is put forward, whether we envisage the whole British Isles within that framework or just three miles of road from, say, King's Cross to Stratford—if that is the right mileage—we will still need to have this clause in this Bill.

My noble friend says that it is interesting that I should go into considerable detail over what is proposed but, for the purposes of the Bill, the most marginal improvements would require powers, and we have those powers. If he said, "But of course that would greatly affect my judgment on whether or not I accept the Bill", that would place me in a very difficult position if I was to describe with great accuracy what is to be negotiated, developed, worked upon, thought through and considered over the next six years. I am not going to be able to do anything other than express some general points.

We expect that in London the route will be approximately 240 kilometres, or 150 miles, in length, largely on roads operated by Transport for London. So a considerable number of roads will be involved. We also expect that small elements of the route will be
 
2 Feb 2006 : Column GC217
 
around Weymouth, where the sailing is to take place. The network will consist of about 100 kilometres, or 60 miles, of dedicated Olympic lanes, which will ensure that the athletes get to their venues on time. That is a requirement of the bid. You cannot run an efficient games if you cannot guarantee that the athletes will get to the places where they are supposed to be.

The Olympic lanes will be clearly marked in the same way as bus lanes. They will be implemented only where there is sufficient road space and so will not take out a complete road. We do not expect any of these arrangements to operate 24 hours a day because the Olympic Games are not that kind of function.

I could go on at great length because the concept behind the route was part of the bid. For a city as complex as London, the promises that were given on the strategy to be adopted for transport were part of the winning bid. We should delight in that. But I do not think that this Committee is the place for me to deal with that in detail. I am merely seeking to get this clause through. It provides the necessary powers that all Members of the Committee are agreed about. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for not going into too much detail at this stage.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 [Functions affecting London Olympics]:

[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Traffic regulation orders: enforcement]:

[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 [Road closures]:

[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 59:


"OLYMPIC LEGACY PLAN
(1) The Olympic Delivery Authority shall prepare and keep under review an Olympic Legacy Plan ("the plan") for maximising the benefits to be derived after the London Olympics from things done in preparation for them.
(2) Before preparing a revision of the plan the Authority shall consult—
(a) the Mayor of London;
(b) the London Assembly;
(c) local authorities in areas likely to be affected by the implementation of the plan;
(d) the public in areas likely to be affected by the implementation of the plan."

The noble Baroness said: The instigator of this amendment is the London Thames Gateway Forum, which knows what it is talking about in connection with the Thames Gateway. The particular concern is legacy and how the whole Olympics—the Minister mentioned the cultural aspects—can be used for the benefit of the community after the games.
 
2 Feb 2006 : Column GC218
 
I acknowledge that Clause 4(3)(a) requires the ODA to have regard to legacy issues. The London Thames Gateway Forum has asked me to raise a concern, also held by bodies outside the forum, that the Bill gives no definition of what the benefits should be or who should benefit. Indeed, there is no absolute requirement to achieve a benefit and the responsibility for legacy lies with the ODA, but the ODA will be wound up once the Olympics are over.

The Amendment proposes a legacy plan to give a tangible commitment and to focus minds on a mechanism for considering ideas that involve sustainable development. The forum mentioned that HMS "Belfast" wants more involvement of businesses in legacy planning and that a tourism manager in Greenwich wants to see economic development that will benefit tourism. I look forward to the Minister's comments. I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran: I support the noble Baroness's amendment, not necessarily in detail, but certainly in concept. The Committee will agree that at least a large portion of the selling of the 2012 Olympics was the legacy. However—this is where I part company slightly from the noble Baroness—the legacy must not be only in London; it must be nationwide and include sport as well as infrastructure. It would be helpful if we had a skeleton plan, even if it is in the form of regulations, that lays down some objectives for the ODA—and LOCOG where it comes into it—about what the nation expects as a legacy.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page