London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I will detain my pleasure of discussing the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, until I have discussed the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Ne’er a week goes by without me discussing rail franchises with the noble Lord, but this is slight overkill because it is the second time in two days, so he will forgive me if I hold back from that pleasure for a moment. Let me deal with Amendment No. 20. I can reassure the noble Baroness about the cardinal point of her amendment: that the ODA may be involved in a takeover of the functions of any other authority. It cannot and it will not do that. Clause 4 does not allow the ODA to override any other body’s functions. Another clause specifies provisions for that and it is very limited. Otherwise, except in those limited circumstances, the ODA is governed by the laws of the land and has no right to override, and nor do we conceive of it overriding, other authorities. In preparing and maintaining its Olympic transport plan, the ODA will be responsible for setting the overall strategic framework, but in practice the plan will be implemented by other authorities much better placed to deliver or enforce those arrangements on its behalf and which have the legal entitlement to do so. The ODA will not take over those functions. It will draw up a plan for others to implement under its supervision. There are specific provisions in the Bill to enable the ODA to discharge functions in parallel with other authorities, including some functions relating to transport, which has largely been the issue under this amendment, but not to take over any of those functions or replace any other authority. For example, the step-in provisions in Clauses 12 and 15 would allow the ODA, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to exercise certain traffic, highway and street functions or to act as the enforcement authority for particular roads, but only where the relevant authority had already failed to exercise its functions and to comply with a direction from the Secretary of State that it should exercise its functions. So the other authority has the first responsibility to comply with the plan. Clause 14 allows the ODA to make traffic regulation orders over roads forming part of the Olympic route network but, again, the consent of the Secretary of State is required. We shall consider that more closely when we reach Clause 14. The intention is to allow the ODA to implement a uniform and consistent approach to traffic regulation on the Olympic route network for a targeted and time-limited purpose only, not to allow it to take over the functions of others. The Bill does not allow the ODA to take over the functions of other bodies. To do so would require primary legislation to enable the ODA to replace another body entirely. It can be seen in the Bill that we are far from doing that. We are being very proscriptive about where the ODA can act. Even the provisions of Schedule 2 relating to transfer schemes are limited to the transfer of property, rights and liabilities. They do not extend to the transfer of functions. It is essential that we are able to deliver our plans in accordance with our commitments to the IOC and we would normally look to the relevant authority to exercise the necessary functions. For example, Transport for London will procure new DLR rolling stock for the Olympics. Although the procurement will be part-funded from the public sector funding package for the Olympics, it will be managed by TfL, not by any other body, because it is the responsible authority. There is little difference between what the amendment intends to achieve and the approach that we are taking. The practical arrangements for the delivery of various plans and projects and the provisions we have already made in the Bill supplement the responsibilities of other authorities. However, if other authorities are unable to meet those requirements, then subject to the consent of the Secretary of State, the ODA will take up additional responsibilities. I seek to reassure the noble Baroness that the ODA will not trample over or appropriate the rights of other bodies. It will work with them. We have got off to what we all regard as a very encouraging start in collaboration with other bodies. The Committee will recognise that it is impossible for the ODA to deliver the plan without the fullest co-operation, but we need reserve powers to ensure that we deliver. My joy at turning to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is mitigated only by the fact that I cannot address myself to the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. My sadness that he is not present is assuaged only by the fact that I know that he will be able to be here at a later date—