|
Mr. Caborn: The amendments are technical and are designed to make sure that the ODA accounts are scrutinised and laid before Parliament in the manner preferred by the National Audit Office. It is now standard practice for the accounts to be laid by the Secretary of State, not the Comptroller and Auditor General and, thus, that is the approach that we propose to take.
Mrs. Lait: I intend to ask the Minister a question rather than make a speech. One of the strands moving through the Bill is that the Greater London Assembly has been overlooked in respect of consultation and discussion. Reference has been to local authorities and I might make the same argument while speaking to subsequent amendments. If the report and accounts are to be laid before the PAC at Parliament, can I receive an assurance that the Greater London Assembly will have the same right to scrutinise them?
Mr. Caborn: I hear what the hon. Lady says. Her argument is logical. I am not clear about the technical ways of putting those accounts in front of the London Assembly, but I would have thought that there were ways for Assembly members and members of the public to access them. I will look into the matter and return to it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 40, in schedule 1, page 32, line 25, after 'report', insert
'to the Secretary of State, who shall lay them'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Column Number: 33
Clause 4
General functions
Hugh Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in clause 4, page 2, line 43, at end insert
(d) ensuring the safety of individuals participating in or attending London Olympic events and the security of property.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in clause 5, page 4, line 28, at end insert
'(ba) to the desirability of minimising security threats to the London Olympics,'.
Government new clause 2.
Hugh Robertson: Funnily enough, the two amendments and the Government new clause head in the same direction. I said at the outset that although we supported the spirit of many of the Liberal Democrat amendments, we were not keen to do anything that would add to Londoners' council tax burden.
There is, of course, one exception to that. It is often said in politics, and it is true, that the most important task of a Government is to ensure the security of the people whom they govern. I am afraid that there is no doubt, given the climate in which we live, that London 2012 will be a very enticing target for some of the lunatics who exist in our own communities and elsewhere across the world. The Olympics, sadly, have some form in that regard; previous Olympic games have been touched by terrorism.
Our own bid, as those of us who were in Singapore will remember for the rest of our lives, was touched by precisely such an act. What has changed is the type of terrorist that we face, as was somewhat in evidence in Athens. I suspect that the Chinese will deal with that in their own way. When we get round to London 2012, it will have changed dramatically.
Having spent a lot of my earlier career 10 years ago chasing terrorists of one form or another around the world, I can say that the real achievement of al-Qaeda and its type is that it has made the IRA look positively passé. The IRA look like very old terrorists, to use that awful phrase. That gives us some idea of the threat. We simply have to face the fact that we are threatened by a group of people who would not think twice about blowing up a stadium full of people. London 2012 will be an extraordinarily enticing target.
We have tabled the amendment to ensure that security concerns are as far up as possible in the Bill and will be apparent at each and every stage of the planning. Having said that, I do not think that there will be a single person in this Committee or involved in running the games who would not agree with that assessment—it is one of those things that goes across parties.
We tabled the amendment to have the discussion. I realise that it would be inappropriate to discuss many operational matters in Committee. I shall not push the amendment to a Division. I merely ask the Minister to give us the necessary assurances that security is the most important thing, that it will be considered at each
Column Number: 34
and every stage and that it will be built into all the planning for London 2012. I am sure that he will; I have no doubt about it.
2.45 pm
Mr. Foster: I share entirely the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. On Second Reading, on 21 July, I made the point that I was absolutely convinced that the security plans that were understood to be in place were robust. The IOC concluded that they were robust and I have absolute confidence that that is the case. Nevertheless, I argued that not only must they be robust, they must be seen to be so. Therefore, it was surprising that there was no specific detailed reference to security in the Bill, which is why I tabled the amendment similar to, but different from, the one tabled by the hon. Gentleman.
As has been said, security is critical. One of the issues that has been bandied around in the press recently is the concerns about the alleged amount of money that is being made available by the various bodies in respect of security. I would merely say to anyone who has an interest in that debate that comparing the London and the Athens games is unfair.
It is worth reflecting that our security forces and police played a major role in assisting what happened in Athens, and we should be grateful to them for what they did. A great deal of the expense incurred in Athens went on introducing some of the communications systems and so on that were not already in place. Such systems are already in place in London and across the United Kingdom. Those sorts of comparisons do nothing but undermine the confidence that we can have in the robust security systems that I know will be in place for the 2012 games.
The Minister clearly will not accept our amendment or the one tabled by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent. However, I am delighted that he has tabled a more detailed, more comprehensive new clause of his own. I assure him that I would be more than happy to support it.
Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab): I have two worries. First, I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent: any type of security embedded in any system now would be out of date within 18 months. Therefore, since 7 July, the complexity of security concerns me most. SecondlyI take no pride in saying thiswe have not got a brilliant IT record in Government in delivering large computer-based, wireless or software systems. I do not want to dwell on that too long. Those two matters make me apprehensive. Security is key and I have some empathy with the debate thus far.
Mr. Caborn: First, I agree with the sentiments of the hon. Members for Faversham and Mid-Kent and for Bath, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt), although I am less sure about the IT point. We do not do too badly and we run ourselves down a little too much at times.
Column Number: 35
We all want to ensure that we do everything in our power to deliver a safe, secure games in 2012. The ODA has a role to play in that. That was brought out in the debate on Second Reading and is why we revisited the matter in new clause 2, which I will come to in a moment. We tried to take all the concerns on board.
There is a background to this issue. We played a significant role in advising and working with the Australians on the security of the Sydney games. As a result of our expertise in that area, we moved on to be a major part of the security committee in Athens. That was acknowledged by many after those games, as was the role that our security forces and police played in a secure Athens games.
I cannot agree to amendment No. 54 and I ask for it to be withdrawn. The ultimate responsibility for Olympic security will lie with the Cabinet-level security committee, which will be chaired by the Home Secretary and not by the ODA. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for one of the ODA's general functions to be ensuring safety and security. Instead, we need to examine the contribution that it can make in delivering a safe, secure games in 2012. It should be required to have regard to these issues when exercising its functions.
I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will not press amendment No. 13 to a Division during our proceedings. As he will have seen, I have tabled a new clause that goes much wider in requiring the ODA to have regard for safety and security. I want to put that on the record. To ensure that it plays its part in ensuring that we deliver a safe, secure games in 2012 we propose to require it, in consultation with the police, to have regard to safety and security when exercising its functions. For example, when considering design of facilities, or, indeed, arranging for the construction work, the ODA should have regard to the importance of ensuring the safety of spectators and participants and the security of the property. The amendment would also require the ODA to have regard to safety and security when exercising its planning functions. On that basis, I ask the hon. Members not to press their amendments and to support new clause 2.
Hugh Robertson: As the Minister said, the matter was raised on Second Reading, and I am delighted that he has tabled a new clause in view of that. We have had a good discussion and it would be inappropriate to take the matter further. The Minister will have advice from the relevant security authorities that is rightly not available to the Committee. I thank him for tabling the new clause, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mrs. Lait: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 3, line 29, at end insert
'(2A) The Authority may not take any action under subsection (2) (m) or (2)(n) unless the Secretary of State has authorised that action by order made by statutory instrument.
(2B) An order under subsection (2A) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
Column Number: 36
| 
