|
Mr. Caborn: Clause 6 allows the ODA to make sure that the streets around the Olympic venue are kept clean and well-lit. Such matters are the responsibility of the local authority; subsection (1) therefore allows the ODA to draw up a service level agreement with the relevant authorities. I assure the hon. Lady that we expect the ODA to take that approach whenever there is a significant issue about street cleaning or lighting. The rest of clause 6 is intended to be only a backstop, to allow the ODA to step in and carry out some work when an authority fails to do what has been formally agreed.
Amendment No. 56 would impose a further burden on the ODA by requiring it to enter a contract with all relevant local authorities. That requirement would apply even when the ODA considered that unnecessary or when it was satisfied that the local authority would provide a satisfactory service without any need for a side agreement or a step-in clause. The responsibility would be that of the ODA.
4.15 pm
Mrs. Lait: I just wish to finish the Minister's sentence. Will it be the responsibility of the ODA to pay?
Mr. Caborn: Yes.
Mrs. Lait: That is reassuring. We shall consider the provision. If we have further queries, I am sure that the Minister will be only too willing to help us. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Olympic Transport Plan
Mr. Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 7, line 3, after 'plan,', insert
(jb) Cross London Rail Links (CLRL) or its successor,
(jc) utility companies the Authority thinks are likely to be affected by the plan,'.
We discussed earlier whether it was reasonable for the Government to bring forward a list of bodies. They do not usually do so, but they have done under the Bill, although not all the bodies that we might reasonably expect to be included are included. For example, despite the importance of the transport plan, no reference is made to the railways; there is no reference to Network Rail. We debated earlier the importance of keeping the environment around the Olympic sites up to the standards to which we are committed. We rightly discussed the need to consult local authorities, but let us face it: many of the issues that can get in the way will be the result of the utility companies. As we know from our constituencies, roads could suddenly be dug up. Although new legislation is now in place to control what utility companies are doing, it strikes me as crucial that utility companies are brought into the ambit of the consultation process.
Column Number: 59
It is odd that, on the one hand, the Bill refers to the Office of Rail Regulation, but not to Network Rail, while on the other hand reference is made to local authorities, but not to utility companies. It is important that reference is made to Cross London Rail Link or its successor. CLRL is the organisation that is seeking to deliver the Crossrail project. Measures are before the House on that precise matter. If the Bill is passed, and if the work on Crossrail begins as is predicted, that could have a huge impact on the transport arrangements in London. Therefore, it is critical that the organisation is included on the list.
The Minister will say that subsection (3)(k) sets out all that I need to know. Given that it states that anyone else that the Secretary of State wants to consult can be consulted, he will say that there is no problem. However, the right hon. Gentleman cannot have his cake and eat it. He cannot suddenly outline in the Bill a long list of bodies and then say that it does not matter which organisations have or have not been included on the list. There must be some justification for their inclusion. I presume that those bodies on the list are high-priority organisations, while the others that are not on the list are not. If the clause is concerned with high priority organisations, I suggest that the three bodies to which I referred are clearly high priority. They have been left off the list. The Minister has made a mistake. I urge him to come clean, admit it and tell us what he will do about it.
Mr. Caborn: I have heard some rubbish in my time, but what the hon. Gentleman has just said takes the biscuit. Here we are, yet again, trying to work in partnership to deliver the Bill. We are trying to be helpful, and all he can do is criticise. I will instruct my officials in future to give minimum advice and help to hon. Members such as the hon. Gentleman. He is unduly critical. He is absolutely right about the answer that I am going to give him: the ODA is allowed to consult anybody that it wants to. We are trying to be helpful, illustrating who we believe to be the important bodies to consult. That does not debar anyone who wants to be consulted.
I honestly think that the hon. Gentleman is unduly critical of my officials, who are trying to be extremely helpful. They are good officials and want to try to help to inform the Committee throughout the drafting of the Bill and to make sure that it works efficiently and effectively for our nation, and all we get from the Liberal party is criticism. I hope that he will reflect on what he has said and withdraw the amendment. I assure him that the ODA can consult whom it wants to. In future, we will have to think carefully about who we say that it has to consult so that we do not allow such stupidity of debate to take place in Committee.
Mr. Foster: I would be interested if the Minister would be prepared to make public the briefing notes from which he delivered that speech. I suspect that what his officials gave him might have been rather different from what he delivered. Never mind, he delivered what he did.
I say to the Minister in the gentlest way possible that I think that it is slightly beneath him to accuse me of being critical of his officials. I was not critical of his
Column Number: 60
officials; I was critical of the Minister for getting it wrong. His officials have done a fantastic job and I have a good working relationship with them. I hope that he will not carry out his threat in any way to undermine the good working relationship that I and the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent have with his officials.
His answer was frankly a load of old baloney. It was a pathetic attempt to get out of a statement that has been made and I suspect that had I tabled an amendment to insert '',for example,'' after
''Before preparing or revising the plan the Authority shall consult'',
the Minister would not have accepted that either, although that is in effect what he has told us that the clause is meant to do.
Nevertheless, we have an assurance from the Minister that these bodies will have the opportunity to be consulted, and I am sure that they will be. It is a pity that they were not on the list, if he is going to have one. However, with the Minister's assurances and as we want to make rapid progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Olympic Route Network
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mrs. Lait: Clause 9 refers to the road network around the Olympic site. The Olympics will, of course, take place in August when commuting traffic will be reduced. I want the Minister to assure me that the people commuting from Essex through the Olympic site and towards the centre of London will have their requirements recognised and will not be penalised because that is how they have to get to work.
Mr. Caborn: I would hope that that will be part of the transport plan. I cannot give absolute assurances, but I hear what the hon. Lady has to say and I am sure that it has been noted by my officials. We will convey the sentiment to those who will plan the transport. As she rightly says, the volume of traffic is down considerably in the month of August—I think by about 70 per cent.because most people are away on holiday. There will, of course, be an increase because of the Olympics but it could be quite manageable. Both Olympic and commuter traffic should be able to live side by side quite effectively.
Mr. Foster: The clause and that question are both important. However, there is no reference in the clauseor in the explanatory notesto when it is assumed that the Olympic route network will come out of being. Since it will have an effect on traffic elsewhere, what are the plans for the ending of the designation of the Olympic route network?
Mr. Caborn: The note says ''Straight away after.'' After what, I do not know.
Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply.
Column Number: 61
Mr. Caborn: I will determine after what later, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Co-operation
Mrs. Lait: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 8, line 17, at end insert
'by order made by statutory instrument'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 61, in page 8, line 22, at end insert
'(3A) An order under subsection (3) 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.'.
Mrs. Lait: Again, I will be brief. The Minister might well say that if we require a statutory instrument, it will slow the whole process up. I accept that, but I want to explore the proper democratic control that there will be over the Secretary of State if he thinks that a local highway authority, a local traffic authority or a street authority has failed. If the decision is entirely his, what is Parliament's right in terms of agreeing or disagreeing with him? It would also be useful if the Minister would clarify whether we are talking about the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the Secretary of State for Transport or the Deputy Prime Minister.
| 
