Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Berkeley: I am not trying to be a killjoy, but it is possible that a year or two before the games the budget will be rather stretched. Paragraph (c), which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would delete, permits the ODA to fund litter clearing and street lighting anywhere in the UK provided that there is one person travelling from that location to the games. Would my noble friend accept instead a maximum geographical radius from any games venue? I am looking after his budget for him, and I hope he accepts that this is very important.

Lord Glentoran: The amendment is, unquestionably, a little too vague. It will enhance the Bill, not damage it, if it is made just a little more specific. Where the Minister and his team choose to draw the line is a
 
2 Feb 2006 : Column GC191
 
different matter. We are aiming at managing the situation within a budget, making quite clear the geographical area from which that budget may be called upon and which local authorities may expect to come within the terms of the legislation. Clarity is the name of the game for this amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for their support on this esoteric but actually rather important matter. My concern is not that the thing should be unjust, but that we should not saddle the ODA with an open-ended liability. I hope the Minister might find it acceptable if we discussed this between now and Report because there is some need for definition. However, even with all the brainpower there is in this Room, I doubt whether we will be able to arrive at a reasonable conclusion within a reasonable time this afternoon.

Lord Davies of Oldham: That is a very generous offer. I am always prepared to discuss things further between stages of the Bill—even during stages of the Bill if it assists the Committee—so I shall certainly take that point on board. There are difficulties with geographical circumscription. After all, the games will be in different locations; one part of the games will be right on the junction of at least three authorities. I struggle to work out how one would circumscribe that geographically, although it might be done. In practice, there will be circumscription; otherwise we will end up with lighting in Glasgow being justified on the grounds that it helps people to get to the games.

The point, surely, is this: the ODA will be operating within its budget. Let us say that the agency guaranteed that all Olympic sites will have reached the maximum standards of cleanliness and lighting and the adjoining local authorities also met their standards. If there was an approach road that extended a little further and the ODA had the resource to encourage the relevant authority to improve the quality, is the Committee saying that it should be restricted from going outside the boundary? That cannot be so, can it? If Members of the Committee would like the Bill to provide that the role of the ODA is geographically circumscribed, I will need a more specific amendment.

As Members of the Committee will recognise, all Olympic expenditure groups, particularly the ODA, will be working within tight budgets. Ambition will always exceed resource and we will always be battling to reach these high standards within the framework we have set. I am not sure, therefore, that it is necessary to circumscribe further the role of the ODA at this stage.

Lord Dixon-Smith: The matter can be taken care of with the addition of two words to subsection (1). I was hoping that we could avoid that and do it by discussion and agreement subsequently. If we simply amend subsection (1) to read,


 
2 Feb 2006 : Column GC192
 

that would put no restriction on what the authority may decide to do and would give it the power of decision, which the Bill at present does not do.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Certainly no one would want the ODA to carry on with irrelevant expenditure and irrelevant demands that did not relate to the games. We are charging the body with such great responsibilities that I do not think negotiations over street cleaning and lighting will extend the limits of its capabilities too greatly.

I shall look at the point raised by the noble Lord. Those words are not before the Committee at present, but I shall look at the issue to see whether we can meet the anxieties expressed today by some alteration to the clause.

Lord Glentoran: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask a rather naughty question. Does this by any chance include trains, in particular the railway lines from London to Weymouth or from London to Datchet?

Lord Davies of Oldham: We certainly want a guarantee. The Committee will recall that on the previous occasion the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was concerned about the transport arrangements for coming into London while the games are taking place and their intrusion into existing transport arrangements. Of course the games will impact upon rail services, but this will be taken into account.

The games will certainly impact upon the railways in two dramatic instances, which I hope will be supported by the whole Committee. Railway stations will need to improve their cleanliness on sites adjoining the games and there is also the matter of security, of which we in London have all become conscious in recent weeks. I have no doubt that those matters will impact on railway stations that adjoin, and are to be used by those travelling to, the games.

Lord Higgins: The noble Lord provokes me into commenting about an issue on which I had decided not to intervene. The railway station to the south of the Palace of Westminster, Waterloo, is in a most appalling state. Anyone arriving there emerges into something that is unbelievably dirty, filthy and horrible. They are then confronted with that dreadful thing in the middle of the roundabout south of Westminster Bridge. We ought to ensure that that kind of eyesore is cleared up—certainly by 2012.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord will forgive me. He can make me unhappy whenever he likes when I am carrying out my role in the Lords as a government spokesman on transport, but it is a bit unfair to introduce it into this Bill. However, I hear what he says.

Baroness Hamwee: Returning to the first amendment in the group, the Minister described a position that we would all like to see, but it is not as the Bill provides. He referred to everyone relying on sensible agreements. That is exactly what my
 
2 Feb 2006 : Column GC193
 
amendments, particularly the first one, are designed to achieve. The second and third amendments seek to understand how the system would operate but I did not detect answers to that question. I shall of course read the Minister's answers in Hansard. I was not seeking to weaken the ODA. I am seeking to apply reasonableness or, to use his words, have sensible agreements. He spoke about local authorities being reimbursed. We are back to a favourite word of this House: arrangements "may" include provision for payment by the ODA. I hope that "may" means "shall".

I note that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has tabled an amendment to Clause 10(2)(c) making provision for the creation and maintenance of the Olympic route network. At that point in the Committee, will the Minister say whether that extends to street cleaning and lighting? As I look at it, fairly casually, it looks as though it might. That might be another place at which we can gain an understanding of what will go on. I will read what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 not moved.]

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Transfer schemes]:

Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 39:


(iv) the Mayor of London."

The noble Lord said: This amendment tries to sort out potential power battles. I am still of the opinion that the Secretary of State should remain paramount in everything. When we get to the stage where we are putting the Mayor of London on the same level as a Secretary of State, we are in difficulties. The amendment provides that instead of the Mayor of London having a right of veto over the Secretary of State, he should be included as one of the people who have to be consulted. As we all know, the Secretary of State and her team know the people they are going to consult and can do their homework on them. They will work out their arguments. I have little doubt that the result will be the one that we would wish: some really good conversations, some heavyweight arguments and, behind closed doors, the mayor may get his way versus the Secretary of State. However, to provide in statute, particularly in this Bill, for a situation where the Mayor of London is given precedence in decision-making over a Secretary of State is quite wrong. I beg to move.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page