Clause 8 - Olympic Transport Plan
London Olympics Bill
4:15 pm
Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 7, line 3, after 'plan,', insert
'(ja) Network Rail,
(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.
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.