Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 37, in clause 15, page 11, line 20, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 23 and insert

'(1) 'The list of objectives in section 4(1) of the Railways Act 1993 (c.43) (objectives of Office of Rail Regulation and Secretary of State) shall be treated, in relation to the Office of Rail Regulation only, as including the objective of facilitating'.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

Government amendment No. 38  

No. 1, in clause 15, page 11, line 26, at end insert—

'( ) Where it appears to the Olympic Delivery Authority that the exercise of the duties of the Office of Rail Regulation under subsection (1) conflicts with other enactments, the Secretary of State shall be consulted.'.

Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

We want to ensure that the Office of Rail Regulation helps to deliver a successful Olympic transport system. To that end, we have given it a new duty to facilitate the provision, management and control of Olympic transport facilities, but I do not believe that we have got the clause quite right yet. As the Bill stands, the ORR must exercise all its existing functions in a manner that supports Olympic transport. We do not want to suggest that the ORR's Olympic duty overrides any of its other duties. Our amendment would therefore make it absolutely clear that the duty to support Olympic transport is in addition to, not superior to, its other responsibilities.

Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

Amendment No. 1 is a belt and braces amendment, which tacks on to the end of what the Minister has already said. He rightly pointed out that we do not want the ORR to deliver fantastic things to the Olympics and the Paralympics while screwing up all the other rail networks throughout the country, and he is right to have tabled the amendment, which we welcome. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will be aware of the potential for conflict between what, for example, the ODA wants and what the ORR wants. It therefore seems sensible to have a mechanism for the resolution of those disputes. The amendment proposes that that resolution mechanism be the Secretary of State. I, for one, am surprised that I am even saying that, because I am not one for wanting to put into legislation more powers for the Secretary of State. We could not, however, think of anyone better than her to give them to, which is why we proposed that mechanism.

I shall give a real example of why such a mechanism is important. If my amendment is not the solution to the problem that I am about to describe, we must find one, or we will be in serious difficulty. The Minister will be aware that the Crossrail Bill is before the House. Clause 22 of that Bill states that it will be the ''overriding duty'' of the Office of Rail Regulation ''to facilitate the operation'' of Crossrail ''on or after'' a specified date. In other words, if work on Crossrail was going on during the build-up to, and period of, the Olympics, the ORR, regardless of its views about the importance of the Olympics, would have no choice but to put the work of Crossrail before anything to do with the Olympics.

Yet in clause 15 of this Bill, as the Minister proposes to amend it, the ORR is required only to act

''in a manner which will facilitate the provision, management and control''

of the London Olympics transport facilities.

I have given an example of one conflict that could occur, but there are other, more obvious, areas of possible conflict in the delivery of the general rail transport system in the rest of the country. For example, there may be a conflict between the needs of the Olympics and those of the travelling public   commuting into London. There needs to be a form of conflict resolution; amendment No. 1 proposes one, and I hope that it will be agreed to.

Meg Hillier (Hackney South & Shoreditch, Labour)

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the amendment and want to highlight the north London line, which runs partly through my constituency. We expect to see improvements to the line as a result of the Olympics. We have a turn-up-and-go service, and there are negotiations with Transport for London and the Government about that. Will the ORR have responsibility for that as part of the Olympics and will it continue after the Olympics? If the Minister cannot clarify that now, perhaps he will do so later. Locally, we hope to see those improvements as ongoing and not only for the duration of the Olympics.

Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

On that last point, I hope that the structure that we are growing is sustainable and will go way beyond 2012.

Crossrail will not open until 2013 at the earliest anyway. I hear what the hon. Member for Bath said and I will look at the matter to make sure that the situation described does not arise. It will be for the ORR to determine how to carry out its functions in such a way as to facilitate the provision, management and control of transport facilities connected with the London Olympics. In doing so, it will need to strike a balance between any duties that might come into conflict, as the Government amendments are designed to make clear. The ORR's Olympic duties do not override those other duties.

The ORR should therefore be able to reach a reasonable balance and avoid any potential conflicts in exercising its function. Under subsection (2) the ORR will consult the ODA about the duties under subsection (1). That will enable the ODA to ensure that the ORR is aware of the requirements of the Olympics and able to reach a reasonable judgment on how to exercise its function and avoid conflict with those requirements.

It will not be for the ODA to second-guess the ORR on whether, if it fulfils a duty in the Olympic context under subsection (1), it is likely to come into conflict with other duties. There will not be any need for the Secretary of State to be consulted as the amendment requests.

Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I may have a very small brain or be very stupid, but if the ODA decides that a decision made by the ORR is not, in its opinion, in the best interests of the delivery of the Olympic network and transport arrangements, what is it meant to do? Is it supposed just to accept it or will there be a right of appeal?

Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I may have to write to the hon. Gentleman on this issue. However, as I see the structure that we have in place, a serious conflict could be resolved by the Olympic board steering group, which will continue to monitor matters.

I will ask my officials to look at the drafting of the Crossrail Bill to see whether it will impact adversely on the ODA. I cannot answer that point yet. The advice   given to me is that it should not, but I will make sure of that.

Problems will no doubt arise, but we believe that we have got the division of responsibilities and priorities right for delivery, whether we are talking about Crossrail, which is the responsibility of the ORR, or the ODA. That is what we have in the Bill at the moment, which is why I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendment No. 1. I tabled Government amendments Nos. 37 and 38 to make the situation crystal clear. However, I will revisit the subject of Crossrail to see whether any issues need to be reconsidered in light of legislation going through the House.  

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 38, in clause 15, page 11, line 26, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert

'section 4(1) of the Railways Act 1993 (c. 43) (as modified by subsection (1))'.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Claire Ward.]

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday 18 October at half-past Ten o'clock.