Clause 15 - Office of Rail Regulation
London Olympics Bill
4:30 pm
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.