David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment No. 8, in page 30, line 28, at end insert

'(21A) In section 49D of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50) (power to impose specific duties) after subsection (1) insert—

''(1A) A public authority for the purposes of subsection (1) includes the Olympic Delivery Authority.''.'.

Amendment No. 2, in clause 4, page 2, line 40, after 'Olympics', insert

'including ensuring that adequate arrangements are made to ensure that premises and facilities are fully accessible to disabled people,'.

Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 35, at end insert

'and

(c) contribute to social inclusion and the promotion of diversity and equality'.

Amendment No. 4, in clause 8, page 6, line 21, at end insert

'(including the provision of transport which is accessible for disabled people)'.

Amendment No. 5, in page 7, line 3, after 'plan,', insert—

'(ja) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee,'.

New clause 1—Grants for accessibility improvements—

'The Secretary of State may make grants for the purpose of assisting any person to make improvements to highways, services, accommodation, tourist facilities, and cultural and entertainment venues which would assist disabled people in attending the London Olympics.'.

Perhaps I should say at the outset that it is certainly warm in the room so it is perfectly in order for hon. Gentlemen to remove their jackets and hon. Ladies to do likewise, but I really think that it should stop there.

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

May I first welcome you, Mr. Amess, to the Chair. As I recollect, you were a good supporter of our bid for 2012; somebody who saw that it could be used in the wider areas of health and tackling obesity in young people. I have no doubt that we will get a favourable wind from the Chair. As I come from Sheffield, we can always do the full monty as well if required, for a little bit of entertainment.  

Amendments Nos. 8, 2 and 3 would all impose specific powers and obligations on the Olympic delivery authority to promote access for disabled people, where general duties already exist in legislation. I will deal with them amendment by amendment.

Amendment No. 8 would ensure that the ODA is made subject to the new disability equality duties. I would like to make it clear that the ODA will be a public authority within the meaning of the relevant provisions and so will already be subject to the general disability equality duties in section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 when they come into force. Section 49D, which the amendment refers to, allows Ministers to place listed public sector bodies under specific duties to publish equality schemes, involve the views of disabled people in their planning, and report on progress.

As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) reminded us, the Government last year published the criteria they would apply when deciding whether specific duties were appropriate for a body in the consultation document ''Delivering equality for disabled people''. The criteria are that the body has significant dealings with disabled service users; has a significant impact on the lives of disabled people; could be a significant employer of disabled people; and is of sufficient size to support the duties. The Government believe that the public sector disability duties are important tools in transforming our society into one that is more equal and provides greater opportunities for disabled people.

The Government also believe that to be effective the duties should have wide application across the public sector. In that spirit, the Government will apply the published criteria to the ODA in determining which duties are appropriate once Parliament has decided, through the Bill, on the shape and functions of the authority.

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

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Amess. I am sure that you will give all parties favourable treatment, and not just the Minister and others on the Government Benches.

I welcome, I think, what the Minister said, until the end when there was the implication that decisions about what specific duties would be placed on the ODA in respect of the disability discrimination legislation would be made after Parliament has agreed to the establishment of the ODA. Since establishment is likely, can the Minister not give us a clearer indication of what the duties will be and an absolute assurance that the shape in which the ODA is likely to emerge from the legislation will lead to those requirements being placed on it?

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

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? How can we instruct the ODA before we have set it up? However, I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman, because it is an important subject. There is no disagreement, but it is simply a matter of how we effect the process and take into account what was said when the amendments were moved and has been said by the Opposition parties. I do not disagree.  

The ODA would satisfy all the criteria that suggest that it should develop a disability equality scheme. It will have significant dealings with disabled service users; a significant impact, as I have already said, on the lives of disabled people; it could be a significant employer of disabled people, and I hope that it will; and it will be of sufficient size to promote a scheme. I would imagine that Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions are likely to regulate at some point in the next year to place the ODA, along with any other relevant new bodies, under the specific duties of the Disability Discrimination Act. I cannot give a definite time for that at this stage, but nor can I foresee any reason why that should not happen. I entirely accept the general points that have been made and we will pursue them.

The bodies subject to specific duties are listed in regulations. As yet, however, we do not have an ODA, although I hope that we shall have one when the Bill has been through all its stages in both Houses. I hope that the ODA can then be one of those listed organisations. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman that we take his comments and the sentiments behind the amendments seriously.

Amendment No.2 would require the ODA, when fulfilling its functions under clause 4, to ensure that premises and facilities are fully accessible to disabled people. Such an amendment is not necessary. From 4 December 2006, the general duties in section 49 of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 will require every public authority, in carrying out its functions, to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between disabled people and others, the need to take steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than others, and the need to encourage participation by disabled people in public life.

The ODA will therefore automatically be required to take the needs of disabled people into account. In developing the Olympic park, in particular, it will be tied to the terms of the planning permissions already granted. Those insist on the production of an access-for-all framework approved by the local planning authority.

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

The Minister has given us an assurance that there will be a requirement for a plan. Perhaps I could tease out from him an assurance that the plan will include issues such as making available facilities for guide dogs for the blind and for car drivers with blue badges, as well as making certain that we have an adequate amount of what the bid document describes as ''accessible seating'', although it does not properly or clearly define what that is. More specifically, he will be aware that, in relation to the Paralympic games, the bid document refers to making a minimum of 1 per cent. of the seating accessible. Is he convinced that 1 per cent. is anywhere near adequate?

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

On the debate about whether 1 per cent. is adequate, the hon. Gentleman will know that the matter was decided after extensive consultation with representatives of disabled people. That, as I understand it, is the position.  

On the hon. Gentleman's more important point about the access-for-all framework, let me lay out the principles involved, because they cover his point. The principle of inclusive design will inform and be fully integrated into the proposals. Best practice standards—not minimum standards—will be used in the design. A framework will be created to ensure that designers and users work together to deliver the best reasonable practical solutions in terms of achieving inclusive access. The establishment of an access forum after London was awarded the 2012 games will provide for engagement with all stakeholders, particularly disability, minority and disadvantaged groups, at appropriate stages in the Olympic development legacy development. A list of appropriate access groups is to include the London Access Forum and representatives from the established access groups in the boroughs. Individual venue access plans are to be provided before commencement of construction or conversion of each venue. We will also see the provision of more residential developments, which will be designed to further access for all and to meet lifetime home standards, including a 10 per cent. wheelchair access provision as a legacy development. The development will be undertaken in accordance with the advice of the Disability Rights Commission on access, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee principles on inclusive design and the best practice planning and access guide produced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The establishment of appropriate mechanisms for the implementation of the framework is to be monitored and reviewed at annual intervals—unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority—to achieve the framework's objectives. That is pretty comprehensive at this stage. We are serious about making sure that disabled people will not be disadvantaged in the developments that are taking place under the ODA's auspices. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that.

Amendment No. 3 would require the ODA to have regard to social inclusion and the promotion of diversity and equality in carrying out all its functions. As an employer, the ODA is already covered by race relations and disability discrimination legislation that ensures that it offers equal opportunities to all. The Bill sets out specific responsibilities for the ODA, in its role as the manager of a huge construction project, to contribute to sustainable development and to keep a constant eye on legacy, which means social as well as economic and environmental legacies. The amendment would not add much to those requirements.

The Government support the concepts of social inclusion and equality. Part of our role in the Olympics is to ensure that our ambitions in those areas are fulfilled, and that east London is regenerated in the right way. Those concepts are too general to require the ODA to adhere to them in all its day-to-day tasks, most of which will be technocratic in nature. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendments Nos. 8, 2 and 3.

Amendment No. 7 and new clause 1 would provide the Secretary of State with additional powers and   obligations relating to disability and equality. Amendment No. 7 would add experience of

''equality matters including disability access''

to the criteria that the Secretary of State should consider in making ODA board appointments. It might make sense to have some such expertise at board level, but we do not wish to specify that in the Bill. It is important that the Secretary of State should have maximum freedom to pick the best people for the job at different stages in the life of the ODA. In doing so, she will want to consider a wide range of criteria.

New clause 1 would provide the Secretary of State with a specific power to make grants to a range of bodies to assist them in making Olympic facilities accessible to disabled people. She does not need that power. All the relevant public authorities must take account of their duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. It is not for the Bill to specify how they are funded to do so. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment No. 7, and not to press new clause 1.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are about ensuring that the Olympic transport plan takes account of the needs of disabled people. I shall first address amendment No. 4. In developing the transport proposals that formed the basis of London's bid to the International Olympic Committee to host the games, London 2012 and the Olympic transport team, which is based within Transport for London, were determined to ensure that the provision of transport that is accessible to disabled people was fully integrated into the transport requirements for both the Olympic games and the Paralympic games. That approach was one of the bid's strengths, and was recognised as such by the IOC.

We expect the transport plan that was submitted to the IOC to form the backbone of the ODA's transport plans for the games. As disabled people's needs are already integrated into the plan, I expect the ODA to continue that approach and to ensure that they continue to be included in its plans. Paragraph 18 of schedule 1 enables the Secretary of State to give guidance and directions to the ODA, but I do not expect that power to be used to ensure that it considers the accessibility of transport to disabled people in the Olympic transport plan. Although I fully accept the need to make sure that there is suitable transport for disabled people for the Olympic and Paralympic games, those needs have been taken into account and that will continue. There is no need to include those considerations in the Bill, and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, although he will not accept the amendment, he expects the ODA to consider those issues. I have two questions on that, which he can get back to me on if he cannot answer them now. First, although Transport for London is not required to make audible information available on its buses, it has agreed that it will do so in time for the Olympics, at the very latest. That is clearly important for people who suffer from   visual impairment of one degree or another. Although a commitment has been made to provide that information in London, where the largest number of people involved are likely to be, is the provision of such information in public service vehicles in other areas with Olympic venues likely to be one of the issues that the ODA will take into account?

Secondly, as I said earlier, very few London Underground train stations are step-free at the moment. There is a clear commitment for the number of step-free stations to be increased. Indeed, there is a commitment to make 50 per cent. of stations step-free by 2015. Does not he believe it appropriate for the Government and relevant bodies to work with TFL and others to see if we can bring that target forward from 2015 to 2012?

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

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. We are seven years away from the Olympics, and we hope that new developments and technologies will ensure that the quality of life of many people, including the disabled, will be considerably improved in those seven years. If the pace of change in the next seven years equals that of the past seven years, we will look to be able to achieve that objective. With a Bill of this nature, we must keep that open.

On the question of integration and development for people with disabilities, the inclusive fitness initiative, which is run by Sport England and has had millions of pounds of investment, was acknowledged by my 25 ministerial colleagues and Ministers throughout the EU a few weeks ago in Liverpool when we showed them what we were doing and how disabled and older people can now go to fitness suites and enjoy those facilities alongside able-bodied persons. Our practical application of that commitment is probably second to none. Again, that was a major part of our presentation to the International Olympic Committee.

I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Bath says about transport and platforms, and about the need for audible information on buses. We will take on anything that we can in those areas, although that is probably for TFL, not for the Government, to decide. I have tried to show that we are favourably disposed to those things, and that hopefully new ideas and advances in technology will enable us to improve the quality of life of many people, including the disabled, by 2012.

Finally, I turn to amendment No. 5. The ODA will be able to plan and to deliver all the necessary transport requirements for the Olympic and Paralympic games only by working closely with the various interested parties. In preparing and revising the Olympic transport plan, therefore, it will be essential for the ODA to consult all those who are likely to be involved in, or affected by the implementation of the plan.

Although clause 8(3) sets out the key organisations and people whom the ODA will need to consult in preparing and revising the Olympic transport plan in order to ensure its deliverability, there are undoubtedly others whose input will be crucial. Obviously, it is not possible to list in the Bill every organisation or body whom the ODA should consult.   Clause 8(3)(k) therefore makes provision for the ODA to consult other persons, as it thinks appropriate.

In view of the important contributions that the organisations referred to in the amendments can make when planning for and delivering Olympic and Paralympic transport, I evidently fully expect the ODA to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee as it prepares or revises relevant parts of the Olympic transport plan. Paragraph 18 of schedule 1 will enable the Secretary of State to give guidance and directions to that effect, although, as I said, I expect the ODA to consult all those bodies as a matter of course. I therefore do not believe it necessary to add those bodies to the Bill.

I ask the hon. Member for Bath to withdraw the amendment.

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

May I seriously thank the Minister for the spirit in which in which he responded to the amendments? He made it clear that the Government are determined that everything possible will be done at the Olympic and Paralympic games in 2012 to meet the needs of disabled athletes and visitors to the games. That is to be welcomed.

I welcome the Minister's assurances in respect of many of the specific issues raised by the amendments. In relation to amendment No. 8, I am pleased to hear that the ODA will be required to develop a scheme under the Bill. I was extremely encouraged to hear that he anticipates that, within a year, the Department for Work and Pensions will have made sure that the ODA is on the requisite list.

In respect of amendment No. 2, although the Minister was not prepared to include such a provision in the Bill, it was extremely encouraging to hear that he expects an access for all framework to be developed in consultation with a wide range of bodies. I was delighted to hear him say not only that it will be developed but that it will be regularly monitored; I am particularly pleased about that.

I am grateful to the Minister for his responses to some of the other amendments. Although we may want many such things to happen and although we may be committed to them, we need to see results. Many organisations will be holding the ODA and the other relevant bodies to account in light of the assurances that the Minister has given today.

I shall not quibble, but I was slightly disappointed in the Minister's response to amendment No. 5, on the requirement of the ODA to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. The Minister and I will do battle in later amendments on the question of the bodies that should or should not be on the list of bodies to be consulted, but I remind him that it is normal practice for the Government to resist making such lists. It is normally Opposition parties who demand a list of such bodies, and the Government usually say that we do not need one because the Bill will take account of ''all relevant bodies''.

On this occasion, rather bizarrely, the Government have chosen to have a list, but those who feel that it is incomplete will, not surprisingly, draw attention to   bodies missing from it. In a sense, the Minister will have brought that upon himself. However, it is particularly odd that the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee is not included in the list when, in other comparable legislation in respect of transport within London, the Government have chosen to make it a specific requirement for the Mayor of London to consult that body. However, I am probably being unnecessarily critical of the Minister, for which I apologise.

I can understand the Minister's reluctance to accept new clause 1. Knowing how tight the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is with funding, not in a million years will he commit the Government to making additional funds available to meet the transport needs of disabled people. That is to be regretted, but I am not the slightest bit surprised given the current state of the country's finances. However, I hope that it will be possible for some of the issues that I have raised to be addressed in due course.

I end as I began, by saying that I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for the clear commitments that he has given, and I have no doubt that many of the specific interest groups will now be holding him to them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in schedule 1, page 31, line 5, at end insert

'(4) The Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of each such report.'.

The Committee will be delighted to know that my string of amendments is gradually coming to an end, and that there will not be any more for a little while, so it will not have to put up with me for much longer.

Amendment No. 15 is important. There is a slight difficulty because the situation that I wish to discuss is about to be altered by the Minister, if he is successful with the next string of amendments. That would affect the situation a little, but not enough to satisfy me.

The Committee will be well aware that major bodies that spend taxpayers' money in one form or another have to produce annual accounts, which are made available to Parliament. Also, arrangements are made for Parliament to debate them in some form or other and express its view of those accounts.

To save the Committee's time, I cite just one example. The BBC produces an annual report, which talks about the nearly £3 billion it has spent, the work it has done—it employs more than 20,000 staff—and its plans to develop services for listeners and viewers and the increasing number of people who access services via other means. That report is submitted to the appropriate Select Committee for deliberation. The Olympic delivery authority will have a budget somewhere in the region of that of the BBC—it will have £2.4 billion to spend—and will, like the BBC, employ thousands of people. It will have a huge impact on not only our capital city but the whole United Kingdom. Given that that is so, I hope that we will see not only the mechanisms that are to be amended by the Minister in a second, by which copies of the report will be made available to Parliament—  

Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Labour)

On the example of the BBC, it was the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee who asked the chairman of the governors if they would come before the Select Committee. Presumably that principle could hold in this instance, too.

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

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is why I have been very careful with the wording of the amendment, as he will have noticed. The amendment says:

''The Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of each such report.''

One way of achieving that scrutiny would be for the Secretary of State to encourage the Chairman of the Select Committee to have the issue brought before it. If the Secretary of State then discovered that the Chairman was not so minded, perhaps because of a very busy timetable, the Secretary of State could seek alternative means of ensuring that scrutiny—

Derek Wyatt rose

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

And suggestions on that subject are about to flow from the hon. Gentleman.

Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Labour)

The problem is that about seven Select Committees could ask the Olympic groups for reference and that would be unfair on the groups that would have to come in week after week. However, I have some empathy with the hon. Gentleman's idea of a single body. We have a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs; perhaps it would be possible to have a Standing Olympic Committee. Otherwise, the situation is just unreasonable, both for MPs and others. The hon. Gentleman has a point.

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

I am delighted to have the growing support of the hon. Gentleman. I put it clearly on record that I have sympathy with his proposal, which he has, I think, made before in a Westminster Hall debate, to establish a Committee that oversees the relevant issues on behalf of Parliament up until, and possibly even beyond, the 2012 games. He rightly points out there are a number of ways in which that could be done. Equally, there are difficulties, in that if one just mentioned ''the appropriate Select Committee'' up to seven might well say that it was them, and they would all have a go. I chose the words in my amendment carefully, so as to give the Secretary of State the freedom to come forward with the most sensible way of doing what is suggested in light of the difficulties enumerated so eloquently by the hon. Gentleman.

Given that my amendment makes a simple request to the Secretary of State, asking him to take us just one step further than making the report available in Parliament, I look forward to the Minister acceding to it.

Hugh Robertson (Shadow Minister (Sport), The Family & Culture, Media & Sport; Faversham & Mid Kent, Conservative)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Amess.

My party has enormous sympathy with the spirit of this amendment, and I would be surprised if any Committee member did not have some sympathy with it. When I was talking earlier about the things that matter to my party about the Olympics, I said that we   were keen to ensure that all the work was done not only to time but to budget, and that there were no cost overruns—if, indeed, that is possible. One of the best ways of ensuring that that happens is to ensure that the Olympic process itself is subject to regular parliamentary scrutiny.

I hope that no one disagrees with that, and I will be happy to say no more on this subject if the Minister gives an assurance that the Olympics will be debated in Parliament each and every year. Given the importance of the project, I would like that to happen on the Floor of the House, but I realise that it is impossible to give those sorts of guarantees at this stage.

It is important that the House retain some role in scrutinising the Olympics. There is a huge budget; a lot of public money is involved. The Olympics will probably be the most important national event that this country stages for many decades to come, and it will be wholly inappropriate if this House and Parliament in general do not have a regular role in scrutinising the Olympics process.

I hope that the Minister can give an assurance this afternoon that Government time will be made available—preferably after reports and accounts have been laid each year—for the House to debate this subject, preferably on the Floor of the House.

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

As has been said, the Bill requires that the ODA's annual reports be laid before Parliament. The ODA's accounts will be up for scrutiny by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. That is no different from any other report that goes before the House. Rightly, there are many ways in which the Opposition can hold the Government to account. Therefore, we do not see that there is any need to go any further. The factual report will be placed in both Houses of Parliament and they will do with it what they want.

The NAO and PAC will receive the report, and a PAC report on that will be produced, which can be debated on the Floor of the House. Also, many Select Committees are considering the Olympics over the coming period, including a Scottish Select Committee. That is fine; that is part of parliamentary scrutiny. That is happening now, and in addition to that we are putting information on the Olympics into the public domain.

There are many opportunities for the Olympics to receive further scrutiny if Opposition parties or individual Members wish for that to happen—for instance, in Adjournment debates. I believe that there is already to be an Adjournment debate on the Olympics, which I will have to respond to.

Jacqui Lait (Shadow Minister (London), Local Government Affairs & Communities; Beckenham, Conservative)

No you won't; it has been cut.

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

That is excellent news for me, and I hope for even more good news from my officials when I now give way.

Jacqui Lait (Shadow Minister (London), Local Government Affairs & Communities; Beckenham, Conservative)

On parliamentary scrutiny, I think we all recognise that it can be difficult to find time on the Floor of the House, and given how many Select Committees might take an interest in the Olympics there might be some point in considering establishing a   Standing Olympic Committee. I wonder whether the Minister might put that to the Modernisation Committee or to the appropriate House authorities, and whether the Government might back the suggestion.

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

We will always have a view on any suggestion that comes up, but I am not sure what our view would be on one that involves increasing the work load.

This part of the Bill deals with a specific part of the structure of the Olympics. There is no doubt that the ODA is very important. However, this part of the Bill does not deal with the London Organising Committee and other issues surrounding the bid. We are dealing here specifically with the ODA. The ODA's annual report will be deposited in both Houses of Parliament.

If the Opposition want to discuss how they can bring the whole Olympics under further scrutiny, I do not think that making these changes to the Bill is the way to do that. That issue is much wider than the matter we are debating now in this important part of the Bill. I believe that the Olympics is wider than that. Perhaps the hon. Lady can outline certain issues on which scrutiny can take place. However, the House has all the facilities to scrutinise the Executive, such as through Select Committees, parliamentary questions, Adjournment debates and other means. If suggestions are put forward to make the good running of the Government somewhat better, we shall consider them.

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

I am sure that all members of the Committee are disappointed by the Minister's response. He picked up on the point made obliquely by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) that Parliament would not wish to discuss regularly the activities only of the ODA. Many other aspects are involved, as the wonderful diagram that was presented to us earlier this morning as a visual aid demonstrated. I am not surprised that the Minister was not prepared to say that the Secretary of State will go down this particular road.

The Minister has been a Member of Parliament for some years and knows how difficult it is to secure time on the Floor of the House, in particular, as well as to secure Adjournment debates to discuss certain issues. It would have been encouraging if the right hon. Gentleman recognised that some issues that have cross-party support are so important that, on occasions, the Government should at least show some enthusiasm to work with others to guarantee time for such debates because all hon. Members want that to happen. If time cannot be found by any other way, I should be happy if the Minister said that he and his departmental colleagues will work with the relevant authorities to find time to discuss the issue regularly, perhaps annually. That is all we want. I suspect that that is supported by Members on both sides of the Committee.

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

I wish to make a proposition. Will the hon. Gentleman give up one of the Opposition-day Adjournment debates? I am just quoting a few ideas. I shall probably get shot for it, but how about a third, a third, a third? The first year is the Liberal Democrats,   the second year is the Conservatives and we will consider ours as a Government for the third year.

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

Given what the Minister has said, I shall not say what I was about to say about the allocation of a fair number of Opposition days to the Liberal Democrats. I have achieved something that I did not believe that I would achieve. He has at least agreed that the Government will find time every third year.

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

I did not say that.

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

The right hon. Gentleman said that at least he would look at the possibility. All I asked him was to look at ways in which the matter could be discussed every year. I got a third of my cake. I am satisfied with that at this stage and, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Caborn rose

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

Too late.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

I am sure that the Minister will be able to reply later in another way.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 39, in schedule 1, page 32, line 25, leave out 'lay' and insert 'send'.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 40.

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

The amendments are technical and are designed to make sure that the ODA accounts are scrutinised and laid before Parliament in the manner preferred by the National Audit Office. It is now standard practice for the accounts to be laid by the Secretary of State, not the Comptroller and Auditor General and, thus, that is the approach that we propose to take.

Jacqui Lait (Shadow Minister (London), Local Government Affairs & Communities; Beckenham, Conservative)

I intend to ask the Minister a question rather than make a speech. One of the strands moving through the Bill is that the Greater London Assembly has been overlooked in respect of consultation and discussion. Reference has been to local authorities and I might make the same argument while speaking to subsequent amendments. If the report and accounts are to be laid before the PAC at Parliament, can I receive an assurance that the Greater London Assembly will have the same right to scrutinise them?

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

I hear what the hon. Lady says. Her argument is logical. I am not clear about the technical ways of putting those accounts in front of the London Assembly, but I would have thought that there were ways for Assembly members and members of the public to access them. I will look into the matter and return to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 40, in schedule 1, page 32, line 25, after 'report', insert

'to the Secretary of State, who shall lay them'.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.