London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

moved Amendment No. 35:"Page 5, line 21, after second ““a”” insert ““reasonably””" The noble Baroness said: We were trying to urge the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to share his thinking with us since my noble friend Lord Bradshaw did not feel capable of—perhaps that is unfair; he did not wish—to put words into the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. In speaking to Amendment No. 35, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 36 and 37. Clause 7 deals with street lighting and cleaning. Those of us who have criticised the lack of detail in other areas may feel that this part of the Bill has suddenly become very detailed indeed. Clause 7(1) requires the ODA to undertake street lighting and cleaning,"““in a specified manner or to a specified standard””." My amendment is not as full as I had intended it to be; I should have taken out ““in a specified manner””. Nevertheless, proposing that ““specified standard”” should be ““a reasonably specified standard”” enables us to have a short exchange on the matter. One is interested in reasonable outcomes, not outputs, and the detail here is surprising given the generality of much of what surrounds it. Will the Wednesbury principle apply to the standard to be reached, and the manner, importing the concept of reasonableness? I hope that the Minister can confirm that, because if he cannot there is potential for some very difficult arrangements to be put in place. It is inappropriate for the ODA to tell an authority precisely what to do about cleaning and lighting in the detail that the clause suggests. Amendment No. 36 proposes to leave out paragraph (b) of Clause 7(3), which states that the arrangements may include provision for,"““the consequences of non-compliance””—" that is, non-compliance by the authority with the specified manner and standard, I suppose. That seems to be more than the normal contractual provision that one would expect between two agencies. I have tabled the amendment in order to ask the Minister whether the provision would, for example, allow the ODA to level a penalty without regulation or restriction if an authority did not comply. The third amendment would add a new subsection providing that the ODA should indemnify the owners of structures and installations, which are the subject here. For example, if cleaning and lighting are taken over and drains blocked because the cleaning is done incompetently, with rubbish pushed down drains—as happens—or if lighting is taken over, is not maintained and there is an accident, there will be arguments about who is responsible. I know that the arguments will take place between the parties’ insurers but that does not dispose of the concern. I am over-simplifying the position but, despite the level of detail, it is not wholly clear to me how this will work in practice. I beg to move.