London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I take that point on board, and due attention will be paid to it, as it is important that accurate information is conveyed. The noble Lord will recognise the difficulties at times when amendments are bracketed together and amendments are then not moved. The amendment has been passed, so to the office it looks as if the debate has moved on. But the noble Lord is absolutely right in saying that bracketed with it may be an amendment that has not been reached, so it is not accurate to say that it has been debated—it is still viable within its framework. So I recognise that point, but I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that the construction of the list is sometimes replete with complications and difficulties. However, I shall make sure that that is attended to. On the issue of the dispute that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised, the reason why I am struggling to answer him is that we do not think that such a dispute has taken place. I can answer categorically the second part of his question, but on the first part, we shall just have to dispute the facts. We think that the LDA and Transport for London are working together to develop a waste and construction transport strategy. We think that rail and water are going to play their parts in that. But let me assure the noble Lord that in a question of who arbitrates, both those bodies are London bodies, and therefore they will be dealt with by the London authorities, with regard to the immediate position. When things get under contract with the ODA, matters may be different. But I assure him that matters sometimes appear in the media as being in the most parlous state when they may not be. Our information is that we are still making progress with regard to that issue.