House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Mar 1992

Mr. Fearn : On the whole, I welcome the Bill which could provide a mechanism through which to build, maintain and operate the public transport system that this country so desperately needs. There are one or two concerns, which came out time and again in Committee, about the power that will be wielded by the Secretary of State. Of special note to me was the fact that "matters of national significance" were not explained. We still do not know the criteria that define such matters. Perhaps that will be taken up in the other place.

I admit to some satisfaction that my concerns about the procedural matters in clause 9, as expressed in my admendment in Committee, have been met halfway by the Government, in tabling amendment No. 85, which was agreed. The conservation bodies must now decide whether they want to pursue the matter further in the other place. I am especially disappointed that hon. Members who would like the permissible levels of alcohol for drivers to be reduced were unsuccessful in all the attempts to lower the permissible level for train drivers and related personnel. We were cheated out of the amendments tabled on the subject ; they were never debated. The issue is important in ensuring the safety of the travelling public and I am sure that their Lordships will have something to say on the matter. I wish the Bill well on its way, especially as I succeeded with amendment No. 98 this evening.

6.44 pm

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) mentions the amendments that were not considered on Report. I do not comment on the selection of amendments, which would be improper.

Anyone who reads the debate in Committee and who read the report of the Second Reading debate will expect the Government to use the powers and regulations to drop the drink limit for train drivers. It is unacceptable that a professional driver of a train, of a bus, of a coach or of a taxi should be able to take a

Column 369

bottle of wine, to pour away one glass, to drink the other five and, if the driver were of a reasonable size, be below the criminal limit for driving a train or any other form of transport available to the fare-paying public.

People may argue that it is difficult to have rules for train drivers which are different from the rules for the drivers of trolley buses. What happens if a tram hits a trolley bus? Can one driver be prosecuted at one level and the other driver at another? There are answers to that.

Some may ask why a train driver, a coach driver or a cab driver should be prosecuted at a level that would be all right for an amateur driver. The answer is that people who are paid to exercise their profession should accept levels for crime and for health and safety at work regulations which are different.

The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin) : I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels on the matter. Many people drive professionally for their living, such as salesmen. They professionally use the roads as a means of earning their living. My hon. Friend must explain how we could expand the legislation. There is the possibility of inconsistency, which worries us.

Mr. Bottomley : I have no problem at all with inconsistency. We should start with professional paid drivers who are carrying passengers, as trains, trams, trolley buses, coaches and cabs do. We have a definable group. We could then discuss whether heavy goods vehicle drivers are in a similar position because of the weight that they carry. Our misjudgments when we are affected by alcohol have greater consequences then.

The question where the dividing line should come is different from the question of whether in primary legislation we set a limit at which a professional driver is up to five times more likely to be involved in a crash or collision, or to make a mistake. I will not speak at length because the matter would have been more suitable for debate on Report.

There is no justification for the present limit in the Bill. The House of Lords may not change it.

I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consult colleagues in the Department of Employment and to talk with the Health and Safety Commission which has the advantage of being a tripartite body. I ask him to see whether they will set up a steering group, including trade unionists, employers and representatives of the fare-paying public, and to have urgent consultation to see whether such a group will suggest a way in which to reduce the limit for public service professional drivers. If we did that, we should be able to use the powers in the Bill and to see which other powers should be used. My hon. Friend may say that we are here to talk only about the criminal law and that, under health and safety at work legislation, employers should be able to impose lower limits. I accept that. I declare that most train drivers would not dream of taking alcohol before driving. One reason why trains are so safe is the professionalism of the staff on the railways, which have a long and worthwhile tradition.

It is worth reminding ourselves that, even if the number of deaths on the roads comes to a record low for the year,

Column 370

about 4,500 people will still die. If that traffic was on the railways, the number would be only 150. That gives the scale of the change in safety.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch) : I will tempt my hon. Friend. Does he agree that, if we wanted simultaneously to reduce deaths on the roads and to make British Rail the most profitable operation in the world, all we should have to do would be to introduce a one-clause Bill to apply the rules for safety and signalling on the roads which we apply on the railways? Is it not because we expect, as my hon. Friend has said, so much higher standards on the railways that we are willing to cast away human lives and to maim hundreds of thousands of people by being so lax about what happens on our roads?

Mr. Bottomley : My hon. Friend makes a point in support of the argument which is shared across the House. The amendment, which was not selected on Report, had all-party support. My hon. Friend's point is that there is a good argument for having a lower limit for professional drivers. That is why trains have higher safety standards.

I remember the six people who died and the more than 100 who were injured at Eltham Well Hall about 19 years ago in a crash in which the train driver was well above the limit in the Bill. I do not pretend that a significant number of train drivers take alcohol before driving, and the same applies to the drivers of coaches and cabs. The public deserve an assurance that the criminal law is there to protect them. The Health and Safety Commission could organise consultations in which the unions and other representatives of those involved in such work could come together and give their views. I suspect that their views would be the same as mine, but it is for them to speak for themselves.

Mr. Snape : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the topic was debated extensively in Committee? Reference was made to the accident at Eltham Well Hall. Does he accept that the behaviour of the driver was so uniquely appalling on that occasion that, even if the limit had been set at the lower level that the hon. Gentleman proposes, that behaviour would have been exactly the same and that it was also the result of some supervisory errors? The hon. Gentleman accepts that such behaviour is a rare occurrence.

The Committee felt that it would be invidious for public service vehicle, train or metro drivers--that is the only group to which the Bill refers--to be breathalysed and arrested even though he or she had a lower level of alcohol than a bus driver perhaps involved in exactly the same accident. We want a lower limit for everyone.

Mr. Bottomley : That is helpful. It is good guidance for my hon. Friend the Minister. I do not ask him for a detailed response because I suspect that it would not be different from the response that he gave to the Committee. I agree with the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that the professional limit should be the same, whether one is on rails or on tyres.

I wish to make a few remarks on the other provisions of the Bill. It is important to ensure that, under the new procedure, the promoters of private legislation for both roads and railways reach the same standard that the Government ought to achieve more often on roads.

I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the unsatisfactory decisions behind the answers that I

Column 371

received today about Oxleas wood. I hope that private legislation on roads will not disregard a 400 m cut-and-cover tunnel, which would make a great deal of difference to those historic woods.

I ask the Government to reconsider the decision that they appear to have made to disregard the inspector's report. It seems important that, when an inspector is convinced after a long inquiry, the Government should also be convinced.

6.51 pm

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has reminded us of the tragedy that took place in his constituency. The whole House will agree that an anomaly is being introduced into the law of this country. It is that the driver of a train or public service vehicle carrying up to 1,000 passengers is subject under the criminal law to only the same law that applies to a person driving alone on the road. I do not understand, and I did not understand in Committee, why the Government could not have said that the limit for drivers of public service vehicles was nil. I do not see who could possibly object to that.

Mr. Snape : Then let me record my objections. My hon. Friend knows full well that a zero limit is unenforceable and impractical.

Mr. Spearing : Perhaps zero in precise scientific terms, which is the limit to which my hon. Friend refers, is impractical. But my hon. Friend knows the general drift of what everyone would wish in practical terms. I do not want to go back into a Committee debate but the point illustrates--with learned Clerks and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at hand--what appeared a rather unusual selection.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : The hon. Gentleman has put into words what I would not dare to say. I make it plain that the amendment that was not called and which was supported by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, and the Labour Chairman of the Transport Select Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), would have set a limit one quarter of that which applies to drivers on the road. That is virtually indistinguishable from a zero limit. It allows for the practicalities to which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred. It is virtually a zero limit.

Mr. Spearing : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. But we are dealing with part I of the Bill. Although in some respects part II is consequential to part I, I suggest that it is a series of provisions which are not necessarily all contingent on part I.

With another constituency example, the hon. Member for Eltham has shown us the dangers of transmitting powers to Whitehall and to one Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can turn down the recommendation of a long, thorough public inquiry. The inspector's report--in this case on Oxleas wood--can be disregarded virtually in the twinkling of an eye. Under that provision, unless the matter is of national significance, an inquiry can be disregarded. Important as Oxleas wood is for London, it cannot be regarded as other than a precedent. However, it shows the dangers inherent in the Bill.

Column 372

You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or my colleagues will, that throughout the Committee stage and subsequently, I have expressed doubts about the method that has been adopted to get round the difficulty illustrated by Oxleas wood. The method is to hand to Whitehall powers which were formerly in the hands of Members of Parliament and thereby the representatives of the public. Previously, such matters were not simply left to the Government's discretion. Any Member of this Parliament or the next Parliament, and in particular of the next, who complains about loss of power of the House must examine what happened in respect of the Bill. Of course there were difficulties. Many of the private Bills that came before the House on Second Reading and in Committee should never have been private Bills. Many were contentious Bills which involved matters of public policy and would perhaps have been better dealt with as either hybrid or public Bills. With due respect to the Select Committee's thoroughness, it did not sufficiently look into possible ways of eliminating such Bills as private legislation from the Floor of the House.

As we all know, the result of the private Bill procedure was often that individual Members of Parliament who had good cases, often backed up by their hon. Friends, either saw to it either that there was a logjam to delay the progress of Bills coming up behind another measure or used the threat of time when speaking on private Members' legislation as a lever for something else. That brought the private Bill procedure into disrepute.

In addition to that, there were genuine anxieties about private Bills, which I shared. A constituent of mine was told that, to progress a petition on the London Underground (Jubilee) Bill, he would have to expend £70,000. That is an enormous and ridiculous figure, but I saw it in writing. People in wigs and gowns take up the time of Members of Parliament in front of expensive counsel. That was criticised in respect of certain matters, including, for example, the Dartford crossing. That should never have happened, but the question that was not asked and certainly was not answered was how those abuses and difficulties could have been avoided without handing over so much power to an individual Secretary of State and, in effect, officials who have to do a great deal of work.

Make no mistake, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Bill will erect inside Whitehall a new bureaucracy in the Department of Transport. I have no doubt that the Department is preparing it all now. Unlike the Department of the Environment, the Department of Transport has not been primarily involved in public inquiries before.

We all agree that the local inquiry on planning matters has many advantages, but no one has asked whether we should not say that no private Bill can be deposited before the necessary equivalent planning permissions have been acquired through the planning process. If that had required a change of statute to extend the time available, we could have done it in respect of matters on which private Bills were necessary. That was not sufficiently investigated. If we had done that, we would have created a new template and a new gateway into the private Bill procedure, but it would have meant that there was thorough local consideration prior to receipt of a Bill in the House.

All the issues which understandably might deter petitioners could be dealt with at a more local level, but there would also be a secondary and more important

Column 373

effect. It would mean that details of the required legislation could be discussed and conciliation could take place before the Bill was drafted. In practice, someone takes a chance, produces a Bill which other people think outrageous, and there is a long-drawn-out struggle.

I do not know whether you recall the Ginns and Gutteridge Leicester (Crematorium) Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which was debated for either six or 12 hours in the House on Second Reading. I shall tell hon. Members about that Bill if they do not remember it. It authorised a private company to establish a crematorium in the basement of undertaker's premises in the middle of a midlands city. That should never have come to the House as a private Bill, but it took up a lot of our time and added to the disrepute into which this type of private procedure has brought itself. Had planning permission been required before the Bill was submitted I do not believe that such permission would have even been sought, because under existing general law relating to crematoriums such an application would have been prohibited.

Mr. Moate : In fact the Ginns and Gutteridge application went before the Leicester planning authority and was approved. It should not have come here ; the hon. Gentleman is right. If someone wished to dispute it, it should have been revoked in the usual way. He is right in principle, but wrong in detail.

Mr. Spearing : I am always open to correction and I am grateful for that intervention, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it does not destroy the principle that I was enunciating. I shall not comment on the Leicester planning inquiry into the matter. Let us hasten on. Many of the problems that we were concerned with in Committee would have been solved if those possibilities had been considered. By granting those powers to the Secretary of State of the day, we are probably storing up a great deal of trouble for ourselves.

Clause 5(3) (a) contains the extraordinary provision that an order may

"apply, modify or exclude any provision of an Act of Parliament (or of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament) which relates to any matter as to which an order could be made under section 1 or, as the case may be, 3"

Note the word "relates" in the Bill, rather than "necessary for the completion of". Those are enormous powers and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has reminded us, as the Bill stands, unless the matter is of national significance an order will not even be subject to the negative procedure.

Mr. Cryer : I think that my hon. Friend would accept that that is some qualification. I am delighted that he is as concerned as I am about the powers in delegated legislation. The so-called Education Reform Act 1988 contains much wider powers. For instance, there are 18 occasions when the Secretary of State can repeal, modify or amend, as he chooses, primary legislation. Although my hon. Friend is concerned about this Bill, the powers are qualified. In what I might dare to term more major pieces of legislation, the powers have not been so narrowly defined.

Mr. Spearing : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out what might be regarded by some people as a precedent. He almost underlines my argument, because I

Column 374

do not think that those powers are necessarily proper in the field of education. However, I suggest that the powers of someone in an education institution or within education are not comparable to the creation of such things as the channel tunnel fast link.

As the Committee agreed, during the next Session of the next Parliament the Secretary of State may well be able to approve the channel tunnel fast link from King's Cross to somewhere in the north downs after an hour and a half's debate--it might be longer but it need not be. That cannot be changed once it is put there, or not without enormous difficulty.

Secondly, there is a great deal of difference between authorising works by planning permission and authorising powers. Powers and works are not the same thing. The powers and obligations of a promoter or someone running a transport system are fundamentally distinct. We are giving powers to undertakers of transport organisations to do all sorts of things, including the creation of byelaws and of their own police forces, in schedule 1 of the Bill.

No, we are handing too much to the Government, to any Government and to any Secretary of State in this Bill. I am sorry that alternative measures were not considered more thoroughly by the Select Committee.

When you put the Question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if a single voice says no, I am sure that you will collect the voices in your particular manner. I shall not divide the House, but I want to put it on the record that I disapprove of the Bill. Its complications and the powers that we give to the executive are too great and time will show that I am correct. I hope that I am wrong, but in view of the way in which the Minister has dealt with the inland waterways--he did not even inform the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council--we do not have a happy precedent for the way in which Secretaries of State may use the powers enshrined in the Bill.

7.5 pm

Mr. Adley : This is a constructive, unglamorous, uncontroversial and doubtless untelevised piece of legislation, which typifies in its own way many of the things that are wrong with the way in which the media operate. All they ever show is Parliament in aggravated dispute across the Floor of the House two or three times a week, which makes good television. The media rarely show the way in which many of us try to improve and to change legislation with agreement across the Floor of the House, with fundamentally no problem, no hassle and no aggravation.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the way that he listened to our representations when I approached him with a colleague from the Opposition, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). We had the full panoply of the Minister's civil servants alongside us and made two recommendations to change the Bill. The Minister proposed the relevant Government amendments in Committee, and it is important to put that on the record.

I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will not mind my saying that I took advantage of the opportunity to speak on Second Reading and managed to escape from the Committee. When I saw him and the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)--to name but three members of the Committee--I thought that my

Column 375

private discussions with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Selection had been thoroughly worth while. Nothing this evening has caused me to change that view.

Mr. Snape : I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will use his influence on my behalf.

Mr. Adley : I believe that the hon. Gentleman is sponsored by the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, ASLEF. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong.

Mr. Snape : By the National Union of Railwaymen.

Mr. Adley : I am hoping to become a Conservative Member who is made an honorary member of ASLEF. I put on record one of my few unfulfilled political ambitions. Then I am sure that, in spite of the fact that we might be affilitated to different trade unions, we shall work together, as we always have done, to promote what we see as the railway interest. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman. Having listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Bradford, South, I cannot help but be struck by the difference between the Labour party's propaganda and the reality. No one would accuse me of not taking an interest in the welfare of railways, and supporting the retention of lines and so forth. However the reality is that this legislation has come from a Conservative Government. In contradistinction, one of their Labour predecessors closed the Waverley route and the Somerset and Dorset line, under the tutelage of the noble Lady, Lady Castle--I am not sure what Barbara Castle is called now, but I think that that is what she should be called legally. She was Minister of Transport when those lines were closed. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) was Secretary of State for Transport, he achieved something that has never been given its proper recognition--the retention of the Settle to Carlisle railway line. That represented a huge change in policy and reversed a generation of rural railway line closures. They were closed because, judged on purely commercial criteria, they appeared incapable of sustaining themselves. It is worth recording that achievement, which, although it had a minor effect on the main railway lines of British Rail, was an important one.

At some stage after the Conservative Government have been re-elected, as they will be shortly, I hope that we will consider the problem of so-called redundant track. We now properly boast about the number of stations that have been reopened and the number of lines that have been restored to passenger service. That happened only as a result of sheer chance because those lines were not closed and the track-beds sold off. The hon. Member for Newham, South mentioned the docklands light railway. He will know that that railway would never have been built had it not been for the sheer chance that the so-called redundant track on which much of it runs was not sold off. It was lucky that British Rail did not succeed in following the strictures of successive Governments, who wanted it to sell off such redundant track.

We must recognise that there is some redundant land in British Rail's ownership, but fashions, transport policy and circumstances change. However, if we sell off track, we prevent options for change, if I can use a current military-related phrase, being acted upon.

Column 376

My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) spoke about drinking while driving a train and about the need for consultation with the trade unions about that problem. When the Government are re-elected, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that there have been substantial personnel changes within the trade union movement. That welcome change is almost entirely due to the legislation which the Government introduced and which was fought tooth and nail by the Labour party. That legislation has meant that, for the first time, the election of the deputy general secretary of ASLEF is subject to the general vote of that union's membership. It is about time our party made more of an effort to bring trade union representatives back into the discussion process, especially as those in positions of authority have been elected by a genuine process of secret ballots and votes. There is much to discuss about the future shape of the railways, and the fact that there have been no direct links between trade union leaders and Ministers is a waste of talent, experience and ability.

Many of those in the unions have given a lifetime of service to the railways. They believe in them. They have a great deal more experience and knowledge about what might be done to improve services than some of the administrators who have been employed in the past few years. I know that those remarks are out of order, but I hope that we can look forward to further debates on railway policy in the not too distant future.

7.13 pm

Ms. Walley : Given what the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) said, it is clear that he is making a claim for honorary presidency, or whatever, of ASLEF.

Mr. Adley : Membership, not presidency.

Ms. Walley : In Committee, I suggested that we needed two days for the Report stage, but everyone looked at me as though I was not serious. However, the fact that it has taken two days, for whatever reasons, shows how much could be said about the Bill.

I do not want to delay the passage of the Bill unduly, but it is important to consider the way in which it has changed. When it was introduced, the Opposition accepted it in principle, but we believed that many changes had to be made to it. Our Whips were wise in their selection for the Committee, because my hon. Friends, together with the Minister, who has been amenable to many of our amendments, have caused the Bill to be altered.

We have tried to be constructive and positive to bring the Bill into the 20th century. In that way our procedures will match the need for changed transport infrastructures. I wish that the Government had the same approach to all other business in the House. Much of our business is conducted in an archaic manner. Many of our practices need to be brought into line with the 20th century--not least in relation to women Members of Parliament. I accept that some progress has been made in that regard, but I know that I am now straying miles from my brief.

Change was important because neither the Department of Transport nor the Department of the Environment understood why it was important that the commercial waterways should meet transport needs. The hon. Member for Christchurch spoke about the need for co-operation and consultation with the trade union movement, but he is

Column 377

13 years too late. When the Bill was first presented to us, it was not even possible for the Government to have proper consultation with their own statutory bodies. I am grateful that we have had the opportunity to discuss, post haste, the various concerns that have been expressed. We have received many letters from those who care about our canals and inland waterways, and I welcome the changes that have been made to the Bill.

I pay tribute to the work of the rights of way review committee. I appreciate that the changes made to the Bill are not the result of discussions that lasted a few months only--many people behind the scenes have contributed to the changes, which had a long gestation period.

The Minister has promised that adequate consultation will take place. After the election, whether it is on 2 or 9 April, we shall honour that commitment to consultation. It is important to ensure that the necessary regulations are put in place.

We have repeatedly expressed our concerns about environmental assessments. It is still necessary to consider those procedures with a fine-tooth comb. Although some amendments have been accepted tonight, we still need to include proper environmental assessment procedures in the Bill. The speech of hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) proved that that was necessary.

We have sought to ensure that those who have the right to make objections retain the opportunity to do so. That must be counterbalanced by the introduction of necessary timetables, so that, when the order-making procedure is triggered, those who have an interest know when that procedure is due to complete.

We welcome the safety improvements that have been made in respect of railways. The issue of alcohol safety limits will not go away. We feel strongly that those limits should apply across the board. We should have proper consultation about that soon as it is in the interests of public safety.

It might be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether the Bill will receive its Royal Assent before the general election. I accept that that is out of his control, but we are now in a race against time. We have always supported the Bill in principle, and I believe that we have helped to make it a more constructive one.

Mr. McLoughlin : Tonight will go down in history, and we shall often look back to the Official Report of this debate, because the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) admitted that he was about to cross the Floor and join the Conservative party. He said that he would be looking forward to sitting on this side of the House after the general election. The only way that he will do that is if he changes parties, and that will depend on him holding his seat--his majority is not all that good. I had to say that, because hon. Members have expressed their views about what may or may not happen in the forthcoming election.

Everybody has accepted that this is an important Bill that makes some important changes to the way in which the railway system is developed. I thank all hon. Members who served on the Committee, which explored the Bill thoroughly. We debated many amendments, some of which had been tabled by the Government because we were prepared to listen. Some of the debates were long. It will not surprise many to hear that we always failed to convince the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr.

Column 378

Spearing), no matter how far we took the changes we were prepared to make. I am sorry that we failed to convince him, but on this issue he is a lone voice because most members of the Committee wanted to see progress.

By removing the locus standi, the Bill will expand people's rights because that will enable them to make representations direct to the public inquiry, which is the preferable way to do these things. Normally, the other place is regarded as a revising Chamber, but we can rightly claim that we have already done a good job on the Bill, and not many issues will need revising. Most of the changes to the Bill that were requested have been made. I take it that that is the general view of all hon. Members who would like to see the Bill make progress.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) asked about alcohol limits. I know that he welcomes the general thrust of the Bill to cover these issues, because there has been the loophole that people could not be tested for alcohol levels. This was particularly drawn to our attention after the Cannon Street crash, when the coroner wanted the Government to take action. I agree with my hon. Friend that the best rule is for no one to work on the transport system when under the influence of drink. A zero limit is already required in the operators' rule book.

We do not believe that that could provide the basis for a criminal offence. We considered the options carefully and felt that there was an overriding case for consistency with the criminal sanctions in the road traffic legislation. It would be unjust to discriminate against the railwayman, and in the case of a tram the relevant personnel would be on the road. Differing limits would be unjustifiable in those circumstances.

My hon. Friend said that a number of professional people use the roads, including not just those in vehicles carrying the public, but those driving heavy goods vehicles which, as he rightly said, can be lethal weapons if the driver is over the alcohol limit. I know the keen interest with which my hon. Friend has pursued this matter on a number of occasions.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : If my hon. Friend were to say that he will send the report of this debate to the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, and see whether that is the right body to get the views of the unions and others involved, such as passengers, I should regard this part of the debate as satisfactory.

Mr. McLoughlin : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We consulted the commission when we started to draft the Bill, and it responded to the Government's consultation paper, welcoming the drink-drugs provisions which back up the operators' measures. I take my hon. Friend's point, and I am sure that the commission will look at this matter. It will also be possible under the Bill, as it is under the road traffic legislation, as he knows, to change those levels by affirmative order. I think that we have the right framework. If the case is made and it is decided at some future stage to change those limits, it will be easier to do so than it has been up to now.

I thank all hon. Members who served on the Committee and all the officials who served in preparing the Bill. As has been shown by the debate, the Bill is generally welcomed, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Column 379

Offshore Safety Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

7.25 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time Although this is a short Bill, and essentially a technical one, it is nevertheless crucial to the new safety regime that is a follow-up to the important report by Lord Cullen after the Piper Alpha disaster. It should go without saying that the Government have always placed the greatest possible importance on implementing all the measures in the Bill as quickly as possible, and on implementing measures that go beyond the Bill. We said from the outset, and it has been generally recognised and accepted, that the Bill is only one part, although an important part, of the overall follow-up to Lord Cullen's report.

I should like to place on record my appreciation of the positive approach taken by all hon. Members at every stage of the Bill. This was reflected on Second Reading and in Committee. Although the Bill was not much amended in Committee, a number of important points were raised during our sittings and I tried to answer them not only then but in correspondence subsequently. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Members who raised such points.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : The Minister will recollect that in Committee I raised the question of Cullen's recommendation 57. He kept his word and wrote to me but it would be useful if, either now or in his reply, he were to confirm that the Government are doing everything possible about the difficulties of gas getting into rigs, and particularly into accommodation in the light of Fulmar, about which he knows.

Mr. Forth : When pressed by the hon. Gentleman, I gave him an interim reply. I put it that way because the stage that we have reached is that the operators have been asked about the specific and important point that the hon. Gentleman raised, which was a key safety concern arising from Cullen. We have had replies from all the operators, some of which did not arrive until recently. We are looking carefully through them to assess the extent to which the operators are making a proper response to the Cullen recommendations. The inspectors will now be asked, during their inspections, to follow up responses to see how far they are satisfactorily being implemented. Needless to say, they will want to look particularly at any responses that are less than satisfactory, if that turns out to be the case.

I should stress that, under existing regulations and requirements, the primary responsibility for this important work is that of the employers and operators, and that will be even more true as we produce regulations following on the Bill, as and when it becomes an Act. I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance, in part thanks to the point that he has raised, that the executive is aware of this matter and has it in hand.

I took the trouble just before the debate--I thought that the hon. Gentleman might raise this point again--to satisfy myself yet again that the matter is well in hand. I am satisfied that, as this stage, it is. As and when any further information emerges, I undertake that we will let the hon. Gentleman know of the progress so that we can keep the

Next Section

Home Page