| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex): I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement and for providing me in advance with a copy of it and of the three reports. I join him in his renewed expression of sympathy for those involved in the Paddington crash.
The Conservatives will shortly submit proposals on rail safety reform to the Cullen inquiry for consideration. We support entirely the Government's objective of strengthening the safety culture on the railway--immediately, if possible. However, the railways could learn from civil aviation, an industry that is privatised and fragmented but enjoys the best safety record of the transport industries.
We want the Cullen inquiry to consider whether the railway inspectorate should be removed from the health and safety inspectorate, and put in a specialist legislative framework with the rail regulator, thus resembling the Civil Aviation Authority.
The Cullen inquiry should consider whether the Government should establish a new independent rail accident investigation branch of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, similar to that which exists for air and marine accidents to ensure the impartiality of investigations. It should also consider whether Railtrack should continue to be responsible for the safety and standards directorate and, if so, in what form.
We have already recommended an independent chairman for the safety and standards directorate. The report issued this morning recommends that its prime functions--setting group standards and the intra-industry system of safety assurance--remain in Railtrack. Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that recommendation?
I shall remind the House of the chronology of events that surround the safety and standards directorate. The intensity of the immediate reaction to the Paddington disaster on 5 October demanded a cool head and measured judgment. On Wednesday 6 October, the day after the fatal crash, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Cullen inquiry, and we gave that decision the fullest possible support. When I visited the crash site with Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, the Minister for Transport, on Friday 8 October, he gave no hint that the Government were about to do anything precipitate.
Why, therefore, did we read in newspapers on Sunday 10 October that the Government were to "strip" Railtrack of its safety role? The Deputy Prime Minister has had to change his mind, and I respect him for coming to the House to make his announcement. However, I ask him to reflect on whether his briefing to the Sunday papers on Friday 8 and Saturday 9 October contributed anything to rail safety. Is not there a lesson to be learned? Does the Deputy Prime Minister recall the words of Sir Alastair Morton, the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, who gave the following warning:
I welcome the conclusion of Sir David Davies' inquiry, which vindicates the decisions of the Deputy Prime Minister and his predecessors to proceed with TPWS. What assurances can the right hon. Gentleman give that the next generation of ATP and computerised train control systems, which we all support, can be delivered? What assurances can he give about the increase in the number of signals passed at danger in the past month? What does he learn from the most recent figures and when will the welcome initiative on driver training begin to bear fruit?
It is our duty to question and hold the Deputy Prime Minister to account on this matter as on any other. However, I assure him that we shall put no obstacle in his path to prevent the improvement of rail safety, not only
for the sake of today's rail passengers and staff but for those who were injured, those who died and those who were bereaved last October.
Mr. Prescott:
I thank the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for his statement and his intention to give evidence to the Cullen inquiry. We should all do that if we believe that lessons can be learned and improvements made.
Some of the hon. Gentleman's statements tried to rewrite history. I do not want to go into detail, but I shall respond to two points that he made. I am glad that he welcomes Sir David Davies' recommendation on TPWS, but the previous Administration did not make a decision on that. This Government made the decision. Arguments took place in the previous Administration about whether they should adopt TPWS and, indeed, ATP.
Mr. Prescott:
Well, it is a matter of record. I shall not go into the arguments, but we had to make a decision. That is why I came to the House and made the decision. However, that is history.
If we can combine to improve safety on the railways, I welcome that. I also welcome the hon. Gentleman's first point and the general tone of his response, for which I am grateful.
On whether there should be a separate regulatory body similar to the Civil Aviation Authority, although I understand the respect that is shown for it as a safety regulatory body, it was hoped that the same might have been achieved for the maritime safety body, but after the Marchioness affair people do not feel quite the same. There is no guarantee that that will occur, but my point is that the Select Committee made it absolutely clear that it wants a separate transport safety body. That is why I set up the transport safety review, which is about to report. There are a number of options--the hon. Gentleman identified one or two and I look forward to the debates on that matter--but it is important to separate the safety and commercial functions. Let me now deal with his point about Railtrack.
Under health and safety legislation, every company in this country--whether a railway company or not--has a direct responsibility for safety. Nobody has ever suggested that Railtrack should be stripped of its direct safety responsibilities, but, like the Health and Safety Executive report, we draw a distinction. I ask the hon. Gentleman to believe that I did not brief on that report. I should make it clear that that is not my style; I do not play that way--I did not do so even yesterday, I might add. The separation of those responsibilities was asked for. Group standards affect the train operating companies, for example, and they complained of unfairness and a conflict of interest because Railtrack administers railway system standards.
I initiated two reports--one by the Health and Safety Executive and another, to which I am referring today, by my Department--which confirmed that judgment. That is why I have separated those responsibilities--I have not left responsibility for governing group safety with Railtrack. I ask the hon. Gentleman to read the reports to see why I have reached that conclusion. The separation of powers is clear to this extent: there is an independent
company and an independent chairman--[Interruption.] Well, we shall continue the debate, but the prime purpose of the statement is to show exactly what the reports asked of me--that there should be separation.
There could be an argument for going all the way and legislating to take safety out completely, but I would like to hear what Lord Cullen has to say. However, I am not prepared to do nothing and wait for him. I believe that the statement will improve safety. My obligation is to achieve the best possible safety on the railway system, and that is what I have recommended today.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich):
My right hon. Friend cares very much about railway safety and when he identified Ladbroke Grove as the watershed he expressed the views of many of the people of this country. Can he tell us, therefore, whether the independent company will be a subsidiary of Railtrack? If so, to whom will the independent chairman report? Will he report directly to the Secretary of State and not through Railtrack under any circumstances?
My right hon. Friend will be aware that, since the accident, not one senior Railtrack executive, apart from the person responsible for public relations, has been required to resign. That is a matter of considerable astonishment. Can he give the House a very precise timetable for the implementation by the train operating companies and Railtrack of the new TPWS that he suggests? That can be only an interim measure before we move on, in the next decade, to the new and much tougher equipment.
Mr. Prescott:
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. The work of her Select Committee has influenced us a great deal in these matters. She asks when TPWS can be implemented. The date has been brought forward by a year, so I can confirm that it should be implemented by 2003. However, I would not want people to believe that that is all we are doing. ATP is already being implemented in the system and it is important that we continue with that, but the argument is about achieving the best balance and the best mix. Going with one--at least TPWS, but not ATP--would not achieve the best possible safety. However, adopting the TPWS recommendation means that about 70 or 75 per cent. of accidents can be avoided, so it is my obligation to implement it as quickly as possible. As Sir David Davies says, it will take the best part of eight or 10 years to implement ATP completely, but I have to make a judgment for the safety not only of train drivers, but of the passengers on the system. We must also consider prevention. That is sufficient justification for me to act today.
The company that is being set up will have an independent chair and the directors will be appointed by the company. It will be a subsidiary of Railtrack.
"If you change the rail safety regime in haste, you will repent it at leisure"?
I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's assurance that nothing that he has said today or on previous occasions is intended to limit the remit of the Cullen inquiry. Whatever our view of the issues, that is the basis on which we supported his decision to set up the inquiry. That is also the view of the victims' families.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |