|
Mr. Spellar: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of York for explaining her amendment, and I hope to show that we have taken into account what it would achieve.
The rail accident investigation branch will investigate accidents and incidents relevant to the operation of the railway. The definition of railway property is drafted to reflect the places where a railway accident or incident would occur that could be the subject of an RAIB investigation. Extending the definition would mean that the RAIB had a duty to investigate accidents in a railway station back office, for example, which are more properly the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive.
During an investigation, RAIB inspectors will need to gain access to railway property, as well as to other
Column Number: 7
land or premises used in connection with the operations of the railways, if the inspector reasonably believes that they may contain evidence relevant to an accident or incident. I assure the hon. Lady that the premises of a railway company or those occupied by an employee in such circumstances could be entered using the powers in the Bill. With that assurance, I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.
Miss McIntosh: The amendment has served its purpose in eliciting an assurance from the Minister. He has not, however, responded to all the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and me. The powers are more extensive than those enjoyed by other investigation boards, but the Minister has satisfied me on that.
The amendment was also designed to establish whether the definition of what constitutes an adjoining house or property is exclusive, or whether the Minister is minded to interpret the provision more broadly along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Bath, whereby certain properties would automatically be excluded. It is an important point, although we shall not press it to a vote at this stage.
Many aspects of the Bill are non-controversial. The hon. Member for Bath is right that implementation will be left to the British Transport police. It is in the interest of Parliament to get it right now so that we do not have to revert to the Secretary of State's right to amend by regulation. I am a Scottish lawyer, which may amount to a vested interest, but I think that it is much better to get the Bill right first time rather than depend either on court cases alleging that the power is being abused, or on the Secretary of State's right to amend through regulations. We shall not press for a Division now, but we will return to the principle later.
We may not want a clause stand part debate on the point, but it would be helpful to know why a tramway in Scotland is excluded from the Bill's purpose under subsection (1). I hope that the Minister will explain that in due course.
Mr. Spellar: That question involves what matters are reserved and which devolved. It is slightly complicated by the fact that Scotland has no tramways, and I know of no proposals to change that.
Miss McIntosh: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Meaning of ''railway accident'' and
''railway incident''
Miss McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No.21, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No.1, in
Column Number: 8
clause 2, page 1, line 17, at end insert—
'(1A) A serious accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of a train or rail infrastructure in which—
(a) a person, whether employee, passenger or third party, suffers a fatal or serious injury; or
(b) a train sustains damage or structural failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance or characteristics of the trains, and would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component.
(1B) A non-serious accident and railway incident both mean an incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly or potentially occurred.'.
No.22, in
clause 2, page 1, line 17, at end insert—
'(1A) A serious accident shall be deemed to have occurred in circumstances in which—
(a) the operation of a train or collision with railway property has caused a fatality or serious injury involving an individual, whether employee, passenger or third party; or
(b) {**/ri**}a train or railway property sustains serious damage or structural failure which adversely affects the operations or the structural strength of the trains or railway property which would require a major repair or replacement of the train or closure of the railway property.
(1B) A non-serious accident and railway incident are deemed to have occurred in circumstances in which an accident nearly or potentially occurred.'.
Miss McIntosh: The purposes of amendment No. 21 are broadly similar to those of the previous amendment . It is designed to specify more tightly the definition of property, which should include reference to ''adjacent to railway property''. The items of a rail disaster would not spread out over as wide an area as the horrifying fall-out of the US shuttle—rail accidents tend to be more localised—but it would be helpful to specify that properties adjacent to railway buildings are included, which would lend further weight to the investigator's powers of investigation.
Amendment No. 1 arose from a far-ranging and excellent debate on Second Reading, in which the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) spoke powerfully about the lack of definition in the Bill of what counts as an accident or an incident.
9.15 am
In his introduction to the Second Reading debate, the Secretary of State mentioned that a degree of latitude would be given to the rail accident investigation branch in deciding which types of accident should be investigated. Members of the Committee will have had the opportunity to study the detailed briefing provided by the Royal National Institute of the Blind on the sort of accident that may not lead to a fatality or serious injury, but may still be significantly harmful to individuals. For example, someone with an eye infection or, like the Under-Secretary, with a streaming cold may be deprived of normal vision. He may be only temporarily impaired, but could easily trip over a step on accessing a platform. It would significantly reassure such a person if the Government allowed such incidents to be deemed worthy of investigation.
I shall leave the hon. Member for Bath to speak to his amendment, but amendment No. 22 is designed to press the argument that non-serious accidents and
Column Number: 9
incidents should be deemed to have occurred and be viewed as potentially significant in certain circumstances. Following the scenario through, someone tripping on the platform could roll on to the track and cause a serious accident. The amendment is designed to elicit the Minister's clarification of how far-reaching the RAIB's discretion will be.
The Secretary of State said on Second Reading:
''The whole point in having a rail accident investigation branch is precisely in order to get an explanation of what happened as quickly as possible.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 766.]
He went on to say that that was the purpose of setting up the body. We should enable the RAIB through clause 2(1) to decide precisely what type of accident should be investigated.
We believe that a serious accident should be deemed to have occurred where
''the operation of a train or collision with railway property has caused a fatality or serious injury involving an individual, whether employee, passenger or third party''.
The Potters Bar crash was the first occasion on which I saw vividly the consequences of a railway carriage collision, but only last week disaster was narrowly averted on the Central line when a railway carriage collided with a tunnel on entering a station. The Secretary of State alluded to the fact that the RAIB would have been authorised to investigate those two accidents, but it would be far better if the Bill included such a definition.
Our amendment goes on to specify
''a train or railway property sustains serious damage or structural failure which adversely affects the operations or the structural strength of the trains or railway property which would require a major repair or replacement of the train or closure of the railway property.''
We believe that that is a fairly concise definition, but it would help the RAIB and the investigators if the Government said what a serious or non-serious accident or railway incident should be.
Again, in response to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, the Secretary of State said that there would be
''sufficient latitude under clause 6 to allow the chief inspector to take a decision as to whether or not he ought to investigate.'' .''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 772.]
I humbly submit that it is not sufficient to leave that to clause 6. We need a clear and concise definition. With the Potters Bar and Central line accidents in mind, we propose amendments Nos. 21 and 22 as probing amendments that would strengthen the Bill. Indeed, the Minister's hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, pleaded with him to include a concise definition.
Mr. Foster: I thank the hon. Lady for her introduction to her amendments. We, too, were impressed by the compelling arguments made by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby on Second Reading. However, it is not enough to leave the issue to clause 6 on the assumption that it somehow resolves the problem. Clause 6 is clear about what the RAIB may or may not do. It states:
''The Rail Accident Investigation Branch—
(a) shall investigate any serious railway accident,
Column Number: 10
(b) may investigate a non-serious railway accident or a railway incident, and
(c) shall investigate a non-serious railway accident or incident if required to do so by or in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.''
In other words, the distinction between a serious railway accident, which the RAIB is required to investigate, and a non-serious railway accident or incident, which it might or might not investigate, is clearly important. I am delighted that the Secretary of State told us on Second Reading that the RAIB will be given a fair degree of latitude in what it investigates. Nevertheless, unless we have clear definitions of what the terms mean, it will be difficult for us to know exactly what is in the Government's mind on clause 6.
The Minister will rightly tell us that the air accident investigation branch and the marine accident investigation branch do not have detailed definitions in their legislation, and that definitions of this sort in relation to their work are covered by regulations. However, we are again in some difficulty because we do not yet have even draft regulations to give us some idea of what is in the Minister's mind. The probing amendments are important in helping to tease out from the Government exactly what definitions they have in mind.
In a spirit of openness and honesty that might surprise hon. Members, I must say that I am now rather more taken with the hon. Lady's second amendment than I am with my own. She is right to refer to properties adjoining the railway, as we can all imagine several accidents or incidents that might result from, for example, an electricity power line near a railway. Nevertheless, as the hon. Lady has said, these are probing amendments intended to give us a more detailed insight into the Government's thinking. We hope that the Minister will at least tell us when we will see draft regulations.
Either now or during the debate on clause 6, it would be helpful to hear a little more about the Government's thinking on the degree of latitude that is to be offered to the RAIB. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the air accident investigation branch quite rightly believes that it is important to investigate potential incidents, such as near misses. We can learn a great deal from those. Similarly, on the railways there could be investigations into the sort of incidents referred to by the hon. Lady, who mentioned that the Royal National Institute of the Blind has provided information.
The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby was on to an important point when he said that we need some clear indications about definitions. I am not too concerned whether that happens in regulations or the Bill, so long as we are given an early opportunity to know what will be in the regulations, if that is the route that is followed.
|
