Railways and Transport Safety Bill

[back to previous text]

Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge): I am glad that my hon. Friend has referred to tramways, because I was a little concerned that one minute they were included and the next they were not. She thinks that, if they are along a road, the police would be involved. However, tramways are sometimes separate from roads. Does my hon. Friend believe that there would be a difference in that respect?

Miss McIntosh: I hope that the Under-Secretary will put our minds at rest on that. To be honest, I do not have a clue, so I should be grateful if he would take this opportunity to clarify that. We need to be sure whether we are talking about a tram running on a tramway or running on a road that operates as a tramway, and whether trolley vehicle systems—they were called trolley buses when I was a little girl—are specifically excluded because we do not have them. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for seeking that further clarification from the Government.

It is expected that an accident affecting a rail-running part of a tramway would be investigated by the rail accident investigation branch. This is no joking matter. I am a non-practising lawyer, but I might in future have to interpret the provision on behalf of a client. It would therefore be helpful to know the circumstances in which the rail accident investigation branch and the police will conduct investigations.

Will the Under-Secretary elaborate on the extent to which a further definition set out in section 83 of the 1993 Act is still relevant? Obviously, that was a very good Act, passed under a very good Government. We applaud their achievements and pause to pay homage to them. One definition in that section relates to premises, which are described as including

    ''any land, building or structure''.

I presume that the Under-Secretary will confirm today that that definition stands unamended and that we are not diluting that interpretation in any shape or form.

At the consultation stage, comments were invited on the proposal that a statutory objective of the rail accident investigation branch should be that its fundamental purpose is to undertake investigations and inquiries that look for the root causes of accidents, without apportioning blame or liability. On the face of it, the Bill does not deal with manslaughter and whether criminal responsibility will arise, and nor does it state whether the branch will investigate such matters under clause 6. Will the Under-Secretary put our minds at rest and say whether the Bill also covers corporate liability?

Column Number: 049

I am grateful to the Library for giving me a full copy of the relevant regulations. Regulation 4 of the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accident and Incidents) Regulations 1996 states that

    ''the sole objective of the investigation shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents. It shall not be the purpose of such an investigation to apportion blame or liability.''

We discussed this morning the extent to which the rail safety and standards board will have a role to play in the prevention of accidents, and the Bill should refer to that work. The Bill is wrongly silent on the subject and it should have been more specific.

Regulation 4 of the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reports and Investigation) Regulations 1999 implemented provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which is obviously a laudable provision as it was enacted under a Conservative Administration. It states that

    ''the fundamental purpose of investigating an accident under these regulations is to determine its circumstances and the causes with the aim of improving the safety of life at sea and the avoidance of accidents in the future. It is not the purpose to apportion liability, nor, except so far as is necessary to achieve the fundamental purpose, to apportion blame.''

We are asked to take it as read that clause 6(3) and (5) taken together provide that although the rail accident investigation branch is not to consider blame or liability, it can still make a report or a determination of the cause from which liability or blame may be inferred. I have difficulty with the breathtaking sweep of clause 6, especially subsections (3) and (5). Subsection (3) states:

    ''In investigating an accident or incident the Branch shall try to determine what caused it.''

Subsection (5) states:

    ''In performing a function in relation to an accident or incident the Branch—

    (a) shall not consider or determine blame or liability''.

Why are those provisions in the Bill rather than in regulations, as was the case with the maritime and aviation legislation? What the Under-Secretary proposes is most welcome, and it is something I have argued for. It would be nice to know that it is not a typographical error but an opportunity for the Government to sing their own praises.

Clause 6(6) states:

    ''The Branch may conduct an investigation and report whether or not civil or criminal proceedings are in progress or may be instituted''.

Will the Under-Secretary say whether the rail accident investigation branch will decide whether criminal or civil proceedings will be brought if it is acting independently or whether it will work closely with the police?

In subsection (7) the chief inspector of rail accidents is given the power to apply to the High Court or the Crown court

    ''for a declaration that the making of a report in connection with a specified accident or incident will not amount to a contempt of court in relation to civil or criminal proceedings which have been or may be instituted in connection with the accident or incident''.

That raises a practical problem that must be overcome. As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, the

Column Number: 050

Bill's objective is a swift investigation leading to a speedy outcome.

If the prospect raised under subsection (7) is that either the court proceedings or the investigation will be delayed so that court proceedings can conclude, which of the proceedings will have priority? Will it be the proceedings of the rail accident investigation branch under clause 6 or would the normal criminal or civil proceedings be allowed to run their course?

Subsection (8) states:

    ''The Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents may reopen an investigation if he believes that significant new evidence may be available''.

If my distant memory serves me, the statutory limitation period is seven years if an accident or incident, non-serious or serious, takes place. One would normally expect seven years to be sufficient time for all the evidence to emerge.

We support in principle the setting up of the rail accident investigation branch. However, I find breathtaking the extent to which we are being asked to give an open-ended commitment to allow the chief inspector of rail accidents to act completely on his own without applying to a court of law or seeking any authorisation other than his own hand. As a non-practising lawyer I have some difficulty with that. It would assist us if the Under-Secretary would say whether the seven-year statutory limitation will apply.

Clause 6 is not as innocent as one might imagine on the first reading. The Government have departed from the practice set out in connection with the Civil Aviation Act 1982 which relies heavily on the helpful latest regulations under the Civil Aviation Act (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations 1996, as well as from the procedures set up by the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as elaborated in the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 1999. It would help us to know the reasons for those departures, which may be welcome. The Minister may agree that it is best that the regulations are written into the Bill rather than implemented under it. We need to know whether the proceedings of the RAIB have priority over civil and criminal court proceedings. We also need to know whether there is a statutory element of limitation, or whether, as it would appear, the chief inspector of rail accidents is given a completely open-ended power to re-open an investigation at any time if he believes that significant new evidence may be available. It may also be helpful to know what that significant new evidence might entail.

3.15 pm

Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington): I had intended to reserve the most devastating of my arguments on this subject until the debate on clause 7, when we were to debate our amendment No. 10. However, due to a minor typographical error, the amendment appears against clause 7, when it should appear against clause 6, which hampers my attempt to support it.

Amendment No. 10 is pertinent to clause 6(5), which relates to blame or liability. As hon. Members

Column Number: 051

are aware, at the Ladbroke Grove inquiry, Dr. Walter of Railtrack's Safety and Standards Directorate said:

    ''a fear of prosecution''

was

    ''hampering the free and open recognition of error and hence the proper learning of lessons''.

Furthermore, Railtrack, as it then was, argued that a potential benefit of a rail accident investigation branch in separating operation from safety regulation was

    ''the greater ability to focus on root causes and to identify the lessons without blame requiring to be apportioned.''

Paragraphs (a) and (b) do not clarify liability. Paragraph (a) says that the branch

    ''shall not consider or determine blame or liability''.

However, paragraph (b) says that the branch can still allow liability to be inferred from a report on the cause of an accident or incident. I shall be honest and admit that we do not have a ready answer to this dilemma, but I hope that the Minister will say how he will be able to balance the need for investigations that are unhampered by the risk of prosecution, as stated by Dr. Walter, with the understandable need for people to be satisfied that those responsible are dealt with so that public confidence is restored.

 
Previous Contents Continue

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index


©Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 4 February 2003