|
The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): I thank the hon. Lady for making my speech as well as hers.
Miss McIntosh: I am just practising.
Column Number: 79
Mr. Spellar: That is all right. A long apprenticeship is obviously needed.
The hon. Lady raised many points that I wanted to make about precedent and practicality. The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 is no more detailed about the marine accident investigation branch chief inspector's functions. It simply says that regulations may specify the functions of the chief inspector and MAIB inspectors. The powers of the rail accident investigation branch inspectors have been modelled on those of MAIB inspectors.
The hon. Lady rightly asked about the consultations that took place on the regulations. Those are intended to help us to draft the regulations, not just the Bill. We will consult on the regulations shortly after Royal Assent. She also asked about any differences in the aviation accident investigation branch and the experience of parallel bodies. The AAIB has seen the Bill and says that it has experienced no problems with similar provisions. The hon. Lady asked about our general consultation on the Bill and on what could be in draft regulations. We hope to publish a response to the consultation shortly—probably within the next month.
We have drawn on two successful models, exactly as Lord Cullen recommended, and we have asked how we can implement the best practice and procedures appropriate to the railways. How do we outline the functions of the inspector? In what framework will detailed regulations be drawn up and, if necessary, subsequently amended, without the need to return to primary legislation? Out of practicality, we are right to draw on experience, and we have struck the right balance between proper parliamentary scrutiny of the broad powers and a practical policy for implementation.
Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful to the Minister and may be able to assist him. He said that the Government would come forward with the regulations shortly after Royal Assent, but the word ''shortly'' means different things to different people. Will he put a time scale on that?
We have not yet reached the crux of the Opposition's concern. The enabling powers given under the Civil Aviation Act 1982, for which the most recent regulations were published in 1996, specify the powers of the inspector more precisely and define his functions. I am relatively new to politics, and so perhaps can still be surprised. I should like to know whether it is normal for a clause—in a Bill that is not the most controversial before the House—to state that a function shall be conferred on the chief inspector of a branch through regulations, without the House knowing when those regulations will come into force or having a chance to be consulted on the functions.
We discussed that matter at some length under clause 7, which covers the investigator's powers. The chief inspector's powers to inspect rail accidents and to enter land, which may include private property and dwelling houses, are very extensive. The 1996 implementing regulations of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 specifically state that the inspector shall be
Column Number: 80
equipped with a summons, albeit one made under his own hand. That gives the inspector very wide-ranging powers.
In the context of the Government's own Human Rights Act 1998, I am concerned that a number of people will object to the powers and the function of the chief inspector, and that we are being asked, in good faith, to agree that those functions will be decided later. I will revert to a similar point later in our discussions. The Minister is taking an awful lot for granted if he believes that the Opposition will agree to confer functions on the chief inspector through enabling legislation without having had any indication of what those functions might be.
The powers of the chief inspector are extensive, and the impact of a rail accident will be fairly localised. We are not considering the situation of a tanker accident at sea, or an air accident on the scale of Lockerbie, where damage and the fallout from the aircraft are spread over very large areas. The impact will be localised, and it should be easy to identify the affected areas. However, I ask the Minister to allow us to discuss the functions of the chief inspector. This is an appropriate point at which to discuss that, as the Secretary of State promised that we could have a lengthy and full debate in the Committee about the contents of the various clauses. Will the Minister share with us the functions of the chief inspector and the way in which the inspector will discharge those functions?
Mr. Spellar: We have been going over old ground already discussed under previous clauses. I stress again to the hon. Lady that the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 is brief about the functions of the chief inspector, and the details are left to the marine accident branch regulations. I do not want to be repetitious, and I have already outlined the reasons why we are acting in that way.
The hon. Lady also asked for a definition of ''shortly''. As ever in Government responses, ''shortly'' means shortly.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Requirement to investigate
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Don Foster (Bath): Good morning to you, Mr Hurst, and to the Committee?
I listened with interest to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), and I have considerable sympathy with many of her points. She is right that the Committee deserves more information about what regulations may contain and a better understanding of the Government's thinking on various aspects of the Bill. That is also true for clause 9. The hon. Lady will have several points to make, so, not wishing to steal her thunder, I will concentrate solely on two aspects.
Column Number: 81
I am looking in particular at subsection (2)(a). Subsection (1) says that the inspector will be able to
''direct that any railway accident or railway incident of a specified kind or which occurs in specified circumstances shall be investigated by each person who managed or controls, or participates in managing or controlling, all or any part of railway property.''
The chief inspector will rightly be able to direct persons to carry out investigations by the industry. However, subsection (2)(a) says that the directions
''shall specify the manner in which the investigation is to be conducted.''
My reading of that is that the direction will detail how the investigation is to be carried out. That is interesting because it implies that the rail accident investigation branch and chief inspector will tell the industry body—a train operating company, Network Rail or a rolling stock operating company, for example—how to go about an investigation rather than allow it to use any relevant expertise to search for the cause of that accident or incident.
It is equally interesting that having said that the chief inspector will specify the manner in which the investigation will be carried out, the direction appears not to detail the issues that the investigation will cover. Will the Minister make it clear that nothing in the direction will prevent an industry body from investigating any aspect of an accident or incident from which it believes it can learn lessons to improve future railway safety?
My second point is about subsection (6). Earlier parts of the clause specify that if a direction is given to a person to carry out an industry investigation and the person fails to do so, he or she will be deemed guilty of an offence. That is understandable. If there is a clear requirement to carry out an investigation and a person refuses to do so, there must be some sanction. However, I have some difficultly in understanding why subsection (6) says:
''But in proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (3) of failing to comply with a direction it shall not be necessary to prove that he was aware of the direction.''
Will the Minister explain in what circumstances it would be appropriate for someone to be deemed to be guilty without clear evidence that they knew that they had been issued with a direction to carry out such an investigation? There may be good reasons for that, but it would be helpful for future cases if the Minister stated firmly for the record the cases in which the Government believe that the subsection is important and should apply.
9.30 am
Miss McIntosh: My questions are not dissimilar from those on the issues explored in the debate on clause 8.
Subsection (1) provides the chief inspector of rail accidents with the power to direct that an industry investigation be carried out by the relevant party. Subsection (3) creates a new offence and makes it an
Column Number: 82
offence for that party to ignore that direction. I shall dwell for a moment on subsection (1) and let the words speak for themselves:
Curiously, the explanatory notes, which are so helpful on other clauses, say nothing about clause 9. I question its drafting, as there appears to be another typographical error. There has already been at least one, and there are one or two more on today's amendment paper. The Department must be much more careless than it was when the Conservatives were in government, but the Minister is responsible and I am sure that he will give us good reasons for the errors.
Will the Minister say what is a railway accident or railway incident ''of a specified kind'', and what are ''specified circumstances''? On Second Reading and in Committee, we have explored at length what constitutes an accident or an incident, although I hesitate to suggest that the Opposition parties have been more helpful in defining an accident or incident than the Government or the Bill have been.
It is unacceptable that a new offence is created under the clause. Under subsection (4),
''a person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (3) shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or,
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.''
Subsection (3) says:
''A person to whom a direction under subsection (1) applies commits an offence if he fails to comply with it.''
It is incumbent on the Committee to be able to explain to people what the specified circumstances are and what the specified railway accidents and railway incidents would be.
Again, subsection (2) is far reaching. It states:
''A direction—
(a) shall specify the manner in which the investigation is to be conducted; and
(b) may make provision for a case where more than one person would be required to conduct an investigation, whether by requiring a joint investigation or by requiring or enabling one or more persons to conduct an investigation on behalf of others.''
That is a very sweeping direction, and the Bill should be more specific.
Subsection (5) states:
''The Chief Inspector shall publish a direction issued by him under subsection (1) in a manner which he considers will bring it to the attention of each person who is likely to be required to comply with it.''
How does the Committee know that the manner in which the investigation is to be conducted will be sufficiently public and well directed? How do we know that the person to whom the direction has been issued will know that it is directed against him or that he will pay any attention to it? What is the purpose of the clause? It would seem to have a very serious purpose as it creates a new offence that carries a not insubstantial penalty. The chief inspector is given a specific power,
Column Number: 83
but we are no further forward in knowing what his function is under clause 8. We do not know how the person to whom the direction is issued will be informed of it, or whether he will have committed an offence.
On reflection, the Minister may feel that the clause is not as well drafted as it might be, and I would sympathise with him in that respect. However, if he honestly believes that the clause is well drafted, I have some substantive questions. In two or three years' time, hon. Members might be approached by a constituent who has been issued with a direction and not even known that he or she had committed an offence. The clause's drafting is questionable; if the Government want to create a new offence they should be much more specific in stating that the offence will be brought directly to the attention of the person concerned, and in specifying the manner in which the chief inspector will do that.
| 
