Railways and Transport Safety Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Miss McIntosh: I want to put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. There are no trams in Scotland, yet the Bill will apply to trams. On the same basis, there are no trolley buses at this time in England. However, I am sure that the Government would not wish to preclude the possibility of their return.

Mr. Jamieson: Indeed not. The provision exists in anticipation that the Scots may wish to provide trams in Scotland.

Let us move to the point about the trolley vehicle system. That means, according to section 67 of the Transport and Works Act 1992,

''a system of transport by vehicles constructed or adapted for use on roads without rails under electric power transmitted to them by overhead wires (whether or not there is in addition a source of power on board the vehicles);''

I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Lady. I assure her that British Transport police will not cover trolley vehicles because they do not travel on rails; they are buses. The guided bus referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North is also in the same category—bus, not rail.

Mr. Randall: Would that last point about the guided bus not come under subsection (3)(f), which refers to

''rolling stock on a network or tramway'',

or subsection (3)(h), which refers to

''a vehicle used on a tramway''?

What is the difference between a tramway and a railway?

Mr. Jamieson: The difference is that the tramway has a rail, and the guided bus does not run on a rail. That is the simple answer to that.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge wanted precise definitions of each category. They could be read into the record, but it would take a long time and would be rather boring. The categories have all been set out, and if members of the Committee want precise definitions of all terminology, I will be happy to provide a note rather than go through them now.

Clause 72 defines terms used in the jurisdiction of the British Transport police, including public policing and public areas of railways. Clause 1 provides the areas where rail accident investigators have jurisdiction. The Bill describes the meaning of railway property clearly in two places. The list contained in part 3 goes a little wider to make it clear that railway property covers wider scenarios and in respect of which persons could be required to enter into an agreement under clause 31.

Mr. Foster: I listed three items: a railway vehicle on a network or tramway, a train used on a network and a vehicle used on a tramway. If part 3 goes wider, does that mean that the RAIB would not carry out investigations in relation to that property, whereas the British Transport police can carry out investigations in respect of alleged crimes on such property?

Column Number: 361

Mr. Jamieson: I hope that I have understood the hon. Gentleman's question. The RAIB's area of jurisdiction was set out in part 1. Part 3 sets out the responsibilities of the British Transport police. I thought that that was fairly clear. The hon. Member mentioned particular railway vehicles or tramways, but, as far as I understand it, those would be identical.

Mr. Randall: I want to elicit from the Minister whether the other matters that the hon. Member for Bath mentioned are inside or outside the jurisdiction of the RAIB.

Mr. Jamieson: On the two points that the hon. Member for Bath made, the RAIB would investigate if there were accidents on such vehicles. The hon. Member for Uxbridge mentioned railway property and asked about clause 72(3)(e) and (h). Paragraph (e) mentions

''a railway vehicle on a network or tramway''.

In other words, the railway vehicle could be used on either. Paragraph (h) mentions

''a vehicle used on a tramway''—

that is, the vehicle used only on a tramway. The intention is to cover the two circumstances where some vehicles can be used on both and some can only be used on a tram network. I hope that that has covered those important points.

Miss McIntosh: Clearly, it has not. We will have to return to this issue. I invite the Government to come up with a much clearer definition than is currently in the Bill because there will be enormous problems in establishing the precise jurisdiction of the RAIB. Although we discussed it in a very light-hearted fashion, that is precisely why I drew attention to the difference between a trolley bus and a tram. It is obviously important with regard this issue, too.

Subsection (5)(a) refers to a ''light maintenance depot''. It is interesting that the subsection refers not to a locomotive, but to a train. The corresponding section 83(1) of the Railways Act 1993, which is mentioned for these purposes, gives a definition of a locomotive. Is that because we are all now meant to know what a locomotive is as opposed to a train? The list of definitions is not comprehensive. We are trying to help the Government—[Interruption.] We differ and oppose the Government on some issues, but here we want to help by ensuring that the definitions are so clear that endless debates and court cases about the jurisdiction of the rail accident investigation branch can be avoided. Subsection (5) refers to both a light maintenance depot and a train, but I wonder why it does not also refer to a locomotive. Network is also mentioned, so why not locomotive?

11.15 am

Mr. Foster: Never let it be thought that anyone should seek to delay our proceedings so that we deal with alcohol after lunch, but I suspect that that is happening. I agree with the hon. Member for Vale of York that anyone listening to our deliberations might think that we are off our trolleys. [Interruption.] I just thought it up.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport stated on the record that the definitions of railway

Column Number: 362

property in part 1 are specifically drawn. More precisely, he said that the definition

''is drafted to reflect the places where a railway accident or incident would occur that could be the subject of an RAIB investigation.''

He continued:

''Extending the definition would mean that the RAIB had a duty to investigate accidents in a railway station back office, for example''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 4 February 2003; c.6.]

I refer to it again because the Minister has not answered the question why the definitions of railway property in part 3 include several examples of property that are not included earlier. In responding to the hon. Member for Vale of York, he said that the RAIB would investigate an accident if, for example, it occurred on a train used on a network. Why is that formulation not included in part 1? We have received no clear answer to that, which is disappointing. As the hon. Lady said, we will at least have an opportunity to return to these matters later.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74

Extent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Miss McIntosh: We referred earlier to a tramway in Scotland. It is right and proper to recognise that Scotland has no trams at the moment, but it may well in future. Equally, we want to allow for the possibility of the return of trolley buses. As we said in respect of clause 72, we urge the Government to table appropriate definitions before the Bill leaves this place.

Mr. Jamieson: May I say a few words about this brief clause? It establishes the current territorial extent of this part of the Bill. It applies to Great Britain, but tramways—even though they do not yet exist in Scotland—are excluded as a devolved matter. If a tramway were to come into operation in Scotland, it would be for the Scottish Parliament to determine appropriate arrangements for its policing. The British Transport police currently operate throughout England, Scotland and Wales, but not in Northern Ireland. The clause does not change that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75

Professional staff on duty

Miss McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in

clause 75, page 31, line 7, after 'to', insert

'any person employed in any capacity aboard a vessel, including'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 76, in

clause 75, page 31, line 10, at end insert—

'(d) a person whose primary and main function is the command of a vessel carrying passengers for a fee.'.

Column Number: 363

Miss McIntosh: I am delighted that the Committee is moving on to a perhaps more controversial part of the Bill, although we are not necessarily in disagreement with the Government. The provisions are a response to a gap in the law whereby there is no legislation to regulate alcohol consumption in the maritime industry, other than a general provision in section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Clauses 75 and 77 define the respective persons covered by the Bill. We believe that the clause should be more specific and we wish to probe the Minister on whether he would see fit to extend the definition.

The amendment relates to subsection (1), which limits the definition to

''(a) a professional master of a ship''—

I think that we all recognise who a professional master of a ship is—

''(b) a professional pilot of a ship, and

(c) a professional seaman in a ship while on duty.''

We heard from the Government on Second Reading that, in relation to, I think, pilots of ships, they could imagine circumstances whereby a professional mariner may not be on duty, but may be required to be on duty—they may be second on call, or whatever. How widely will the phrase ''while on duty'' be defined? Will the definition be exclusive or will it include those about to go on duty within a certain number of hours?

I shall confine my comments now to the amendment. It has been put to us that perhaps a

Column Number: 364

clearer definition of a professional mariner or professional staff on duty would be

''any person employed in any capacity aboard a vessel, including'',

and then the definition continues. The amendment is a probing amendment. We hope to have an indication from the Minister as to how widely the provisions will be interpreted. Similarly, amendment No. 76 would add a subsection (1)(d) that would refer to

''a person whose primary and main function is the command of a vessel carrying passengers for a fee.''

There is some concern in the industry that the current definition does not cover every potential category of those who should be covered.

As drafted, the title of the clause is ''Professional staff on duty'', whereas we had, I think, an indication from the Secretary of State that the provisions would apply to those who were about to go on duty. It might be of some assistance if the Minister gave some thought as to how such matters could be defined. Does the Minister intend to consider the rota for those first on call or those second on call?

We shall, I hope, have a broader debate on part 4 later, and we recognise the background.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

The following Members attended the Committee:
Hood, Mr. Jimmy (Chairman)
Bacon, Mr.
Brake, Tom
Cairns, David
Clapham, Mr.
Foster, Mr. Don
Hopkins, Mr.
Jamieson, Mr.
Lazarowicz, Mr.
McIntosh, Miss
Mahmood, Mr.
Murrison, Dr.
Perham, Linda
Randall, Mr.
Ryan, Joan
Spellar, Mr.
Watts, Mr.

 

---

Prepared 27 February 2003