Railways and Transport Safety Bill
|
Mr. Bacon: I am trying to establish which convention we are referring to—never mind the new one. There are various conventions: the convention on the future of Europe, to which she is not referring, the charter of fundamental rights and the European convention on human rights. Miss McIntosh: I was trying desperately not to use the term COTIF, but for my hon. Friend's benefit I shall now talk about that, instead of the convention. The convention on international carriage by rail, known as COTIF, forms the basis of clause 100, which deals with the new provisions. I understand that under COTIF there is a potential ban on the carriage of certain goods by rail, that those may be considered to be in contravention, or interfering with,
of the European convention on human rights—and that
If that is right, I would like to hear about it from the Minister responsible. A producer of hazardous goods that are deemed too dangerous to be carried by rail under COTIF may be able to oppose the prohibition on transporting his goods by rail on the grounds that, under article 1 of the first protocol, his freedom and right to develop and enjoy his economic interests have been compromised. Column Number: 513 The prohibition on the carrying of certain dangerous goods by rail would also go towards ensuring that the UK upheld article 8, which deals with the right to respect a person's home. That right might otherwise be affected by environmental blight or pollution caused by the carriage of those goods. If chemicals or hazardous products were carried by rail and there were an accident and a spillage, people's enjoyment of their private property or dwelling could be damaged. Such people would, therefore, have a different interest. Will the new convention, COTIF, which is the basis for the provisions in clause 100, mean that certain dangerous goods may no longer be carried by rail? If that is the case, surely they are too dangerous to be carried by ship or plane, so how will such goods reach their destination? How will firms that need to export such goods be able carry out their business? The most serious charge to be made against the Government is that the Bill may be defective in its current form. We are told that regulations made under subsection (5) must be
I hope that the Minister will confirm that that will be done under the affirmative resolution procedure. The convention raises serious matters, especially about the time lapse between the old convention and the new one. Until the Bill becomes part of UK law, can the dangerous goods prohibited by the clause still be carried by rail and through the channel tunnel? Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North): Thank you, Mr. Benton. It is a great pleasure to be sitting under your chairmanship this afternoon—unexpected, but a pleasure nevertheless. I have one or two concerns to raise, especially about the aspect of the convention that refers to the separation of infrastructure management from train operations. I am pleased that some flexibility has apparently been built into adopting the convention. I hope that we will not be required to perpetuate or increase the degree of vertical separation that has occurred in the disintegration of our rail industry between rail and wheel. The problems that have arisen since privatisation have largely been caused by the vertical disintegration between contractors working on track, track management and train operators. Miss McIntosh: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he disagrees with a previous leader of his party, who is now a senior commissioner for the UK in Brussels? He set out what the hon. Gentleman describes as disintegration. It became the basis of the European directive that preceded privatisation in the UK. Does he disagree with his colleague? Mr. Hopkins: Possibly, but I do not want to personalise the issue. I am putting forward a rational case for retaining the integration of train operations with infrastructure management. In the majority of rail systems in Europe, that is still largely the case—TGV, for example. I recognise that there is a drive towards separating train operations from Column Number: 514 infrastructure management to market and privatise railways. It is fair to say that Britain has been a laboratory experiment for some of the theories that underlie the convention. That experiment has failed dramatically. One would expect continental railway operators and Governments to say, ''It hasn't worked in Britain, so we don't want it here''.Private discussions suggest that the Government recognise that the separation has not worked and has been damaging. We should be seeking ways of vertically reintegrating train operations and infrastructure management. Mr. Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, as a first step at least, it would make sense to allow those train-operating companies that wish to, to take over responsibility for the maintenance of the track on which their trains run? Mr. Hopkins: If that were to be done, I would prefer it to be done in the public sector. As we are at least at a staging post towards full public ownership, I think that the way forward would be for franchises to be handed to Network Rail, rather than for rail track management to be handed to train operators. An experiment on that basis is possibly going to take place in Britain: a test for finding a way forward and a way out of our difficulties. I will give one example of the sort of thing that happens. Because train operators run trains on track that they do not own, any damage that the trains cause to the track is not their concern, especially if they are profit driven. They are not going to be concerned about the damage that they cause to the track. That has to be dealt with by somebody else—it is not their problem. I travel by train every day, and all too frequently I hear wheel flats. I am sure everyone knows that those are caused when the wheel skids on the track and makes a flat metal edge on one wheel, causing a clattering noise. That damages the track over time. Track can last a long time if it is looked after, but if it is battered daily by wheel flats it lasts less time. They cause cracked and broken rails in time. They also cause damage to the train, but the primary damage is to the track. If there are two separate operators—both of whom have a central financial basis, either for profit or on a non-profit basis—the track infrastructure operator will not be concerned with the train, and the train operator will not be concerned with the track. It is even more ridiculous in Britain because the lathes that are used to regrind the wheels are owned by the owners of the infrastructure, Network Rail. Train operators have to hire the lathes, take their train out of service, which is a cost, and then pay Network Rail to have their wheels reground, which is another cost. There is a great disincentive to do that. Another factor is that a lot of the units are owned by leasing companies, not by the operating companies, so they have even less incentive to do anything about wheel flats. That causes annoyance and discomfort for passengers such as me who travel every day at the standard operating speed of 90 mph. They hear wheels making a lot of noise and that causes concern, Column Number: 515 especially for people who do not have an appreciation of engineering, or of the kind of damage that could be done.The approach of separating infrastructure from train operations is driven by dogma. The Government are re-thinking their approach, and I am pleased about that. Private suggestions suggest that the Government are aware of the problem, that they will not be going any further down that route, and may reverse it. I hope that that will be the case. Passenger representative organisations recently suggested at a meeting of the all-party railways group that they should at least test transferring one train-operating franchise to Network rail as a comparator to see what happens and how it works. I hope that that will happen very soon. Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge): I was just wondering what the convention on international carriage by rail has to say on those matters. Mr. Hopkins: The explanatory notes have been very useful. They refer to
I have a note from one of the trade unions drawing attention to that matter—a trade union with which I have close relations and strongly support. I am not in any way formally related to them; I just agree with its view. Its members drive the trains, are concerned about the problem and see it daily. We should take note of what they say. Mr. Bacon: I referred a moment ago to draft articles 1 to 16 of the new European constitution. If the draft goes through, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there may come a time when it will not matter whether he agrees with his trade union friends or not?
3.15 pmMr. Hopkins: I do not think so. Governments and people will all be sensible in the end. We need railways and railways will continue. We have a plan for the future and in spite of the difficulties that have arisen owing to privatisation, we will get through and will have a good railway system in time. It is right to listen to the advice of those who work in railways, as well as passenger representatives and Ministers. I do not want to say much more but the important point should be made. The convention suggests that not only Britain but the European Union will move further down a route in the wrong direction—if I may use a railway metaphor. We should keep the integration of train operations and train infrastructure management for the foreseeable future.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 6 March 2003 |