| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to better regulation and enterprise, which has contributed to the UK becoming one of the best locations in the world in which to start
- and run a business; welcomes the recent independent endorsements of the UK's light touch regulatory environment; applauds the deregulatory initiatives brought forward since 1997 which have contributed to a significant decline in the total number of regulations imposing a cost on British business; rejects outright the allegations claiming that the regulatory burden on business now exceeds £30 billion; supports measures taken to improve the regulatory environment for smaller businesses such as the removal of statutory audit requirements for small and medium-sized enterprises and the introduction of two specific commencement dates for employment regulations; congratulates the Government on signing up to the new European Constitution which promotes competitiveness and flexibility and which will ensure that national governments have new powers to scrutinise EU regulatory proposals; notes with concern proposals put forward by the Opposition which would damage Britain's relationship with Europe to the detriment of British business by withdrawing the UK from the world's largest common market; recognises the Government's constructive stance on the Agency Workers and Working Time Directives where it has maintained a position that promotes both fairness and flexibility; and calls on the Opposition to examine its own European policies which are consistently flouted by its own MEPs and Party members.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With the leave of the House, we will take motions 3 to 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Maximum Number of Judges (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.
That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers, etc.) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 20th May, be approved.
That the draft Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
That the draft Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
That the draft Transport Act 2000 (Consequential Amendment) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.—[Vernon Coaker.]
Question agreed to.
REGULATORY REFORM
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a)(Consideration of draft regulatory reform orders),
That the draft Regulatory Reform (Patents) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.—[Vernon Coaker.]
Question agreed to.
30 Jun 2004 : Column 408
Potters Bar Derailment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Vernon Coaker.]
7.29 pm
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): The Potters Bar derailment was, and continues to be, a subject of the gravest importance to my constituents, members of the travelling public and everybody who saw the terrible pictures of the carriage wedged beneath the canopy of Potters Bar station. In that tragic accident, seven people died and 70 people were injured, some of them very seriously.
One of my constituents, the late Agnes Quinlivan, was among those who died. Two members of her family—her daughters—are here tonight, as is a Hertfordshire man who was sadly affected by the incident. That man is a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who is also here this evening. I should add that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) has taken a particular interest in the subject, and I know that he wants briefly to intervene at the conclusion of my remarks.
This is the second short debate that I have obtained on this subject—the first occurred on 15 November 2002, six months after the derailment. Since then, the first and second anniversaries of the crash have occurred. The first anniversary was marked by a moving ceremony, where all those who attended were struck by the dignity of the bereaved families and survivors. At about the same time—May 2003—the third and most recent report from the Health and Safety Executive investigation board was published. I understand that the HSE plans to conclude its investigation into the accident by September or October of this year, and that a final report will then be published. When that investigation is concluded and concomitant legal decisions have been taken, the Secretary of the State will decide whether to hold a public inquiry.
It would be preferable if the Secretary of State had already decided to hold a public inquiry, because the case for such an inquiry is very strong, and I have pressed the Government to hold an inquiry for some time. As it stands, the earliest point at which a decision will be taken is two and a half years after the derailment.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): My hon. Friend knows that the train in question was heading to King's Lynn in my constituency, and that constituents of mine were on the train—mercifully, none of them was killed, although some of them were injured. He will understand why I feel very strongly about the situation, and why I feel that the Government have prevaricated—it is a disgrace that they have not announced a public inquiry hitherto. Does my hon. Friend find it extraordinary that the HSE is taking so long to produce its final report?
Mr. Clappison:
My hon. Friend is right that it would be better if we knew more of the answers at this stage. Along with many other hon. Members, he had constituents who were travelling on the train, and I know that he has taken a particular interest in the subject.
30 Jun 2004 : Column 409
The stretch of line is very busy, and large numbers of people, including many of my constituents, travel up and down it. All those who use it are conscious that the tragic accident at Hatfield occurred a short time before the Potters Bar derailment. The fact that it has taken so long to make a decision must concern all those who use the line, but it particularly concerns the bereaved families and the survivors, who have had to wait for a significantly long time. That is not the only matter that I seek to raise on behalf of my constituents. The case for a public inquiry is strong, and I shall renew my request and give the Minister three reasons why one should be held.
First, from what we have seen of the HSE report so far, it appears that many questions remain to be answered about how the derailment occurred. The HSE report of May 2003 is very clear about the immediate cause of the derailment—the technical factors that led to the failure of the points—and it also makes some recommendations in respect of points elsewhere. However, it does not give anything like a full picture of the state of affairs that led to the points being in the lethal condition that they were in on 10 May 2002. It does not give a full picture of the state of affairs regarding the installation, maintenance and inspection of the points. Nor does it give a full picture in respect of what happened to the points—of who did what to them to leave them in that condition—or who exactly was responsible for what was going on. I make no criticism of the work of the HSE, which has been thorough, but all the questions arising from this tragic crash can be adequately dealt with only by a public inquiry that is held in the open with all the powers that are available to it. I put that forward as the principal reason for holding a public inquiry.
Secondly, I believe that in this case only a public inquiry can meet the legal obligations of the Government under the Human Rights Act 1998. I ask the Minister to take into account the implications of that Act and its case law, particularly that relating to article 2, on the right to life, and the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the right to an effective investigation where death is caused and a public authority is responsible. I respectfully invite the Minister to consider that very carefully. I also invite him to take on board the ECHR's judgment that any deficiency in the investigation that undermines its ability to establish the cause of death or the person or persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard.
Thirdly, in the absence of a public inquiry there would be a coroner's inquest. However, there are limits on the proceedings and evidence of such an inquest under the coroner's rules, and an inquest would not meet the obligations to which I referred; nor would it meet the need to establish where responsibility lies for the state of affairs underlying the crash.
I put those three reasons to the Minister. In addition, I invite him to bear it in mind that holding an inquiry would be in keeping with the holding of statutory public inquiries into previous major rail crashes such as Clapham, Southall and Ladbroke Grove. I put it to the Minister quite simply: without a public inquiry into such a major rail crash, vital questions about an equally tragic incident will go unanswered.
30 Jun 2004 : Column 410
I mentioned the issue of responsibility. In April this year, nearly two years after the crash, Network Rail and Jarvis made a joint announcement of acceptance of liability. There seems to have been some question, to say the least, about whether that was an acceptance of responsibility or of liability. In a carefully crafted statement, the two parties said that they would accept liability for all claims justified in law brought by the bereaved and injured, but there seemed to be some ambiguity about whether they actually accepted responsibility for the derailment.
Whether or not that amounted to an acceptance of responsibility, I am afraid that anyone who was led to believe that the families would in all cases receive appropriate compensation for their suffering will be sadly disappointed. I believe that the treatment of the families in that respect has fallen way below what it should have been, as can be demonstrated by the case of my constituent the late Agnes Quinlivan. Before turning to the particulars of her case, I should like to make it clear that the paramount concern of her family, and other families, has been to establish the cause of the crash and, in so far as possible, to prevent any other families from having to go through what they have gone through. However, most fair-minded people would agree that the families should receive compensation to recognise the value of the lives of their loved ones and the trauma they have gone through.
Agnes Quinlivan was an 80-year-old lady who had lived an exceptionally valuable life in her church and community in Potters Bar. As it happens, she was the only local victim of the crash. She died, tragically, when part of the bridge fell on her as she was walking through an underpass. Immediately after the accident, Network Rail and Jarvis gave £10,000 to her family on a without-prejudice basis and with a view to covering their immediate expenses. Since then, Network Rail and Jarvis have interpreted the law so as to refuse any further compensation to the family. As far as I can ascertain, they have no plans to make any further compensation available.
For the Quinlivan family, the acceptance of liability by Jarvis in April was meaningless. I understand that other bereaved families have been treated similarly. At least five of the seven families have been offered compensation that most fair-minded people would regard as low, and in accordance with an especially strict interpretation of the law by Network Rail and Jarvis. It would be open to those companies to take a more appropriate approach to compensation, as I believe happened in the case of the Ladbroke Grove crash.
Things are made even starker for the families by reports that appeared in the newspapers three months after the Potters Bar crash and appeared to suggest that much more generous compensation would be forthcoming to them from the railway industry. Three months after the accident, when it remained fresh in the public mind, there was talk of £1 million in compensation for each bereaved family.
There is little doubt about the source of the reports. In The Times of 13 August 2002, the chief executive of Railtrack is quoted as saying that a compensation package worth about £12 million would be offered to the injured and the families of people killed. In the case of
30 Jun 2004 : Column 411
the Quinlivan family and, I believe, in that of four of the other seven families who suffered a bereavement, the compensation is a small fraction of that figure. The Quinlivan family have not received a single penny beyond the sum that was made available immediately after the accident to meet their expenses. The treatment that that family and others have received is unsatisfactory. I suspect that most fair-minded people would regard it as downright shoddy.
There has been far too much delay; far too much consideration has been given to media management and far too little to doing justice to the families. I hope that all those in the railway industry, especially Network Rail and Jarvis, will reconsider the issue. I am tempted to ask the Minister to say what he thinks about the treatment of the Quinlivan family, although I fully understand the limitations on his position. However, I ask him in any event to use his influence and that of the Government with Network Rail and Jarvis to ask them to re-examine the way in which they are dealing with the matter.
It is not acceptable to leave matters as they stand. Those who suffer injury and bereavement should not have to wait years for answers to questions about how this all came about. They should not be put through more agony when seeking a fair reflection of the life of a loved one; they deserve better than that.
7.43 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |