|
Mr. Stringer: I did not intend to speak in this debate, but although I strongly support the clause for reasons that I shall come to, I sympathise with the caution that the hon. Gentleman urged in making a direct comparison with how the CAA works.
The CAA is an economic regulator; it sets standards and looks at safety, and it works extraordinarily well. Having been a member of the Transport Committee for many years and having asked why aviation gets safer, I have come to the conclusion that the answer is not the way in which the CAA is set up— ideally, one would not set it up in such a way—but the fact that all the people involved know each other and have worked closely for many years. Safety is deeply imbued in
Column Number: 51
every part of the CAA's activities. One must be careful in taking the structure of the CAA, which has its own culture, and putting it elsewhere.
To underline that argument, I point out that the privatised structure of the railways is too fragmented and does not work, but it is exactly comparable to the structure of the aviation industry. Railtrack is like an airport and the competing airlines are like the train operating companies. One can continue with the analogy—it is almost perfect—but whereas aviation works well, the privatised rail system does not work. The hon. Member for Spelthorne is therefore right to say that we should be careful.
On the other side of the argument, however, the hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says, ''If it ain't broke, don't fix it''. That is good common sense, but the Health and Safety Executive's involvement with the rail industry is broken.
Mr. Wilshire: I do not think that I said ''It ain't broke''; I said ''If it ain't broke''. I did not seek to suggest that there is nothing wrong. I was saying that caution should be applied when considering whether the system was broken. I welcome the chance to have made that clear.
Mr. Stringer: I am grateful for that, because if we agree that the system is broken, we can move on fairly quickly.
When the Select Committee took evidence on safety from the various parts of the rail industry, we were shocked to find that the Health and Safety Executive was not communicating with the director of rail safety. He had been given his position following the Cullen inquiry, but he and the HSE were not talking to each other, and the industry was talking to its stakeholders.
The industry was dissatisfied with its classification as a major hazard industry. That was caused not by relatively minor but expensive gold-plating problems such as not allowing trains to be used if light bulbs were not working, but by other, more serious problems, such as expensive platform extensions being demanded when much cheaper solutions to the problem are clearly available or extension of the train protection warning system that, over 25 years, would save only five lives but which cost £375 million. If that money had been applied to the roads or any other part of the transport system, it could have saved more lives.
I could go on at length, but I must emphasise that I support the change because the system is broke. The industry has, by and large, shown 100 years of safety improvements. Apart from the obvious blips resulting from major accidents, it is very safe. It is at least 365 times safer than the roads, because as many people are killed on the roads every day as would die in a major rail accident.
I support the change that is being made, because although the industry is getting safer and has a good safety record, it does not trust the Health and Safety Executive, which does not communicate with it, and it feels that unreasonable costs are being placed upon it. Such change is necessary.
Column Number: 52
Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman brings a lot of knowledge to our debate, based on his Select Committee work. In that context, will he comment on the concern expressed by Brendan Barber of the TUC that finance and safety regulations do not mix?
Mr. Stringer: I am not aware of the context of that statement. I do not believe in principle that economic regulation and financial control should be mixed with safety. The CAA is an organisation in which that mixture has been successful, but I urge caution while accepting the necessity for change, because things are and have been poor between the HSE and the rail industry.
Mr. Knight: Our differences on this question are ones of degree, and they relate to the speed of progress rather than to matters of principle. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne thought that there should be a longer period before consultation gets under way in order to ensure that every aspect is properly considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch takes the opposite view; he thinks that consultation should come sooner rather than later. With that divergence of opinion, the Minister may conclude that the Department has it about right.
Safety responsibilities should be undertaken by people who have an expertise in the industry and a deep knowledge of it, and who are in dialogue with key players. To that extent, the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley was correct in his analysis. The Minister's comments a few moments ago were predictable. That is not a criticism; there should be no difference between the two main political parties on safety. I am therefore reassured by what he had to say and we are all grateful that he said it. It is absolutely necessary for it to be on the record.
Mr. McNulty: The exchange that we have just had has been useful and responsible. We are aware that there are concerns about the move, and I share some of the views about caution that have been expressed. We are not about to graft on the aviation model simply because it works in aviation. Railways are quintessentially different from aviation, but the model is worth looking at. We need to get the right balance between economic performance and safety, and that will happen. Safety is much more at the core of all that the railways do than it used to be. The Committee will know that the rail accident investigation branch, which was introduced in the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, will come into play next year, and that has to be factored into the mix.
I appreciate much that the hon. Member for Spelthorne said, but I do not share his concern that the rail regulatory judge and jury are in one place. They will certainly not be in one place once this legislation is enacted. There will need to be, however, as there has been until now—Ufton Nervet showed this very clearly—a full understanding between all the parties involved about safety in road and rail transport. I am with him on that. What was the Ufton Nervet tragedy—a road accident that had consequences for the rail sector or a rail safety failure that had consequences on the road? It was clearly the former, so
Column Number: 53
there will have to be, as there is now, full understanding between those involved in rail safety on the rail side and their counterparts in the Highways Agency, the police and everybody else involved. That understanding prevails now, and it will have to prevail in the new circumstances.
Mr. Wilshire: It might be that the answer to this question is in a part of the Bill that I have not looked at, but can the Minister assure us that somebody will have a long, hard look to ensure that there is no scope for buck passing in cases in which there is a debate about whether something is a rail accident or a road accident? It would be tragic if that were not clear and capable of being sorted out very quickly.
Mr. McNulty: The matter is already very clear. That needs to continue and we should not lose sight of it in the context of the changes under the Bill. It was clear in Ufton Nervet, where all authorities, to their credit, worked enormously well and extremely efficiently together. There will always be an interface, however, between various elements, and with safety paramount, we need to take that into account. I am fairly comfortable with the notion that, by the first half of next year, we will have all the flesh on the bone of the management structures.
As the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) so kindly suggested, safety is and will remain paramount, and it will run throughout all that we do in respect of the railways. It underpins all that we seek to achieve in the Bill. That will never be lost from our focus, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments in that regard. In this one instance—and this one alone—I am delighted to be so blindingly predictable. I commend whatever we are commending to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Transfer of safety functions
Mr. Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in schedule 3, page 80, line 10, after 'a', insert 'surface or underground'.
This amendment should not take long to debate. I am anxious to be absolutely clear that ''a transport system'' includes both overground and underground systems, and that we shall not have people arguing that underground systems are not railways.
Mr. McNulty: As I said in the previous debate, I can certainly confirm that the underground, tube and metro are railways for the purposes of this provision.
3.30 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
Column Number: 54
3.46 pm
On resuming—
The Chairman's attention having been called to the fact that seven Members were not present, he suspended the proceedings.
3.48 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.3 pm
On resuming—
Mr. McNulty: With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Spelthorne will withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Wilshire: I am struggling to remember the answer and the amendment, but it seems sensible to withdraw whatever it was. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 80, line 18, leave out 'negative' and insert 'affirmative'.
This amendment will not be disposed of quite so lightly. I tell the Minister at the outset that I am minded to insist that we press it to a Division unless he satisfies us that we would be wrong to do so. Some people may think, ''Oh, there they go again—'may' or 'must'; 'negative' or 'affirmative','' and that we are making nice debating points that do not count for much, but there is, in my judgment, good reason to say that the regulations should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, because of the nature of the business with which we are dealing.
Paragraph 1(4) states:
''The Secretary of State may, by regulations, modify the definition of ''railway safety purposes''.''
That is a significant and fundamental point. If we get such things wrong, it could have the most appalling and tragic consequences for lots of people. This matter should be put to the House, because if a tragedy were to happen that could be laid at the door of the regulations modifying this definition, it would not do for colleagues to say, ''It wasn't much to do with us because we were not asked to consider it and vote on it.'' I urge the Minister to give serious thought to whether we should debate this matter under an affirmative resolution procedure rather than a negative resolution procedure and for very sensible reasons, rather than simply for the sake of debating it. This is a safety issue. The consequences could be very serious, and the whole House should be given an easy opportunity to say whether we all approve of making changes to safety on the railway, rather than having to kick up a fuss under the negative resolution procedure if we are unhappy.
| 
