|
Mr. McNulty: As I should have said last time, but refrained because I did not think that it would have persuaded anybody on the Opposition Benches on the last amendment, just as it will not on this one, we have deliberately taken into account the wording and the substantive duties of the principal Act, the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Is it appropriate to use ''appropriate'' rather than ''necessary'' in the context of the amendments before us? We think that it is, because that affords the ORR, as the focal point for
Column Number: 59
rail safety, a degree of discretion to carry out its duties, rather as the principal Act does for the Health and Safety Executive. We believe that it is necessary for the rail safety regulator to have those elements of discretion in order to carry out its work.
I enjoyed the debate on the modernisation of our scrutiny procedures. At some level, I am with the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire. Standing Committees should be for the duration of a Bill, rather than of a Parliament, where a Bill means Second Reading and Committee stage, right through to the dispatch of all commencement orders. The tail end of the Bill process is increasingly—across parties in Government—the end where the meat of delegated legislation, guidance, regulations and so on is prepared. It might be appropriate if the same people were to sit on the Committees all the way through. That is an interesting point, which we might pursue in other regards. Much of the focus of the supposed modernisation since 1997 has been fatuous and peripheral, to say the least, precisely because it has not dwelt on our main purpose, which is how the Executive and others might scrutinise legislation and account for Government more readily. We have spent most of our time worrying about whether we should start our deliberations at half past 11 or half past 2. However, that is by the by, but I feel all the better for having got it off my chest.
Let me also say in passing that nobody should be under the illusion that the negative resolution procedure is somehow any less robust or comprehensive than an affirmative one. They are different ways of securing the same degree of scrutiny. I would not necessarily agree with the notion that affirmative is better than negative.
In amendments Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25 on ''appropriate'' or ''necessary'', we find it appropriate to use ''appropriate'' because that is what was used in the principal Act, the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. It affords that modicum of discretion in legalese that ''necessary'' would not. We feel that there needs to be that element of flexibility.
On amendment 42, I can half understand where the right hon. Gentleman is coming from, but we think that it is important that the safety regulator has a research duty. The situation is not the same as that of the Highways Agency, as that agency is not an independent regulator but part of the Department for Transport. It carries out its own research, but only as part of the Department's overall research programme. In that case, the specific duty for road research is on the Department and happens to be carried out in part by the Highways Agency.
To return again to the principal act, the Health and Safety Commission had a duty, not a discretion, to carry out research on safety. We feel that it is more than appropriate that, as the rail safety element is transferred to the ORR, the duty to carry out safety research goes with it. We have not cheated, but instead carried forward the template that has worked extremely well for the best part of 30-odd years from
Column Number: 60
the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 into the framework of rail safety and the focus on it under the ORR.
I hope that in the context of that 30-year history Opposition Members are persuaded. I freely accept that had I deployed such an argument on the previous issue of positive versus negative resolution procedure and said that it worked 30 years ago and in the principal Act, that would not have moved in the direction of the modernist bravado of the right hon. Gentleman.
John Thurso: I follow the Minister's argument, and it is important that there is a duty to procure research. Is it not the case that a similar duty is laid on the Civil Aviation Authority, which is the model that we are seeking broadly to follow?
Mr. McNulty: Very much so. Importantly, in all its paragraphs and sub-paragraphs, the schedule talks about making such arrangements as appropriate. It does not say, ''Please procure research in exactly the same fashion as the CAA does for aviation;'' it simply says, again referring to the parent Act, that it is appropriate that the rail safety element of the ORR has a duty to make arrangements where appropriate for research. That is eminently reasonable. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, it follows the CAA model far more readily than the Highways Agency model, because the second is part of the Department for Transport. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Wilshire: Before I respond, I should say that if my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire comes to the next Committee sitting with his arm in a sling, it will not be because of his disagreeing with a Whip but because of some unfortunate accident in which I played no part.
I should also say that the alert student of these matters will have noticed that the official Opposition spokesman is my right hon. Friend, and when he pronounces, he is pronouncing the policy of the next Government, who will be taking over in May. When I pronounce, I do so in my individual capacity, so he is at no risk in disagreeing with me. In fact, he is probably helping me by making some fair points.
It is interesting that I should respond to my right hon. Friend rather than to the Minister. I listened carefully, and just as I failed to persuade him of the reasonableness of my argument, I am afraid that he failed to persuade me. However, I know when I am beaten—I cannot even gather up friends to help me out. I am certain to lose and on that basis, although I am not persuaded, I beg to ask leave to withdraw this splendid amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 82, line 11, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 27, in page 82, line 12, leave out from 'paragraph' to end of line 13.
Column Number: 61
No. 28, in page 82, line 14, leave out 'at such time' and insert
'within three months of its completion'.
Mr. Wilshire: Here we go again—replacing ''may'' with ''must''. On this occasion, there is an important point that needs to be explored. The three amendments have to be taken together to achieve what I always feel is important on such occasions. Paragraph 4 seeks to provide that a report is required at the end of an investigation into an accident:
''The Office of Rail Regulation may authorise a person to investigate and make a special report on any accident''.
It goes on to say that the Office of Rail Regulation may publish the report or part of the report
''as such time . . . as it thinks fit.''
4.30 pm
If there has been an investigation into a tragic accident, there will be very legitimate public interest and almost certainly direct individual interest to families affected by such an accident. I do not think that it should be left to the discretion of the ORR to decide for itself whether it wants to publish the report; I believe that there should be an obligation for a report into an accident to be placed in the public domain in full. If it is not, one wonders what on earth is going on; if bits are left out, one wonders about what is being covered up; and if it is left to the ORR's discretion to decide when it might get round to publishing it, it could be at any time.
My three amendments, which commend themselves to me at least, seek to say that the report must be published, that it must be published in full and that it must be published within three months of it being completed. I am not wedded to three months if someone could argue that four months or six months would be more sensible, but the principle of the time limit is important. That is for the benefit of the public so that they know what is going on. I seek a response from a Government who believe in freedom of information. Such a report is a good example of what should be in the public domain as quickly as possible.
Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will be pleased to know that I have more sympathy with him on this group, especially amendment No. 28, which seeks to insert in line 14 the words
''within three months of its completion''
instead of the words ''at such time''. Can the Minister give us any reason why a completed report should not be required to be made public within three months of its completion? The only example that I can think of is that it might be politically embarrassing to a Minister.
If we allow the current wording to remain in the Bill, a report that is critical of the Secretary of State may remain away from the public gaze until elections are out of the way. One can envisage a scenario in which the Secretary of State has sight of a report that is critical of some act or omission by him or one of his Ministers, and he then asks that the report not be published for a period of time. That is the only
Column Number: 62
example that I can think of when such a delay might be used. I cannot think of any other scenario in which it would be necessary for a completed report to be held back. I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that, and if he cannot give a reason, I should have thought that the Committee should insist that when a report is completed, it should certainly be published within three months of the date of completion.
Mr. Field: It seems odd that the Bill should leave such widespread discretion in the hands of the ORR. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, and it would be interesting to see whether there is a similar, all-embracing discretion in the hands of other regulators, as far as what may be considered to be politically sensitive reports are concerned.
In precisely the same way as my right hon. Friend mentioned, it seems to me that only political problems, or potential political problems, would delay the issuing of a report for a prolonged period. It is surely in the interests of the rail-going public, passengers and the public at large to ensure that the disclosure of information from an important report that might follow an accident or other incident is brought to public attention at the earliest opportunity. A three-month delay seems long enough for any procedural concerns.
I wonder whether there is a precedent from the actions of other regulators. For example, if concerns were raised about the financial regulation by the Financial Services Authority, we would have a public report post haste. I disagree with the notion that such a report could be delayed for whatever reason—any long-term delay would seem to have political ramifications. Perhaps the Minister can give us guidance, because he will understand why Opposition Members are concerned that the provision could be misused to grave political advantage.
| 
