|
Mr. McNulty: There we are; all this time I have been nice, but now Opposition Members are provoking me. The ORR will be independent. Under this and other legislation, we have no control whatsoever over the timing, publication or contents of any report. Let us get entirely off the table the notion that we are roughly at the stage of democracy that the Ukraine is trying to reach. That is nonsense, and everyone on the Opposition Benches knows that.
The provisions of the schedule are again—I do not wish to repeat myself—exactly those prescribed for the Health and Safety Commission in section 14(2)(a) of the parent Act for this part of the Bill—the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. There are circumstances in which parts of reports should be repressed, some parts should be published and in which others should never be in the public domain, certainly not within an ill-defined and arbitrary three-month period. Any number of legal processes may unfold in the wake of a particular incident or accident that would make that entirely inappropriate, but it should be left to the discretion of the regulator when or if certain parts or all of a special report should be forthcoming.
Column Number: 63
Rather laboriously, I have had to read God knows how many pieces of paper and attend the odd seminar on freedom of information—fun though they are—given that new legislation is coming in January. We are getting to grips with the concept, and I suspect, from my limited knowledge of the FOI provision, that there is nothing that would challenge the circumstance in which the regulator would hold back parts of a report because of criminal or civil proceedings or because a special report was part of a wider conflagration or accident. If the ORR produces a special report covering specifically rail safety in an accident or incident with wider implications in terms of the transport modes involved—for example, the Ufton Nervet road-rail accident, or an incident between aviation, rail or road transport—it would be hugely inappropriate if the rail safety report was published, and it preceded or pre-empted wider-reaching safety reports.
There is a whole range of reasons to hold back parts of a report. Equally, it is appropriate for the regulator to determine when such a report should be published publicly or otherwise. The notion of political suppression is simply nonsense. The regulator will be independent, and we will have no control over him. In that context, the practical flexibility afforded by this part of the schedule is appropriate. It is not about the suppression of information. It is not about doing a favour for a Minister or a Secretary of State. Within the context of the parent Act—the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974—it allows those carrying out the investigations that precede a special report to get on with their job of determining how to take things forward in the important context of the failure of rail safety measures.
In that context—and apart from what I said about cross-cutting inquiries that cover more than rail safety and those in which criminal or civil proceedings are in play, and now that we have the political nonsense out of the way—I can think of no other capricious or malevolent reason why the ORR would choose not to publish most if not all its reports. However, it requires a degree of flexibility, which is why I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Mr. Knight: The amendments are the children of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. It is a matter for him what should happen, but I hope that, on reflection, he will press amendment No. 28 to a Division.
If the Minister ever decides to leave politics to pursue an alternative career, he should consider the stage. That was the best smoke screen that I have seen for some time. He said that Ministers would have no control over the ORR. That is correct, but denying that Ministers would have influence is another matter. We all know that the Secretary of State has to work closely with the industry, and I can well see a scenario developing in which, if something politically embarrassing was mentioned in a report, the Secretary of State might seek to use his influence—not his control—to suppress a report.
Column Number: 64
In arguing that the Committee should reject the amendment, the Minister said that parts of a report might be sensitive and that the ORR would not wish to publish them. We should pause and look at page 82 of the Bill, and at paragraph 4 of the schedule. The previous paragraph still gives the ORR the power to withhold parts of a report if they are deemed to be inappropriate for publication. In such cases, we seek only to put a duty on the ORR to ensure publication within three months of the completion of the report. That is reasonable; it is fair. It is in accord with the freedom of information legislation of which the Government are so fond. I therefore commend amendment No. 28 to the Committee.
Mr. Wilshire: I took the friendly suggestion of our official spokesman as an instruction to press amendment No. 28 to a Division; I shall be delighted to do so in due course, Mr. Amess, if you allow it.
I have to enter a caveat. I listened to what the Minister said, but I deliberately did not go down the political and skulduggery route because I felt that if I were to upset him by raising certain issues, they would get completely lost in the bluster of righteous indignation about us daring to suggest that he was a politician.
I do not know whether I read too much into what the Minister said, but he said more than once that he felt that there was a need for flexibility because the ORR might sensibly wish to hold something back. He could have said ''withhold'', a definite and for ever state of play. I listened carefully, and he did say that it would be possible for something in a report to prejudice subsequent court proceedings. I can buy into his reasons for saying that, in some circumstances, three months would be inappropriate. However, that is not a reason for a time limit of some sort not being included.
The Minister may prefer to come back on Report with an amendment saying that a report should be published within three months of its completion unless—and then provide some reasoning as to why it could be held back for a period. I would welcome such an amendment if it said that reasons must be given when that power to hold back is used, so that their sensibleness can be tested, and that the time limit still applies when the objection to immediate publication has gone away. The time limit would therefore be three months unless there were to be court proceedings and publication would prejudice a trial, in which case one of the ''unless'' reasons would be triggered and publication would take place three months from the end of the court case. There should still be a requirement to publish; that is what I am after. I have not heard any reason why, when all other reasons and difficulties are out of the way, something should be withheld for ever. I am persuaded that there is an argument for such publications to be held back, but not for ever.
4.45 pm
John Thurso: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the security aspect? This may be an unlikely scenario, but if there were a rail accident that needed to be
Column Number: 65
investigated, any such report may involve security matters, and may contain paragraphs that should not be made public because they would give comfort or information to a potential terrorist.
Mr. Wilshire: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but it does not undermine the general principle. I have accepted that the Minister came up with one circumstance in which it may be sensible to say that a report should be published within a certain amount of time unless something was about to happen, and I am prepared to discuss with the hon. Gentleman whether terrorism requires some references as well, but I am not sure whether that should be the case for ever, because it could well be that the potential terrorist threat that gave rise to a report being withheld may not appertain later. If the terrorist threat goes away, the matter should be in the public domain.
I am only too willing to listen to people's suggestions of circumstances in which 28 days would not be a suitable time scale, but I have not yet heard one that says that the general principle of requiring publication within a fixed time, but with exceptions, is not the right way to go, rather than there being so much flexibility that things can be withheld on a whim. On that basis, I wish to press amendment No. 28, at least, to a Division.
The Chairman: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that last remark? Does he seek leave to withdraw amendment No. 26?
Mr. Wilshire: I have been instructed to press amendment No. 28, but not amendments Nos. 26 and 27, so if it helps with progress, I will willingly withdraw amendment No. 26, provided that that does not lose me the right to press amendment No. 28. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: No. 28, in page 82, line 14, leave out 'at such time' and insert
'within three months of its completion'.—[Mr. Wilshire.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 12.
Division No. 3]
AYES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Field, Mr. Mark
Knight, Mr. Greg
Wilshire, Mr. David
NOES
Atkins, Charlotte
Clelland, Mr. David
Harris, Mr. Tom
King, Andy
McGuire, Mrs. Anne
McKenna, Rosemary
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Mahmood, Mr. Khalid
Merron, Gillian
Owen, Albert
Stringer, Mr. Graham
Thurso, John
Question accordingly negatived.
Question proposed, That this schedule be the third schedule to the Bill.
Column Number: 66
Mr. Chope: May I raise a question about paragraph 12 of the schedule, which makes provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations for a levy to be paid to the ORR in respect of railway safety activities that it undertakes? That replicates a power that was given under the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 in relation to the Health and Safety Executive, but that power has not yet been implemented. Will the Minister say how he sees the levy operating? What will the level be and will there be any constraints on the ability of the ORR to increase its costs in the knowledge that those costs could be passed on to the railway industry?
In that context, it is relevant to recall our short debate about research. If all the research is funded by the railway industry through a levy, will a ceiling be put on it? Will the end result be greater costs being borne by railway passengers rather than taxpayers as a whole, which is how the Health and Safety Executive has traditionally been funded?
| 
