|
Mr. Knight: We have had a very interesting debate, and I am grateful to all hon. Members who took part. On the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, I do not think that there is anything unique about the new clause. It merely seeks to exempt steam engines from any current, pending or future requirement to have a black box. That does not mean that, if it were added to the Bill, it would not be possible for a future Parliament to repeal it. No Parliament can bind its successors. We all know that, so his point was not valid.
I am also grateful to the Minister for his sympathy with, and understanding of, the problems that a heavy hand could cause for those who operate steam trains. Such an approach could lead to the cessation of steam engines running on the main line, which I believe no member of this Committee would want.
Column Number: 292
The Minister made several interesting points on which I should like to reflect. I am grateful for what he said about derogation being the way forward. If I understood him correctly, he would support that. I wonder whether he would be willing to pass on his sentiment and the sentiment of the Committee to those at the RSSB who are charged with making such decisions. In the light of his comments about speed, on which I should like to reflect, and the sympathetic way in which he responded, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Awareness of vulnerable passengers
'The Secretary of State shall instruct the Rail Passengers Council (RPC) and the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) to launch a campaign to encourage passengers to be more considerate to vulnerable passengers and raise awareness of priority seating.'.—[John Thurso.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
John Thurso: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The wording of the new clause is fairly self-explanatory, but it may help the Committee if I outline the background. It relates to a case that was brought to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) concerning Janice Norman. Ms Norman was travelling on a crowded commuter train when she was 25 weeks pregnant. No one got up to give her their seat or to make any accommodation for the state she was in. During the journey, an inconsiderate fellow traveller barged past her with such force that he pushed her quite hard in the stomach. Some five weeks later, when she was 30 weeks pregnant, her baby was born by caesarean section after it stopped kicking but, tragically, died after complications set in.
In the light of the circumstances, a post mortem was requested and it was established that the baby had suffered a trauma at 25 weeks, at the same time when Ms Norman had been hit while travelling on the train. The midwife told her—Ms Norman subsequently verified the information from other sources—that quite a lot miscarriages happen after similar accidents on public transport. One of the problems is that, unfortunately, no statistics are kept and the accidents are not widely known about or reported, largely because when miscarriages happen the people to whom they happen are thinking not about the consequences to public transport, but about their own grief. Such accidents are not reported in a way that information about them can be collected.
Ms Norman contacted my hon. Friend and together they have set up a considerate commuters campaign. He tabled an early-day motion in the previous Session and retabled it in this session as early-day motion 157. It requests the Association of Train Operating Companies, the Mayor of London and the Department for Transport to consider what might be done.
Column Number: 293
My hon. Friend also wrote to the Association of Train Operating Companies, the Secretary of State and the Mayor of London. The Minister replied, and my hon. Friend is grateful for that. I understand that the RSSB is carrying out research into the health and safety effects on rail passengers of crowding on trains. Its report was expected towards the end of last year and I should be grateful if the Minister could update the Committee on when it might be available. In his correspondence, my hon. Friend pointed out that some train operating companies, including Thameslink, South Eastern Trains and South West Trains, offer complimentary first class upgrades for passengers with monthly or longer season tickets.
My hon. Friend also wrote to the Association of Train Operating Companies and the Rail Passengers Council asking them about the possibility of launching a campaign to encourage people to be more considerate. Again, I do not know whether the Minister has heard anything on that front.
The purpose of the new clause is both to highlight the circumstance of Janice Norman's loss and to promote the campaign so that passengers are considerate of their fellow passengers who are vulnerable. That includes pregnant women, elderly people and disabled people. It could be argued that to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to encourage such a campaign is over the top, but my argument is that the new clause can do no harm in asking the Secretary of State to encourage the train operating companies and others to have such a campaign. It would certainly bring this problem to the fore.
It would help to have greater understanding of the issue. One task that those involved might undertake would be research. The problem led to a tragedy in this instance, and I have no doubt that other members of the Committee will know of many other similar examples. I therefore commend the new clause to the Committee, on the basis that it cannot do any harm and could do a great deal of good.
Mr. Chope: I sympathise very much with what the hon. Gentleman said and about the awful case that he brought to our attention. My concern arises from a story in the newspapers over the last week, which suggests that things will get worse rather than better.
I understand that the Government are proposing that first class accommodation should no longer be available on certain lines. Some vulnerable passengers, particularly those in the later weeks of pregnancy, resort to travelling first class. At present that option is available, but if the Government remove first class carriages, they also remove the option to travel first class on large portions of the lines into London from the west which serve Bristol, Chippenham and so on. They intend to do that on the basis that more passengers can be crammed into second-class carriages and it is unreasonable that some people should be able to sit in first class carriages while others stand.
Column Number: 294
Whatever the Government's intentions, one consequence of such a change would be that vulnerable passengers, who travel first class for their own protection against the sort of incident to which the hon. Gentleman referred, will be deprived of the opportunity to do so. Therefore, unless we can be assured to the contrary, I fear that things will get worse rather than better under the Government's current plans for the railways.
Mr. McNulty: As ever, I shall largely ignore the comments of the hon. Member for Christchurch, save to say that I am grateful that he at least recognises that the life of this Government goes beyond the next couple of months.
Mr. Chope: Why?
Mr. McNulty: I say that because the Committee would have no time for scrutiny if we spent all our time indulging the hon. Gentleman's idle fantasies and speculation, which have barely a passing acquaintance with the new clause.
It is a serious subject. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said that I have been in correspondence not only with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington but with the Association of Train Operating Companies and the RPC. In the strict technical sense we cannot pursue the new clause because it would not achieve anything. The Secretary of State has no power to instruct the RPC or ATOC to do anything. ATOC is the umbrella group of a private industry. We could instruct it all we like, but we have no power to tell it to do anything. We have set up the RPC, of old and of new, as an independent body outside the Government. It is rather inappropriate for us, having set up an independent body, to then instruct it what to do. However, I wrote in some detail to both organisations.
The new clause asks the Secretary of State to instruct two organisations that we have no locus to instruct. However, it goes further than that and would legislate for behaviour. That is the crux of the matter. We can do all we like but we will not achieve much, except in the things that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross suggested.
10.45 am
The Rail Safety and Standards Board has considered the health and safety effects of crowded trains on rail passengers. I believe that that report will be published at the end of this month, rather than at the end of last month, as was originally suggested. I have written to ATOC and RPC asking them to consider the matter in more detail and whether they would lend their weight to a broader campaign. I am more than happy to be party to that campaign.
The hon. Gentleman may know that London Underground Ltd. has a campaign under the banner of ''Love Is . . . '', which is like those cute, cheesy and nauseating little adverts. It has had a modicum of success in focusing on what should be second nature—consideration for fellow passengers generally and a high degree of consideration for those, such as pregnant women, who are clearly vulnerable.
Column Number: 295
Mr. Knight: I hope that we are not going to end the Committee on a discordant note. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch raised a fair point. Some vulnerable passengers take the view that they enhance their safety by opting to sit in first class seats. Will the Minister answer the specific question that my hon. Friend put to him about that?
| 
