The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:Chairman:
Janet
Anderson
Bellingham,
Mr. Henry (North-West Norfolk)
(Con) Burrowes,
Mr. David (Enfield, Southgate)
(Con) Carmichael,
Mr. Alistair (Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
Carswell,
Mr. Douglas (Harwich)
(Con)
Challen,
Colin (Morley and Rothwell)
(Lab)
Clarke,
Mr. Tom (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill)
(Lab)
Donohoe,
Mr. Brian H. (Central Ayrshire)
(Lab)
Hamilton,
Mr. Fabian (Leeds, North-East)
(Lab) MacShane,
Mr. Denis (Rotherham)
(Lab)
Naysmith,
Dr. Doug (Bristol, North-West)
(Lab/Co-op)
Rowen,
Paul (Rochdale) (LD)
Roy,
Mr. Frank (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Scott,
Mr. Lee (Ilford, North)
(Con) Simpson,
Alan (Nottingham, South)
(Lab)
Slaughter,
Mr. Andrew (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)
(Lab)
Twigg,
Derek (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Transport)John Benger,
Committee Clerk attended
the Committee Third
Standing Committee on Delegated
LegislationTuesday 20
June
2006[Janet
Anderson in the
Chair]Railways and other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 200610.30
am Paul
Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): I beg to
move, That the
Committee has considered the Railways and other Guided Transport
Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006, No.
599). I want to make
it clear that my party supports the bulk of what is proposed. We
applaud the improvements in the safety record of the railways industry
during the past few years. Since the Hatton disaster, we have seen an
impressive improvement. However, like my noble Friend the Earl of Mar
and Kellie in the other place, I want to put four concerns to the
Minister, which we believe are important, given the Governments
blanket implementation of the European rail safety
directive. First, the
directive specifically excludes trams and light railways, yet the
regulations include them. Why is that? As with the other examples that
I shall put before the Committee, we are concerned that imposing such
conditions on light railway systems would not have great benefits. In
particular, rather than using the railway inspectorate, which has a
long and proud tradition in advising railway operators, tram operators
will have to find their own adviser, who will have to seek insurance.
We believe that that will add unnecessary costs to the running of the
light railways.
Secondly, private and heritage
railways are unnecessarily included. I am sure that the Committee is
aware that such railways operate under quite different conditions from
the mainline railways. They are restricted to speeds below 25 mph. In
the main, they are tourist railways. Indeed, last year our 105 heritage
railways had 5.2 million passengers and more than 7 million
visitors. They are run by volunteers, and they are powerful tourist
attractions. The railway that runs through Heywood in my constituency
is a prime example. It is a long-forgotten part of the network that has
been restored, and like the one in your constituency, Mrs. Anderson, it
is well used and very popular. Imposing the directive on such railways
will put them at a disadvantage and threaten their financial
viability. My third
concern is about community railways. The Minister has spoken on
previous occasions about the importance of community railways, which
maintain the network in areas where it is not feasible for it to be
part of the mainline network. Again, it is possible that community
railways will be subject to the full force of the
regulations. Finally,
I wish to speak about interoperability. I have no doubt that it is a
sensible provision for the Channel tunnel and the line to Brussels, but
I do not see the
benefit of extending that provision beyond the railways that cross the
continent. Our railway has a different gauge and height from those on
the continent. I see no need for interoperability.
I understand from the debate in
the other place that the Department has agreed to a derogation until
2010. I welcome the opportunity for further discussion, but I would
appreciate it if the Minister would say that he was prepared to go
beyond that if those discussions show that introducing the regulations
across the board will impose unnecessary cost burdens on the
railways. The Liberal
Democrat party is a great believer in Europe, although we are often
accused of being Europhobic, but it seems to us that the blanket
adoption of European directives without taking account of their effect
is plain ridiculous.
Mr.
Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): Quite
right. Paul
Rowen: I do not wish to pander to the Eurosceptics on my
right, but a little common sense is needed. On the whole, the directive
is advantageous to the rail network, but it is not advantageous to
trams and light railways, nor to community and heritage railways. It
would put them at a huge disadvantage.
10.36
pm Stephen
Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): It is a pleasure to speak. I
shall not detain the Committee for too long. The hon. Member for
Rochdale (Paul Rowen) has raised a number of issues. Indeed, Mrs.
Anderson, you raised one yourself when you formally proposed the
question that the Committee has considered the regulations. Of course,
we are not here to consider them, because much of what we want to speak
about has already been implemented. That makes rather a nonsense of the
parliamentary scrutiny process, particularly with regard to heritage
and community railways.
I too applaud the safety record
of the railways; would that the roads were the same. It is intriguing
that the Road Safety Bill [Lords] has yet to be scrutinised by
the House, but I am sure that it will come before the end of the
Session. The hon.
Gentleman said a moment ago that he was a Europhobicdid he mean
that he is a Europhile?but I am a little more Eurosceptic and
Eurorealistic than he is. Today, we are extending the principle of
creeping Europeanisation, on which subject we have some questions for
the Minister. The
explanatory notes say that there is a common approach to breaking down
technical barriers and establishing international transport operations.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the European directive. Perhaps the
Minister can tell us at what pace everybody else in Europe is
implementing it, and what it will cost Network Rail and the industry as
a whole to implement it.
The directive imposes an
obligation on member states to create a railway accident investigation
body. Her Majestys railway inspectorate has been in existence
for many years, and responsibilities for passenger safety have been
taken on by the Office of
Rail Regulation from the Health and Safety Executive. We also have the
British Transport police, which has just been commended and endorsed by
a Select Committee. The Minister might like to explain why we need
another body. It is another example of creeping
Europeanisation.
Creeping Europeanisation brings
with it creeping gold-plating. The hon. Gentleman alluded to that. What
will be the relative difference in cost of implementing the directive
in the UK and in other member states? A huge number of issues have been
raised by the industry about gold-plating. For instance, why do we need
separate requirements for safety-critical workers, which is apparently
included in the regulations?
The regulations implement the
European rail safety directive. They will ensure that the ORR can take
on HSE functions, and they give the HMRI inspection and approval role
to competent persons. Herein lies an issue that we have
already touched uponthe impact of the regulations on the
heritage and community railways sector. In that sector, the decision as
to whether altered works or vehicles require approval by a competent
person rests with the railway operator, and if it is wrong it may
result in a prohibition order. In the small heritage sector, very few
people are both competent and independent. The explanatory notes
explicitly accept that. I am keen to hear exactly what guidance the
Minister will give, as the explanatory notes accept that only the large
heritage operators may be able to find one person who is both. However,
if the smaller groups bind together, the Department is not necessarily
prepared to accept that they will be
independent. It is
also clear that if the competent person is involved at any stage,
particularly during the design stage, he will lose his independence.
Payments will be required, and once payment is involved, there will be
a further loss of independence. An inevitable problem will be that
people are likely to be overzealous, specifying requirements that will
impose unnecessary costs. The competent person and the heritage railway
operator will require indemnity cover. Both premiums are likely to fall
on the railway operatoranother huge cost element.
It seems to me that not
exempting the heritage railway or the light rail sectors from the
regulationsthe Government could have done sowill result
in increasing costs and administrative burdens. That could have a
significant effect on the tourism and the leisure industries. How does
the Minister intend to mitigate that? What will the Government do about
the training and accreditation of replacement competent persons, and
how will that be paid forespecially given that some people will
be standing in the
background? Finally,
the Minister may wish to comment on the fact that the explanatory notes
state rather blandly that the benefits of consolidation of the national
safety requirements with the European rail safety directive outweigh
the alternatives. That is extraordinarily and wonderfully bland. I
wonder whether the Minister might care to give us five reasons why that
might be so. If he cannothe may not be able to do so today,
because it will require some thinkinghe might prefer to write
to the Committee.
10.42
am The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Derek
Twigg): It is a pleasure, Mrs. Anderson, to serve under
your chairmanship. I welcome the comments of the hon. Members for
Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and for Rochdale, and their broad support
for the regulations and their recognition of the improved safety record
of our railways. I
shall say what the regulations are intended to do. You will not be
surprised, Mrs. Anderson, that I have anticipated some of the
Committees questions in my speech, but I shall deal with the
other issues raised this morning in my response. I am grateful to have
had the opportunity to discuss the
matter. The primary
purpose of the regulations is to transpose into British legislation the
bulk of the European rail safety directive. The regulations also
implement some recommendations that arise from Lord Cullen's public
inquiry into railway safety following the Ladbroke Grove rail crash,
and they streamline existing regulations. The creation of the Rail
Accident Investigation Branch was also a requirement of the directive,
but that was created and given statutory powers under other
legislation. For the
record, I would like to explain what the regulations seek to achieve
and how they have been received by the rail industrya point
raised by both hon. Members. The European rail safety directive
introduces a common Europe-wide approach to rail safety, with the aim
of maintaining existing safety standards, and improving them where
reasonably practicable.
In practical terms, for Great
Britain, that means moving from the existing system of a detailed
assessment of railway safety cases to a new safety management system,
which should ensure the safe management of railway operations across
all member states. The new system should be more focused, better
targeted and less bureaucratic, and it should be quicker for railway
industry companies to obtain the necessary certification or
authorisation. It will enable Her Majesty's railway inspectorate to
concentrate on ensuring that operators properly control risks through
their safety management system, and it will help to reduce the
administrative burden on
operators. The
existing safety case system applies to the majority of the railway
industry, as will the new safety certification and authorisation
process. The option in the directive to exclude metros, trams and light
rail systems has been taken into account and the regulatory
requirements for those sectors are proportionate to the risks that they
create. The regulations also seek to ensure that those who manage,
supervise or control the performance of safety critical workers have
arrangements in place to ensure that such workers are
competent. The
regulations apply to the London underground, light rail systems and
heritage railwaysI shall say more about those lateras
well as to Network Rail and the passenger and freight train operating
companies. The regulations apply in Great Britain but separate
legislation applies to Northern Ireland.
The draft regulations were
developed by the Health and Safety Executive, and reflect the Health
and Safety Commission's policy that railway operators take
responsibility for managing the risks that they create. They were
subject to extensive consultation with the industry. Wide-ranging
meetings were held with the industry as the proposals were being
developed. A detailed
consultation document with draft regulations was published on 6
September 2004, inviting responses by 27 November. That was followed by
further meetings and discussions to consider, debate and respond to the
points that resulted from the formal consultation. The draft
regulations continued to be amended until they were formally proposed
by the Health and Safety Commission to the Secretary of
State. In October
2005, further consultation was carried out on the safety verification
aspects of the draft regulations. That was in response to associated
regulations to implement European directives on rail interoperability,
which needed to interface with the regulations before the Committee.
Given our intention to apply interoperability in a more limited way
than previously, safety verification was extended to cover the whole
railway network except where interoperability applied. That answers the
point raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale.
Inevitably, regulations as
complex as these gave rise to some specific, detailed concerns.
However, in the main, the regulations have been accepted by the
mainline railway operators and London Underground Ltd, as taking a
pragmatic
approach. The
transition to the new system will not be straightforwardsystems
will have to be changedbut it should result in a less
bureaucratic system, with no reduction in railway safety. The rail
industry will need to carry out additional initial work to comply with
the regulations, but the systems that they create will be simpler and
less bureaucratic than the previous regimes.
The process for making future
changes to safety management systems is considerably less onerous than
that required by the current safety case requirements. Small operators,
particularly in the heritage and light rail sectors, had and continue
to have concerns, as the hon. Gentlemen made clear, over whether they
will be able to get adequate, affordable insurance if they are forced
to seek third party verification of new works rather than direct
approval from HMRI. I
met representatives of the heritage and light rail sectors to hear
their concerns directly. In the light of
those meetings, I decided to extend the period for making applications
under the old system to 1 October 2008, and the transition period for
closing out projects undergoing approvals to 1 October 2010. During
that period, the Office of Rail Regulation will work with the heritage
and light rail sectors, the insurance industry and other interested
parties to resolve remaining concerns. In the event that no sustainable
method of applying safety verification can be developed by 2008, the
ORR will consider revisiting the options on how best to address the
issue. For those
railway networks that are functionally separate from the mainline
railway, the application of the regulations will depend on the nature
of the operation. However, they have been excluded from the
requirements of the railway safety
directive. The
regulations came into force on 10 April. They represent a proportionate
response to the regulation of rail safety, and I hope that hon. Members
will feel able to give them their
support. The hon.
Member for Wimbledon mentioned gold-plating. I covered some of that in
my speech, but the main concerns relate to the safety-critical work.
Most of the consultation responses wanted to deal with
fatiguean important subject. The public expectation is that the
railway manages safety, and the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act
1974 requires equally effective measures to be implemented if safety
measures are revoked. It is important that we should consider such
consultation responses.
I turn to interoperability. It
is not only about lines, it also covers rolling stock. The aim is to
harmonise and simplify the rules. That could help our railway operators
by providing cheaper approval costs when purchasing rolling
stock. I met the
heritage and light rail sectors, and they said that they were content
with my decision to extend full implementation to 2010. However, the
ORR will need to come back following discussion with those sectors if
agreement cannot be reached. We will then need to decide what can be
done, but I am well aware of the concerns expressed today and by the
two sectors.
Question put and agreed
to.
Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the Railways and other Guided Transport
Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006, No.
599). Committee
rose at ten minutes to Eleven
o'clock.
|