Alan John Watson, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Watson of Richmond, of Richmond in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, for life--Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and the Lord Steel of Aikwood.
Tarsem King, Esquire, having been created Baron King of West Bromwich, of West Bromwich in the County of West Midlands, for life--Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Archer of Sandwell and the Lord Tomlinson.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the regulations do not affect any of the day-to-day work of operating, servicing and repairing heritage vehicles. They set out the essential safety requirements which new items of pressure equipment or those imported from outside the Community will need to meet from May 2002. They do not apply where someone is manufacturing or importing for his own use other than in the course of business. Provided these essential safety requirements are met, historic designs and methods of construction could continue to be used as there is no requirement to use state of the art designs.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that it will come as a considerable relief to many organisations? Will he confirm that purpose-made replacement parts and associated fittings for historic vehicles will not be covered by the regulations? In view of the widespread concern and fears about the regulations, will he examine the validity of, and perhaps the necessity for, some of
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as regards replacement parts, the regulations cover only the boiler itself. If a new boiler is required, that part must conform with the regulations. I believe that that only becomes a problem around once every 40 years; so perhaps it is not significant. A meeting will take place on 9th August with officials, the heritage railways, the National Traction Engine Trust and model engineers. I hope that the meeting will clear up any misunderstandings about the regulations. If it does not, I shall be happy to hold any necessary discussions.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are 80 heritage railways, mainly in Wales and the north of England, manned mostly by volunteers? Those areas desperately need the interest created by tourism, but they are concerned that the new regulations will impose a charge of £115 for Her Majesty's railway inspector to come and inspect them. I do not know whether that refers to the same regulation or another one issued at the same time. The railway operators are concerned that the cost of the charge might be such as to prevent their carrying out necessary safety work. Is there some way in which they could be exempted from the charges? Will the Minister examine the matter?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is a good deal of confusion about the issue. There will be no change whatever as regards regular inspection of the operation of such vehicles. It will continue to be carried out by the Health and Safety Executive. The regulations essentially apply to the manufacturers; it is they who will need certification of the design of the boiler before use. There is no change so far as operation and maintenance is concerned.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my noble friend's answers to the two previous questions have been helpful. He says that the new regulations apply only to boilers and pressure vessels. However, I remain concerned that the heritage business, if we may call it that, which has around 3,000 traction engines and 1,000 railway locomotives, says that the cost of conforming to the new regulations for a replacement boiler will rise tenfold. Can my noble friend devise a method for the main organisations to carry out their own assessments? I am sure that they are technically experienced, and it would save their having to spend 10 times as much as they do at present for apparently no improvement in safety. I suggest to the Minister that this has more to do with bureaucracy than with safety.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I repeat that this concerns the boiler industry and its basic safety standards. Perhaps I may put the issue into context. We are discussing an industry of 2,000 manufacturers with businesses worth around £3.5 billion and employing some 60,000 people. The regulations have been
The DTI has always been concerned about safety--ever since an early President of the Board of Trade was killed by the "Rocket" engine. I mention that because obviously we are debating the heritage industry. In 1830 William Huskisson was killed by an early version of the "Rocket". However, I do not believe that we are unduly concerned with safety in this important area.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, given what happened in 1830, how many accidents have occurred recently? Is it true that there have been no explosions at all involving boilers on historic traction engines? If that is the case, what is the point of the regulations?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that the heritage railways will now be charged for any health and safety inspection by HM railways inspectors? Am I correct in saying that that inspection charge is £115?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as far as I know, there is no change as regards the Health and Safety Executive stemming from these regulations which, I repeat, essentially concern the boiler manufacturers. However, I shall check whether there has been any change.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I find it strange to be lecturing those on the Benches opposite about the value of free trade and the removal of trade barriers. As I pointed out, the boiler industry is extremely significant, with £3.5 billion worth of business and employing 60,000 people. The industry greatly welcomes the regulations because they remove barriers to trade in Europe and open up very significant markets. If that is a matter of no interest to Members opposite, then I am deeply surprised.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, British films are under-represented in the market-place largely because of the separation of production from the distribution process, which is dominated by large American companies. Following the Film Policy Review, the Government are creating a powerful new film council which will develop a comprehensive strategy to help to address this weakness, including providing direct support for distribution and encouraging industry efforts to improve the development and marketing of British films.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful for the general sense of the Minister's words, and I am sure those outside the House will welcome it. Bearing in mind that the government-sponsored Film Policy Review Group's report, A Bigger Picture, drew attention to the fact that in this country the film industry is production-led and fragmented, whereas in America, with which it competes, the business is distribution-led, is the Minister aware that around 70 per cent of films made in Britain are never distributed here at all? American films have 10 times more chance than those made in this country of going on to the British circuit. In those circumstances, I simply say to the Minister that what he has announced will be welcome, and can we have his assurance that it will be pursued with vigour?
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page