| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Berkeley: I am grateful for my noble friend's comments on Amendment No. 54. Obviously, I accept that there are defects in its drafting, but I am slightly surprised that he was not more positive about the principle.
Constables will have the power to breath-test after an accident at sea. That accident may be in a harbour, which is a private place under some definitions. Yes, Heathrow Airport runway is also a private place, as is the local flying club runway, and so on. But if a driver on a public road runs into someone or causes an accident, the police have powers to breathalyse him. The public may well be involved in marine accidents. The Government seem to accept that, but not for air accidents.
I wonder whether my noble friend would accept that there may be further work to be done on consistency across modes. I invite him to draft an amendment to table on Report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We must consider the drafting of Clause 95, which states:
- "In place of subsection (3), a person may be required to provide a specimen either . . . at or near the place where the requirement is made, or . . . at a police station specified by the constable".
Lord Clinton-Davis: I refer again to my amendments. My noble friend has been helpful in his reply. But on Amendment No. 55A, would it not be an advantage if both approaches could be considered? On Amendment No. 55B, although the Minister has been enormously helpful, would it not be advantageous if consultation with the industry, trade unions and any other interested party took place, either during the Bill's passage or afterwards? What is important—there is no difference between the Minister and me on this—is that the provisions should work favourably and positively. All those whom I have mentioned have a real interest in achieving that.
I hope that the Minister can say that at some stage there will be appropriate consultation, which should take place now or in the near future.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can do better than that. I assure my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis that consultation is already taking place on the matter with the Civil Aviation Authority and air transport operators.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My union, BALPA, the Transport and General Workers' Union and others have a similar interest.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We shall certainly include the unions.
Viscount Astor: My small, modest amendment led this group; I am entirely happy with the Minister's reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 96 [Arrest without warrant]:
[Amendment No. 55A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 55B not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 56:
- After Clause 103, insert the following new clause—
The noble Lord said: We now move to Part 6, entitled "Miscellaneous". I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group.
Amendments Nos. 56 and 67, which are grouped, are two of a number of amendments which I have tabled which are designed to subject safety to some interesting discussion, but, more importantly, to a consistent and more rigorous analysis. Much of the work that is done on transport safety—railway safety in particular—is based on recommendations that are either political or are based sometimes on "seat of the pants" opinion.
Amendment No. 56 would require the Health and Safety Executive to take into account the overall effect on the public when personal injury is incurred by travellers and the public are forced to use alternative modes of transport. Members of the Committee will be able to recount their own examples of such incidents. The most recent one was probably the closure of the Central Line for more than two months when a motor fell off a train. We can debate the reasons and the consequences of that but the fact remains that the public were subjected to serious inconvenience. It is probably not possible to identify the number of people who used road transport as an alternative in that situation and who were killed or injured on the road, or who had heart attacks due to walking too far or whatever, but it must be possible to make an assessment. Similarly, during the recent spate of firemen's strikes passenger lifts were closed at certain stations for safety reasons and passengers using those stations had to walk up and down the stairs. That caused great inconvenience to people.
I believe that the staff of the Health and Safety Executive will say that this matter has nothing to do with them and that they just set the rules and issue guidelines. HSE inspectors occasionally offer encouragement to people as regards the matter that I am discussing but I suggest that they often put the fear of prosecution into people in a very forceful way, as we discussed on the first day of our Grand Committee proceedings. That causes operators to play safe to cover themselves even if the end result of that is to force people on to less safe modes of transport. It would be useful to place a duty on the Health and Safety Executive in this regard which would eventually filter down through its guidance and through the
Amendment No. 67 addresses the cost of preventing fatalities. I refer to the document, Managing the accidental obstruction of the railway by road vehicles, published in February 2003, which I believe that I mentioned on the previous occasion. I believe that that is the first example of the Department for Transport placing the same value on preventable fatalities on railways as on roads. That is a significant step forward.
Some interesting assessments have been produced of the costs associated with preventing a road fatality. It is estimated to be about £1.2 million. That seems a reasonable figure. The railway figure is set in the Railway Group Safety Plan at £1.30 million per equivalent fatality avoided. But then there is the sting in the tail. The figure is £3.64 million for the prevention of multiple fatalities or where the risk is close to intolerable.
Several years ago I asked a Minister—I think that it was in another place—why the value per unit of a person killed or injured was higher if many of them were killed at the same time. The Minister said that Ministers did not like the publicity attached to a large accident. I shall not say which government were in power at the time as that has been the situation for years, but not liking bad publicity is about the worst possible reason that one could give for attaching a higher value to a fatality. However, in recent years Ministers have taken a much more robust approach, which is excellent. But the fact remains that that figure still exists. When you look at the Uff and Cullen requirements for the train protection warning system, which I believe had a preventable fatality figure of about £10 million, and the European rail traffic management system, which many people still discuss, is alleged to have a preventable fatality figure of £45 million and rising. So, what is the point of having it at all unless we have an infinite sum of money available.
The position has to some extent been exacerbated by Professor Uff who, at a conference in March, said that what we must at all costs avoid is another major catastrophe. Is he talking about a rail crash, a road crash or an airline crash? Some 100 plus people could be killed in an accident on any of those modes of transport. That, I am afraid, is a case of power without responsibility as Professor Uff does not have the chequebook that gives money to the railways. It is important for Ministers—and would be helpful to them—to attribute the same preventable fatality figure to all modes of transport. Then they could say that they would not follow a certain course of action as the money would be much better spent elsewhere. I seek a regularly updated report on the matter from the Government that could be used by the railway industry and others as the basis for assessing standards, priorities and other such matters. I believe
"ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC EFFECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES
(1) Section 117 of the Railways Act 1993 (c. 43) (safety of railways and other guided transport systems) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) there is inserted—
"(2A) If to any extent they would not do so apart from this subsection, the general purposes of Part 1 of the 1974 Act shall be interpreted by taking into account the overall economic effect of personal injuries on the public (whether passengers or not) arising from the use of alternative modes of transport.""
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page