Railways and Transport Safety Bill

Public Bill Committee, 4 February 2003.

Standing Committee D

Railways and Transport Safety Bill

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Railways and Transport Safety Bill the Standing Committee shall meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 8.55 am and 2.30 pm;

(2) 18 sittings shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill in Committee;

(3) the proceedings shall be taken in the order specified in the Table below;

(4) the proceedings specified in the first column of the Table shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

TABLE

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

Clauses 1 to 13, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 1

5 pm at the 4th Sitting

Clause 14, Schedule 1, Clause 15, Schedules 2 and 3, Clause 16, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 2

11.25 am at the 5th Sitting

Clause 17, Schedule 4, Clauses 18 to 70, Schedule 5, Clauses 71 to 74, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 3

11.25 am at the 11th Sitting

Clauses 75 to 99, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Parts 4 and 5

11.25 am at the 15th Sitting

Clause 100, Schedule 6, Clauses 101 to 106, Schedule 7, Clauses 107 to 110, remaining New Clauses and New Schedules and remaining proceedings on the Bill.

5 pm at the 18th Sitting

It is a pleasure, Mr. Hood, for the Committee to meet under your chairmanship, which I have not previously enjoyed. We look forward to the next few weeks. It is fair to say that Second Reading was conducted in a constructive and civilised atmosphere, and I am sure that that will continue in Committee. I am joined by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). He has a heavy cold, so he is likely to be a silent partner today, but we shall hear more from him in subsequent sittings.

The Bill is important, containing a wide and diverse set of measures, including the creation of a new independent body to investigate accidents on the railways, restructuring the body responsible for economic regulation and introducing alcohol limits for shipping and aviation. The Second Reading debate revealed wide consensus about many measures in the Bill, but even where consensus exists, it is important for new legislation to receive proper scrutiny, and I am sure that the Committee will ensure that that happens. We shall doubtless have robust debates at various stages of our consideration.

The proposed order of consideration is straightforward. Schedules will be considered in tandem with the clauses to which they relate and the

same is true of any new clauses or new schedules. The programming motion provides generous time to examine the Bill, and knives have been set to ensure that all parts are properly considered. Eighteen sittings will provide ample opportunity to reflect on the full range of issues. Given the non-contentious nature of much of the Bill, scrutiny might be completed in even fewer sittings.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Under Standing Orders, debate on the programming motion may continue for up to 30 minutes.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

On behalf of the official Opposition, I may say that it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood. We still have problems with the concept of programme motions, but they are a fact of life and a reality. We have every intention of continuing the tenor of the Second Reading debate, but we want to flag up the fact that insufficient time may be available to examine certain elements of the Bill. Let us hope that we can get through it without any problem.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

On behalf of the unofficial, but effective, Opposition, may I say how delighted I am to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood? I was sorry to hear that the Under-Secretary may be silent during our deliberations this morning, and we all wish him a speedy recovery. Many of us are concerned that his presence in Committee for several weeks will deprive hon. Members of opportunities to hear him in Westminster Hall, where he performs so effectively.

I was delighted by the Minister's approach in introducing the programming motion and kicking off our proceedings. He is right that agreement exists on both sides of the Committee in respect of many aspects of the Bill. Nevertheless, it is important to probe the details of the Government's approach and to table amendments to deal with any difficulties. That is why the programming motion is so important, providing us with sufficient time to achieve precisely that.

I have one question for the Minister. There is concern on both sides that much of the proposed legislation will rely on subsequent statutory instruments. Will we be able to see drafts of those instruments during the Committee?

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood, on what I believe to be an important Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I remind the Committee that there are a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the Room.

I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairmen and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that are reached during an afternoon sitting.

I should also say that I have switched off my mobile phone and that I hope that Committee members have done likewise.

Clause 1 - Meaning of ''railway'' and ''railway property''

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment No. 31, in

clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'(1A) For the purposes of this Act ''railway property'' also includes premises owned by a railway company and occupied by an employee of a railway company.'.

As ever, Mr. Hood, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. You excelled yourself in chairing another Committee on which we both served, and I look forward to serving under your chairmanship of this one.

I remind the Committee of my declaration of interest on Second Reading—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary may wish to spare his voice for more important matters later. I am sure that he and I will also have at least one opportunity to cross swords in an Adjournment debate on a Wednesday afternoon while the Committee continues.

I have interests in Eurotunnel, Railtrack, British Airways, BAE Systems, BAA, First Group and the Royal Automobile Club. My husband is an airline executive. It may help the Committee if I indicate that, apart from the RAC, none of those declarations is worthy of registration. They are not important in terms of pecuniary value, but may be of interest to the Committee.

I hope that the Minister and the Committee will see amendment No. 31 as a helpful way of clarifying what we see as an omission. Clause 1 transposes a number of definitions adopted under Acts of Parliament passed by Conservative Governments. We will not, therefore, go over old ground, as we remain proud of that legislation.

As I represent Vale of York, I know that railways are important to my constituents and to those of many other hon. Members. I therefore believe that railway property should be defined before we adopt and implement the Bill. We believe that the definition given would be sufficient for the purposes of the Act if it also included

''premises owned by a railway company and occupied by an employee of a railway company.''

I hope that the Minister will think that that is sufficient of itself. There may be other properties that should be included, and the Government may want a broader definition. However, we believe that a serious omission has occurred, and that that follows through into later parts of the Bill, particularly clause 7 on the investigator's powers.

Clause 1(2) states:

''The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section.''

I noticed, on another Committee on which I served, that provision of such powers seems to be part of a general trend. Does that mean that the Government may in future be minded to define what constitutes railway property in a statutory instrument? Does a railway property definition already exist? If so, it would be immensely helpful to the Committee if we were aware of it.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I will be particularly interested in the Minister's response, as the Government amendment to clause 2 would allow them change definitions by regulation, and they may have something in mind in that respect.

The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) is absolutely right: it is important to understand the definition of what constitutes appropriate property. However, I have some concerns about the implications for the jurisdiction of the British Transport police. Why is it important to include the property of an employee in the definition? My understanding is that if there is a suggestion that an incident that occurred on the railway might be connected with apparatus or goods at an employee's property, the British Transport police could obtain appropriate warrants to conduct an investigation in the normal way.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The hon. Gentleman touches on one of the most sensitive parts of the Bill, and we are pre-empting a later discussion. The founding Acts of Parliament and the subsequent amendments that set up the aviation accident inspection branch and the marine accident investigation branch referred specifically to the issuing of a warrant or summons. We are worried that the Bill does not define a dwelling or a property, as that may lead to huge controversy in later clauses.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful for the hon. Lady's intervention, and I share her concern, but my understanding is that we will have a later opportunity to consider the issuing of warrants in respect of premises owned by an employee. I have difficulty in understanding the need for the definition of property in clause 1 to include reference to an employee's property. Train operating companies have premises that are not directly related to running the railway. Those premises should be excluded from the purposes of the Bill, especially in relation to the work of the British Transport police. I do not criticise the hon. Lady, but she has not explained why the definition should include employees' premises, which could be covered in respect of the British Transport police by warrant, or those parts of premises owned by a train operating company that are not directly related to running the railway. We are minded not to support the amendment.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of York for explaining her amendment, and I hope to show that we have taken into account what it would achieve.

The rail accident investigation branch will investigate accidents and incidents relevant to the operation of the railway. The definition of railway property is drafted to reflect the places where a railway accident or incident would occur that could be the subject of an RAIB investigation. Extending the definition would mean that the RAIB had a duty to investigate accidents in a railway station back office, for example, which are more properly the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive.

During an investigation, RAIB inspectors will need to gain access to railway property, as well as to other

land or premises used in connection with the operations of the railways, if the inspector reasonably believes that they may contain evidence relevant to an accident or incident. I assure the hon. Lady that the premises of a railway company or those occupied by an employee in such circumstances could be entered using the powers in the Bill. With that assurance, I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The amendment has served its purpose in eliciting an assurance from the Minister. He has not, however, responded to all the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and me. The powers are more extensive than those enjoyed by other investigation boards, but the Minister has satisfied me on that.

The amendment was also designed to establish whether the definition of what constitutes an adjoining house or property is exclusive, or whether the Minister is minded to interpret the provision more broadly along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Bath, whereby certain properties would automatically be excluded. It is an important point, although we shall not press it to a vote at this stage.

Many aspects of the Bill are non-controversial. The hon. Member for Bath is right that implementation will be left to the British Transport police. It is in the interest of Parliament to get it right now so that we do not have to revert to the Secretary of State's right to amend by regulation. I am a Scottish lawyer, which may amount to a vested interest, but I think that it is much better to get the Bill right first time rather than depend either on court cases alleging that the power is being abused, or on the Secretary of State's right to amend through regulations. We shall not press for a Division now, but we will return to the principle later.

We may not want a clause stand part debate on the point, but it would be helpful to know why a tramway in Scotland is excluded from the Bill's purpose under subsection (1). I hope that the Minister will explain that in due course.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

That question involves what matters are reserved and which devolved. It is slightly complicated by the fact that Scotland has no tramways, and I know of no proposals to change that.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Meaning of ''railway accident'' and

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment No.21, in

clause 2, page 1, line 16, after 'property', insert

'or property adjacent to railway property'.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No.1, in

clause 2, page 1, line 17, at end insert—

'(1A) A serious accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of a train or rail infrastructure in which—

(a) a person, whether employee, passenger or third party, suffers a fatal or serious injury; or

(b) a train sustains damage or structural failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance or characteristics of the trains, and would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component.

(1B) A non-serious accident and railway incident both mean an incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly or potentially occurred.'.

No.22, in

clause 2, page 1, line 17, at end insert—

'(1A) A serious accident shall be deemed to have occurred in circumstances in which—

(a) the operation of a train or collision with railway property has caused a fatality or serious injury involving an individual, whether employee, passenger or third party; or

(b) {**/ri**}a train or railway property sustains serious damage or structural failure which adversely affects the operations or the structural strength of the trains or railway property which would require a major repair or replacement of the train or closure of the railway property.

(1B) A non-serious accident and railway incident are deemed to have occurred in circumstances in which an accident nearly or potentially occurred.'.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The purposes of amendment No. 21 are broadly similar to those of the previous amendment . It is designed to specify more tightly the definition of property, which should include reference to ''adjacent to railway property''. The items of a rail disaster would not spread out over as wide an area as the horrifying fall-out of the US shuttle—rail accidents tend to be more localised—but it would be helpful to specify that properties adjacent to railway buildings are included, which would lend further weight to the investigator's powers of investigation.

Amendment No. 1 arose from a far-ranging and excellent debate on Second Reading, in which the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) spoke powerfully about the lack of definition in the Bill of what counts as an accident or an incident.

In his introduction to the Second Reading debate, the Secretary of State mentioned that a degree of latitude would be given to the rail accident investigation branch in deciding which types of accident should be investigated. Members of the Committee will have had the opportunity to study the detailed briefing provided by the Royal National Institute of the Blind on the sort of accident that may not lead to a fatality or serious injury, but may still be significantly harmful to individuals. For example, someone with an eye infection or, like the Under-Secretary, with a streaming cold may be deprived of normal vision. He may be only temporarily impaired, but could easily trip over a step on accessing a platform. It would significantly reassure such a person if the Government allowed such incidents to be deemed worthy of investigation.

I shall leave the hon. Member for Bath to speak to his amendment, but amendment No. 22 is designed to press the argument that non-serious accidents and

incidents should be deemed to have occurred and be viewed as potentially significant in certain circumstances. Following the scenario through, someone tripping on the platform could roll on to the track and cause a serious accident. The amendment is designed to elicit the Minister's clarification of how far-reaching the RAIB's discretion will be.

The Secretary of State said on Second Reading:

''The whole point in having a rail accident investigation branch is precisely in order to get an explanation of what happened as quickly as possible.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 766.]

He went on to say that that was the purpose of setting up the body. We should enable the RAIB through clause 2(1) to decide precisely what type of accident should be investigated.

We believe that a serious accident should be deemed to have occurred where

''the operation of a train or collision with railway property has caused a fatality or serious injury involving an individual, whether employee, passenger or third party''.

The Potters Bar crash was the first occasion on which I saw vividly the consequences of a railway carriage collision, but only last week disaster was narrowly averted on the Central line when a railway carriage collided with a tunnel on entering a station. The Secretary of State alluded to the fact that the RAIB would have been authorised to investigate those two accidents, but it would be far better if the Bill included such a definition.

Our amendment goes on to specify

''a train or railway property sustains serious damage or structural failure which adversely affects the operations or the structural strength of the trains or railway property which would require a major repair or replacement of the train or closure of the railway property.''

We believe that that is a fairly concise definition, but it would help the RAIB and the investigators if the Government said what a serious or non-serious accident or railway incident should be.

Again, in response to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, the Secretary of State said that there would be

''sufficient latitude under clause 6 to allow the chief inspector to take a decision as to whether or not he ought to investigate.'' .''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 772.]

I humbly submit that it is not sufficient to leave that to clause 6. We need a clear and concise definition. With the Potters Bar and Central line accidents in mind, we propose amendments Nos. 21 and 22 as probing amendments that would strengthen the Bill. Indeed, the Minister's hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, pleaded with him to include a concise definition.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I thank the hon. Lady for her introduction to her amendments. We, too, were impressed by the compelling arguments made by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby on Second Reading. However, it is not enough to leave the issue to clause 6 on the assumption that it somehow resolves the problem. Clause 6 is clear about what the RAIB may or may not do. It states:

''The Rail Accident Investigation Branch—

(a) shall investigate any serious railway accident,

(b) may investigate a non-serious railway accident or a railway incident, and

(c) shall investigate a non-serious railway accident or incident if required to do so by or in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.''

In other words, the distinction between a serious railway accident, which the RAIB is required to investigate, and a non-serious railway accident or incident, which it might or might not investigate, is clearly important. I am delighted that the Secretary of State told us on Second Reading that the RAIB will be given a fair degree of latitude in what it investigates. Nevertheless, unless we have clear definitions of what the terms mean, it will be difficult for us to know exactly what is in the Government's mind on clause 6.

The Minister will rightly tell us that the air accident investigation branch and the marine accident investigation branch do not have detailed definitions in their legislation, and that definitions of this sort in relation to their work are covered by regulations. However, we are again in some difficulty because we do not yet have even draft regulations to give us some idea of what is in the Minister's mind. The probing amendments are important in helping to tease out from the Government exactly what definitions they have in mind.

In a spirit of openness and honesty that might surprise hon. Members, I must say that I am now rather more taken with the hon. Lady's second amendment than I am with my own. She is right to refer to properties adjoining the railway, as we can all imagine several accidents or incidents that might result from, for example, an electricity power line near a railway. Nevertheless, as the hon. Lady has said, these are probing amendments intended to give us a more detailed insight into the Government's thinking. We hope that the Minister will at least tell us when we will see draft regulations.

Either now or during the debate on clause 6, it would be helpful to hear a little more about the Government's thinking on the degree of latitude that is to be offered to the RAIB. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the air accident investigation branch quite rightly believes that it is important to investigate potential incidents, such as near misses. We can learn a great deal from those. Similarly, on the railways there could be investigations into the sort of incidents referred to by the hon. Lady, who mentioned that the Royal National Institute of the Blind has provided information.

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby was on to an important point when he said that we need some clear indications about definitions. I am not too concerned whether that happens in regulations or the Bill, so long as we are given an early opportunity to know what will be in the regulations, if that is the route that is followed.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Vale of York and for Bath for explaining what the amendments seek to address. I hope to show that we have taken into account what they seek to achieve and that there would be some difficulties in including such things in the Bill at the moment.

Amendment No. 21 would extend the remit of the RAIB beyond the railways, which the Government believe would be unnecessary. Lord Cullen recommended that the fundamental aim and objective of the RAIB should be to improve the safety of the railways and prevent railway accidents and incidents. The RAIB will establish the root causes of railway accidents and incidents and, equally importantly, will share safety lessons with the industry as quickly as possible so that safety can be improved and future accidents prevented. Of course, it is possible that an accident elsewhere might affect the operation of the railway. We see that reasonably regularly. Smoke from an office, factory or warehouse fire might blow on to a railway track and impair a train driver's visibility and might even, as we have seen, stop the train. An accident on property adjacent to the railway might involve objects falling on to the track. The hon. Member for Bath mentioned the possibility of a power line; a real example tragically occurred when a Land Rover was involved in the Selby disaster.

However, if such occurrences result in a railway accident, the RAIB will already have the power to investigate. It does not make sense for the RAIB to investigate the office or factory fire, although the Health and Safety Executive might undertake such investigations in order to improve safety in offices and shops and on industrial premises.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Let us take the example of a railway employee, working to repair the roof of a railway station, who falls and sustains injuries. If that did not have a direct impact on the running of the railway, presumably the matter would be investigated—rightly—by the Health and Safety Executive, which could bring to bear its expertise from other similar incidents. That is why definitions are important. They rule out, as well as ruling in, incidents and accidents that can be covered by the RAIB.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The hon. Gentleman has helped us with his example of people falling from roofs. When I was a trade union official we conducted a campaign on the dangers of asbestos and someone wrote in to say that the union was absolutely right to undertake the campaign and that he could testify to the dangers of asbestos because when he walked across an asbestos roof he fell through and broke his leg. He suggested that people should therefore be aware that asbestos was extremely dangerous.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The Health and Safety Executive has the expertise to deal with such issues, which are properly within its remit. The RAIB will consider matters that have an impact on the operation of the railways. I realise that there will be grey areas in which jurisdiction will need to be considered. That is inevitable in the running of such a complex system. I hope that I have explained why we believe that amendment No. 21 is unnecessary.

We agree that there is a need to define what accidents the RAIB will be under a duty to investigate.

The hon. Members for Vale of York and for Bath referred to draft regulations. However, hon. Members will know that we have to ensure that domestic legislation complies with European legislation. The European Council and the European Parliament are currently debating a proposed railway safety directive, which will provide a framework for a consistent approach to independent accident investigation in all member states. We should all welcome that.

The directive will include definitions of what constitutes a serious accident and an incident. The precise definitions in the draft directive remain under discussion, but the current draft definitions are significantly different from those proposed in amendments Nos. 1 and 22. If they were accepted, we would find ourselves needing to amend primary legislation all too soon. I can assure hon. Members that we plan to set out detailed definitions in the regulations that will be published shortly after Royal Assent, but they will need to be compatible with definitions agreed at European level.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

In my prior life, I was a Member of the European Parliament. We used to take part in that sort of negotiation; I sat on a committee that did so. In that respect the European Parliament is the co-decision maker with the Council of Ministers. Can the Minister convince the Committee that the Government is being a little more proactive than he has suggested? I would like the Government to take our definition to Europe. It could be a definition of the official Opposition or the Government. Europe works best when it is offered a practical and pragmatic approach, often by Britain. I hope that the Minister will take my criticism in good heart. It is wrong that we should lie back and think of whatever Europe comes up with. We should tell it what we believe the definition should be.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I thought that the hon. Lady was going to suggest that we lie back and think of Europe.

I was going to outline the current draft definition of ''serious accident'' in the railway safety directive. That specifies events that would be subject to mandatory investigation by an independent investigation body, as proposed in the Bill, in all member states. It reads as follows:

''Serious accident means:

a) accidents caused by collision or derailment of trains, resulting in at least one killed person or five or more seriously injured persons . . . or extensive damage to rolling stock, the infrastructure or the environment and with an obvious impact on railway safety regulation or the management of safety''.

''Extensive damage'' means damage that can immediately be assessed by the investigating body to cost at least €2 million.

Given that definition, the suggested amendments are unlikely to comply fully with the forthcoming European legislation, particularly in relation to incidents resulting in environmental damage or damage to track and signalling. Such incidents would need to be covered by the definition of serious accident, which we would need to incorporate in domestic legislation. On that understanding, I hope that the hon. Member for Vale of York will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

This has been a fascinating discussion, and I realise that the hon. Member for Bath and I have made one omission. We have not considered the worst-case scenario to which the Minister alluded—environmental damage. For example, there may be a chemical spill. I would like to put the Committee's mind at rest. Hawkhills, the civil service emergency planning college, is located in the Vale of York, and help is at hand. I am sure that even as we speak, the college is considering such a scenario.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Bearing in mind what the hon. Lady has rightly said about our joint failure to refer to environmental damage, does she feel that the definitions introduced by the Government on the back of European legislation would cover some form of terrorist incident on a freight train carrying munitions or radioactive materials? Such an incident might not lead to a collision or a derailment, but would nevertheless be serious.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I hope that the British Transport police, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) rightly commended highly—we all have cause to be grateful to them—are on the case as we speak. I imagine that they are. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Bath, and it is most generous of the Minister to share with the Committee the thinking behind the European definition. On the face of what he read out a moment ago, it seems to include additional aspects to those specified in amendments Nos. 22 and 1. On the other hand, that definition does not cover some of the points that we have raised. I humbly submit that we could return to the matter later.

There are many definitions that one could examine. The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety has come up with a further definition in which an accident is specified as an occurrence connected to the operation of the train or rail infrastructure, and which is not dissimilar to the definition in amendment No. 22. The Minister must take it on board that all members on the Committee want to continue to improve this country's rail safety record. I mentioned the visually impaired. The European definition that is emerging does not in my view go far enough to satisfy the most vulnerable. I shall not press the amendment to a vote, but I ask the Minister to consider three scenarios and take them on board in his negotiations with his European counterparts.

The first is when accidents occur because the gap between the platform and the train is so large that passengers, especially the less able and the visually impaired, are not sure where the platform edge is. They may trip and be injured. The most vulnerable are often the main beneficiaries of rail transport. Many do not have their own means of transport so depend heavily on public transport. The second scenario is where accidents occur because the gap between train carriages is large enough to cause confusion and disaster. RNIB members have been in such situations. The third scenario is where people are worried about getting off the train on the wrong side and ending up on the track rather than the platform. That would probably not happen often now, because most modern

carriages have doors that open electronically, on one side only.

Against that background, I hope that the Minister will take on board our serious points. I do not know whether he wants to comment on amendment No. 21 and on whether the Government would consider a definition that included not only property but property adjacent to railway property, for the reasons that emerged in the Potters Bar incident. There, not only the tunnel was damaged but, I imagine, some adjacent property. Perhaps the Minister will take that on board.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I hope that I have dealt with the issues raised by amendment No. 21. Damage consequential to the accident is a slightly different matter from the causes of the accident, which is the focus of the accident investigation branch.

I thank the hon. Lady for saying that she will not press the amendment to a vote. I hope that I can help by looking at the definition of serious accidents in the directive. There will be nothing to stop member states widening the scope of mandatory investigation in their territory, as long as it complies with the minimum scope defined in the directive. That is open to us under these provisions, and could be done by regulation. A difficulty would be created, however, if we wrote into the Bill definitions that were incompatible with the directive. We would then need to amend primary legislation, and do so quite soon.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I hope that any such regulation would be subject to the affirmative procedure of the House, providing the opportunity further to investigate and amend. Consensus is emerging in Committee, and it would be regrettable if we could not develop it further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in

clause 2, page 2, line 7, at end insert—

'(3A) Regulations under subsection (2) must be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments Nos. 23 to 26.

Amendment No. 20, in

clause 12, page 7, line 18, leave out from 'be' to end of line 19 and insert

'laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Before I speak to the amendment, I want to make a point of clarification. I am moving amendment No. 19, which deals with clause 2, but is it in order to speak to clause 12? Having agreed a programme resolution, we were not expecting to take provisions out of order, but we now seem to be in the Government's hands. We are already talking about clause 12.

As was clear on Second Reading, hon. Members are concerned about the extent to which the Government have empowered themselves to amend

provisions. Clause 2(2) empowers the Secretary of State, through regulation, to

''make provision for what is to be or not to be treated as an accident or incident for the purposes of this Part''.

I repeat that the regulations should be approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

I note that the Government amendments leave out reference to orders, so I presume that regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution of each House. Now would be a good opportunity for the Minister to answer the question to which he earlier failed to respond: will the regulations on what constitutes a serious accident, a less serious accident or an incident be subject to proper scrutiny?

Clause 12 set alarm bells ringing for Opposition Members because of the wide powers it confers on the Government to make regulations. Will the Minister explain why the Government decided to delete the reference to orders in the Bill at this early stage of proceedings? Am I right in assuming that an order is a statutory instrument? The Minister could nod his head and Hansard would enter it into the record.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

He is waiting for guidance.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Perhaps the guidance could come from a provenance that cannot be recorded, but it would be helpful to understand what constitutes a regulation and what an order. We hesitate to empower the Government. My preference is always for primary legislation, whenever possible. The Minister said that it would have been regrettable to adopt amendments Nos. 22 or 1 and have to review and repeal a part of the Bill. Would this be a good moment for the Minister to respond to my question whether a statutory instrument constitutes an order?

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. I can advise the hon. Lady that I shall decide who is going to speak. If the Minister wants to intervene, he is welcome to do so. It is not for her to call Members to speak.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is most helpful, Mr. Hood. My question was just for clarification.

I repeat that it is our sincere wish—I hope that the Minister will grant us co-operation and assistance—that as much legislation as possible will be in the Bill and as little as possible left to regulation. Can he assure us that Government amendments Nos. 20 and 23 to 26 relate specifically to the definition, which would avoid the eventuality of having to be specific in the Bill, which would not sit comfortably with, and would perhaps contradict, the definition agreed at European level? In a spirit of co-operation, we have agreed a programming motion this morning. I hope that we will still be allowed to consider later in the Bill the implications of clause 12 for clauses 3 to 11.

Any regulations made under clause 2(2) should be kept to an absolute minimum. We seek confirmation from the Minister that that will be the case. The definition that he seeks, which he generously explored with us this morning, will at least touch on some of the points discussed under amendments Nos. 22 and 1.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for explaining the issues that the amendments seek to address. As she said, the group of amendments includes four Government amendments. Government amendments Nos. 23 and 24 seek to correct typographical errors. The clause presently provides for regulations and orders created under part 1. Part 1 does not provide for any orders, and the reference to such ''orders'' should therefore be removed.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I am interested in the concept of typographical errors that recur regularly. To my mind, a typographical error occurs only once. Perhaps the Minister could say that his Department found that it had made a mistake rather than a typographical error.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Typographers have to take responsibility for a number of areas under all Governments, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware.

As the hon. Member for Vale of York said, Government amendment No. 25 changes the parliamentary procedure for regulations under clause 1(2) from negative resolution to affirmative resolution. Clause 1(2) allows the Secretary of State to amend the definition of ''railway'' or ''railway property'' by regulation. That is a Henry VIII power, allowing secondary legislation to amend primary legislation. As hon. Members may be aware, the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recently recommended that Henry VIII powers should generally be exercised by affirmative resolution, and the amendment will accomplish that. Government amendment No. 26 confirms that other regulations under part 1 will be made by negative resolution.

The amendments are being proposed to ensure that the part of the Bill relating to the RAIB works well and that it is consistent throughout. However, the other amendments in the group would damage the smooth operation of the RAIB.

Amendments Nos. 32, 19 and 20 would mean that other regulations made under part 1 could be made only by affirmative resolution. The regulations for the RAIB will set out detailed working arrangements for the branch in the same way as civil aviation regulations and merchant shipping regulations. Both the equivalent air accident regulations and marine regulations are made by negative resolution. Lord Cullen recommended that the RAIB should be modelled on the aviation investigation branch. We agree, and can see no reason why the RAIB regulations should not be made in the same manner. As I have said, we intend to publish regulations soon after Royal Assent.

The regulations will need also to reflect the forthcoming European Union safety directive, which will place its own requirements on what accidents and incidents need to be investigated. We shall have to comply with its terms. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Vale of York will withdraw the amendment. I beg to move formally amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 26.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. The Minister will have the opportunity to move those amendments formally later in the proceedings, not while we are on this clause.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Given the Minister's assurance, can he give a further assurance that all other typographical errors have been checked and that we will not have to come back to such matters later?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We always make examinations to ensure that we have the best possible legislation, and I am sure that both sides of the Committee desire that.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) has suggested, the question is raised of what is a typographical error and what is a mistake. I should hate to be a typographer in the Minister's Department at this time.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Does the hon. Lady believe that clause 103 is the result of a typographical error, or a straightforward mistake by the Government?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I hesitate to speak for the Government, but I think that we shall have plenty to say on clause 103 when the time comes.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I think that the hon. Member for Bath meant a mistake by the previous Government.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We admit to having made mistakes, although we did not make too many typographical errors.

I have great difficulty in seeing the difference between amendment No. 20 and Government amendment No. 25. Apart from about two words, their content, drafting and aim are identical. Will the Minister see fit to withdraw amendment No. 25 and instead to accept amendment No. 20?

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. I should advise the hon. Lady that if she wants to be a member of the Chairmen's Panel, and invite people to withdraw amendments, she should see Mr. Speaker.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is an ambition beyond my wildest dreams at the present time, Mr. Hood. I shall store it away for the future. I hope that the Minister, in a spirit of generosity, will accept that the two amendments are very close.

The Minister has inspired me with no confidence whatever in amendment No. 26. Amendments Nos. 25 and 20 seek to address the Henry VIII situation—Henry VIII was a man of many wives, and I am a lady of many dreams. Given the Minister's points on amendment No. 25, I am shocked and stunned by amendment No. 26, which opens a whole can of worms. He failed to specify precisely what other regulations the Government will want to introduce under the negative procedure.

The Opposition are always deeply uneasy at any reference to the negative procedure. I remember how many statutory instruments were passed in the hazy days of 1973, when I was a humble law student, studying constitutional law at Edinburgh university. If one reads a constitutional law book now, some 30 years later, one sees that the number of statutory instruments introduced, especially by negative resolution, has become unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will agree, in a spirit of compromise, to move forward by means of affirmative resolution.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Our amendment simply deals with the concerns expressed by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that Henry VIII powers should generally be exercised only by affirmative resolution. However, if powers under secondary legislation are not used to change primary legislation, regulations are most effectively be made by negative resolution, and we have clarified that in Government amendment No. 25.

Amendment No. 20 would go much beyond that. As the hon. Lady rightly said, she is trying to change all procedures to affirmative resolution. Our proposal that that should be the case only for the area that we have outlined takes account of the concerns of the Lords Committee.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I hear what the Minister is saying, but he still has not satisfied us. There is not a great deal that we can do about that at this stage, but I would like him to respond to the specific question of which issues the Government would seek to advance by means of negative resolution. We remain deeply uneasy about Government amendment No. 26, and I imagine that the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will be uneasy too.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Is the hon. Lady withdrawing her amendment or pressing for a vote?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Establishment

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

On a point of order, Mr. Hood. I would be grateful for clarification of your intentions. I noticed that on clauses 1 and 2 you proceeded immediately to a vote on clause stand part. As I wish to raise several points about the generality of clause 3, would you indicate whether you want me to refer to them during debates on the various amendments or whether you will allow a separate debate on clause stand part?

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I probably will allow a debate on clause stand part for clause 3, assuming that there are not long debates on the amendments. That being the case, there will be a stand part debate.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in

clause 3, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

'(3A) The Rail Accident Investigation Branch shall make an annual report of its proceedings to each House of Parliament.

(3B) The Rail Accident Investigation Branch shall present its audited annual accounts to each House of Parliament.'.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 3, in

clause 8, page 5, line 41, at end add—

'(6) The Secretary of State shall place a requirement upon the Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents to publish an annual progress report on the implementation of recommendations which he makes.'.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My understanding is that the present arrangements allow the Health and Safety

Executive to publish an annual report, which is debated. It emerged very clearly on Second Reading that there is a desire among hon. Members of all parties that the work of the rail accident investigation branch should be scrutinised closely once that work has commenced. As with other bodies set up under primary legislation, we believe that the most traditional and effective method of scrutiny would be by way of an annual report of the proceedings of the rail accident investigation branch to Parliament, in which case it would be laid in the normal way before the relevant Select Committee of each House and debated. If appropriate, it could even be debated on the Floor of the House or in the confines of Westminster Hall.

The rail accident investigation branch will have an important and, I hope, effective function in securing a perception of safety on the railways. The new branch would gain much credibility if an annual report were to be made and scrutinised by the House, particularly given that we shall later consider, notably under clause 7, what the branch's powers will be.

I propose that the rail accident investigation branch present its audited annual accounts to each House of Parliament. You reminded us at the outset, Mr. Hood, that the Bill carries both a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution, which is extremely important for the scrutiny of the branch's work, as the Minister said. For example, there are currently no tramways in Scotland. Not so long ago, perhaps a century ago, there were tramways in Edinburgh and other cities in Scotland. It is not inconceivable, if the Minister does not discount it, that there will be tramways in the future.

It emerged clearly on Second Reading that there is deep concern on the Minister's own Benches about the relationship between the reserved and devolved powers. I had an opportunity to question the Advocate-General for Scotland on this point. The most vexed issue in relation to the balance between the reserved and devolved powers lies in the field of transport. The compiling of such an annual report and an audited annual account will be an opportunity for us to explore any potential conflict between the reserved and devolved powers.

Most agencies set up by primary legislation report to the relevant Select Committee—in this case, the Select Committee on Transport, on which I have the honour to serve. I believe that it is highly appropriate to consider the possibility of the branch both making an annual report and presenting audited annual accounts, as amendment No. 15 seeks.

The purpose of amendment No. 3 will be for the hon. Member for Bath to explore. I would prefer a full annual report. I do not think that there is too much daylight between my intentions and his. I would prefer the normal mechanisms of an annual report to be presented to the Select Committee on Transport and audited accounts to be presented to the Public Accounts Committee.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the explanation of her amendment. We support it. Our own amendment does not seek to be an alternative to hers, but would add significantly to it, were both amendments to be accepted by the Government either in their current form or in a revised form.

The hon. Lady is right to stress the need for the new body set up under clause 3, the rail accident investigation branch, to present annual reports in the way she describes. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that there is no similar requirement in legislation on two similar bodies. The aviation accident investigation branch was established under regulations made under section 75 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. Those contain no reference to a requirement to produce such annual reports. The marine accident investigation branch was established under section 267 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. That also has no such reference, yet, as the Minister will point out, in both cases such reports are produced, even though there is no requirement on the bodies to do so.

Nevertheless, our amendment goes a stage further. It would be helpful to have a requirement for there to be such a report, but I am particularly conscious that we are establishing the rail accident investigation branch in the light of Lord Cullen's recommendations. It would be sensible to follow all his recommendations in relation to the establishment of such a body.

Part 2 of his report on the Ladbroke Grove rail crash, which was published in September 2001, stated:

''I accordingly recommend that the responsibility for the investigation of accidents should be entrusted to an independent body which is set up for the purpose. The body would be similar in constitution to the AAIB and the MAIB. For convenience I will refer to it as the RAIB.''

However, in coming to that conclusion, Lord Cullen said:

''Against this I have to weigh the potential disadvantages, the most significant of which is the loss of direct connection between the investigator and the regular contact with the operation of safety systems.''

Amendment No. 3 would make it possible to resolve that difficulty. Many Committee members will be aware that over many months I have been concerned that we have not had regular reports from anybody about the progress that has been made in following the recommendations made by Professor Uff and Lord Cullen. The Committee will be well aware that 33 recommendations are now long past the recommended implementation date. With the sole exception of the European railway traffic management system, we have not heard from the Government or any other body about the intentions in relation to the remaining recommendations.

As I have said on several occasions, I am firmly of the opinion that some of the recommendations cannot necessarily be sensibly followed. In some respects, Lord Cullen's recommendations would not improve safety on our railways. For example, there are his proposals on easier access to drivers' cabs on trains and putting roof lights on carriages, which could damage their structural integrity. Nevertheless, it is

important that there be clear reports on the progress that has been made on the recommendations.

Amendment No. 3 has two effects. First, it gives us a body that will formally report on the progress of recommendations on railway safety. Secondly, it gives that responsibility to the RAIB so that it will have that close interconnection of, as Lord Cullen puts it,

''regular contact with the operation of safety systems.''

The amendment would add neatly to the one moved by the hon. Member for Vale of York. The amendments would mean that we had a regular report of the RAIB's work, together with its report on how it believes other bodies have responded to its recommendations and, in particular, to the implementation of those recommendations. I hope that the Minister will accept both the hon. Lady's amendment and the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and I have tabled. If he does not, I hope that he will at least give us an assurance that the Government will deal with the issues in their own wording, later in the Bill's passage.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York on amendment No. 15. Accidents on the railways are a matter of public interest. An annual report could be presented to Parliament, perhaps by the Select Committee that considers rail safety, and then debated, perhaps under the new arrangements whereby Select Committee reports are debated in Westminster Hall. I shall listen carefully to the Minister.

Annual accounts will ensure not only that money is spent appropriately, but that the public can see that sufficient money is going into the important new rail accident investigation branch. I hope that the Minister will listen, and I shall listen to his response. He may be about to concede that the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats have made a fair point and accept the merits of our argument that there would be great public demand for an annual report and published accounts.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

If the Minister is not minded to support our recommendation, what mechanism does he believe would be appropriate to ensure that there is regular reporting on the implementation of recommendations from different rail inquiries?

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I support the amendment. There is a crisis of confidence in the safety of the transport network overall, and I welcome the setting up of the rail accident investigation branch because it is a way of restoring public confidence. However, it will only be any good if it is well publicised. Publication of an annual report would do just that. We have recently seen a shift from rail to road when there has been a tragedy and it is important that the public have confidence in the rail system and its safety. I believe that publication of annual accounts and an annual report would go some way towards increasing public confidence in the RAIB and our rail system.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I am grateful to hon. Members for explaining the amendments and the number of people

who support them. That may be because they anticipated my response, but they may be pleased and surprised to hear that we have considerable sympathy with some of their arguments.

The Committee will know that the Office of the Rail Regulator is currently consulting on licence modification proposals, so that standards set by the proposed rail safety and standards board will be complied with. It will be an industry-led body that will maintain a single record of recommendations made by the rail accident investigation branch as well as industry investigation recommendations, so that the state of the industry's progress towards implementation of each and every recommendation can be checked.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister rightly says that the rail regulator is currently consulting on the proposal. It is also known that he believes that the body could be established within the next couple of months. Can the Minister give a clear indication—he did not do so when I asked the same question on Second Reading—that the Government fully support the establishment of such a body and of when they believe such a body will be established?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

It is always difficult to set exact timetables for such matters, but we certainly support the efforts of the rail regulator in that context.

It must be right that the industry is responsible for the implementation of safety recommendations made by the RAIB, but we see merit in the RAIB reporting on the industry's actions. It will want to see that its safety recommendations are acted on, that lessons are learned and that it receives wider publicity.

The aviation accident investigation branch shares that desire. There is no statutory requirement for it to publish an annual report, as the hon. Member for Bath said, but it and the Civil Aviation Authority publish such reports setting out all undertakings or authorities to which an AAIB safety recommendation is directed, and details of the measures taken to implement the recommendation. It is not required by legislation, but it does close the feedback loop as far as safety action is concerned. It places a discipline on everyone involved to ensure that safety action is properly undertaken.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the Minister give way?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

May I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for a moment because his point might be answered in my next paragraph?

Amendment No. 3 and the first paragraph of amendment No. 15 are clearly aimed at reporting. I should like to look at the wording, with particular reference to draft European legislation. On that basis, I am happy to reflect on the matter to see whether we can produce a suitably drafted amendment at a later stage.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the Minister both for giving way and for what he went on to say. In the light of his remark, I may be prepared to withdraw my amendment. For accuracy on the record, however, will he confirm that the AAIB does not produce a report in conjunction with the CAA because the CAA report is

produced in conjunction with the Department for Transport? Although the AAIB feeds into the report, it is nevertheless a CAA report. Is the Minister minded to have the RAIB making the amendments, which I have proposed, or should another body make the report on implementation and recommendations?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I will need to reflect on that point, but the RAIB is likely to be responsible. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that the CAA produces the report in conjunction with the Department for Transport, but the AAIB is part of the Department for Transport, as the RAIB will be. To some extent, we may have got into a semantic difficulty. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Vale of York understand that we are taking their points on board to look at the best mechanism for publishing the annual report of the RAIB, but we want to look at possible European legislation in order to achieve a form of words sufficiently robust to bring to Committee at a later stage.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

If the Minister is considering that there may be an opportunity for that requirement to go on to the face of the Bill at a later stage—the amendment will presumably be typographically pure—does he think, since the Bill covers not only railways but transport safety, that there would be any merit in putting a similar statutory requirement on the AAIB? Having said that there is no statutory requirement on the AAIB, does he think that it would be a good idea?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The current procedures seem perfectly satisfactory not only to the aviation industry but to passengers and others concerned with the issues. In many ways, they form the model for the creation of the RAIB. However, I take on board the points regarding the RAIB, which should have a procedure for publishing its reports and progress. We will certainly look at how we can incorporate such a procedure.

We do not look on the second paragraph of amendment No. 15 with such favour because it is out of step with existing arrangements for the other departmental investigation branches—the AAIB and the maritime accident investigation branch. The RAIB will, of course, be a branch of the Department. The departmental annual report covers the AAIB and the MAIB, and will cover the RAIB in future. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to consider withdrawing the amendment.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

This has been an illuminating discussion and came as close as we have been to a positive assurance, rather than sympathy, that the Government are ready to take on, at least in part, one of the official Opposition's amendments.

I shall first respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Bath. From his explanation, I can see what he is trying to achieve, although I do not believe that an annual progress report is the right vehicle. I am also concerned that in almost every discussion that we have had in the Select Committee or on the Floor of the House about the safety of the railways, anxiety has

been expressed about the increasing fragmentation of the railways. I note the hon. Gentleman's comments and the Minister's response about the establishment of the rail safety and standards board. It prompts the question, which casts a shadow and doubt in my mind, about why we are having a separate board. I would feel more comfortable if the rail accident investigation branch were given the responsibility of setting and implementing standards.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I confess that I am surprised to hear the hon. Lady say that she wants a single body both to set and monitor standards, given Lord Cullen's firm recommendation that the two tasks should be separated. I have thought long and hard about the issue and, on reflection, I believe that he is right. The proposals for a body to set standards and a separate independent RAIB are correct. Will the hon. Lady reflect on what she has said?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I hesitate about the fact that we will have another body. We already have the Strategic Rail Authority, and will have the Office of the Rail Regulator—to replace the rail regulator himself—and the rail standards safety board. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I am putting down a marker that we shall monitor the development of new bodies closely. I thought it appropriate to place that on the record. We do not believe that amendment No. 3 would provide the right vehicle.

I was delighted when the Minister voiced some positive notes about the first part of amendment No. 15, and we reserve the right to return to it on Report. I have sympathy with the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge that an annual report should be included as a statutory requirement in the three relevant pieces of proposed legislation—the Bill, and the forthcoming Bills on aviation and marine inspection. Each body should be required by statute to make an annual report, which should be debated either by the relevant Select Committee or on the Floor of the House.

I note with some disappointment that the Minister did not accept even the spirit of the second part of amendment No. 15. The Government devote several pages of each of their annual reports to the monitoring of the public service agreements that have been entered into by each relevant body. I note that, in connection with the police, the Bill provides for a specific public service agreement into which the Government intend the British Transport police to enter. By definition there is an omission, as the Government have not invited the rail accident investigation branch to enter into such a public service agreement. There must be good reasons for that, which we can explore later.

I am delighted that the Minister responded so positively to amendment No. 15. We will persist with it at a later stage and will hold him to his verbal assurance, which is now on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment No.29, in

clause 3, page 2, line 22, at end insert—

'(5) The Rail Accident Investigation Branch shall be constituted with regard to regional representation, including the Scottish

Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Ireland Assembly.'.

I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) in his place. He spoke most eloquently on Second Reading:

''There is specific mention of the need for Scotland, Wales and the various English regions to at least be represented. I shall be looking at how that can be done. Would individuals each have a remit to represent the views of a region, or would that representation be drawn from the experiences of the people appointed to the board? That can be discussed in Committee.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 803.]

The moment has come.

David Cairns (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The moment has not quite come. I was referring to the regulator and the board that will replace it, not the rail accident investigation branch.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am interested to hear that. I am sure that we have time to transpose an amendment to deal with the provisions relating to the rail regulator.

For the reasons I gave earlier, we are concerned with the aspects of reserved and devolved powers alluded to earlier by the Minister. That is the most vexing question concerning regional representation in the Bill. In the spirit of openness and co-operation, and to ensure smooth passage of the Bill, we would like the rail investigation branch to be constituted with regard to regional representation, which the hon. Gentleman would prefer to see only for the rail regulator. We would like representation from, or formal consultation of, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Perhaps the Minister could explain the precise constitution of the rail accident investigation branch and what formal consultation there will be with the three devolved powers.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

We support the measure, and have tabled a similar amendment.

David Cairns (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The hon. Member for Vale of York was kind to draw attention to my remarks on Second Reading. I share the general concern—if that is not too strong a word—about getting the matter right. The issue of transport crosses the boundaries of the devolution settlement. It is not by any stretch of the imagination unique in that. Many issues cross the boundaries of devolution, but because we are dealing with safety and risk to human life, the area under discussion is more important than any other.

I am slightly puzzled as to why the amendment is much more specific than the one tabled by the hon. Lady and her colleagues in relation to the Office of the Rail Regulator, which simply speaks of the need to ensure regional representation. If she were to table that amendment to this clause, I might be minded to encourage the Government to accept it. However, what has been tabled is a specific and highly inappropriate amendment to a provision dealing with the investigatory branch.

My reading of the amendment is that it would require Members of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly to be rail investigators. Enormously talented though those

individuals are, I do not imagine that they have the expertise to go around—

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

They are not all wonderful.

David Cairns (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The hon. Gentleman must name names. Perhaps he is speaking about his own Members. I have an enormous regard for Ross Finnie, so perhaps that is who he has in mind.

It is simply inappropriate for Members of the Scottish Parliament to be members of the rail accident investigation branch. I cannot believe that that was the amendment's intention. Perhaps it was tabled inadvertently and should have referred to the Office of the Rail Regulator. The hon. Member for Vale of York perhaps hinted at that in her speech. I urge the Government not to accept the amendment.

Of course, it is entirely right for us to be sensitive to the devolved bodies, but let us imagine that there has been a very bad crash in England or Wales. We know that there would be 10 investigators. Would a Member of the Scottish Parliament come down to investigate it? Or would a Member of the Welsh Assembly come here to do the same? Would such people investigate crashes only in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland? The amendment is something of a dog's breakfast, and I hope that it is rejected.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Is the Minister not responding?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I thought that after that eloquent demolition of the amendment, the hon. Lady would want to intervene rapidly to avoid further embarrassment.

I merely reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde. The amendment would probably be contrary to civil service procedures and employment law. I am sure that the hon. Lady will concede that the Opposition have probably made a typographical error and will wish to withdraw her mistake.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I hear what the Minister says. Does he have sympathy with the view of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde that the amendment might be acceptable if it were worded differently and referred simply to representation that further involves the regions? When we come to that later, will he support it?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

There are two different issues there. We are looking at employed civil servants and whether we should put geographical requirements on the employment of inspectors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde pointed out, a further issue is that the amendment appears to suggest that the inspectors would have to be drawn from the Scottish Parliament. There might then be conflicts of interest relating to office of profit under the Crown. They would have to resign from the Parliament to take up that position.

The amendment is defective. We are talking not about a board, but about actual inspectors. I am sure, therefore, that the hon. Member for Vale of York will wish to withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am satisfied that the probing amendment has served its purpose. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde has indicated his early support for the principle contained in the amendment. If ''regional consultation'' were substituted for ''regional representation'', the Minister might be inclined to support the amendment.

In the clause stand part debate, we can elucidate one of the amendment's purposes—to explore how thin the Government's proposals are for the establishment of the branch. We are sensitive to issues raised by various hon. Members on Second Reading. Matters remain to be resolved, and the official Opposition are happy to take them head on to try to resolve them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The stand part debate provides an opportunity to raise several issues on the establishment of the RAIB that have not been discussed under the amendments. In particular, I seek greater clarification from the Minister on its size. On Second Reading, I referred to the proportion of accidents and incidents investigated by the existing body, Her Majesty's rail inspectorate, and pointed out that it has about double the number of staff assumed to be employed by the RAIB.[Mr. Michael Clapham in the Chair]

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I, too, welcome you, Mr. Clapham, to the Chair.

We are worried about the omissions of the size and budget of the rail accident investigation branch. I recall serving my apprenticeship on the Committee considering the Bill that set up Ofcom. It was much more specific about what Ofcom would be like. The main concern of the official Opposition is the number

of inspectors appointed. In a worst-case scenario, where more than one incident may be ongoing at any particular time, 10 inspectors may be insufficient to carry out all the necessary work. It is another example of where the clause should be more specific about who the inspectors will be.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

The key to this is the chief inspector. Everything else falls from him. He sets the tasking for the inspectors and it appears that he is set to be a significant individual in rail safety. It follows that the terms of reference and description of the chief inspector need to be more clearly laid out in the Bill. What manner of individual is he to be: is he to be an executive, a career civil servant, or a safety professional, for example, recruited from the Health and Safety Executive? It would give us a better feel for how the body is to be formulated and how it is to work if we were given a clearer idea of who the chief inspector is to be. That would be an important provision in the Bill.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I point out that Her Majesty's rail inspectorate and Health and Safety Executive staff numbers cover rail safety work other than accident investigation. The hon. Member for the Vale of York made a comparison with Ofcom. Of course, there we are dealing with a separate statutory body as opposed to an accident investigation branch that, like the other branches, is part of the Department for Transport. We therefore have made an estimate as to the numbers likely to be involved and the estimated cost of averaging out likely salary levels.

The chief inspector will be able to call in external assistance. We may come to that issue on subsequent amendments. In terms of flexibility, we would not want a branch that was staffed up to deal with every eventuality. It could be dealt with flexibly by external assistance under the guidance of the chief inspector.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Can the right hon. Gentleman pause for a moment and tell us what the chain of command would be with regard to any external assistance for the purposes of clause 3? We took evidence on Railtrack, which largely contracted out

maintenance. With hindsight, it appeared to break down dramatically where there was not deemed to be a sufficient chain of command and control. It would satisfy the Committee a great deal to know what that chain is to be. The Secretary of State said loosely on Second Reading, without going into too much detail, that external systems would be called on.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I think that it is clear from the Bill that the chain of command is to be the chief inspector. That is why one of the inspectors is designated that role. In response to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), a chief inspector is currently being recruited and we hope that an individual will be in post by spring or summer who will bring the necessary capabilities to that role.

A question was raised about the Health and Safety Executive and other bodies being used by the RAIB. It would be able to use them, paying the appropriate commercial rate for inter-departmental transactions. I hope that I have dealt with a number of points that were made.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I still seek greater clarification as to the size of the body. The Minister will be aware that HMRI has between 19 and 28 inspectors notionally available in any one week. We are advised that the RAIB will have 10 inspectors, yet HMRI investigates only a very small number of rail incidents. Although we have not yet had a full definition of what an incident is, for the benefit of intelligence gathering, it would be helpful for the body to have more inspectors than HMRI does. We have a body that is half the size of HMRI. It will, I hope, do more than HMRI can.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted that point. HMRI covers a wider remit, which is why one cannot draw an exact comparison between HMRI and the RAIB. With that in mind, I hope that hon. Members will feel free to support the clause.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My point is not dissimilar to that of the hon. Member for Bath. The specific scenario that concerns us is that more than one accident or incident may be being investigated at any one time. It is incumbent on the Minister to let the Committee know a ballpark figure for how many inspectors the Government have in mind.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The possible structure would be of a chief inspector, a deputy chief inspector, two principal inspectors, 10 inspectors and nine support staff—23 in aggregate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - General aims

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I beg to move amendment No.7, in

clause 4, page 2, line 25, leave out 'the desirability' and insert 'its objectives'.

The amendment is intended to firm up the Government's objectives for the rail accident investigation branch. The clause says that the RAIB

''shall have regard to the desirability of—

(a) improving the safety of railways, and

(b) preventing railway accidents''

That sounds extremely vague, which I am sure is not the Government's intention. No doubt the Minister will explain why it is not vague. Our amendment would ensure that the functions and the objectives of the RAIB were much clearer. That is why we would like to see the above provisions defined as objectives.

That would receive the support of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which has drawn a comparison between the sole objective given to the air accident investigation branch, and the much looser terminology associated with the RAIB. I hope that the Minister will explain why he feels that the vagueness of wording is appropriate. Following on from our discussion on the need to report back on progress and implementation of recommendations, I hope that the Minister might comment on whether the general aims could be expanded to include some of the reporting points mentioned, even if he accepts the objectives but leaves the wording as it stands.

In conclusion, the purpose of our amendment is to firm up the responsibilities and role of the RAIB. I hope that the Minister will be able to support it.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I find myself in the strange position of thinking that the Liberal Democrat amendment has a great deal of merit. For them to put a bit of backbone into something is rather remarkable.

''Desirability'' does not mean much. To put it in personal terms, I recognise the desirability of losing weight, but my wife might say that it is not one of my objectives. With that example in mind, keeping desirability in the clause makes it meaningless. We all agree that the objective of the RAIB should be to improve the safety of railways, but it not just a matter of desirability. It must be a firm objective. For that reason, I support the Liberal Democrats on this occasion.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for explaining what his amendment seeks to address, and I am interested in the new alliance that is forming on the other side of the Room.

At first glance, I had some sympathy with the amendment, but there is a difficulty. As we will see under clause 5, the RAIB will need or wish to be able to offer assistance and operate wherever there is a call for it to do so, much as the AAIB does now; for example, that would be the case on the border with the Republic of Ireland or in the Channel tunnel. Such assistance may not be a matter connected with the safety of railways as defined in the Bill, which extends only to the United Kingdom. Equally, such assistance may not be connected with railways but may be, for example, to assist marine inspectors with their investigation techniques. The proposed amendment could prevent the RAIB from providing such assistance.

However, I offer to reflect further on the matter to see whether there is a way to incorporate the valid points that have been made.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Given that the Minister has indicated that he is somewhat sympathetic and is willing to review the matter, perhaps he would consider a slight change to the wording of the amendment, from ''its objectives'' to ''its main objectives''. That would somewhat widen the scope, if the Minister thinks that that is required.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I will certainly reflect on that suggestion and bring it to the Committee if it can be incorporated.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

As we are offering suggestions, I wonder whether it would be possible simply to delete ''the desirability of'' so that the RAIB shall have regard to

''(a) improving the safety of railways, and

(b) preventing railway accidents and railway incidents.''

That is just a thought. I am not an expert but I want to be helpful.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

On the basis that the Minister has openly said that he is willing to reconsider the wording of the clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment No. 30, in

clause 4, page 2, line 27, at end add—

'(2) The Rail Accident Investigation Branch shall be consulted on the establishment of any statutory body established for the purposes of setting standards for the safety of railways.'.

Amendment No. 30 explores the specific relationship between the RAIB and the proposed railway safety and standards board. The board may be in place before the RAIB, but the thrust and the philosophy behind amendment No. 30 is to explore the Government's thinking on their relationship. The amendment states that the branch

''shall be consulted on the establishment of any statutory body established for the purposes of setting standards for the safety of the railways.''

Presumably, the Minister will confirm that the railway safety and standards board will be similar to the RAIB, as an agency falling under the auspices of the Department. It would be helpful to know the interrelationship between the two. The rail accident investigation branch, whose two main purposes are to improve the safety of railways and prevent railway accidents and incidents, will have a view about not only the desirability of any safety standards, but the practicality of the standards and the chances of their being physically implemented. The inspectors appointed under clause 4 will have that job. We await the Government's response.

We face a great omission in the Bill because, other than two minor references, there is no mention of road safety. As has been said, there will be three separate investigation branches—one each for rail, air and maritime activities—and we believe that it is important

for the consideration of accidents, deaths and injuries in all modes of transport to be transparent. We hope not to lose sight of that, bearing in mind the large omission of roads from the Bill.

The amendment is probing, and I hope that the Government will satisfy our curiosity. We want to explore the precise relationship between the rail safety and standards board and the rail accident investigation branch, and clarification would be most helpful.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I understand the hon. Lady's comments and the purpose of the amendment. However, I cannot foresee circumstances in which the RAIB would not be consulted about the establishment of such a body, so I am not convinced of the need for it to appear in the Bill.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

There might be a problem with timing, as the Committee will know that the Office of the Rail Regulator is currently consulting on licence modification, which will ensure that standards set by the RSSB are maintained. The rail regulator hopes that the RSSB will be established in April, which I anticipate will be before the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament.

While we aim for transparency among different bodies, we must be clear about their roles, which is probably the purpose behind the amendment from the hon. Member for Vale of York. As Lord Cullen recommended, the aim of the RAIB will be to determine the root causes of accidents so that safety lessons can be learned, improving safety through the industry and preventing future railway accidents and incidents. However, it will not be the safety authority. Responsibility for that will remain with the Health and Safety Executive, which, like the RAIB, will work closely with the industry's safety body, the RSSB. It will not be part of the Department but a body that sets safety standards for the industry and ensures that they are followed. It is important that there is a transparent interrelationship and clear communication between the bodies, but it is equally important that they maintain their separate and particular roles.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I have just a short question. The Minister made it clear that the RSSB will be a body for the industry. Am I right in understanding that the RSSB will report to the ORR, not his Department? If so, what scrutiny will there be of the RSSB in this place?

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

May I take this opportunity to invite Members to assume that the poor souls who will read this debate in the future will have to cope with the acronyms without any explanation? The Minister may want to want to join the ranks of those poor souls.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I was trying to be brief, Mr. Hood. The Minister has confirmed that the railway safety and standards board will set the standards of safety for industry. If I have understood the Minister correctly, it will report to the Office of the Rail Regulator. It will therefore be independent of his Department. What opportunity will we have to scrutinise the work of the RSSB?

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I am sure that the Minister understood that question.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I did indeed, and I am fascinated by the prospect of the record of the Committee's proceedings being a bestseller that is widely read by future generations in the classics section of libraries. That reminds me of my previous incarnation in the Ministry of Defence when our good friend, George Robertson, said at his first meeting with the Chief of Defence Staff that one of his objectives was to try to do away with the use of acronyms in the Department. The then Chief of Defence Staff, Sir Charles Guthrie, leant forward and said, ''I think that you'll find solving Bosnia will be easier, Secretary of State.'' We will try, as always, to follow the injunctions from the Chair.

It is important to stress that the statutory safety body for the railway industry is, and remains, the Health and Safety Executive. The railway safety and standards board, as we must now call it, will be an industry body that drives up safety standards in the industry. The Health and Safety Executive is the statutory body that is answerable to Parliament. These are important distinctions as they relate to the roles of the various bodies, to which the hon. Member for Bath alluded.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful for your patience in allowing me to give the acronym its full title, Mr. Hood.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but I must voice some disappointment. The railway safety and standards board will have the important task of driving up standards for the industry, as the hon. Member for Bath said and as the Minister confirmed. Rather than just reporting to the Office of the Rail Regulator, it would be more appropriate for that body to have the opportunity to have its work inspected and scrutinised by hon. Members. I do not want to press the amendment to the vote, but I would like the opportunity to return to these points at a later date.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

On a point of order, Mr. Hood. I would like to request a debate on clause 5 stand part after we discuss amendments Nos. 14 and 8.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

The hon. Lady may request anything that she likes when we come to that part. However, we are about to vote on clause 4 stand part.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Assistance to others

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in

clause 5, page 2, line 29, after 'arrange', insert

'with written consent from the Secretary of State'.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in

clause 5, page 2, line 32, at end add—

'(2) The Secretary of State will provide the Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents with directions and guidance relating to the occasions on which assistance may be given as described in subsection (1) above.'.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The clause is relatively uncontentious. We wait with interest to see what issues the hon. Member for Vale of York wants to debate other than those covered by the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington. The clause says:

''The Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents may arrange for the Rail Accident Investigation Branch to assist any person; in particular assistance—

(a) may be provided with or without charge;

(b) may be provided inside or outside the United Kingdom.''

The title of the clause is interesting because it states that the body may provide assistance to others. There was much debate on Second Reading about the merits of the rail accident investigation branch examining incidents on the railway even if there had been no fatalities or serious injuries. The argument in favour was that the new body would gain a great deal of intelligence in so doing, and that that would be of assistance to it in doing its work. It logically follows that if the rail accident investigation branch were to work with, for example, the air accident investigation branch or the marine accident investigation branch, it would also learn techniques that would be of benefit to it in achieving its general aims as stated in clause 4. The Committee should see the benefit of the rail accident investigation branch involving itself more widely to gain intelligence, to learn new techniques and to practise those techniques in situations that might not occur on the railways in the foreseeable future.

However, clause 5 provides for the possibility that the rail accident investigation branch's services may be provided ''with or without charge.'' The implication is that the work would be carried out primarily for the benefit of another organisation. That might conflict with the general aims stated in clause 4. Given the possibility of the rail accident investigation branch involving itself with the activities of other bodies primarily for those other bodies' benefit and for charge, clarity as to the circumstances in which that might happen is important.

I have already alluded to my concern, shared by other hon. Members, about the relatively small size of this new organisation. I am delighted to hear from the Minister that it will be slightly larger than some people were led to believe. Nevertheless, there is concern about the limited size and budget of the rail accident investigation branch, and about the constraints under which it will therefore operate. It would be worrying if those constraints forced it to undertake paid consultancy work elsewhere. That could lead to all sorts of problems.

The Minister may say that that is a fatuous thought, and that that situation could not possibly arise. However, a similar situation arose when the Office for Standards in Education was set up. The Minister will be aware of that because many Government Members share my concern about the matter. The Office for Standards in Education was set up primarily to conduct inspections of schools across the country. As a consequence, many local authority advisers whose work until then had been to give advice to local schools found themselves undertaking inspections on behalf of the Office for Standards in

Education as a way of bringing money into their local authorities. I hope that the Committee are impressed that I have not used a single acronym so far in this debate.

There is a concern that, in the same way as local authority advisers are distracted from doing their work in helping local schools because they are earning money working for the Office for Standards in Education, the rail accident investigation branch, especially if its finances are constrained, might begin to do paid work for other bodies.

The purpose of amendments Nos. 14 and 8 is to ensure that some limit is imposed on the rail accident investigation branch. I am no great fan of regulation or of giving additional powers to the Secretary of State. I am sure that the Committee is well aware of that and therefore finds it slightly odd that my two amendments give additional powers to the Secretary of State and add to the regulations that will emerge from the Bill. Lest the Minister should jump up to raise that point, I have raised it for him. On this occasion, there is merit in doing things in such ways.

I am concerned to ensure that there is much greater clarity about the scope of the outside work that may be carried out by the new body. However, I am also concerned because the heading of the clause does not indicate that such work is not primarily of direct benefit to the new body or in meeting the general aims stated in clause 4. The Minister may want to assure me that there will be some constraint on such work and that the RAIB will be a professional body—I am sure that it will—and would not dream of doing things that lead away from its general aims. I have already given one example—no doubt there are others—of how such things can happen if we are not careful.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the nature of the work that the RAIB is conducting, and whether it is paid, would be reasonable things to include in the annual report, about which the Minister was so positive earlier?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I absolutely agree, but I suspect that that would give us the opportunity to be critical after the event and would not necessarily mean that procedures were in place to ensure that the important work that the RAIB is to carry out is not deflected in directions that might not help to achieve its general aims.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that it is important that the RAIB has the priorities for its work load set out very clearly. It should not be allowed to move away from its core business to take up paid work.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and, of course, all that would have been helped had there been greater clarity about the body's aims and objectives in the debate on the previous clause. This is an opportunity for the Minister to ensure that there is greater clarity about such aspects of the work of the RAIB. Notwithstanding the fact that he, like me, does not like giving additional powers to the Secretary of State or making additional regulations, I hope that on

this occasion he will move in the direction of the proposals.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Although I have listened to the hon. Member for Bath and read his amendments with great interest, I am not convinced that they add much value. Amendment No. 8 states that the Secretary of State will have the opportunity to

''provide the Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents with directions and guidance relating to the occasions on which assistance may be given''.

In recent history, a previous Secretary of State gave very specific directions that were contrary to how a rail regulator wished to behave. It is not opportune to give the Secretary of State powers of direction in any circumstances, and I would be loath to acquiesce in that. I am not persuaded that written consent from the Secretary of State is required.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Those who prophesied that my alliance with the Liberal Democrats would be fragile were correct; I am afraid that it is now at an end. The amendment is completely unnecessary. I feel rather sorry for the Secretary of State, who has quite a lot on his plate. The transport system is not exactly excelling itself. To burden the poor chap with writing notes to give permission for such things seems a little over the top. Perhaps it shows that the Liberal Democrats are a little more cynical than I would have thought about the way in which they regard public servants. I hope that the Government will take a similar view and, if the Liberal Democrats insist on pressing their amendment, perhaps I could urge Labour Members to join my colleagues and me in rejecting it.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The hon. Member for Bath thought that I might be surprised that the Liberal Democrats were trying to sit on both sides of the fence. I was slightly concerned at the over-centralisation suggested, but was waiting to hear that local decisions must be made by local people. In the end, we did not hear that cliché.

I want to put the situation in context. The RAIB is to follow the well-established precedent of the aviation and maritime accident boards. The rail accident investigation branch will be independent of Government direction. We expect that the chief inspector will have significant management experience and knowledge that can be drawn upon to determine when it would be appropriate to offer assistance to third parties, but his prime regard will be rail safety in the United Kingdom. He will be best placed to determine on case by case whether his organisation has resources available to assist with another investigation or matter. The Secretary of State is not consulted on the day-to-day operation of the aviation and maritime accident boards, and we see no reason why the RAIB should be treated differently.

At the moment, the aviation accident investigation branch is assisting the Turkish authorities in their investigation of a crash in Turkey in which some 75 people died. We have the experience to assist wider transport communities, and we can also learn from other countries. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

It will be. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I think that I am getting into the swing of things and knowing when it is a good time to catch your eye, Mr. Hood.

I want to draw the Minister's attention to an omission to which I alluded earlier. The annual reports of most organisations that fall within the remit of the Department for Transport include two or three pages that refer to the Government and the Department entering into public service agreements whereby specific targets must be met, particularly when there is an opportunity of the branch providing assistance to other bodies. In principle, I have no objection—I am sure that my hon. Friends do not object—to the laudable aim of the chief inspector arranging for the branch to offer assistance in the United Kingdom, the European Union or elsewhere, with or without charge.

The omission that concerns us greatly is not that laudable aim, which we support wholeheartedly, but the omission of a public service agreement. Is that a typographical error? Has the matter not crossed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's desk? The poor man has enough problems to be going on with, but it would lighten the Government's burden and the deficit they face if a public service agreement were envisaged. I am sure that the Minister will seek the opportunity to confirm that that is not a typographical error but an omission and that he will put our minds at rest about why the Government have not been minded to enter into a public service agreement. Under clause 31, we will consider the establishment of a public service agreement in connection with the police. That is a rather elaborate, lengthy clause dealing with the police services agreements that will come in in the fullness of time—I have resisted using an acronym and shall do so for the lifetime of this and any other Committee on which I serve under your astute chairmanship, Mr. Hood.

I have some difficulty in understanding why the Government have gone to such lengths to draft a very full clause 31 on police services agreements. Neither we nor the Liberal Democrats have a problem with a charge being made, but if the Government have gone down the path of public service agreements later in the Bill—in clause 31—I find the omission here breathtaking. Why do the Government wish to proceed with the provision of assistance to others without the discipline of a public service agreement? I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his canniness—coming from my side of border—would have liked the strictures and the discipline of a PSA here.

So far as we are concerned, the jury is still out on public service agreements, although we have the expert on PSAs among us, on this side of the House. If the Government are going to try to seduce us into supporting clause 31 on police service agreements later, they could equally seductively have had a public service agreement for the important matter here: allowing the rail accident and investigation branch to provide assistance against a charge.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I have much sympathy with the hon. Lady's remarks. The use of a public service agreement would be another way of ensuring that we could be confident that additional work carried out by the RAIB was ultimately to the benefit of its overall objectives as set out in clause 4. Given that she spoke so passionately about using that route, I must place on record slight disappointment that she and her colleagues totally condemned the alternative method. It seems to me that she has merely come up with a different means of achieving what I was seeking through my earlier two amendments. Nevertheless, we are as one on the underlying aim. The hon. Member for Uxbridge is wrong; the alliance is still alive and kicking, and long may it last.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Investigations

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in

clause 6, page 3, line 24, at end insert—

'(9) The Rail Accident Investigation branch may not use contractors and subcontractors to assist in their investigations.'.

We turn to the amendment with the rather interesting knowledge that we have fewer than two minutes before you will say those immortal words, ''Order, order'', Mr. Hood. I am sure that many Committee members will be fascinated to know what the amendment is all about. I suggest that Committee members—who can now access it through the wonderful facilities and marvellous information technology systems provided for all Members by the House—look at the question that I posed, at col. 781, to the Under-Secretary on 10 June 2002. I shall ask Members on both sides questions this afternoon to see how well they have understood it.

Better still, I suggest that Members look not only at the question that I asked but at the answer that the Under-Secretary gave. That would be enormously beneficial to them because it is the answer—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order, order.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee D

Clause 6 - Investigations

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am delighted to chair—[Interruption.]—to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hurst. I can see it is going to be one of those days. Before we broke this morning, I was occupying the crease for a couple of minutes to avoid getting into detail on the amendment. On my way out of the Room, I was pleased when the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) suggested that I was in good training for a likely appearance one day on ''Just a Minute''. But as those listening will be aware, I would have been rapidly called to order there for using the phrase, ''Order, order'' within the first two seconds.

I gave a clear hint to Committee members that there would be great merit in their using the lunch break to read the Under-Secretary of State's written answer to one of my parliamentary questions from last summer. Although we heard this morning that the Under-Secretary was suffering from a cold and a sore throat, I am delighted to have goaded him so much by referring to his silence that he is going to respond on the Government's behalf to the amendment this afternoon. We will give him a great deal of silence while he speaks and hope that he succeeds.

Before I say anything specific about the amendment, I want to place it firmly on the record that any reference I make to a particular company is in no way intended to be a criticism of that company or its work. Lord Cullen, in recommending the establishment of the rail accident investigation branch, said that he believed it should be an independent body. He meant by that that it should be primarily independent of the body or bodies responsible for setting railway safety standards, but it was also implied, although stated less explicitly, independent from railway companies.

Many railway companies, especially the train operating companies and Network Rail, make extensive use of contractors and sub-contractors. It would therefore be reasonable to assume that in calling for the rail accident investigation branch to be independent, Lord Cullen intended it to be independent of the contractors and sub-contractors that work on the railway. That view is clearly shared by the Under-Secretary. In our exchange through the parliamentary question of 10 June 2002—for the

convenience of members who may not have had time during lunch to read it—I asked him:

''when the proposed railway safety body will be established; what its remit is; what the role of (a) contractors and (b) sub-contractors will be within this body; and if he will make a statement.

He replied:

''We expect to consult this summer on proposals for the establishment of an independent rail accident investigation branch (RAIB) before publishing the necessary primary legislation. The remit of the RAIB will be subject to consultation but will reflect the recommendations made by Lord Cullen in his part 2 report on the Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry. The role of contractors or sub-contractors within RAIB would be as witnesses, when appropriate, during investigations.''—[Official Report, 10 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 781W.]

Clearly, the Under-Secretary does not envisage the use of such contractors directly in the RAIB's work.

I would be the first to acknowledge the difficulty of defining exactly who is the contractor and sub-contractor in particular circumstances. On Second Reading and this morning, I referred to the need for the RAIB to use forensic laboratory facilities, perhaps to examine a piece of rail, as in the Potter's Bar inquiry, or a whole carriage. The Minister responded that that would be possible and that RAIB would be expected to pay for the use of such facilities. The laboratory facility could therefore be defined as a contractor or sub-contractor.

We could go further. RAIB might need to bring in heavy lifting equipment to move a carriage or train off the track; or it might need transportation facilities to take a train or track to the forensic laboratory. Providers of such services could again be thought of as contractors or sub-contractors, so I accept the problem of definition. Under clause 8(1):

''The Secretary of State may make regulations about the conduct of investigations by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch'',

and under paragraph (e) he may

''permit or require the Chief Inspector to request assistance from another person'',

which could again cause confusion as to whether that person is a contractor or sub-contractor. We need to distinguish more clearly between bodies that can be viewed as contractors or sub-contractors and bodies assisting with the inquiry that have no direct bearing on any aspect of the problems leading to the investigation.

In referring to a couple of firms as examples, I make no criticism of their work. WS Atkins plc is part of the Metronet consortium, one of the London Underground infrastructure companies. It would be strange if it provided assistance to the RAIB in connection with an incident on the tube. It would be difficult to use the firm in any circumstances involving the railways because it has provided so much advice, support and contract work in the railway sector.

It is interesting to see the range of activities with which WS Atkins has been associated—work for the Health and Safety Executive, for example. It has carried out a range of research contracts on supporting investigations into accidents and on safety cases since 1997. It examined Railtrack's responses to improvement notices, took part in investigations into

danger signals passed and looked into crash worthiness developments in mark 1 rolling stocks.

That is only one company. On 23 January last year, the Health and Safety Executive referred to a report by Her Majesty's rail inspectorate that had been compiled jointly with WS Atkins in response to the improvement notice served after the Ladbroke Grove train crash of October 1999. I have been surprised about the extent to which this and other companies have been involved in railway work. I note that the Health and Safety Executive recently signed agreements with five major businesses for the supply of technical support for its work. In a press release, the HSE stated that it had

''awarded technical support 'framework agreements' to five international organisations . . . The agreements cover the provision of technical support and analyst services across the industry sectors in which HSE are involved including: rail''.

The organisations were AEA Technology, Amey Vectra, BOMEL of Maidenhead, NEL of East Kilbride and WS Atkins of Warrington.

Some bodies will quite properly provide support for the work of the rail accident investigation branch. On the other hand, I know from the Under-Secretary's reply, with which I agree, that it would be inappropriate for certain other bodies to be involved in the branch's work. The amendment gives the Under-Secretary the opportunity to tell the Committee how he proposes to live up the answer that he gave to a parliamentary question on how the roles of the two sorts of support organisation—the contractors and sub-contractors, and others—can be clearly defined and separated.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hurst?

I intend to support my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, although the Liberal Democrat spokesman was right to table the amendment. However, the world has moved on since the Under-Secretary gave his answer. Contractors are no longer as highly regarded as they were. That is certainly true of the rail industry in the light of recent accidents and since the establishment of Network Rail, which recently decided to take some of its maintenance contracts in-house and extend them. The costs of contracting are now seen to be much higher than direct employment. I hope that that will influence any decision about using contractors in railway safety. As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) pointed out, there is scope for using outside assistance in providing services during an investigation, such as hiring a minibus and providing sandwiches for the investigators. Even photographers might be on contracts and might be seen as contractors.

The wording of the amendment suggests too wide a scope. It might be stronger and more precise if it read, ''to undertake investigations'', rather than to ''assist'' in them. I will vote against it, but it is appropriate to raise the issue. I hope that the Under-Secretary and the Minister will consider direct employment for those who undertake the investigations.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

May I welcome you to the Committee and say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hurst? I am sure that we will all get to know each other much better during the course of the Committee.

I shall be brief, as I would like a debate on clause 6 stand part. I thank the hon. Member for Bath for his amendment. I draw the attention of the Committee to comments made by the Secretary of State on Second Reading.

''No one branch could include the expertise necessary to consider every aspect of a train incident, for example. I am certain that, from time to time, the new branch will need to go to outside bodies to get the expertise that it needs, and that is what people would expect.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 767.]

The Secretary of State's comments and amendment No. 5 raise a question to which the Under-Secretary might respond. If the new branch is to be encouraged to get outside assistance, will the Under-Secretary clarify which bodies it might be expected to turn to and under what circumstances?

I have a problem with amendment No. 5. I can see where the hon. Member for Bath is coming from, as it harks back to previous times and perhaps to a body in which I declared an interest this morning. For your information, Mr. Hurst, I still have half my shares in Railtrack, having failed to sell them at their peak. I am still due a second instalment on them, although it is not a substantial amount of money, as we discussed this morning. Will the Under-Secretary confirm what the Minister for Transport said this morning? In circumstances in which the Secretary of State believes that there is a case for outside assistance, will there be a strong and direct chain of command and control back to the chief inspector? The Bill is silent about that.

Regrettably, the alliance is not dead in the water just yet, but on this issue we will wait for the Minister's comments.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I welcome you, Mr. Hurst. It is a pleasure to sit again under your careful and watchful eye. I have been uncharacteristically quiet so far in this Committee, and as you can hear from my voice, that is probably for the best.

I thought that it would be appropriate for me to reply to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bath. As he said, he took the crease just before we finished our morning sitting, and he kindly referred me to a question that I answered last June. He need not have done that. Although I have answered 3,000 or 4,000 questions since then, I am fully familiar with all my answers. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity to explain that one. I hope to show the hon. Gentleman that his amendment is unworkable, impractical and out of step with the current practice of the air and marine accident investigation branches and Health and Safety Executive investigations.

The query about my answer may be explained by different meanings of the word ''contracting'' in two

contexts. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Lord Cullen's inquiry into Ladbroke Grove in his question, and the inquiry referred directly to the use of contractors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) implied, it was not just a matter of contractors, but the management of those contractors. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) also mentioned that.

In my answer of 10 June, I was referring to contractors involved in general maintenance work on the railways. The only context in which those contractors would have been used in investigation would have been as witnesses to whether the work was carried out properly. I do not think that there was any intention to rule out the use of those contractors in an inquiry or the ability of the rail accident investigation branch to call in assistance other than from people working directly for the branch. The hon. Member for Bath will appreciate that it would be almost impossible for the branch to carry out its work without calling in other forms of advice and assistance.

Both the highly respected air and marine accident investigations branches use outside contractors to assist them during their investigations. The marine accident investigation branch, with which I am very familiar and from which I see a lot of reports, uses salvage experts to lift wreckage from the sea bed, and uses metallurgists to inspect or test different parts of a vessel. The aviation accident investigation branch may also use outside experts: for example, it may call on the expertise of those in the aircraft manufacture laboratories. Both those bodies use such experts extensively because of the level and type of work that they do.

It would be impossible for the rail accident investigation branch to avoid using contractors. For example, it might need to move and test train wreckage, and if it could not use contractors, it might be unable to find out what went wrong. In those circumstances, its ability to carry out effective investigations would be very limited.

In relation to the question raised by the hon. Member for Bath this morning about the establishment of the rail accident investigation branch, it would be impractical for it to retain the level of expertise needed on a permanent basis in anticipation of there being an accident.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked me to give some examples. I gave examples from the aviation and maritime areas, but I will give examples specific to rail. The rail accident investigation branch would sometimes need laboratory facilities, or heavy lifting equipment to move train wreckage, and a range of other facilities. I am sure that the hon. Lady has enough experience in the area to imagine what other facilities might be required.

Although I understand the comments that have been made by the hon. Member for Bath and by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North, and notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Vale of York said, there must be proper supervision of any contractor. There must be a proper chain of command.

The Minister for Transport set that out clearly this morning in his reply to an earlier debate.

I hope that I have addressed the concerns raised by my hon. Friend and by Opposition Members, and that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I congratulate the Minister on getting through that, and on his reasonably helpful reply.

I am grateful for the comments made by the hon. Member for Luton, North, who reminded us of the ongoing debate about the use of contractors and sub-contractors, particularly in rail maintenance work. I chose not to refer to that debate, as I did not wish to appear critical of individual companies to which I might refer in my subsequent remarks. The hon. Gentleman was right to do so, however, and many of us are delighted that Network Rail has decided to bring back in house the work in the Reading area. That will give us a comparator benchmark against which we can examine costs in other parts of the network, although many of us believe that we do not need to wait for the comparator information and that Network Rail should get on with that work quickly.

I was also grateful for the comments made by the hon. Member for Vale of York. She reminded us, quite rightly—I hoped that I had referred to that in my own remarks—that it would be almost impossible to envisage the rail accident investigation branch doing all the necessary work itself. I understand that it would be necessary to use such external contractors, and gave specific examples about the use of forensic laboratories or heavy gear lifting.

My concern throughout has been with the conflict of interest that might arise if certain contractors were used. The Minister has not completely reassured me. I referred earlier to the recent contract that the Health and Safety Executive had entered into with five major companies. The HSE's press release states:

''Famous five scoop top HSE awards.''

The HSE contract means that any of the companies to which I referred could be involved in the provision of a range of services. The deputy director general said of the awarding of that contract:

''These companies will be providing invaluable technical support and contributing to the robust service the HSE provides in helping make working environments safer.''

That includes rail environments.

Not until the RAIB is a long way into its investigation will we necessarily have any indication of the cause. Safety standards may have been incorrectly applied. The standards themselves might be incorrect or the advice that has come from one of those many different contractors may have contributed to the accident or the incident. It will be difficult for the RAIB to decide which contractors it can use. Contractors will have been involved in setting or advising on safety standards or a whole range of issues, and not just, as the hon. Member for Luton, North said, on maintenance of the track. Notwithstanding the Minister's response, there is still a legitimate concern about conflicts of interest between the bodies that might be brought in to assist the RAIB in its work and the nature of the investigation being

carried out. The Minister has an inquisitive frown on his face.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Thoughtful.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

That might indicate that he is minded to go back and look at this issue in a little more detail. On the basis of the Minister's thoughtful frown, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I refer the Committee to the Secretary of State's comments on Second Reading. He said:

''the Bill . . . gives a fair amount of latitude to the chief inspector as to what he investigates. In some cases it would be mandatory; in others there would be a discretion . . . there is sufficient latitude under clause 6 to allow the chief inspector to take a decision as to whether or not he ought to investigate. The circumstances that might lead to his investigation would depend on the information that he had before him, and existing health and safety legislation would be of help. Again, if hon. Members feel that the situation could be improved, of course the Government are open to their suggestions.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 771–2.]

This is the challenge to the Committee this afternoon. We can come forward with a number of suggestions. I should like to take the Committee through both the definitions in the Railways Act 1993 and the definitions that form the background to the clause. The clause states:

''The Rail Accident Investigation Branch—

(a) shall investigate any serious railway accident''.

There is no scope for discretion. However, subsections (b) and (c) provide discretion because the RAIB

''(b) may investigate a non-serious railway accident or a railway incident, and

(c) shall investigate a non-serious railway accident or a railway incident if required to do so by or in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.''

I remind the Minister that the Opposition would prefer all the powers and procedures to be set out in the Bill so that the Committee and those who implement the Bill may be clear what we are talking about. I understand that definitions were deliberately not included in the Bill but will be in regulations.

The consultation paper that preceded the Bill proposed that the jurisdiction of the rail accident investigation branch should take as its starting point the definition of a ''railway'' in section 81(2) of the Railways Act 1993. That definition describes ''a railway'' as a network, rolling stock or track, and

''a tramway, or . . . a transport system which uses another mode of guided transport but which is not a trolley vehicle system''.

I am sure that the Under-Secretary would want to make it clear that this country does not have trolley vehicle systems. I may be wrong—perhaps Bristol or Manchester is an exception—but I presume that such systems are excluded for the simple reason that we do not have them at present, in the same way that tramways were excluded in relation to Scotland. Perhaps further clarification is required.

Clause 6(2) provides for the chief inspector of the rail accident investigation branch to exercise discretion when considering whether to investigate a serious accident on a tramway. I understand that that is because the investigation of an accident affecting a road-running part of a tramway would fall to the police. Again, that raises the question of the relationship between the police and the rail accident investigation branch. Perhaps it would be useful for the Under-Secretary to clarify that.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I am glad that my hon. Friend has referred to tramways, because I was a little concerned that one minute they were included and the next they were not. She thinks that, if they are along a road, the police would be involved. However, tramways are sometimes separate from roads. Does my hon. Friend believe that there would be a difference in that respect?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I hope that the Under-Secretary will put our minds at rest on that. To be honest, I do not have a clue, so I should be grateful if he would take this opportunity to clarify that. We need to be sure whether we are talking about a tram running on a tramway or running on a road that operates as a tramway, and whether trolley vehicle systems—they were called trolley buses when I was a little girl—are specifically excluded because we do not have them. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for seeking that further clarification from the Government.

It is expected that an accident affecting a rail-running part of a tramway would be investigated by the rail accident investigation branch. This is no joking matter. I am a non-practising lawyer, but I might in future have to interpret the provision on behalf of a client. It would therefore be helpful to know the circumstances in which the rail accident investigation branch and the police will conduct investigations.

Will the Under-Secretary elaborate on the extent to which a further definition set out in section 83 of the 1993 Act is still relevant? Obviously, that was a very good Act, passed under a very good Government. We applaud their achievements and pause to pay homage to them. One definition in that section relates to premises, which are described as including

''any land, building or structure''.

I presume that the Under-Secretary will confirm today that that definition stands unamended and that we are not diluting that interpretation in any shape or form.

At the consultation stage, comments were invited on the proposal that a statutory objective of the rail accident investigation branch should be that its fundamental purpose is to undertake investigations and inquiries that look for the root causes of accidents, without apportioning blame or liability. On the face of it, the Bill does not deal with manslaughter and whether criminal responsibility will arise, and nor does it state whether the branch will investigate such matters under clause 6. Will the Under-Secretary put our minds at rest and say whether the Bill also covers corporate liability?

I am grateful to the Library for giving me a full copy of the relevant regulations. Regulation 4 of the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accident and Incidents) Regulations 1996 states that

''the sole objective of the investigation shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents. It shall not be the purpose of such an investigation to apportion blame or liability.''

We discussed this morning the extent to which the rail safety and standards board will have a role to play in the prevention of accidents, and the Bill should refer to that work. The Bill is wrongly silent on the subject and it should have been more specific.

Regulation 4 of the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reports and Investigation) Regulations 1999 implemented provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which is obviously a laudable provision as it was enacted under a Conservative Administration. It states that

''the fundamental purpose of investigating an accident under these regulations is to determine its circumstances and the causes with the aim of improving the safety of life at sea and the avoidance of accidents in the future. It is not the purpose to apportion liability, nor, except so far as is necessary to achieve the fundamental purpose, to apportion blame.''

We are asked to take it as read that clause 6(3) and (5) taken together provide that although the rail accident investigation branch is not to consider blame or liability, it can still make a report or a determination of the cause from which liability or blame may be inferred. I have difficulty with the breathtaking sweep of clause 6, especially subsections (3) and (5). Subsection (3) states:

''In investigating an accident or incident the Branch shall try to determine what caused it.''

Subsection (5) states:

''In performing a function in relation to an accident or incident the Branch—

(a) shall not consider or determine blame or liability''.

Why are those provisions in the Bill rather than in regulations, as was the case with the maritime and aviation legislation? What the Under-Secretary proposes is most welcome, and it is something I have argued for. It would be nice to know that it is not a typographical error but an opportunity for the Government to sing their own praises.

Clause 6(6) states:

''The Branch may conduct an investigation and report whether or not civil or criminal proceedings are in progress or may be instituted''.

Will the Under-Secretary say whether the rail accident investigation branch will decide whether criminal or civil proceedings will be brought if it is acting independently or whether it will work closely with the police?

In subsection (7) the chief inspector of rail accidents is given the power to apply to the High Court or the Crown court

''for a declaration that the making of a report in connection with a specified accident or incident will not amount to a contempt of court in relation to civil or criminal proceedings which have been or may be instituted in connection with the accident or incident''.

That raises a practical problem that must be overcome. As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, the

Bill's objective is a swift investigation leading to a speedy outcome.

If the prospect raised under subsection (7) is that either the court proceedings or the investigation will be delayed so that court proceedings can conclude, which of the proceedings will have priority? Will it be the proceedings of the rail accident investigation branch under clause 6 or would the normal criminal or civil proceedings be allowed to run their course?

Subsection (8) states:

''The Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents may reopen an investigation if he believes that significant new evidence may be available''.

If my distant memory serves me, the statutory limitation period is seven years if an accident or incident, non-serious or serious, takes place. One would normally expect seven years to be sufficient time for all the evidence to emerge.

We support in principle the setting up of the rail accident investigation branch. However, I find breathtaking the extent to which we are being asked to give an open-ended commitment to allow the chief inspector of rail accidents to act completely on his own without applying to a court of law or seeking any authorisation other than his own hand. As a non-practising lawyer I have some difficulty with that. It would assist us if the Under-Secretary would say whether the seven-year statutory limitation will apply.

Clause 6 is not as innocent as one might imagine on the first reading. The Government have departed from the practice set out in connection with the Civil Aviation Act 1982 which relies heavily on the helpful latest regulations under the Civil Aviation Act (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations 1996, as well as from the procedures set up by the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as elaborated in the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 1999. It would help us to know the reasons for those departures, which may be welcome. The Minister may agree that it is best that the regulations are written into the Bill rather than implemented under it. We need to know whether the proceedings of the RAIB have priority over civil and criminal court proceedings. We also need to know whether there is a statutory element of limitation, or whether, as it would appear, the chief inspector of rail accidents is given a completely open-ended power to re-open an investigation at any time if he believes that significant new evidence may be available. It may also be helpful to know what that significant new evidence might entail.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I had intended to reserve the most devastating of my arguments on this subject until the debate on clause 7, when we were to debate our amendment No. 10. However, due to a minor typographical error, the amendment appears against clause 7, when it should appear against clause 6, which hampers my attempt to support it.

Amendment No. 10 is pertinent to clause 6(5), which relates to blame or liability. As hon. Members

are aware, at the Ladbroke Grove inquiry, Dr. Walter of Railtrack's Safety and Standards Directorate said:

''a fear of prosecution''

was

''hampering the free and open recognition of error and hence the proper learning of lessons''.

Furthermore, Railtrack, as it then was, argued that a potential benefit of a rail accident investigation branch in separating operation from safety regulation was

''the greater ability to focus on root causes and to identify the lessons without blame requiring to be apportioned.''

Paragraphs (a) and (b) do not clarify liability. Paragraph (a) says that the branch

''shall not consider or determine blame or liability''.

However, paragraph (b) says that the branch can still allow liability to be inferred from a report on the cause of an accident or incident. I shall be honest and admit that we do not have a ready answer to this dilemma, but I hope that the Minister will say how he will be able to balance the need for investigations that are unhampered by the risk of prosecution, as stated by Dr. Walter, with the understandable need for people to be satisfied that those responsible are dealt with so that public confidence is restored.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

If my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York had some difficulty with the clause with her extensive legal background, 17 years spent selling furniture has not put me in the best position to understand it either. I may not have the greatest intellect, but I have trouble understanding the clause. I shall not discuss its finer detail, as my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) made some cogent points, but I would like the Under-Secretary to clarify a couple of matters.

The first of those points relates to tramways. As the Under-Secretary is doubtless aware, there are plans for a tramway running from my constituency in west London to Shepherd's Bush. There are problems further up the line, although the Uxbridge section is quite happy about it. I want to know who would carry out an investigation in the event of a serious accident, and whether it would depend on the type of line or where exactly the accident had happened.

I find subsection (2) rather confusing, but subsection (5) is even more problematic. It states that the branch

''shall not consider or determine blame or liability, but . . . may determine and report on a cause of an accident or incident whether or not blame or liability is likely to be inferred from the determination or report.''

For my benefit and that of other members of the Committee, would the Minister put that in plain English? Does it mean that a report will contain not only the cause of the accident, but who, in the branch's opinion, was to blame, with consequent liability? As I look further into the provisions, I know that my abilities will be taxed further, but I am prepared to listen and learn from wise members of the Committee.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

What debate this clause has stimulated! I shall make a few general comments,

which should deal with some of the particular points made.

The clause outlines the aim of the rail accident investigation branch, which is to establish the root causes of railway accidents. As recommended by Lord Cullen, it is not the purpose of RAIB to apportion blame or liability. Those responsible for death or injury can be brought to account through prosecutions, which will remain the responsibility of the police and the Health and Safety Executive.

The RAIB will be under a duty to investigate all serious railway accidents. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport made clear earlier today, the definition of serious accidents comes later and must be consistent with the EU directive, for reasons that we all understand.

The RAIB will also have discretion over whether to investigate tramway accidents. As the hon. Member for Vale of York pointed out, tramways run in a discrete area, sometimes in conjunction with roads. It may be appropriate for the police to investigate a problem on the tramways where it is seen largely as a road incident; on other occasions, it may be more appropriate for RAIB to investigate, especially where the event is associated with the running of the rail line rather than the road.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Will that be the same in Scotland as in England? In Scotland, the procurator fiscal may form a view of the severity of the offence in certain circumstances, and I wonder whether that would apply under this clause—I am even more confused now, but that is more a reflection on myself than on the Minister. We need to be clear about which option applies. If the incident or accident takes place on a rail-running part, will the branch always investigate, and will the police always investigate events on road-running parts? Is that what the Minister is saying?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

No, it is not. It would be safe to say that where a tram runs on a discrete area set aside specifically for the tram with no road in the vicinity, the RAIB clearly would investigate. However, if an accident happened where a road and a light rail tramway ran close to each other, it would be up to the chief inspector to consider the circumstances and decide which was the most appropriate body to investigate. In some cases, it may be most appropriate for the police to investigate.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

The Minister raises the question of light rail. Does that count as a tramway or railway? Will the branch always investigate accidents on level crossings?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Again, those would be decisions for the chief inspector to make after having considered the circumstances of a particular accident. We are in danger of trying to pin down precise examples, which is inappropriate. Where there is an interface between road and rail, it will be for the chief inspector to decide which body is the most appropriate to undertake an investigation.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about trolley systems. I do not want to state the obvious, but

trolley systems have been excluded because they do not run on rails. This is a railway Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am sorry, but that does not wash. The rest of the clause clearly relates to trams or trolleys—whatever one calls them—that run on the road. The Committee needs a definition about what runs on rail and what on road. Without such a definition, there will be an unnecessary and regrettable delay before the chief inspector can decide which agency should investigate.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Trolley buses probably draw electricity from above and run on tyres, rather like buses. The trams, for which the Bill provides, are on rails and draw their electricity from above. I hope that shows the distinction between the two.

The rail accident investigation branch will be able to carry out investigations and issue reports even if criminal proceedings are in progress or may be instigated in future. That will ensure that safety lessons can be shared with the industry as quickly as possible. If necessary, the chief inspector of the rail accident investigation branch will be able to apply to the courts for a declaration that publishing its reports will not amount to contempt of court for any civil or criminal proceedings.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Given the point about the pre-eminence of learning lessons, will the Minister comment on the rumours that are circulating ever more widely that the industry investigation into the Potters Bar accident is being increasingly frustrated by the police's failure to make available forensic evidence that the inquiry believes that it needs but that the police are not prepared to release? How does the pre-eminence of learning lessons apply in that case?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am not in a position to comment on rumour. We are looking forward rather than backward, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment. However, it would be appropriate to explore the interface between the police and the rail accident investigation branch. As the hon. Member for Vale of York said, after the investigation has been concluded, new evidence may come to light and necessitate reopening the investigation. Clause 6 will allow the chief inspector to do that.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about limitations. The law on limitations applies to court proceedings and would not apply to the rail inspector. It is highly unlikely that new evidence will come into play after some years, but I do not see any reason why the Bill should inhibit the chief inspector from carrying out further investigation some years later if new evidence comes to light. The hon. Lady will know from her background that there are particular reasons in criminal and civil courts for the seven-year limitation. She also asked about the rail accident investigation branch and prosecution. The RAIB can investigate the causes and publish a report on the lessons to be learned, but any prosecution would be secondary to that.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about the fear of prosecution in respect of

subsection (5)(a) and (b). The hon. Member for Uxbridge claimed to have been a furniture seller, so I shall try to put the provision into everyday language for him. Under paragraph (a), the branch

''shall not consider or determine blame or liability'',

so that makes it clear that such determination is not the prime purpose of the RAIB. Paragraph (b) goes on to provide that the RAIB should not be inhibited from publishing information in its report that might lead others to draw inferences. In other words, there are no limitations on what the branch can include in its report, though its prime purpose is not to determine blame or liability. It is for others to make appropriate inferences.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I am beginning to see some light at the end of the tunnel, but could the report state the prime reason for the accident and attribute it to someone having done something wrong? Are we excluding the possibility of the report doing that in black and white, leaving it instead to inference, or can the branch say who, in its considered opinion, was to blame?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

May I provide an example to help? If a train driver working for a particular company drove through a red light and the RAIB put that information into its report, it would be difficult not to infer liability from it, but it is not the purpose of RAIB to attribute liability. It is for others to draw inferences, and, if appropriate, to occasion a prosecution. I hope that that explains the position clearly.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the Minister for his explanation, which I understand, but it does not deal with the problem that I mentioned—that the fear of prosecution, arising out of the inference, if not the apportionment, of blame in the report, risks hampering the free and open recognition of error and hence the learning of lessons.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

People should be able to speak to RAIB without any fear of prosecution. Unless the court applied for it, evidence would be used only in the RAIB report. If the report made statements that clearly followed from its investigations, it would be for others to decide whether liability for the cause of an incident had been occasioned. As I said, it is not the prime purpose of the RAIB investigation to attribute liability.

If civil proceedings are likely or in progress, it may not be clear whether publishing the report would put the RAIB in contempt—it applies when an order of a court is not complied with—so it could apply to the court for guidance. Nothing is to stop the RAIB making its recommendations. I have covered most of the points raised and I hope that on that basis the Committee will support clause 6.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We have teased out one or two issues on which perhaps the Government themselves were not clear. I reserve the right to return to these matters to seek further clarification and to give a greater steer. I do not want to pun that we have driven a coach and horses through clause 6, but the circumstances in which an accident involving a road-running vehicle or a rail-running vehicle would be investigated are still not entirely clear.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

There is a further point, although I should perhaps not raise it at this time. When we are talking about the police, I shall be interested to know whether the road traffic police or police constables will investigate.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is the second point. The first point is that it is as clear as mud what constitutes a road-running vehicle and what constitutes a rail-running vehicle. The Minister describes two different types of vehicle, both of which draw electricity from overhead. What differentiates them is that one is on a track and one is on a road. We still have not had satisfaction on that point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge eloquently and succinctly put it, in which circumstances would the police investigate and in which circumstances would the branch investigate? Secondly, which arm of the police would conduct the investigation—the British Transport police or the British police force?

I take issue with the Minister over another issue to which the Committee may wish to return. He draws a distinction, with which I have some sympathy, between the statutory limitations referring to a court case, particularly for criminal proceedings and those for civil proceedings. However I think civil actions also have a statutory limitation relating to clause 6(8). I refer to note 15 on the reopening of the investigation in the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996. The Minister may assure us that the Government want to implement this regulation after the Bill's adoption. It states specifically:

''(1) The Chief Inspector may cause the investigation of any accident or incident to be reopened and shall do so—

(a) if, after the completion of the investigation, evidence has been disclosed which is in his opinion both new and important; or

(b) if for any other reason there is in his opinion ground for suspecting that the reputation of any person has been unfairly and adversely affected.

(2) Any investigation reopened shall be subject to and conducted in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations''.

I welcome the Minister's earlier explanation of why the aviation and maritime Acts left to regulations the implementation of provisions that appear in clause 6 for the rail accident investigation branch. But there is a serious omission in clause 6(8), in that the Bill does not go on to specify either the limited time within which the investigation may be reopened—so it would be time-barred—or the circumstances in which there would be a new investigation. I am sure that the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996 are equally reflected in the maritime regulations.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The hon. Lady asks about the circumstances in which an investigation would be reopened, but the Bill is quite clear on that. It says

''if . . . significant new evidence may be available.''

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I hear what the Under-Secretary says, and that is helpful as far as it goes. However, regulation 15 of the 1996 regulations specifically deals with the circumstances in which the chief inspector may reopen an investigation:

''if . . . evidence has been disclosed which is in his opinion both new and important; or . . . if for any other reason there is in his opinion

ground for suspecting that the reputation of any person has been unfairly and adversely affected.''

Clause 6 has been drawn very loosely—I use that word advisedly. We may seek to revisit it at a later stage, but we have used this opportunity to have a very good explanatory and probing debate. A number of questions remain to be answered. It is welcome that the clause goes further than equivalent provisions in maritime and aviation legislation, but it does not go far enough.

I have referred to the Secretary of State's comments. He said that the Bill

''gives a fair amount of latitude to the chief inspector as to what he investigates.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 771.]

I would go further. The Bill does not just give a fair amount of latitude. Clause 6 is too wide, too loosely drafted and deserves to be revisited.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Investigator's powers

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment No. 18, in

clause 7, page 3, line 30, after 'dwelling-house', insert

', within 500 yards of property'.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 17, in

clause 7, page 3, line 45, at end insert

', pursuant to the issuing of a warrant or pursuant to a decision by a magistrate's court and only where accompanied by a member of the British Transport Police.'.

No. 10, in

clause 7, page 4, line 35, leave out subsection (5) and (6).

No. 4, in

clause 7, page 4, line 43, at end insert—

'(7) A formal protocol of understanding and working practices will be made between the Rail Accident Investigation Branch and each of—

(a) the Health and Safety Executive and the H M Railway Inspectorate;

(b) the British Transport Police

under directions and guidance provided by the Secretary of State.'.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I shall be fairly brief because clause 7 is worthy of a stand part debate for reasons similar to those that applied to clause 6. This is the meat of the Bill, the most controversial issue that we have reached so far and the most controversial in part 1.

Amendment No. 18 would define more narrowly the ''dwelling-house'' referred to in clause 7. We would prefer a reference to a dwelling-house within 500 yd of the railway property. The Secretary of State said on Second Reading:

''I agree that the granting of permission to enter people's property should be used sparingly.''

He went on to say that the Committee would be afforded an opportunity to ensure that the Bill

''is sufficiently tightly drawn to avoid unnecessary intrusion but still allows the investigation branch to carry out its work properly. In the past, investigators have sometimes found that their progress and ability to find things out quickly have been stymied because they could not get access . . . it is important that investigators should be able to get access as quickly as possible.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 771.]

The Secretary of State rightly points out that it is for the Committee to put those provisions in place.

As I have said, the clause is drafted too loosely. Under subsection (1)(b) an investigator may

''enter land (which may include a dwelling-house) which adjoins or abuts railway property''.

I feel that the Government should be more specific. I am glad to see that the Minister for Transport will respond to the debate, and I look forward to hearing his comments. Amendment No. 18 is tabled in a co-operative spirit.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The hon. Lady talked about properties being within 500 yd, but her amendment would apply to land that was within 500 yd of railway property. We are talking about going across land, which may be necessary to move heavy lifting equipment and so on to get access to the railway. Her amendment would preclude that. This is not about the invasion of houses, but the crossing of property, which may include houses.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister has pointed out the finer details, which may need further probing and refinement. He will know that the Railways Act 1993 defines ''premises'' as

''any land, building or structure''.

We will have a further opportunity to discuss that in the clause stand part debate. I am concerned that the right to enter a dwelling house—a private property as opposed to land—involves an invasion of privacy. The Secretary of State expressed concern on Second Reading.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the term dwelling house is confusing? It may have a specific legal meaning. The word house is difficult because many people do not live in a house, but some other form of dwelling. Some of my constituents live in houseboats and boats. Would she like to press the Minister on whether we need to expand on the term ''dwelling house'' to make it more inclusive?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My hon. Friend raises a pertinent point; I hope that we will be able to pursue it. The Minister will be aware of concern relating to the rather sweeping statement on the front page of the Bill:

''Mr. Secretary Darling has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998: In my view the provisions of the Railways and Transport Safety Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.''

Obviously certain provisions of the convention relate to the right of an individual to guard property and to privacy. We can return to that at a later stage.

I do not argue that 500 yd is necessarily the appropriate distance, but the amendment is meant to probe. The force of the impact in the Potters Bar crash carried carriages some considerable distance down the

track. I think of small commuter stations that line the route of the railway in my constituency, quite apart from private land. A considerable number of dwelling houses would be affected should there, God forbid, be a disaster. I hoped that the Minister might see fit to provide the further clarification and definition requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison). Will he clarify the distance from the accident and the damage caused by the railway carriages to adjoining properties?

Amendment No. 17 singles out a glaring omission. As I said, there are others that it will be more appropriate to discuss in the stand part debate. The clause states:

''For the purpose of conducting an investigation by virtue of section 6 an inspector of rail accidents may''

and goes on to list those powers. We believe that it would be more in keeping to list powers given to inspectors and investigators under the two existing boards—the aviation accident investigation branch and the marine accident investigation branch. They are more specific about the powers given to the inspectors and how they inspect them. I hope that the Minister accepts that a warrant, or a summons written by his own hand—an expression used elsewhere—would be more appropriate. That power is again rather sweeping, but at least there would be a document to which one could object.

There is no defining document in the Bill, and no procedure that the inspector would have to follow. An alternative view, such as that of the occupant of a dwelling house or the owner of land, could be expressed in a decision reached by a magistrates court. We believe that it would be appropriate for the investigator to enter a property or cross land only when accompanied by a member of the British Transport police. These are provisos that would help the Government to keep within the provisions of the European convention on human rights. I hope that the Minister will agree that without amendment No. 17, the powers will be perceived to be sweeping in comparison with the powers of the other two bodies. I await the Minister's reply with baited breath.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I await the Minister's response to the hon. Lady's probing inquiry. As I explained in the debate on clause 6, we will not press amendment No. 10 as it refers to clause 6, not clause 7. However, hon. Members will be relieved to hear that amendment No. 4 is perfectly in order, and will enable us to have a long and detailed debate for at least three or four minutes. Hon. Members will see that it is purposeful and important.

We seek to establish that there should be a formal protocol of understanding and working practices between the rail accident investigation branch, the Health and Safety Executive, Her Majesty's rail inspectorate and the British Transport police. Other hon. Members referred to the large number of organisations in the industry and in government that have regard to safety aspects on the railway. As other hon. Members said, there are questions about who has responsibility for what and who takes the lead. We are aware of at least one inquiry—Potters Bar—in which it is clear that the different organisations involved do not

necessarily see eye to eye on how to proceed or the speed at which to proceed.

It is therefore important that a protocol of understanding is drawn up to cover working practices. That is not unusual or unique. There is already a memorandum of understanding between the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of the Rail Regulator, and one between the Health and Safety Executive and what was the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the agreement was signed in October 1996.

In the area of marine activities, there is a memorandum of understanding between the Health and Safety Executive, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the marine accident investigation branch on health and safety enforcement activities at the water margin and offshore.

In relation to aviation, there is a memorandum of understanding between the Health and Safety Executive, the Civil Aviation Authority and the aviation accident investigation branch.

A number of such memorandums of understanding already exist, and I hope that the Government will support drawing up a similar one in this context. The Minister may argue that it is not necessary to include that in primary legislation. However, it is important for the sake of the public that there is openness, accountability and a clear understanding of the different roles and responsibilities of the various organisations involved in rail safety. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will look favourably on the amendment.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I hope to show that the amendments could affect the ability of the rail branch inspectors to carry out their investigations. One of the main criticisms of the current accident investigation regime is that no single body is responsible for carrying out an investigation focused solely on finding out the root cause, without seeking to apportion blame or liability. The rail accident investigation branch will be that body. The inspectors must be able to get on with the job of finding out what went wrong.

Amendment No. 18 would mean that investigators would be unable to access land more than 500 yd from an accident site. As the hon. Member for Vale of York mentioned, an accident could occur on a railway line running through fields. It is also possible for a vehicle to continue for 1 mile or more beyond the original accident site. In such cases, in order to access an accident site with specialist equipment, particularly lifting equipment, inspectors would need to cross land that was much more than 500 yd from the accident site. It is also possible that some part of the train could fly off some considerable distance before the crash, but be related to its cause.

The hon. Member for Vale of York mentioned human rights. Paragraphs 31 and 32 of the explanatory notes make it clear that the exercise of the power could interfere, as she rightly said,

''with a person's right to respect for a private and family life or home''

or with

''a person's peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.''

Both those areas are covered by the Human Rights Act 1998. However, paragraph 32 explains that

''even if these rights were interfered with, the Government considers such interference justified on the grounds that this statutory power is necessary to ensure public safety on the railways; and it is in the general public interest that such investigations take place.''

The hon. Lady will be aware that that qualification is also contained in the 1998 Act.

Amendment No. 17 would similarly risk impeding the rail accident investigation branch in carrying out its investigations. Evidence and time may be lost if the inspectors have to rely on the police being present at all times when they are gathering evidence or if they have to wait for the inspector to obtain a warrant or some other court decision. Such a requirement would also be out of step with the other accident investigation branches that Lord Cullen used as examples for the need to create a rail accident investigation branch. The aviation and marine branches are highly respected independent accident investigators that search for the causes of accidents unfettered and without the requirement for a warrant. The RAIB will be a similarly professional body of accident investigators, and I did not hear a case why it should be treated differently from the other branches.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington spoke about amendments Nos. 10 and 4, which deal with the relationship between the RAIB and the HSE and police. The police and HSE will still have responsibility for pursuing prosecutions so that those responsible for causing death, injury and serious risk are properly held to account. However, it is essential that one person is clearly in charge at the scene of an accident, and that person will be the chief inspector of rail accidents—the head of the railway branch. The railway branch will not order non-RAIB investigators to do anything at the scene or elsewhere, but when a decision needs to be taken about what may or may not be done at the scene, it will rest with the chief inspector of railway accidents. I stress again that that will not override the existing statutory duties or functions of any other person or body.

As has been commonly agreed in the Committee, a protocol will be needed to establish clearly the lines of control at accident sites. Knowing the pressures and difficulties at such sites, the protocol should decided well in advance so that those involved know their rights and responsibilities. Indeed, we have been consulting the Health and Safety Executive and the police about that since Lord Cullen published his report in September 2001.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the Minister for agreeing that there should be a protocol. Does he have any idea about the protocol's timing in the context of the Bill and its establishment of another safety body?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

My next sentence was to say that the HSE and the police have agreed that protocols are needed and have to be worked on. However, it will be for the chief inspector of rail accidents to develop such protocols independent of Government direction. The

accident investigation branch will be independent, and we expect the chief inspector, once appointed, to have experience and knowledge that can be drawn on. There have already been discussions with the police and HSE.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the Minister say anything about the thinking behind the nature of those protocols? That might best be done by giving an example. The Minister has said that the protocols will be drawn up primarily by the new head of the accident investigation branch. In a situation in which the police were investigating what they believed to be criminal activity at the same site at which the RAIB was investigating the cause of an accident so that lessons could be learned, what would happen if the police obtained forensic evidence but failed to make it available to the RAIB on the grounds that so doing might contaminate it and make it more difficult for the police to pursue their criminal investigation? What would be the supremacy of interests in such a case?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

My next point concerned the basis on which the protocols will be drawn up. The chief inspector and the other bodies will be able to draw on the experience of the aviation and marine accident investigation boards, both of which already operate protocols. The aviation accident investigation board works with the Civil Aviation Authority and the police, while the marine accident investigation branch works with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and the police. That is not required by statute, but protocols are in place and they work. There is no reason why the RAIB should be different. Protocols will also be needed with the British Transport police and the county police forces, as the first force on the scene varies depending on the incident. An exercise carried out in the past year attempts to clarify the position between local police forces and the British Transport police in handling incidents; we want to improve procedures to speed up decision making and to get the system up and running again.

It is difficult to prescribe the decision that will be taken in an individual case. Protocols and procedures, including a hierarchy of decision making, are needed for handling relationships between the various bodies so that they can proceed in parallel with the necessary mutual understanding and co-operation, as the hon. Member for Bath said. That must be handled precisely by establishing those procedures, but they can draw on the protocols already in place for the other branches.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful for that clear explanation of the procedures that will be followed. I accept that it is a difficult subject; notwithstanding the existing protocols, there is a great deal of confusion and an urgent need to resolve some of the problems, not least in respect of primacy of access to available evidence.

The Minister specifically said that the protocols would be drawn up by the head of the rail accident investigation branch, independent of Government. The problem is that there will be conflicts between the RAIB and the other bodies with whom the protocols have been drawn up. The Minister seems to be saying that the Government will not play any part in resolving conflicts that may occur, especially in

respect of the availability of evidence between the RAIB, for example, and British Transport police, for which he rightly said that a protocol is needed.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I actually said that that would be done independent of Government direction, which is enormously important in maintaining the independent operation of the rail accident investigation branch.

We can draw some comfort from the experience of the two other accident investigation branches, which are working well and have managed to develop the necessary procedures with the various bodies. The hon. Gentleman is not entirely right to say that the current procedures are well developed on the railways as greater clarity is needed to ensure that actions are taken in the right order and given the right precedence.

Following the procedures of the other branches will be in the interests of railway safety and cater for the necessary interests of the other bodies. I draw comfort from what they have achieved.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

There is some confusion. Will the Minister please explain the difference in legal status between the memorandum of understanding that exists between the HSE and the rail regulator, which will presumably have to be replaced, and a protocol?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

We are talking about potential agreements in respect of broad areas of competence in one case. A protocol is guidance for those involved in operations who may have to take decisions in immediate circumstances, especially in a crisis when life and health may be at risk, and a clear basis is needed for the procedures through which decisions are taken. A memorandum of understanding can cover a broader area of agreement—on spheres of competence, for example—between different organisations. I hope that I have provided a reasonable differentiation; if I am advised of any subsequent variations on that position, I will notify the hon. Lady.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That obviously raises a supplementary question. To what extent will members of either House have the opportunity to scrutinise the drafting or implementation of the memorandum of understanding or the protocol?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Transparency is fine in terms of visibility, but ''scrutinise'' implies the ability to alter legislation. The powers of these bodies are drawn either from current or prospective legislation, and we have to decide on the right procedures to achieve the most effective operation of those powers. I am not sure that it is appropriate for Members of Parliament to second-guess that. Legislation is always open to change through parliamentary channels, but that is not the same as overseeing and altering agreements reached between proper statutory bodies in exercising their powers. Sensible arrangements are necessary to enable them to achieve the optimum outcome.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister will be aware that parliamentarians like to visualise arrangements; perhaps that is too strong a word, but if we are fully to understand the Bill, we should be made aware of the contents of the memorandum of understanding and

the respective protocols. The hon. Member for Bath provided a graphic description, which I hope will not come to fruition. He made a serious allegation.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I can tell the hon. Lady that I have strong evidence—though not of the sort that I can put in front of people—that the current investigation into the Potters Bar accident is having difficulty in obtaining forensic evidence from the police that would help to determine the cause of the accident. I understand—the Minister may confirm it—that an interim report has been produced; perhaps it has already been presented to the Government. It is important for parliamentarians to have an input, as the hon. Lady says, to help sort out such difficulties.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I was once a witness of a fairly serious motoring accident. I was not personally involved, but was three cars away from a young man who was seriously disfigured and nearly killed. I am not sure whether road accident reports are the same as rail reports. I asked that on Second Reading, but did not secure an answer, so I shall ask again. Police reports for road accidents are used when road traffic cases come before the court. In this particular case, the injured man's insurance company asked me to make a separate statement. It is notorious that witnesses' memory of an accident becomes much hazier with the passage of time and it becomes increasingly difficult to remember specific details. The insurance company approached me because it did not want to pay the police for statements provided under certain procedures.

I hope that the same will not apply here and that people will not have to pay the police for reports that are being prepared, because they may become relevant to insurance cases at a subsequent stage.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I am more than happy to comment on how time erodes memory. We find that with Conservative Members as we get further from the period of their Government: they have very convenient memory lapses regarding the actions of that government, and indeed of the parts that they played in it.

Let me get back to the core issue in order to satisfy both the hon. Members for Bath and for Vale of York. They rightly identified a difficulty in current procedures, and that is addressed by clauses 5 and 6, which give primacy to the rail accident investigation branch during an investigation, and clarify beyond doubt who has primacy during an investigation. Different parties will be involved in the investigation of an accident and will work alongside each other. That procedure works successfully in the maritime and aviation areas. This means that one body will provide the lead—the rail accident investigation branch.

When a police office or another investigator seeks to take a particular course of action, the chief inspector of rail accidents, or a person acting on his behalf, will be able to decide what course of action should be taken. To save the hon. Member for Bath from taking notes on that point, it is covered at

paragraph 27 of the explanatory notes. I hope that clarifies his difficulty regarding the procedure by which those issues will be resolved.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the Minister give way.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. The Minister was intervening on Miss McIntosh.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I was trying to get back in—

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the hon. Lady give way? [Laughter.]

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Of course.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Is the hon. Lady aware that the Minister's response has not clarified the position? It explains who has primacy over the way in which the investigation will be carried out, but it does not resolve the problem of who, for example, would have prime responsibility for holding evidence gained during an investigation.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am trying confine my comments to the amendment, as I would like to debate the broader issues in the clause stand part debate. I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman says, and I note that he is trying to be extremely helpful. However, amendment No. 18 was intended as a probing amendment, and he and I have both highlighted the difficulties. We recognise that further clarification is required especially in line 30, though we will not press the amendment to a vote.

I am not sure that I got much satisfaction from the Minister on amendment No. 17. Perhaps we can go on to discuss that at greater length in the clause stand part debate, since, in my view, the powers in clause 7 are much broader than those of the two other existing accident investigation boards.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful for this opportunity to have a separate discussion on clause 7, in order to look in some detail at the investigators' powers.

My hon. Friends and I believe that clause 7 is much more sweeping than those that pertain under the civil aviation investigations branch rules. I agreed with the Minister when he extolled the virtues of the two existing boards. They were set up by a Conservative Administration, and the Committee would not expect me to say anything other than that they are remarkably good organisations.

The right hon. Gentleman noted that the two boards are widely regarded as functioning extremely well, and as with our own Health and Safety Executive, I hope that they can go on to be models in the manner to which I referred this morning. We should export some of our better ideas to the European Union rather than waiting to hear what it has to propose to us.

The Minister referred to paragraph 32 of the explanatory notes and the little local difficulty that the rail accident inspectors will encounter in complying with article 8 of the European convention

on human rights. I once appeared as counsel in the European Court of Human Rights, as opposed to the European Court of Justice. I found it immensely satisfying; it was in Strasbourg in a rather nice building designed by a British architect, but that is irrelevant. I have some moderate experience in this area. Were I to be counselling someone who did not wish, for whatever reason, for one of the inspectors to enter his or her land or dwelling place, article 8 would provide a strong defence to resist any moves by the inspector or investigator to enter.

Article 8 is expressed in strong terms:

''1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.''

The article is wide-ranging. The Minister will probably say that it could be read in one of two ways. One could say it was for the health and public safety of the nation that the inspectors or investigators should have the powers to enter the land, dwelling or premises, but the Government have created themselves a problem by incorporating the European convention on human rights into an Act of Parliament.

Bearing in mind the consensus that we should give fair speed to the creation of the rail accident investigation board, I regret that I perceive difficulties down the road for inspectors and investigators who seek to enter certain premises, dwellings and private land because article 8 has been written into an Act of Parliament. That will come back to haunt the Government.

Clause 7 gives the rail accident investigation branch inspectors the powers deemed necessary to conduct an investigation. The provisions are modelled on the powers of the aviation accident investigation board and the marine accident investigation board. Subsection (3) creates new offences designed to prevent a rail accident investigation inspector from being hindered in his investigation. It has become an offence for any person to fail to comply without a reasonable excuse

''with a requirement imposed by an inspector of rail accidents''

or to provide an inspector with evidence they suspect or know is misleading.

A person will also be deemed to be committing an offence if he

''obstructs a person accompanying an inspector''.

We hope that a police constable from the British Transport police would accompany the inspector on every visit. We have yet to hear from the Minister whether the Government will acquiesce in that request and whether the accompanying person will be authorised by the chief inspector of rail accidents. Someone who wished to oppose the powers that an inspector wanted to exercise under the clause could say that they wanted to rely on article 8. I believe that the Government will regret having enshrined it in a UK Act.

The Minister referred to subsections (5) and (6), which give the rail accident investigation board primacy in investigation. I understand that in certain cases the concurrent jurisdiction will cause some confusion. That is regrettable. Primacy needs to be clarified, but the provisions are welcome in so far as they ensure that different parties involved in investigating an accident will work alongside each other. The RAIB will be in the lead. The provision should clarify the position where a person such as a police officer or any other investigator seeks to take a particular course of action during an investigation. The clause states that the chief inspector of rail accidents or a person acting on his behalf—presumably that means an investigator or an inspector—can make decisions about whether that course of action may be taken.

I have difficulties with subsections (1), (5) and (6) because they are so different from the equivalent provisions in the implementing regulations relating to the aviation accident investigation board. Regulation 9 of the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996 states:

''For the purpose of enabling him to carry out an investigation into an accident or incident in the most efficient way and within the shortest time, an investigating Inspector is hereby authorised, where appropriate in cooperation with the authorities responsible for the judicial inquiry''.

It continues:

''For the purpose of paragraph (1) above an investigating Inspector shall have power—(a) by summons under his hand to call before him and examine all such persons as he thinks fit''.

The very fact that he has to issue a summons means that there is a document that can be contested. It shows the reasons why the inspector requires the person to provide information or to submit articles such as books, papers, documents and so on. The section specifies further powers:

''(b) to take statements from all such persons as he thinks fit and to require any such person to make and sign a declaration of the truth of the statement made by him;

(c) on production if required of his credentials, to enter and inspect any place, building or aircraft the entry or inspection whereof appears to the investigating Inspector to be requisite for the purposes of the investigation;

(d) on production if required of his credentials, to remove, test, take measures for the preservation of or otherwise''.

It is important that the inspector is required to produce his credentials. Why did the Government not see fit to write into the Bill, having gone into so much detail in the clause, the reasons why the investigator should either be accompanied by a British Transport police officer, have a decision of a magistrates court or a summons, or be asked to produce his credentials if required?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I refer the hon. Lady to lines 27 and 28 on page 3 of the Bill, which relate to the investigator's powers. The provision says what an inspector of rail accidents may do for the purpose of conducting an investigation

''provided that he produces evidence of his identity if asked to do so''.

I think that that meets the hon. Lady's criteria.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We are talking about a fine nuance. The Minister might argue that we are splitting hairs.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The inspector is not asked to provide his bus pass.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

No, and he is not a gas inspector.

The investigator's powers under clause 7 are extremely extensive. Opposition Members believe that there is a balance to be reached in respect of transparency and the exercise of those powers. The investigator should enter the premises with the requisite authority and act under the auspices of the chief inspector of rail accidents. We want to ensure that the powers are deemed to be reasonable. They should enable the investigator to pursue the investigation, but at the same time the rights of individuals should be observed.

The Government felt strongly enough about the European convention on human rights to write it into a separate United Kingdom Act of Parliament. I am trying to help the Minister, although he may not see it that way. The Minister will have to satisfy the concerns of any individual who is entitled to rely on article 8 in his defence to prevent someone from doing what we are discussing.

Clause 7(1) says the inspector may act

''provided that he produces evidence of his identity if asked to do so''.

I would assume that people would want to know who I was before I went on to their property. The slight difference in emphasis is interesting, and I simply wanted to explore whether there was a reason for it. It is welcome that the Government have gone into so much detail in the Bill, rather than leaving matters to regulations that the Committee would not have the power to debate.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I am listening to my hon. Friend with great interest. I served on the Committee that considered what became the Animal Health Act 2002, so I am used to the Government playing fast and loose with entry powers. She may be interested to know that the Minister in that Committee returned the following day with the word ''proportionality'' on his lips rather more frequently than it was initially when he answered Opposition points. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Government have kindly acknowledged the need to produce evidence of identity, that does not of itself amount to anything approaching balance or a check and balance?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I use the expression ''reasonable powers'', but the principle of proportionality is even more appropriate in this respect. I hope that the Minister listened to that helpful intervention and will have regard to it.

Equally, we have not yet discussed clause 7(3), which uses a similar expression. I know from my time as a law student how much time is spent talking about what constitutes ''a reasonable man''. Subsection (3) states:

''A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse''.

The Government therefore wish to be mindful of this issue. The powers should be exercised proportionately and in a reasonable way. As I said, I welcome the fact that the powers have been written into the Bill, which might not have been the case.

The Minister may say that the Government will elaborate on clause 7 through regulations, so that, for example, a summons under his hand or a warrant will be sought. The clause alludes to the fact that the investigator may be accompanied by another person. That other person should, in each case, be a constable or an officer of the British Transport police. That would go some way to allaying the serious concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bath. If the police were involved at every stage in the taking of evidence there would be less opportunity for discussion and debate later about who had access to the evidence if they needed to bring a criminal prosecution. In the event of someone wanting to rely on article 8 of the European convention on human rights as amended by protocol 11, would not that lead to an unnecessary and regrettable delay? Would it be better if the European convention on human rights were not enshrined in a UK Act?

Clause 7 is extremely wide; it could lead to controversial situations and contains no precise definitions. I hope that the Minister will respond in a spirit of helpfulness.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bath made some important points. I speak from a layman's point of view; we are keen for the investigator to get to the root of these matters, but it seems that he will have more power than the police. Is that correct?

If the police thought that a piece of evidence was vital because a criminal offence had been committed, would the investigator or the police have the right to that evidence or would they have to take it in turns? I may have been watching too many episodes of ''The Bill'', but presumably the evidence must be taken in a certain way to be accepted in a court of law. For a member of the jury, that will hinge on whether the police went through the correct procedures in obtaining the evidence. I am worried that vital evidence obtained by the investigator will be used by the police in a court of law and the defence will say that it was not obtained properly. We hear of cases where the policeman did not have his helmet or hat on, and therefore was not properly dressed to make an arrest. With due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York who is a non-practising lawyer, sometimes lawyers find little loopholes that are not necessarily in keeping with the spirit of the law.

I wonder whether the inspector should be accompanied, as my hon. Friend said, for his security. Anyone presented with a railway inspector's identification would not necessarily be aware of the great powers that he had—and they might not be so eager to come forward and help if they were aware of them. In a notable case, some poor chap from an enforcement agency got shot because the landowner did not believe the chap had the right to do what he was doing, and a serious criminal offence was committed—

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

We should try to discourage that.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Yes. I am worried about the inspector's safety and wonder whether it would be a good idea for a constable to be present.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Let me deal with several points that hon. Members raised.

The hon. Member for Vale of York will not be surprised to hear that we do not believe that the clause poses any problems in relation to the European convention on human rights, because any interference with a person's right to a private life can be justified and defended on the grounds that the measures are designed to improve public safety, which the convention covers.

We also believe that RAIB inspectors will be professional investigators and that they will enter private property only if they believe that there is evidence relevant to the investigation of that property. I stress again that they must show their identity if asked.

On the gathering of evidence, not only would the evidence be gathered to the highest possible standards, but it would be able to be shared with the police. However, the witness statements that the RAIB had taken would not be shared with the police.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister said, ''would be able to be shared'', but I presume that he would stress that matters should go further and that evidence would be required to be shared between all the appropriate bodies if requested by those bodies.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

That is certainly so. The matter would need to be resolved between the bodies.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.