Railways and Transport Safety Bill

House of Commons, 31 March 2003.

New Clause 6 — Annual report

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: (b), at end insert—

'(d) those bodies and individuals with whom the Railways Accident Investigation Branch must consult in the preparation of a report.'.

(a), at end insert—

'(3) Regulations under subsection (1) shall, in particular, make provision about the rail industry's progress in implementing the recommendations which the Rail Accident Investigation Branch makes.'.

New clause 12—Rail Accident Investigation Branch: Subcontracting—

'.—The Rail Accident Investigation Branch shall not use in an investigation contractors or subcontractors whose actions prior to that investigation could reasonably be expected to be referred to in the conclusions of that investigation.'.

Government amendments Nos. 11 to 15.

Amendment No.2, in

page 3, line 5 [Clause 6], at end insert—

'(1A) The Rail Accident Investigation Branch may investigate any railway situation which it judges to have the potential for fatality or injury.'.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am delighted that the House can return to considering the Bill. I see that some old friends from its consideration in Committee are in their places. I am sure that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) will speak with her usual commendable economy of words, as I am sure will the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and others.

The new clauses and amendments refer to part 1, which would establish the rail accident investigation branch. New clause 6 would place a duty on the chief inspector of rail accidents to publish an annual report on the activities of the RAIB. The clause is being brought forward in response to concerns that were raised in Committee. A number of the amendments that stand in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are responses to matters that were properly raised in Committee.

The regulations will give details of what will be in the annual report and when it will be published. We intend that the RAIB's annual report will let everyone see what the branch has been doing in the previous year. Not only will it provide an overview of investigations made in the preceding year and give details of safety recommendations that have been made, but, crucially, regulations will also specify that the report should show industry progress towards implementation of recommendations made by the branch, so that it can be seen that lessons are being learned. I hope that that addresses some of the concerns of the hon. Member for Bath, as expressed in amendment (a).

The rail industry will be responsible for the implementation of safety regulations in line with recommendations made by Lord Cullen. The rail safety and standards board will maintain a single record of recommendations made by the RAIB, as well as industry investigation recommendations, so that the state of industry progress towards implementation of each and every recommendation can be checked. The publication of annual reports by the branch will draw on that and place a discipline on everyone involved to ensure that recommendations are implemented.

Government amendments Nos. 11 and 12 have been tabled to ensure that the RAIB's responsibilities in relation to the channel tunnel are clear and work well. Our intention has always been that the investigation of accidents and incidents in the channel tunnel would not automatically be for the RAIB. Such matters would be for the channel tunnel intergovernmental commission and the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority to decide.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so soon, but the matter that he has just raised is a very fraught one. He will be aware that the channel tunnel organisation does not always provide full and detailed information about its own workings, so it is extremely worrying that the matter may, rather unhelpfully, come under its aegis. Can he assure us that, as a result of the amendments, it will be made clear on the record that the available statistics will be printed clearly so that the general public and the House of Commons can have access to them?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am not sure whether the amendments will do so, but the new clause ensures that should the tunnel authorities call on the expertise of the rail accident investigation branch, it can be used. The authorities' information would, of course, be made public.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Given that new clause 6(2) is strikingly broad in scope and lacking in specificity, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether we will at least have the benefit of advance sight of the draft regulations before the Bill's final passage? Irrespective of the answer to that question, can he advise the House whether the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure of the House or its negative counterpart?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The regulations will be dealt with in the normal way, and their publication will be dealt with in the normal way in the House.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

That answer was spectacularly uninformative. For the hon. Gentleman to say that the regulations will be dealt with in the normal way tells us everything and nothing that we need to know. The question is specific—given that there is normality about the use of both the negative and positive procedures, which are the Government opting for?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

There is never normality about what the hon. Gentleman raises in the House, but there is always predictability. In this case, the statutory instruments will be subject to negative resolution, but many other statutory instruments relating to the Bill will be subject to positive resolution. That was thrashed out very thoroughly by the hon. Member for Vale of York in Committee.

Government amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 strengthen the wording describing the aims of the rail accident investigation branch. As Lord Cullen recommended, the fundamental aim of the rail accident investigation branch must be to improve the safety of railways and prevent railway accidents and incidents. The rail accident investigation branch will establish the root causes of railway accidents and incidents, and share safety lessons with the industry as quickly as possible so that safety can be improved and future accidents prevented. However, there may be circumstances in which the rail accident investigation branch could, for example, help a marine or air accident investigation by providing specialist assistance. For that reason, we do not want the aims of the rail accident investigation branch in clause 4 to be so narrow that it could only work on a rail accident investigation.

Michael Clapham (Labour, Barnsley West and Penistone)

Has the Minister given any thought to the question of whether the rail accident investigation branch will, in certain circumstances, be able to carry out surveys or studies of potential dangers? For example, he will be aware that at present the union ASLEF is pressing for a reduction in hours. Is that something that would come under the remit of the rail accident investigation branch? Would it carry out a survey and report back?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am not sure that that particular issue would come under the branch's remit, but certainly under the Bill there is an ability to look both at incidents that may lead to increased risks and risks that might lead to incidents. We want the branch to have freedom to investigate such things—they may not be actual events or incidents, but things that might lead to a serious event. I am sure that the branch's chief inspector will look at each issue, just as the marine accident investigation branch and the air accidents investigation branch look at each issue to see whether there is a risk that could cause danger.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

I apologise for intervening again, but the wording that my hon. Friend used implies that the rail accident investigation branch will intervene in the other accident branches. Would it not be sensible to follow one of my Committee's recommendations—that the Government should set up a truly independent safety authority capable of covering all forms of transport, using the expertise of the existing bodies but bringing them together in such a way that they would be independent of their individual industries and capable of delivering much better, much stronger and much more imperative results?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

My hon. Friend's argument has much merit. The air accidents investigation branch and the marine accident investigation branch have specific expertise and have proved to be singularly capable in their work. The counter-argument to my hon. Friend's suggestion is that because those branches of our Department operate as they do, with the expertise that they have, it is considered at present that they are better as separate branches operating with own their levels of expertise. However, we may return to the matter in the future. I should add that the Bill allows for a sharing of expertise between branches, should that be required. It is not expected that the branches would regularly investigate each other's cases, but they may have certain expertise that they can share with one another.

David Cairns (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I understand that the air accidents investigation branch occasionally helps in other countries where there has been an air crash and it uses its expertise there. Does my hon. Friend envisage that the rail accident investigation branch could fulfil a similar role? If so, I recognise that the House will not want to examine great reports on accidents that happened throughout the rest of the world, but if lessons can be drawn from incidents that happened elsewhere, will they be able to form part of the content of the report?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. I do not think that it would happen frequently, but there may be cases in which the rail accident investigation branch would be asked to investigate, help investigate or provide expertise in respect of some incident that had happened outside the country. Should that happen, I would anticipate that if there were any lessons to be learned that were appropriate to our circumstances, we could benefit from such information. My hon. Friend's suggestion was not made in Committee and is a powerful point.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary in his place and I am grateful to him for his kind words. I refer the House to my interests as declared on a number of occasions, most recently in Committee. I congratulate the Under-Secretary on tabling a number of new clauses and amendments. His sometimes harsh words in Committee were compensated for by his generous invitation to visit his constituency and have a journey on a chain ferry. I am sure that before Royal Assent is granted, we will have time to compare our diaries and find a suitable occasion.

On Government new clause 6, we welcome the provision for the chief inspector to report once in each calendar year on the branch's activities. What changed the Government's mind, after the Under-Secretary so forcefully rejected our version of the new clause in Committee? We requested that the rail accident investigation branch make an annual report of its proceedings to each House of Parliament, and that it publish and present its audited annual reports. We asked that the report be not merely presented and published but also debated by each House of Parliament.

David Cairns (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The hon. Lady is being uncharacteristically ungracious. It is my clear recollection that she withdrew her amendment after receiving assurances from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the Government would table amendments on Report to address the points in the amendment that she and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) proposed in Committee. Is that not the case?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the response of the Minister of State, Department for Transport on 4 February, in column 22 of the Standing Committee report. The Minister did not go quite as far as the hon. Gentleman suggests; in fact, the right hon. Gentleman was quite harsh in his rejection of our amendment. However, we are an open, enlightened party so we welcome the Government's change of heart. We question what prompted that change and request that the report be published and debated, not least by the Select Committee, and that each House should have the opportunity to discuss it.

I hesitate to comment on the Liberal Democrat amendments as Liberal Democrat Members did not offer much support for our amendments in Committee.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

rose—

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We wait expectantly to hear the background.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

As the hon. Lady is so keen on studying the Hansard reports of the Committee debates, may I strenuously urge her to look at the numerous occasions on which she rightly referred to the growing alliance between our parties? That indicates that we were being supportive, as she rightly was of many of our amendments.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

As the Under-Secretary invited me to be brief, I should hate to break his strictures so early on. However, speaking at considerable length in Committee has obviously paid rewards.

I am delighted that, to some extent, Government amendment No. 11 answers our request about the actual designation of work on reporting accidents and that accidents in the channel tunnel will be investigated separately. It is important to record our gratitude to the Government; they appear to have listened to our concerns and to have found a way forward.

I support with greater enthusiasm our amendment No. 2, which states:

"The Rail Accident Investigation Branch may investigate any railway situation which it judges to have the potential for fatality or injury."

The Under-Secretary will recall the extensive background that we rehearsed in Committee. I repeat the welcome for the Cullen report and its recommendations given by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on Second Reading. The recommendations are timely. We are immensely proud of the air and marine accident investigation branches and hope that they will serve as models. However, during the extensive consultation, for which the Government have been commended, several bodies pointed out that the Government need to specify the circumstances in which the branch will conduct an investigation. At the very least, the branch should investigate a fatality or a serious injury.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

Will the hon. Lady clarify something for me? Her amendment states that the branch should investigate "any railway situation", whereas the Bill refers to accidents and incidents. Will she explain what she means by "situation"? If a rail passenger committee or other representative body expressed concern about a particular safety issue, would she envisage them having the power to ask the branch to investigate that incident, or situation?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which is obviously very significant. In Committee, we tried hard to establish circumstances relating to the terms "accident" and "incident". It must be said that we did so with some support from the Liberal Democrats—[Interruption.] The issue arose very early in the proceedings, so we were delighted to recognise their support at that stage.

I would be happy with the terminology in relation to "accidents" and "incidents". However, it is important to record that, presumably, as the Under-Secretary has said that the Government want the railway accident investigation branch to lend assistance to the other boards in certain circumstances, we must be specific about the responsibilities of its inspectors and investigators. We believe that the potential for or occurrence of fatality or injury are the most specific circumstances in which inspectors and investigators would act.

Having made those introductory remarks, it gives me great pleasure to commend amendment No. 2 to the House.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I wish to speak to the amendment that appears in my name—amendment (b) to the new clause. I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I was not a member of the Committee, although I am certainly a member of the coalition of the willing who want to see the Bill through the House as speedily as possible.

My interest rests on these factors: Brian Cooper, my constituent, was one of the drivers killed in the Paddington disaster; the Southall disaster was literally one mile from my constituency and its victims included some of my constituents; and on the night of the King's Cross fire, in my previous life as a local government officer, I was involved in dealing with some of the arrangements for those who were injured and killed. I therefore have a particular interest in rail safety, although I was not a member of the Committee.

I welcome the new clause which is critical to the operation of the Bill and could set the annual benchmarking of progress regarding railway safety in this country. Amendment (b) seeks to make the point that when the regulations are introduced, we need to maximise the openness and transparency with which the critical annual report is prepared. The Bill is an attempt not only to deal with the practical matters of rail safety, but to restore the confidence of the British public in the rail industry and in a Government who are acting on their behalf to ensure their safety. That is why emphasis should be given to ensuring maximum transparency and openness in preparing the annual report.

For that reason, amendment (b) suggests that the Secretary of State should be more directional in the preparation of the report. I look forward to seeing the regulations, although I would prefer it if the negative resolution procedure were not followed, as a positive discussion should take place in which the House can come to a decision on the detail of the regulations. In some instances, the negative resolution procedure does not afford the opportunity for such discussion.

The amendment would provide the Secretary of State with directional powers to allow more openness in the preparation of the reports. It would do so by allowing him to designate

"those bodies and individuals with whom the Railways Accident Investigation Branch would consult in the preparation of a report."

It also covers some of the issues that have been raised in Liberal Democrat amendment (a) to the new clause, which deals with progress and implementation of recommendations arising from previous investigations. One of the groups that we would like to welcome in preparing the report and making observations is the individuals who served on or gave evidence to the inquiries that have accumulated in recent years.

The amendment would also cover some of the aspects raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, because it would allow bodies to comment on the information that would become available as a result of the publication of a report. In other words, they could say what statistics should be included in the report while it was being prepared.

The amendment would also provide the opportunity for consultation with all the other individuals and organisations concerned about rail safety in recent years. In particular, I refer to employers and trade unions. Trade unions would be enabled to have an input in sections of the report that deal with such issues as ASLEF's concerns about hours of service and the reduction of the safety role of guards, which has been taken up by the RMT. Trade unions would have an input in the report at an earlier stage and thus it could address those issues. People would also be able to suggest what chapters of the report should cover. Such people would include victims' representative bodies, victims' legal representatives and representatives of academic and safety bodies. We would be allowed to consult bodies that work internationally on safety so that the annual report could bring to bear evidence from not only the railway industry in this country, but throughout the world. That is why the simple amendment could strengthen the Secretary of State's powers to ensure that the annual reporting process was more effective, open and transparent and therefore more reassuring for the travelling public and those who work in the industry.

I shall not press the amendment to a Division because I want the Bill to be enacted as soon as possible. However, I would welcome the Secretary of State using the regulations to examine the process through which the report is prepared so that it achieves all our objectives: to benchmark, to be open and transparent and to reassure the travelling public.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Like the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and the Under-Secretary, I am delighted that we are making further progress on this important Bill. I, too, welcome the fact that many members of the Standing Committee are in the Chamber but I am delighted to see several new faces, not least the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Chairman of the Transport Committee. I am sure that we will all benefit from her expertise during our proceedings.

I am also delighted that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is in the Chamber. On Friday, I participated in a debate on a private Member's Bill on high hedges, during which I looked back at our previous debate on high hedges in March 2001. I noted that there were several exchanges between the hon. Gentleman and me in which he said that he enjoyed jousting with me and I said that he was extremely assiduous in his work. He has demonstrated that again today through his intervention on the Under-Secretary. He asked about two issues: the way in which the statutory instruments will come before us and, importantly, whether a draft of the regulations would be seen before the Bill has passed through both Houses. The hon. Gentleman did not receive an answer from the Under-Secretary and if he had, we would not have to raise several of our concerns.

There are worries about aspects of the process, which are fleshed out in amendment (b), which was tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and amendment (a). I wish to tease out more information about the nature of the report, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) will catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker, to speak to new clause 12.

We are delighted that the rail accident investigation branch will be set up. We have supported all aspects of the Government's proposals on it although, on occasions, we have challenged them to go further and to clarify aspects of its work. We are genuinely delighted with Government new clause 6. As the hon. Member for Vale of York said, both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members moved amendments in Committee that would have had a similar effect to the new clause. However, the Under-Secretary has failed to take account of several worries expressed by the hon. Lady and me during the debates on those amendments. The Conservative amendments related to the need for the annual report to be made to each House of Parliament, which implied that there would be an opportunity for both Houses to debate it. It does not appear that that will necessarily occur, because the Minister's own new clause merely states that we shall have regulations making provision about

"the publication and other treatment of reports"

at a later date. Had the hon. Member for Buckingham received a clear answer to his question, we might have known that we could look at this matter a little later in the proceedings and be assured of it happening. I note that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Vale of York at that time also talked about the need for the presentation of audited annual accounts to each House of Parliament. So far, it does not appear that we are going to see that either.

Our amendment (a) raises a further point. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington talked about the vital importance of the report that will be produced as a result of new clause 6. He said that it could be an important annual benchmarking of rail safety progress. The problem is, however, that we still do not have a clear assurance from the Government that, in addition to the rail accident investigation branch telling us what it has done, we shall also receive information about the progress being made in response to recommendations that it has made following accident investigations. The Minister hinted earlier that that provision might now be included, but I hope that we can have an assurance that there will be a mechanism to provide the annual benchmarking of rail safety progress that the hon. Gentleman has rightly said that we need. That is why we have tabled amendment (a), although, as I have said, we very much welcome the Government's new clause 6.

In regard to the other Government amendments and new clauses, new clause 13 strengthens the definition of the role of the rail accident investigation branch. The Minister was good enough to point out that some of those amendments resulted from suggestions made in Committee by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, and new clause 13 is just such a measure. We were very keen to have that strengthening of the role, and we therefore welcome the new clause. We are discussing the establishment of an important new body—the rail accident investigation branch—and we hope that the Minister will take on board some of the concerns that we continue to raise about it, particularly about its reporting function. No one should be in any doubt, however, of our full support for its introduction.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

Travel by rail is very safe. That would appear to be such an obvious thing to say that it should not be necessary to repeat it, but, because of the drama and excitement engendered by any rail industry accident, it is sometimes possible to believe that rail travel is as dangerous as any other form of transport. It is important, therefore, to remember that we kill 3,000 people on our roads every year, but sometimes only four or five on the trains. That is not to underestimate the agony and tremendous tragedy of any rail accident, but it is important to keep these things in perspective when we are discussing these issues. I therefore welcome the Bill enormously because I believe that it will set out a way for us clearly to begin to put at rest the minds of the general public.

My hon. Friend the Minister was kind and courteous enough—as he always is—to answer my questions earlier, but I would have hoped that the Government might have been a little more courageous. The Bill presented an opportunity to consider the recommendations that we make, right across the transport industries, and to identify the series of excellent groups of people whose professional job is to investigate accidents. They exist in marine and aviation affairs, and there are clear differences between how some of them work, but they have shown that their very independence, openness and tremendous love of detail produce reports that have consistently provided a set of rules and plans by which the individual industries can progress.

That is why the Transport Committee suggested that this might be the moment to bring together all those different investigation branches. That is not in any way to underestimate the role that they play, but simply to say, "As that expertise exists, let us bring them into one independent free-standing agency." We should have given them the muscle to investigate and, indeed, to impose conditions while they are investigating the accident scene, as that would have been useful in working out what we must learn from individual incidents. I am sorry that that chance has not been taken. It seems slightly ungracious to say so, as my hon. Friend the Minister has introduced an amendment of which I approve, although I am sorry it does not go further, but he is long enough in the tooth in parliamentary terms to realise that that is frequently the norm.

We should have a totally independent investigation branch, and it is not enough to go one step. We should make it clear that what is necessary in this country is access to information. The general public have enormous faith in the railway system and many aspects of safety regulations are built on the assumption that the railway industry has always been astonishingly careful, almost since its inception, to maintain rules and regulations that protect its passengers and, indeed, its staff. That is why some of us are concerned about the safety changes inherent in the suggestion that we can do away with the job of the guard.

If I may digress for a moment, I travelled on a train on Saturday where a young man was threatening to commit suicide in a rather dramatic manner—by slitting his throat. It was the guard whose unenviable task it was to try to restrain him and at least find some way of getting to the point where British Transport police could deal with the situation. The guard was left in control. I know that Virgin trains are frequently over an hour late, but it seemed a rather excessive reaction to want to commit suicide. Nevertheless, that is a clear example of the fact that the guard has a specific role to play, and it was played with considerable expertise.

We should have taken the chance to sort out a series of problems through the Bill. One is undoubtedly the control of the channel tunnel. My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that the joint action between the British and French Governments frequently throws up clear differences between the two legal systems and the two systems of control. The channel tunnel authorities, on both sides, choose not to make public the facts of how they operate, or what happens on that track. Indeed, they limit many items of information to the minimum required by the company laws of both countries, which shows that we still face real difficulties.

The habit in this country of producing annual reports and including in them a minimum number of items that make what is happening clear to any member of the general public who wants to acquire the information—not just to people with expertise in an industry—is one that should be treasured and expanded on every occasion. I regret deeply the fact that that is not the case in relation to much channel tunnel legislation. I had hoped that we would deal with that question in considerable detail, but I return to the point that we in this country value safety regulation.

Those who moan about bureaucracy, form filling and the constant imposition of rules and regulations forget that in the safe passage of the people of the United Kingdom the transport industry has a role to play that is not only vital, but responsible. We have still not reached the end of the passage of the Bill—it has another House to go through and it has to come back here—so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister looks carefully at what he is suggesting. He should say that the Bill is just an elementary and first step, and that we should be going a lot further.

I look forward to the time when a clear infrastructure, an independent agency and a set of tough regulations are on the statute book, drawing together all accident investigation branches, marine, aviation and railway—and perhaps we should also seriously consider what is happening on our roads—into an effective unit. That will force the public to think carefully about how they behave on transport systems, regulate the behaviour of individual companies in all those sectors, and enable us as a Parliament to feel that we have carried out our duties correctly.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

I welcome the proposal for an annual report. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), our rail system is safe; the problem is that confidence has been undermined by a number of high-profile accidents recently. The Cullen inquiry and the Bill that followed it constitute one way of trying to introduce a system that will help to restore that confidence, and I think that, once established, the annual report will begin to do that.

I also support amendment No. 2, although the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) may wish to dissociate herself from my support when she has heard what I have to say. The wording of the amendment is significantly different from that of clause 6: while clause 6 refers specifically to accidents and incidents, the amendment refers to "any railway situation". That is an important difference. One problem with the Bill, which is to an extent inevitable, is that it deals with investigations of accidents that have already occurred. We should be thinking about how to prevent them from occurring.

In January there was an accident on the London underground Central line, which led to the closure of the line for some time. The RMT claimed that safety was being sacrificed to profit, and said that a driver on the Piccadilly line who had expressed concern about a banging noise had been told that if he refused to drive a train that was later found to be safe he would have to face the consequences. Today, as last week, railway guards are on strike, not over pay and conditions but over a safety issue. I feel that the investigation branch could look into specific railway safety issues. That may be beyond its power now, but I hope that in future a Government of whatever colour will consider it as a way of increasing both safety and confidence.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

My Select Committee will be examining what happened on the Central line tomorrow afternoon.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

I am delighted to hear it, but my point is that the branch should look not just at accidents that have already happened but at situations that may give rise to accidents, and at railway safety in general. If it can

"investigate any railway situation which it judges to have the potential for fatality or injury",

a rail passenger council, a rail union or anyone concerned about railway safety would at least have an opportunity to bring to the branch's attention incidents or situations that might give rise to safety concerns.

David Cairns (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Does he agree that creating a special accident and investigation branch, which will focus tightly on investigating accidents and seeing what lessons can be drawn from them, could allow the Health and Safety Executive to fulfil the role that he mentions of looking into health and safety matters across the railways? It might also have time to do that more effectively. We should perhaps allow matters to move forward and see whether the Health and Safety Executive could fulfil the role that we both want carried out.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

The hon. Member makes a good point, with which I would not disagree. My point was that confidence has been undermined by a series of high-profile accidents. People who travel regularly on the railways, the unions and others are concerned about a range of factors that give rise to safety concerns. Health and safety has a role within that, but I would argue—it may be outwith the scope of the clause, but it should be considered—that the remit of a specific rail accident investigation branch should be expanded so that the problems that could cause spectacular accidents could be investigated before they get to that dangerous stage. An independent group that could seriously investigate those matters might help us in cases where strikes over safety are taking place. I am not sure that that is what the hon. Member for Vale of York had in mind.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The hon. Gentleman's latest intervention touches on an important point, which we explored at length in Committee. Regrettably, the amendment that we tabled was not selected. Does he agree that the position of the Health and Safety Executive would have been much clearer if the Government had taken the opportunity to set out, either in a code of practice or a memorandum of understanding, the precise relationship between the HSE and the new rail accident investigation branch?

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

I was not present at the debate, so I cannot comment on the detail, but that is a fair point. My argument is that we must have some independent body—whether it be the HSE or the RAIB—to investigate complaints and concerns about safety on the railways before accidents occur.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

I am pleased to support the Bill in broad terms and I was pleased to serve in Committee. However, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I would like to see stronger legislation and hope that this Bill is a significant step towards what can ultimately be achieved.

My concerns were raised by news in The Guardian today that the new rail safety and standards board will be established in a more independent role, having previously been based within the industry. The article says that the chief executive of the internal organisation, Mr. Rod Muttram, who assumed that he would be given the new job under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)—TUPE—rules, has not been given the new chief executive post. I have made discreet investigations and inquiries today and I understand that he is a man of high calibre and a qualified electrical engineer, who has spent considerable time in the industry and has done a good job. At short notice, he was told that he need not apply for the new job, even though most other staff were transferred to the new organisation. There is a hint, I am afraid, that he was too good at his job, too independent and too strong in investigating safety and standards problems. When he was based inside the industry, it was perhaps easier for it to accept him, but it seems that he might be too much for a role in a body with an arm's length relationship with the industry.

I refer hon. Members to today's article in The Guardian for greater detail, but there is a hint of concern inside the industry about the strength of independent safety organisations. I hope that commercial interests will not taint the new branch set up by the Bill. I am sure that they will not, and I do not want to cast aspersions on those who may be involved in it, but I hope that the Government will make absolutely certain that it has the necessary independence and strength to do its job properly.

I very much welcome new clause 6. I am interested in its reference to the "content of reports". My hon. Friend the Minister said that the body will produce a report giving an overview of accident investigations. I hope that that will not be a bland hand-off of a true investigation, but have some meat and cutting edge. Full investigations into the Hatfield and Potters Bar accidents have not yet been published. Although there have been interim reports, we still, some time on, have not been told the truth as to what really happened in those accidents. There may be important lessons to learn from those accidents that could cost the industry a good deal of money.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Unfortunately, I must plead ignorance of the contents of today's edition of The Guardian, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends is so eminently reasonable that it is difficult to see why anyone should object to it? Does it not call for a form of pre-accident scrutiny, and is there not an analogy between that and pre-legislative scrutiny?

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

I intend to come to that in the course of my speech. I accept that there is a point to the amendment, but several bodies in the industry have responsibility for safety, and this matter specifically concerns the investigation of accidents rather than considering safety beforehand. If, however, it appears that we have no effective pre-accident safety scrutiny, we will need to legislate to strengthen the bodies that deal with that.

I have some modest technical knowledge of railways, and this morning, at my local station—Luton, from where I travel every day—I saw from platform 1 that the outer track rail is very heavily worn. When rails are worn like that on a bend, derailments are possible. Other factors include broken rails, which are a major cause of accidents—we know that that was the case in one of the two examples that I just mentioned. Broken rails sometimes occur because track rail flexes, which happens because the ballast has not been re-tamped. Without getting too technical, the ballast underneath the track has to be tamped to ensure that it is stable, and when it has not been tamped properly the rails flex. I could draw hon. Members' attention to certain areas where I can see that track is flexing. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) suggested that the unions should have a role. Indeed, drivers in particular can see track problems from their cabs, and it is absolutely right that they should be consulted and have a role in reporting on such safety and accident matters.

Even I, as an amateur with some knowledge, can observe some trackside problems just by standing on a platform. We should have a mechanism whereby members of the public, those of us who are informed about such matters and, particularly, those who work in the industry can report problem areas beforehand so as to avoid any repetition of accidents of the kind that have occurred.

Michael Clapham (Labour, Barnsley West and Penistone)

My hon. Friend alluded to the relationship between overlapping bodies—for example, the rail accident investigation branch, the Health and Safety Executive, the Health and Safety Commission, Her Majesty's rail inspectorate and the new rail safety and standards board. Does he agree that the role that the rail accident investigation branch will play, as an independent body, may act as a catalyst in pulling together the other bodies to facilitate greater co-operation in relation to the way in which their work overlaps?

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

If the investigation branch discovers that those other organisations are perhaps not doing their job, I hope that it will be able to report to Government so that something can be done. From my own inquiries and discussions with many who work in the railway industry, I know that some of those organisations are not doing the job as well as they should be. I do not want to go into detail on that, but I will report to my hon. Friend the Minister in due course.

I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) mentioned the transport police. The transport police do an excellent job. Hon. Members who saw the recent documentaries on the rail transport police will know that they are a first-class body that does a good job and should be listened to and supported. When the transport police find things that are not right, the Government ought to take them seriously and, if necessary, introduce further legislation to strengthen the existing arrangements.

I have a number of other points to raise but I may be able to raise them later.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I want to speak in favour of new clause 12, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). The new clause relates to contacting or sub-contracting matters that were discussed in the Standing Committee. Hon. Members who were present will remember that we tabled a straightforward amendment, which was slightly shorter than the one that we are considering today. It said simply:

"The Rail Accident Investigation branch may not use contractors or subcontractors to assist in their investigations."

It is worth recalling why we tabled that amendment. We did so because Lord Cullen, for instance, thought that it was paramount that the RAIB should be independent; and because of the answer to a parliamentary question that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath asked about the role of contractors. That answer was:

"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.]

It is only fair to point out that the Under-Secretary then went on to explain exactly what he meant. He said that the Government's view was that it would be appropriate to call as witnesses the maintenance companies in relation to a particular investigation. However, by that he did not mean that contractors could not be used as consultants if needed in a particular investigation.

In Committee, the Under-Secretary gave us an example in relation to the marine accident investigation branch. He said that he received lots of reports about marine accidents after which salvage experts were used to lift wreckage from the sea bed. Clearly, it is entirely appropriate for salvage experts to be used in that capacity. However, did not give the example of a ship manufacturer working as a consultant in an inquiry into a vessel that had been split in half in bad weather but that had been manufactured by the same ship manufacturer. It is exactly that sort of conflict of interest that we want to avoid. That is the purpose of new clause 12.

We heard the concerns of the Health and Safety Commission about various safety contractors who were involved in railway works and safety cases.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

I endorse the hon. Gentleman's concern about the plague of contracting that has overtaken the industry since privatisation. Does he accept that a problem has been that many people with skills are now working with the sub-contractors, making it difficult to do anything without using sub-contractors in some fields? Would it not be a good idea to redevelop expertise in the core part of the industry and in the new bodies, so that those skilled people are genuinely public servants and are not compromised by commercial interests?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Clearly, there is a role for contractors and sub-contractors—that will always be so—but I agree with the point that he makes. Indeed, Network Rail has recently announced that it is bringing back in-house some contracting work, to enable it to develop not only expertise, but a point of comparison with contractors working in the private sector so that it can find out whether the costs quoted are appropriate.

As I have said, we have concerns about contractors who have a dual role in investigations and in carrying out work. Although the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) did not believe that sub-contractors would never be asked to work on investigations, he argued that they should not lead them and only assist in them.

Under new clause 12, we seek to incorporate some of the views that hon. Members expressed in Committee, so it reads:

"contractors or sub-contractors whose actions prior to that investigation could reasonably be expected to be referred to in the conclusions of that investigation"

should not be used during that investigation, and I hope that hon. Members, including the Under-Secretary, would concur that that is very sensible. I hope that, if the Under-Secretary already thinks that that is covered by the certain clauses or regulations, he will confirm that fact and, therefore, it is an issue about which we should not be concerned. However, if that is not covered, it would be appropriate for him to take on board our compromise suggestion.

I should like to give the Under-Secretary some time to consider our proposal—perhaps he will do so in the next few days—so we do not intend to press new clause 12 to a vote. We will listen carefully to his response, and I hope that he will recognise the need to do away with the possibility of any conflict of interest.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

May I thank the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) for the broad welcome that she gave the Bill? I shall not join the discussion between the Liberal Democrat and the Conservative parties about which was the most supportive, but I dare say that a reading of Hansard would indicate that to anyone who had an interest.

If the hon. Lady wants to visit my constituency—to go on the chain ferry or otherwise—nothing that she has said so far now or in Committee has negated that invitation, and she is always very welcome. I saw the chain ferry in my constituency on Friday, and I can assure her that it is working well.[Interruption]. I did not hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

What about the workers?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Yes, well, what about the workers indeed? My hon. Friend could come and see the people who are working very hard on the ferry and providing many services in that area.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving way given that, from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) says, "What about the workers?"—[Interruption]—as did the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). The crucial thing is that I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell his hon. Friends that, in light of amendments proposed by the Liberal Democrats, the Government now intend to ensure that the workers are properly represented on the various bodies that we have discussed today.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich has shown more interest in the workers over the years than the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) or the Liberal Democrats ever have.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I have sparked the hon. Gentleman into action. Of course I will give way, so long as he wants to make a serious point.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's instinct—indeed his thirst—for badinage, but may I simply advise him that, if he traduces my record on such matters in future, I will do my best, within order, to highlight that proportion of my 5,000 written questions that relate to the interests of the working people of this country.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The hon. Gentleman always looks as if he has bags under his eyes. He must have been sitting with the bedclothes over his head and using a flash lamp to read past copies of Hansard. He has done that too often and, these days, he reads his own contributions. I strongly recommend against that. He should get a life, go out at night and do something else. That might be of great benefit to him and give him a broader perspective on life.

The hon. Member for Vale of York suggested that we had changed our minds. However, when we concluded our debate in Committee on this part of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport said that we would return to the issue. He said that we would take note of the debate in Committee, and that is why we have returned to the issue tonight.

The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) raised important questions about the content of the annual report. I emphasise that it will show the progress of recommendations and take an overview of the investigations that have taken place. It will provide detail of the safety recommendations and, most important, it will show the industry's progress towards the implementation of those recommendations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will accept that strong reassurance.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Can the Under-Secretary confirm that the report will be published and will be debated in the House?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I can confirm that the report will be placed before the House. I am not in charge of debates but, if the Opposition wanted to use one of their days to debate the report, I am sure that the Government would be pleased to respond.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) tabled the important amendment (b) on the consultation involved in preparing the annual report. I should now make a distinction between the annual report and reports that will be produced as and when necessary on particular incidents or accidents. I do not think that it will be normal to consult others when preparing the annual report, and we do not see a particularly good reason to do that. The other two branches—the marine accident investigation branch and the air accidents investigation branch—do not consult on their reports.

However, on my hon. Friend's concerns, I assure him that the important matter of particular investigations into particular incidents or accidents will be available to be commented upon by all bodies that wish to do so, including the trade unions that may have a particular interest in such issues. It will be a matter for the branch to keep all interested parties informed about the progress of individual accident investigations, and the latest draft of the European rail safety directive would require the branch to let interested parties see relevant parts of investigation reports before publication. I hope that that brings some consolation to my hon. Friend.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) spoke to new clause 12. It would require that the rail accident investigation branch not use

"contractors or sub-contractors whose actions prior to that investigation could reasonably be expected to be referred to in the conclusions of that investigation".

He asked whether assurances were contained in the Bill. It is vital that the chief inspector of rail accidents retains the credibility of the industry and the travelling public. The branch would rapidly lose that credibility if it were required to use a contractor or sub-contractor whose work or actions it knew to be linked to an accident under investigation. However, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is inevitable that there will be occasions when the branch will not have the necessary specialist expertise, such as on signalling technology, to conduct an in-house investigation thoroughly.

We therefore have to rely on common sense and on the chief inspector's ability to manage the situation, as we have done with the marine and air accident investigation branches. As I said, the operation of those two branches provides good examples. At the moment, I do not see why we should treat the rail accident investigation branch differently. It will take all necessary measures to ensure that any potential conflicts of interest are managed appropriately. There will be a clear chain of command and control of all contractors or sub-contractors used by the rail accident investigation branch, which will go back to the chief inspector of rail accidents.

I hope to show that we have taken into account what the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) and his colleagues seek to achieve in amendment No. 2. We agree that there is a need to define what accidents the rail accident investigation branch will be under a duty to investigate. The branch must also be given the discretion to investigate other incidents relevant to the operation of the railway, to see whether there are safety lessons that need to be learned. Clause 2(4) will allow the regulations defining an incident to make provision on events such as near misses and other precursors to accidents—a point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North showed concern.

The regulations will make it clear that incidents that could be subject to investigation by the rail accident investigation branch could include one that, under different circumstances, may have resulted in an accident, and a series of unplanned or uncontrolled events that, under different circumstances, may have resulted in an accident. That would include what the rail industry refers to as near misses or precursors.

We must also ensure, however, that our domestic legislation complies with the forthcoming 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, but if we include definitions in the Bill, we risk having to amend it almost as soon as it receives Royal Assent, should it do so. Nevertheless, I can assure hon. Members that we intend to give the rail accident investigation branch the maximum flexibility to investigate any incident, which will include near misses or other precursors.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

I hope that my hon. Friend is not really enunciating the theory that it is only if the Europeans have thought deeply about these matters that we can change our railway legislation. Would not it be a better idea to set out a nice, precise definition that the European Parliament, in its wisdom, might catch up with?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Indeed. That is why we have our own Bill. This is not European legislation that we are discussing tonight. We have to ensure that any definition that we set out matches any definition that may be used in the European context in the near future. It would be unwise to include definitions in the Bill and then to find that, in a few months, we had to alter them.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Does the Minister have a timetable for the introduction of the European definition, so that we can have a definite idea, rather than "maybe", "possibly", "in a month or two" or "in a year or so"?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I said that we might have to make the change as soon as the Bill is anticipated to receive Royal Assent because that is the expected time scale for the emergence of the new definitions.

The hon. Member for Bath asked whether the annual report will be placed in the House. We have covered that point; it will be placed in the House. He asked about the annual accounts report. That will be available because the accounts will form part of my Department's accounts, which are laid before the House.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

While the hon. Gentleman awaits enlightenment in respect of the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), may I, as someone who did not serve on the Standing Committee, politely put it to him that his response to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was not altogether compelling? Given that new clause 6 is permissive in terms, rather than prescriptive, what is the cogent explanation for the refusal to include the terms of the hon. Gentleman's amendment in the Government's new clause? The Minister should not just stick to the brief; he should answer the question.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

That is kind advice from the hon. Gentleman, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has any difficulty with my response, he is more than capable of saying so.

To return to serious matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich made a powerful contribution, as always. She emphasised the need for safety on our railways, contrasting that position with that which pertains to our roads. It is an unfortunate fact that when an incident occurs on the railways, it receives a huge amount of public attention; that is inevitable and, I think, right, but it is sometimes disproportionate. Our railway system is actually very safe and operates extremely well. That said, my hon. Friend and I agree that although the railway system is safe, we can always do more to make it safer, and I totally endorse what she and her Committee have done to further that work.

My hon. Friend restated the point about having one agency—one effective unit, as I think she described it. I assure her that the Government do not rule that out as a longer-term ambition, but the priority now is to get the RAIB set up. We shall encourage the three branches to work closely together, as the two existing branches do now.

My hon. Friend mentioned the channel tunnel, which is an important matter. As she knows, the United Kingdom and France regulate the tunnel, and French agreement is needed if the type of information that she talked about is to be released. The Government will encourage greater release of information, but we have to work within the constraints of international law.

The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North asked whether the RAIB would examine general safety issues within the industry. That is not the RAIB's job. The rail safety and standards board will have the lead in making the railways safe and the Health and Safety Executive remains the rail safety regulator. The RAIB will examine specific incidents, including near misses and precursors that might have led to an accident, but it will not consider rail safety in general.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

Will the Minister respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)? In many ways, the perception of railway safety is a more difficult issue than the accidents that occur. Is there not an argument for the RAIB examining general safety as well as accidents, as a way to increase confidence in the railways?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I do not think that it is the RAIB's job to do that. Its proper role is to investigate specific accidents or incidents that could have led to accidents, and the lessons learned will, I hope, lead to greater public confidence. However, it is for the rail safety and standards board to have general oversight of implementation and thereby to increase the travelling public's confidence in the rail system.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister is being most helpful and encouraging about the likely contents of the report, which is all the more reason why we should be given an absolute assurance that we will get draft copies of the regulations before the Bill completes its passage. As for the point he has just made, other bodies, such as the British Transport police, will examine incidents that could have led to an accident—for example, incidents of vandalism—and comment on them. Does he expect the RAIB's annual report to include reference to matters such as the BTP's comments on vandalism?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

That would be a matter for the chief inspector to put in his or her report. That is, those matters that were relevant to the task in hand. I do not think that issues relating to the British Transport police would routinely be included in the report. If lessons were to be learned from specific issues, perhaps inclusion would be the most appropriate course. In the end, that is a matter for the good sense of the chief inspector.

I commend the Government's new clause and Government amendments Nos. 11 to 15. I hope that the other amendments will be withdrawn.

Question put and agreed to

Clause read a Second time.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

rose—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Does the hon. Gentleman seek leave to move his amendment?

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

Perhaps I might state my reasons for withdrawing the amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

No. The amendment is not moved, so the hon. Gentleman cannot set out his reasons for doing so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 7 — Conditions of service: transport police conference

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Code of Practice: British Transport Police and others—

'The Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice setting out the relationship between the British Transport Police, airport police, and Home Office police forces and security officers operating at airports and seaports.'.

New clause 16—Reimbursements of costs—

'The Secretary of State shall authorise the reimbursement of the costs arising from the extended jurisdiction for the British Transport Police provided in the AntiTerrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.'.

New clause 18—Contracting services—

'.—The Secretary of State may permit the British Transport Police Authority to contract with transport operators to provide services in respect of nonrail transport modes, including airports and bus routes.'.

Amendment No. 36, in page 8, line 33 [Clause 18], at end insert—

'(g) to the Mayor of London's Transport Strategy'.

Amendment No. 3, in page 9, line 6 [Clause 19], at end insert

'and on direction by the Secretary of State other transport undertakings, including sea ports and airports.'.

Government amendments Nos. 16 to 18.

Amendment No. 39, in page 13, line 13 [Clause 29], at end add—

'( ) and, on direction by the Secretary of State, on any other transport undertakings including sea ports and airports.'.

Amendment No. 40, in page 13, line 13, at end add—

'( ) anywhere within the United Kingdom in the absence of a constable of the territorial force;

( ) in support of any other police officer.'.

Amendment No. 37, in page 19, line 39 [Clause 47], at end insert—

'(e) have regard to the Mayor of London's Transport Strategy.'.

Government amendment No. 19.

Amendment No. 5, in page 24, line 17 [Clause 59], at end add—

'( ) other persons and bodies with an interest in the transport undertakings including sea ports and airports where the Secretary of State has issued a direction extending the jurisdiction of the British Transport Police.'.

Amendment No. 34, in page 24, line 17, at end insert—

'( ) trades unions representing employees of organisations providing railway services.'.

Amendment No. 38, in page 24, line 17, at end insert—

'(n) Transport for London'.

Amendment No. 8, in page 60, line 34 [Schedule 4], at end insert:—

'( ) a person nominated by Transport for London.'.

Amendment No. 35, in page 60, line 34, at end insert—

'( ) at least four persons who have a knowledge of and experience in relation to the interests of persons employed in the provision of railway services and who are members of a trade union.'.

Amendment No. 1, in page 60, line 37, leave out 'four persons' and insert 'six persons'.

Government amendment No. 24.

Amendment No. 6, in page 61, line 7 [Schedule 4], at end insert—

'(g) a person with an association with, either by ownership or career experience, with the industry, transport undertaking, or port or airport where the Secretary of State has, by direction, extended the jurisdiction of the British Transport Police.'.

Government amendment No. 25.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The new clauses and amendments all refer to the part of the Bill that concerns the British Transport police. New clause 7 would retain the existing BTP conference. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) raised this important issue in Committee, and I was happy to give her an assurance that the Government would bring forward an amendment to address the matter.

We are not talking about the British Transport Police Federation conference, which is an excellent body that I addressed in Peterborough last week. We are talking about a meeting between management and the federation, and the conference has an important role. It allows discussions on conditions of service, such as pay and hours of duty, to take place between the Strategic Rail Authority, as the current employer of the force, and the British Transport Police Federation as representative of the federated ranks of the BTP. The new clause ensures that the conference will continue to meet to discuss issues relating to conditions of service of BTP constables with the Strategic Rail Authority's role replaced by the British Transport Police authority.

We have already discussed these provisions with the BTP. Our officials have met and corresponded with the federation, senior management of the force and the BTP committee. They are all content that the provisions are both correct and allow the existing conference to continue to perform its role.

Government amendments Nos. 16 to 18 reflect the fact that special constables with the BTP should not be classed as employees of the authority. They are, of course, volunteers and so should not be legally defined as employees. That is the existing position of special constables in both the BTP force and of local Home Office police forces as well. The amendments ensure that the British Transport police special constables remain in line with their Home Office counterparts. As hon. Members who served on Committee will be aware, it is to harmonise arrangements between British Transport police and the Home Office forces that we have introduced a number of provisions.

Government amendments Nos. 19, 24 and 25 concern the make-up of the police authority and the organisations that it would have to consult. I would like to explain briefly the reasons for the amendments, which have all been tabled as a result of commitments made in Standing Committee in response to amendments or comments. Government amendment No. 24 will mean that the Secretary of State, when appointing members of the authority, will have to ensure that the membership includes someone who has "knowledge and experience" of employees of the railway industry. We have slightly embellished the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) in Committee. Paragraph 2(2) of schedule 4 allows members to be appointed for more than one reason, so a member appointed to provide knowledge and experience of passengers may also be able to provide valuable knowledge of regional requirements. The criteria used in the appointment of a member with knowledge of those providing railway services could therefore overlap with the new criteria concerning those working in the railway industry. That could also work the other way round, which could obviously leave one side deeply unhappy, and defeat the intention of the provision and our discussion in Committee. We have therefore tabled Government amendment No. 25 to ensure that an employee representative cannot dilute the industry representation by being counted within their numbers. Neither can members appointed to represent the railway companies count as members who provide knowledge about the interests of railway employees.

Government amendment No. 19 adds employees of railway companies and their representatives to the list of organisations that the authority shall consult about the policing of railways. The list of organisations in clause 59 is not exhaustive, and we expect the authority to consult widely and comprehensively on the arrangements for policing the railways. With that introduction, I commend the Government amendments and new clauses to the House.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his gracious reference to our lengthy debate in Committee. He will be pleased to learn that I will not speak at such length today.

Will the Minister comment on one aspect of the Bill that the Government have chosen not to amend? He will appreciate that we had a lengthy debate on jurisdiction in Committee, and I wish to place on record the fact that we welcome the provisions dealing with that. The Minister explained why the provisions are needed, and we support their main thrust. However, the Government have consistently omitted four little words, "in the vicinity of", from them. The British Transport police have strongly and vociferously argued that the omission of those words restricts the jurisdiction that they have traditionally enjoyed. That goes to the heart of this part of the Bill, and we regret that the Government have failed to address that point. We are seriously concerned that the British Transport police will not enjoy the jurisdiction that they have enjoyed in the past. Operating "in the vicinity of" means that they have the right to act in connection with railway lines, trains and railway stations. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to share with the House the reason why the Government feel that it is inappropriate to use those words.

I welcome new clause 7, and thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport for his helpful letter of 10 March which, at five pages, vies with some of my remarks in Committee. I am sure that it will not have escaped the attention of the Minister of State that the British Transport police have serious concerns about pension provisions, which he and the Government have so far failed to address. As the Bill is about to leave the House, do they wish to address that later? I understand that some of the provisions may be addressed, for example, by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's police force. Are the Government minded to deal with these matters?

I take this opportunity to speak to the new clauses and amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and me, specifically, new clause 1. Subject to the Minister's reply, we may decide not to press the motion to a Division. It has been argued forcefully to us that a code of practice is required, in which the Secretary of State could set out

"the relationship between the British Transport police, airport police, and Home Office police forces and security officers operating at airports and seaports."

In new clause 16 we request that the Secretary of State authorise the reimbursement of the costs arising from the extended jurisdiction of the British Transport police provided for in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Everyone accepts, as do we, that the provisions of the 2001Act have been extended to the Home Office police force, and that the Bill will extend those provisions to the British Transport police. I believe that the provisions are already in operation, but this is our first opportunity to express the hope that the Government will be minded to reimburse the British Transport police for their costs. I gather that millions of pounds have been made available to the Home Office police to ensure that they can fulfil their obligations under the 2001 Act. Why have the Government not seen fit to increase the heavily utilised budget of the British Transport police, in light of their new responsibilities? I hope the Government and the House will support new clause 16.

New clause 18, which is linked to new clause 1, calls for the Secretary of State to

"permit the British Transport Police Authority to contract with transport operators to provide services in respect of non-rail transport modes, including airports and bus routes."

We debated that in Committee. Each of the three main London airports is accessed primarily by rail, and each of the rail connections carries large numbers of people to the airports. There will be some crossover of suspects and offenders who have perpetrated a crime on the railway, at a station or on the train, and then seek to flee via the airport, and vice versa. That was recognised in the excellent report by the right hon. Sir John Wheeler, which was commissioned by the Government and which we commend to the House.

Sir John was appointed in May 2002 by the Secretary of State for Transport, jointly with the Home Secretary, and submitted his report on 13 September last year. At paragraph 13, he refers to the fact that the powers available to police officers at airports under the Aviation Security Act 1982 should be simplified. We suggest not only that the powers should be simplified, but that there should be a crossover. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) probably sees a need for such a crossover at seaports as well.

In preparation for the Committee and remaining stages, the point was fortified by notes from the British Transport police, which recognise that the Wheeler report successfully identifies shortcomings in the current security arrangements at airports throughout the United Kingdom. The report refers to the need for improved co-ordination, consistency and role clarity. The briefing that we received on the subject from the British Transport police stated:

"While there is very good co-operation between the British Transport Police who police the railways, and Home Office forces, who police the airports, a single force with overall responsibility would remove this boundary which has the potential for different response to threats in proximate geographical areas. The geographical boundaries themselves are often distinct with, for example, direct access to Heathrow, to the Heathrow Express and London Underground, and at Gatwick to the Gatwick Express."

Furthermore, there is the connection between the Stansted express service and Stansted airport. I should not go as far as the joint force recommended by the British Transport police, but we warmly urge the Government to consider introducing either a code of conduct or specific guidance for the police, to allow them crossover in those circumstances.

Our new clause 18 would provide that the British Transport police authority could

"contract with transport operators to provide services in respect of non-rail transport modes, including airports and bus routes."

Such a provision has been requested by train operators, especially London Underground.

We hope that the British Transport police authority will have regard to the Mayor of London's transport strategy in exercising its functions. We await the Minister's comments on our amendment No. 36 which relates to that point. Similarly, our amendment No. 37 to clause 47 would provide that, when setting policy objectives, the authority would

"have regard to the Mayor of London's Transport Strategy".

Our amendment No. 1 refers to the constitution of the British Transport police authority. The authority currently has only four representatives of the railway industry. Our amendment recognises the fact that the rail industry—the transport operators, London Underground and others—actually pays for its policing, and proposes that six persons from that industry should be represented on the authority. We recognise that the industry benefits from the service provided by the BT police but believe that we should pay regard to the fact that it pays the lion's share for that service.

Although we await the response of the Minister for Transport to our amendments, it is certainly our intention to press new clause 16 to a vote. We hope that the House will support us.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

I shall detain the House only briefly.

The British Transport police are extremely efficient; the force has always been good but it is now very professional. I welcome the efforts of the new chief constable, who has wrought remarkable changes.

In my constituency, I have recently been impressed not only with the work that the BT police are doing to deal with straightforward vandalism on the line and in stations but also by the way in which they have increasingly understood the connection between vandalism and groups of people who have no involvement in their environment. In particular areas, the BT police have done remarkable work in encouraging local authorities and like-minded officials to identify station properties or stores that might be at risk, and in ensuring that local schools understand the direct complications that could arise if those properties were vandalised. That work is not being undertaken negatively; the BT police try—like all good mothers—to divert the attention of those who want to cause trouble to something else.

I have a simple question for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport. Is it possible for the new regulations to take account of the changing role of the transport police? Sometimes we get things disastrously wrong. I was recently at Crewe station when, owing to the operating companies' inability to work together and give one another coherent information, vast numbers of people, including football crowds, were rushing from one platform to another at considerable risk to the women and children who were going shopping. No one had any clear line of information for the police, and four officers were trying to deal with about 500 people.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that she is making a powerful case against the fragmentation arising from privatisation?

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

There is no doubt about that, and I can use this incident to make the point. A train load of football supporters came from London. They were very noisy and had been drinking, although it was early in the afternoon. To be fair to them, they were not offensive in any way and were simply chanting and singing. There were so many of them, however, that their simple bulk constituted a frightening movement.

I am not easily dismayed, but I was concerned that a number of people were already filling a sprinter train, and because of incompetence, the train operating company got the whole football crowd off one train and endeavoured to shove it on to a much smaller train that was already half full. The company then realised that it was in trouble and got everybody off that train and moved them to yet another platform. In the meantime, it tried to round the crowd up to the front of the station to get on buses. Not only the consequent chaos, but the distress of people on the platforms was very evident to me. Young girls were crying not because they had been physically challenged, but because of the feeling of oppression caused by being surrounded by large and very energetic crowds.

Such situations have to be dealt with by the British Transport police, but the numbers and comparisons involved make one wonder whether we have got the formulae right. Four police officers—three men and one woman—were trying to deal with the situation without any proper information from the train operating companies. The signalmen and women were giving one set of information and the train operating companies were giving totally contradictory advice. That nearly resulted in a very bad situation, as the number of people pushing forward to the front of the platform could easily have resulted in a fatal accident. The police dealt with the incident as best they could, but it arose out of the sheer inability of the train operating companies to know what they were doing and to transmit that information to the officers on the platform who were trying to deal with it.

I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will think seriously about the role of the British Transport police. In parenthesis, I may say that I was accused of having organised one response by the operating companies, which turned around a train that I then boarded in order to go back to London. The accusation was that the train operating companies were so terrified of having me standing on Crewe station that they would do anything to get me away, but I do not think that that was true.

When we frame terms of reference, we should remember that the British Transport police do not merely walk up and down trains dealing with drunks; their role is much more complex and far-reaching. When we give them those terms and operational instructions, we should remember that they need not only proper and clear leadership, which they are getting from their chief constable, but co-operation from the companies. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said that those companies pay for them. They may pay for them, but they do not understand how to operate them. We should also insist that their role as full police officers be recognised in the community as a whole.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

There are many helpful and pertinent amendments and new clauses in the group that we are now considering. Indeed, there is evidence that the Government have incorporated a number of amendments tabled by Opposition parties in Committee, which is welcome. I should like briefly to comment on a small number of those amendments and new clauses, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to speak to new clause 16.

We tabled amendment No. 8 to provide that a person nominated by Transport for London should be appointed to the British Transport police authority. TFL plays an important strategic and statutory role on transport and it would be appropriate for it to have a designated member of the authority, especially because it provides 30 to 40 per cent. of the total funding of the British Transport police in support of policing London transport, including the London underground and other services on its system. I shall listen with interest to whether the Minister will consider that suggestion or whether we will return to it at a later date.

We wholeheartedly support and welcome Government new clause 7 on conditions of service. New clause 1, which was tabled by Conservative Members and relates to the British Transport police's code of practice, is equally essential. We, and no doubt the Minister, are aware of at least one inquiry in which there is, to put it kindly, confusion about who has overall responsibility and access to evidence. A clear code of practice to show which body has overall control, access to evidence and the ability to dictate the order in which an inquiry progresses would be helpful.

Amendment No. 36, which was tabled by Conservative Members and would provide that the British Transport police should have regard to the Mayor's transport strategy, is a sensible proposal. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has tabled several amendments, and although they relate to matters that could be considered, given the attention that has been paid to the proposals so far, it would be better to return to them later. Several other amendments in the group are fairly minor or drafting amendments.

We support Government amendment No. 17, which relates to the employment of special constables by the British Transport police authority or other organisations. We welcome Connex's initiative to put special constables on its trains and hope that other train companies are actively considering doing that. We hope that more special constables will help to patrol the large network, because it is difficult for the BTP alone to cover it to any great extent. Conservative Members tabled amendment No. 47 to provide that the policing objectives of the British Transport police authority would have regard to the Mayor's transport strategy, and that is a sensible proposal.

We wholeheartedly support Government amendment No. 19, which relates to consultation on policing and makes specific reference to employees of train companies and unions within the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) pushed for such a measure in Committee. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) tabled similar amendments, although they would provide for the representation to be of a different order of magnitude. It would be appropriate to have one representative of the unions on the authority.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

Why?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

We should consider the membership of the authority as a whole. Conservative amendment No. 1 suggests that the authority should include six representatives of the industry, but that would skew its membership in one direction. The hon. Gentleman's proposal would skew the membership in another direction.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

Why?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

If the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to speak to the group, he may set out why he thinks it appropriate to have four representatives of the unions on the authority.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman why my proposal would skew the membership in that way. What rationale lies behind his assessment?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

We have to look at the membership of the authority as a whole. There will be representatives from different parts of the industry and from passenger groups. My preference would be that the consumer—the customer—should be the person or group with the largest representation on the body. That would be the appropriate balance, although the hon. Gentleman obviously thinks differently and will no doubt make his case to hon. Members as to why he thinks that his amendment is more appropriate.

We support Government amendment No. 24. Government amendment No. 25—which we believe is sensible—states that it would not be possible to appoint someone to the authority who represented the industry as well as the employees, as that would clearly present a number of conflicts of interest that would be hard to explain away. There are some useful amendments in this group. We shall listen to the Minister's response and reserve judgment until he has spoken.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to put forward two propositions. The first is covered by amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 39. I welcome the creation of the British Transport police authority by the Bill, but I regret that the title of the Bill does not refer to the British Transport police. It would have been better to have primary legislation on this important matter, rather than incorporating it in this wider Bill because it deserves its own exclusive consideration by the House. A single British transport police Act would have made a better statute. I regret that that has not happened.

In tabling amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 39, I want to draw the attention of the House to the parlous state of our homeland security in relation to seaports and ports, and to the absence of policing in them. If my amendments were accepted by the Government—I certainly hope that they will be picked up by the House of Lords and thought worthy of consideration—they would ensure adequate policing in those areas and that it would be provided by the British Transport police. There are obvious reasons for that, including the interface of means of transport that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). The British Transport police are experienced in all transport matters and, historically, used to operate in our seaports. They have been there before, so it makes sense that they should be there again.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) kindly said—I paraphrase—that my amendments warranted some consideration but had not been adequately aired. I have to say to the House that I have tried to draw attention to the absence of policing in our ports—and, to some extent, airports; I shall illustrate that point in a moment—for some time. Short of streaking across Parliament square, I am not sure what more I can do to draw attention to this issue. I have certainly raised the matter in the House before. It is a very serious issue and should be addressed by the Government. In fairness to the Minister, I do not blame him for not doing so, but I blame the Government collectively because, if there was ever an example of a lack of joined-up government, it is to be found in the policing of our seaports and airports, particularly, although not exclusively, seen against the backdrop of the terrorist threat.

Mention has been made of the Wheeler report on airport policing. I do not think that it has come out as a Command Paper; it seems that we have to know about its existence to have any knowledge of its contents. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport has left the Chamber, but I remember him telling me two years ago in a parliamentary reply that a working party on ports policing had been set up, yet still nothing has emerged. These issues ought to be dealt with all together and with some urgency.

Why do I say that the British Transport police should be involved with the policing of ports? I represent the port of Tilbury, which has a small, dedicated and professional force of sworn constables that is owned and controlled by the port itself. That is a bit perverse, although I have to say that that has never interfered with its professional jurisdiction and the port of Tilbury can be proud of that. Similar port police are peppered around the United Kingdom in, for example, Felixstowe, Tees and Hartlepool, Bristol, Merseyside and, of course, Dover, but I invite the House to consider this: if it is right for all those places to have a police force, what about all the other ports around the UK that do not have one?

There are no port police in any of the Scottish ports, and the port of Tilbury is just one area in my constituency, which contains 14 miles of river frontage, where there are ships and wharves. Other areas have a port, but no police. It is crazy—breathtaking in the extreme—that we tolerate that at a time of high terrorist activity, growing international mafia-type crime, which is working through our seaports, and widespread human trafficking.

At some other ports that I have alluded to, not only are there no police forces, but it would be a lucky man or woman who found Customs and Excise or a Home Office immigration officer. It is unbelievable that the UK is allowing its doors to be open in such a way. This is a question of joined-up government: the Home Secretary says that he has sorted out Sangatte and all that business over there, but there are open ports all round the UK, which is breathtaking.

Of course, criminals and human traffickers know that, and although I hesitate to say it, I suppose that some people who wish us ill also know it in terms of terrorism. The Government are not doing anything about that. Some of the small police forces that I mentioned do a good job, but they are at their limits because they do not have critical mass. If we had a national police force, which should be provided by British Transport police, or a national ports police, which is the alternative, we would have sufficient numbers for proper training, mobility, recruitment, a career structure and so on, but that is just not happening. It is time that we spelled it out that the Government have to address the issue in a matter of weeks, not months.

People might say, "What about airports?" I want to deal with that. In fact, new clause 1, which has been tabled by the Conservatives, refers to airport police. I do not criticise them for that, but the only airport police in the UK are at Belfast International airport. There are no airport police anywhere else, although the situation is equally crazy in terms of jurisdiction and funding.

Officers at the three principal London airports—Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick—are provided by the Metropolitan, Essex and Sussex forces respectively for which the airport operators, whose airports are described as designated and which I usually knock in this place as I do not hold a high brief for BAA, pay a substantial bill to the police. However, I am told that Luton and Cardiff airports do not.

I am open to correction and I am sure that I will get some stiff letters from the directors of those airports tomorrow if I am wrong, but I know that operators at some substantial UK airports make no contribution to such costs. That is reflected in the policing. There is no coherent plan or funding.

I am pleased that the House is interested in the matter. The situation is wrong in terms of competition policy, but it also means that policing is patchy rather than consistent throughout UK airports. That needs to be addressed, and the best way to do it is to put British Transport police in place at non-designated airports. I am not arguing this afternoon that we should remove the Metropolitan, Essex and Sussex forces from those designated airports, although that needs to be looked at.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The term used in the Wheeler report is "police officers at airports", but the hon. Gentleman made an important point about the need to co-operate with the police in the case of all modes of transport.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

I thank the hon. Lady for that.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Luton airport, for instance, is not designated in this way, so the Bedfordshire force must carry out policing. That force is only 1,000 strong, and cannot possibly have the necessary range of expertise. Do we not desperately need a review of designation, as the Wheeler report suggests? Should not designation be based on a multi-agency assessment of the risks encountered by each airport?

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

Absolutely. The House should certainly consider what was suggested by Wheeler as one of the options. I hope that in any such debate we will also explore the whole question of the integrity of our borders. We need either a national borders police force—which I think should be provided by the British Transport police—or a national airports police force. So far the Government do not seem to have thought about this, but they should do so with some dispatch.

The hon. Gentleman's intervention underlines my point. He says that Luton is policed by the Bedfordshire force, which is small. The lack of designation may lead to a fear that, because of all the other pressures on the chief constable, there is inadequate policing of an airport which, given such factors as expanding industries, is critical to our economy. There are, indeed, airports of comparable size in the same position. I want the Minister to know that I am no longer prepared to acquiesce through my silence.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Gentleman may gain some comfort from the knowledge that, in the last few days, I have tabled a parliamentary question to both the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Transport asking for a clear public indication of their intentions in respect of meeting the Wheeler report's recommendations. I hope that we shall receive a positive response. The Minister is smiling benignly, so let us be optimistic.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

Let us indeed be optimistic, but I do not want the Wheeler report to be accepted like tablets of stone. I want a debate, because I do not think that Wheeler deals with the idea of a national border police. I note that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) seems interested in that.

Wheeler refers exclusively to airports. We should take account of all our borders, which are indivisible and interrelated. I include Northern Ireland in that. Belfast International airport has a dedicated airport police force, and very good they are too, but the city airport—which is now almost as large, and is a major traffic centre—has no policing apart from that of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Parliamentary questions tabled by me have revealed a very low level of policing in what could be described as a major airport and a growing enterprise.

I may not have persuaded the House sufficiently on that point, but let me now remind Members—especially those who sat on the Committee, and are walking encyclopaedias where the Bill is concerned—that clause 75, in part 4, addresses the important issue of drug and alcohol abuse by staff ranging from masters of ships to ordinary seamen. It deals with the offences, and also with the remedies. Clause 82 deals with arrests, and the breathalysing of those in charge of ships. It is bonkers to include such measures without being sure that police officers will be available to do the breathalysing and arresting. I know what will happen: when there is a tragedy people will be breathalysed and brought in and so on, but there will be none of the normal policing that takes place on our highways.

I invite Members to go to any seaport, including the big seaport at Tilbury in my constituency. All of them, including the smaller ones, are like the Mary Celeste. One cannot see anyone around—certainly not any policemen, because they are not in our ports. That is another reason for policemen doing the ordinary traditional job of ensuring compliance with law and safety: the Bill relates to safety in respect of drug and alcohol abuse. If the Minister feels unable to look into the problem again with some dispatch, it might well be picked up in the other place. I believe that concern will be expressed there about some of the problems that I have had to share with the House this afternoon.

My second point relates to amendment No. 40, which deals with the jurisdiction of the British Transport police constable. I have been a Member of Parliament for 11 years, and this is the third or fourth time that I have raised the point that good police officers—sworn in, and often given training comparable to or the same as that of police constables from a Home Office force—in many instances have no more powers than any other member of the public out in the street if they see something requiring the attendance or assistance of a police officer. An amendment in recent legislation slightly altered the position, but I contend that a British Transport police officer, who is out in the street and not in the vicinity of a railway, should have two powers made available to him, whether on or off duty.

First, if an officer from the Home Office police force—the Metropolitan police or a county constabulary—is absent, the British Transport police officer should have the full powers of a constable. Secondly, when acting in support of a Home Office or Metropolitan police officer—one who falls under the terms of the Police Act 1996—the British Transport police officer should also have the full powers of a police constable.

What is wrong with that proposition? It is blindingly obvious and sensible that that should happen, particularly when the explanatory notes say that the provisions on the British Transport police should mirror the Police Act 1996, which is the cornerstone legislation for the Home Office police. It is amazing that neither the Conservative Government nor the Labour Government have taken any notice of that point. I recall mentioning it when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was Home Secretary.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

I do not necessarily disagree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I want to draw one potential problem to his attention. He keeps referring to Home Office police, but the police in Scotland are covered not by the Home Office, but the Scottish Executive. Policing in Scotland is substantially different from policing in England, but the British Transport police are a UK-wide force. The first part of his proposals could cause confusion in Scotland if the British Transport police were operating among the general public given the role of the Scottish police, which might not apply in England.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

That is a valid point, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my retort that that matter can be dealt with in the detail of legislation. "Home Office police" is not my choice of term, but is the jargon in the field, and often used by politicians. The English Home Office uses the term to refer to police authorities operating under the 1996 Act. If the principle were accepted, it could cover England and Wales and it would be a matter for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament to extend comparable powers under their statutes to the British Transport police. In the nature of things, I am canvassing an idea in shorthand, but he is right to make the jurisdictional and constitutional point, which I fully accept and understand. If the Government were persuaded that my proposal was meritorious, doubtless the Executive and Parliament in Edinburgh could reflect on it, too. It is sensible that in extremis—in the absence of a police officer, whether from London or Lothian—someone who is sworn and trained should be able to exercise the power of arrest rather than relying on the common law power that each and every one of us has. That is not an obscure point, because it concerns the whole question of insurance, liability and so on.

In parenthesis, my point would also relate to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority police. Going down Whitehall, one might pass a police constable and think—unless one is an anorak such as myself who looks at hat badges—that he is a Metropolitan police officer, but in fact he is a Ministry of Defence police officer with the limitations to which I referred. It is time that the House addressed the fact that people who are trained at Hendon and other police colleges should have exactly the same status. It is in our naked self-interest that that should happen. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and discuss with colleagues at the Home Office whether the matter can be dealt with through an amendment in the other place.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It is a pleasure to be able to make a few remarks about the Bill—with which I have not been involved before—in an attempt to demonstrate joined-up opposition. I normally speak for my party on home affairs and police matters, and this part of the Bill is of paramount interest to me.

I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) for his comments. He has been vociferous in the cause of the non-territorial police forces for as long as I have been in the House, and he has asked many pertinent questions about their role. He raised two important points, the first of which concerned jurisdiction in the context of an individual sworn constable. In the past, there have been endless problems about what is and is not railway land and where the jurisdiction of a British Transport police constable ends. The hon. Gentleman may be slightly out of date in respect of the Ministry of Defence police, because I believe that a year or two ago legislation gave them the right to act with the powers of a constable away from Ministry of Defence property in a way that has not yet been afforded to the British Transport police, and will not be so afforded by the Bill. That is a deficiency, and he is right to point that out.

The hon. Gentleman is also right about the deficiencies in the policing of ports of entry. I do not want to dilate on the subject of airports today, but a great deal of difficulty arises in understanding the differentiation between airport services that fall within the designation of the Aviation Security Act 1982 and those that do not. Why, for instance, are major ports of entry in the form of airports policed by territorial forces, to the great detriment both of the policing at the airport and the policing of the local areas from which those officers are abstracted with no recompense from the airport authority? Even if there were no terrorist threat and we were without any such present danger, there are a million reasons, under the aegis of effectively fighting international crime, why ports of entry should be better policed. The Government are not slow in introducing legislation. Indeed, tomorrow we will debate the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, which deals with ways of extending co-operation between police forces at ports of entry, yet at many ports the concept of a police officer being available to undertake acts of surveillance or to make a challenge or arrest is negligible.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew MacKinlay) put his finger on it when he talked about associated immigration services and Customs and Excise. Poole will have no full-time Customs and Excise officers in the very near future because they are all being concentrated on dealing with cigarette and alcohol imports at ports such as Dover instead of on homeland security.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman is right and he knows that many of us share his concerns about the adequacy of the cover offered by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. However, were I to pursue that thought, I would fall outside the scope of the amendments that we are discussing.

I want to talk about new clauses 1 and 16, from the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). I agree with her entirely on new clause 1. We need clear areas of co-operation among the territorial forces, British Transport police, other non-territorial forces and other law enforcement agencies such as the Customs and Excise and the immigration authorities. I am not yet convinced that that co-ordination exists. I agree that codes of practice could help.

New clause 16 deals with added resources for British Transport police to address the particular issue of terrorism. There is no doubt that our transport system is a potential target for terrorists. It may be the railway system or, particularly, the London underground. We should ensure that resources are available to the British Transport police so that they can fully carry out their functions in that respect. Their functions fall into three broad areas. The first is in intelligence and in co-operating with the special branch of the Metropolitan police, or with the territorial forces, or with the National Criminal Intelligence Service, to ensure that we have proper dissemination and collation of intelligence.

The second function of the British Transport police is to act as the eyes and ears of the community on our transport system. With the present increased risk of threat, we should see a lot more officers on patrol on the London underground, let alone on the railway and light railway systems around the country. Those officers could act as eyes and ears, alert for suspicious behaviour and potential risk. The third function—which, sadly, has to be included—is to be the contingency response to incidents. They need training to detect the potential for a serious terrorism incident and training to respond accordingly.

There is a clear disparity between the funds that the Home Office has made available to the territorial domestic police forces—especially the Metropolitan police, who we would all agree need a lot of extra resources—and the funds that have been made available to the British Transport police for performing a similar function but in the particular environment in which they are expert. That disparity cannot be allowed to continue.

If I have a criticism of new clause 16, it is simply that it is too tightly drawn. Asking for reimbursement with reference only to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is unnecessarily restrictive. The hon. Lady may care to reflect on that. There are actions that we would expect the British Transport police to take that have nothing to do with an extension of jurisdiction but are simply to do with an extension of the threat and the response to that threat.

We do not see a mechanism by which the Government will respond to threats by providing resources—a mechanism that will allow for abstraction from normal duties for training purposes and that will allow for enhanced presence on patrols. To respond adequately to a threat, we have to allow all policing functions to be at a much higher level than the base level.

I hope that the hon. Lady will press new clause 16 to a Division. If she does, she will have the support of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I want to talk briefly about the amendments in my name—amendments Nos. 34 and 35—and to comment on the debate so far on aviation security. With amendments Nos. 34 and 35, I have sought to ensure that when the British Transport police authority is consulting about policing policy, there is adequate consultation with the work force. I have also sought to ensure that the police authority has adequate representation from the trade unions.

It is a sad comment on a Government who call themselves a Labour Government that consideration of the representation of, and consultation with, the workers in an industry should come as an afterthought. That may be a subject for another debate. The Government have introduced an amendment that will at least ensure that the employees' representatives are consulted. There is also an amendment on representation on the police authority. As I understand it, the recommended representation on the police authority is a single representative of employees' interests. My view is that employees' interests are best represented by their trade unions. That, again, may be a subject for another debate with the Government.

I want to consider schedule 4 as it stands and explain why amendment No. 35 calls for four representatives of employees' interests. The schedule recommends that there be

"four persons who have knowledge of and experience in relation to the interests of people travelling".

So the travelling public are represented by four people. The schedule also recommends that there be

"four persons who have knowledge of and experience in relation to the interests of persons providing railway services".

I take it that that refers to the employers, or the representatives of companies. Then there is

"a person nominated by the Strategic Rail Authority".

We are told now that there will also be one representative of employees.

The reason that I am recommending that there be greater balance, with four representatives of employees, is that it is the workers who bear the brunt of much of the criminal activity in the industry. They are often the victims. They are often the people who have to deal with those who are violently drunk on trains. They are the people who have to deal with crimes such as theft. They are the people who have to deal with members of the travelling public who have been the victims of crime. For those reasons, they have detailed knowledge of the problems and, yes, of some of the policies that should be pursued to tackle those problems. Giving the employees, as an afterthought, one representative on the police authority does not reflect the experience that they could bring to bear on these matters.

As a matter of interest, I would welcome an explanation of who, in paragraph 2(1)(f) of schedule 4, is

"a person who has knowledge of the interests of persons in England."

What will be the criteria for assessing that person? I have never before seen such a description in a Bill. Perhaps it is an extrapolation of another Bill. However, unless some clarification is forthcoming, we may all qualify as

"a person who has knowledge of the interests of persons in England."

I may nominate my mum.

I would welcome an explanation of how the balance of interests of the membership of the police authority was arrived at. Why are there four representatives from all the other interested parties and not four representatives of workers in the industry?

As the subject has been raised, I want to discuss aviation. I had intended to raise the issue on Third Reading, but I will do so now as there has been discussion of the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has kindly presented to us. I am grateful to him for doing so, as he has stimulated debate.

My constituency includes Heathrow. Over the past four or five years, many of us have been raising in the Chamber a range of aviation security issues. Month by month, we have discussed issues such as terrorist threats, or thefts from Heathrow or other airports, that have revealed security problems. The Government should not, in this Bill, do anything precipitate. They should come up with a considered view on aviation security. There should perhaps be a debate in this Chamber so that the Government can report on some of the measures that they have taken. There has been considerable progress in certain areas. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, funding and co-ordination are issues to be considered. At Heathrow, I deal with the Metropolitan police and, obviously, British Transport police, who deal with the travelling public. I also deal with a range of immigration authorities, with local authority officers, and with the private security industry—in particular, through the British Airports Authority. That mêlée of organisations dealing with security at airports presents a number of problems, one of which is that of co-ordination, but there are also issues over who has what power to deal with particular incidents.

I woke up six weeks ago to find that a number of tanks and a large number of troops had entered my constituency—I thought that it was because of something personal that I had said against the Prime Minister.

We need to deal with a range of co-ordination issues, and the Government have acted on some of them and on a number of the recommendations in the Wheeler report. It would be helpful if we were to expose the progress that we have made, so that we can identify what to do next because, clearly, as a result of the invasion of Iraq, there will be a period in which we come under heightened threat, as has been reported in the papers over the weekend.

One of the key issues for most of us relates not just to policing the aviation sector and Heathrow, but security clearance policies, especially those in the power of the BAA, and vetting the private security industry. I would welcome a further debate that ranged across those responsibilities. If legislation is required, let us introduce it urgently, as this is a matter is of considerable national and local importance.

I would not like the powers of the Metropolitan police to be diminished in relation to Heathrow. I have considerable confidence in the work that they have done and their recommendations—some of which have not been acted on—are sound, sensible and readily implemented, especially with regard to their input into the Wheeler review. We therefore need to rush—not to legislate, but to hold an urgent debate on the way forward and what action needs to be taken, by investment, legislation or enhanced co-ordination.

I will not press my amendments to a vote, but I would welcome an explanation of why the balance on the police authority has been set as it is and what the definition is of the phrase

"a person who has knowledge of the interests of persons in England."

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I shall start by referring to the generous comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) regarding not only the work undertaken by the British Transport police, but the evolution of their role, particularly under their relatively new chief constable, whom I first got to know when he was working with the Metropolitan police. He did a good job then, and he is doing an excellent job with the British Transport police.

The British Transport police are regularly appearing right at the top of the figures for police forces in England in relation to a number of initiatives, particularly in tackling robbery. They are evolving their role, by undertaking a lot of work with schools to try to deal with the problems of crime, vandalism and, in particular, trespass right at the roots, and by getting across the message of how dangerous that is to individuals, let alone how disruptive of the transport system it is.

The problems with football crowds at Crewe that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich outlined may have been due to lack of information or communication between various train companies and the police, but probably one of the roles that I should be undertaking as Minister is to ensure that the sporting calendar is conveyed to everyone working in the rail industry. I find the inability of a number of train operators to notice that sporting events are taking place, even when they are part of the scheduled programme, quite remarkable. Just take a simple example: they could run longer trains or, perhaps, not run shorter trains, when those events are about to take place. If my hon. Friend lets me have a note about which sporting event those problems related to, I should be more than happy to take them up as part of an ongoing campaign that I am running on such irritations.

The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) asked about British Transport police pensions. The Bill will have no major effect on the current arrangements for providing retirement benefits to police officers and civilian support staff. When the proposed police authority is set up, the Strategic Rail Authority will cease to be the employer of BTP officers and support staff, so some changes to the existing pension arrangements are being proposed to recognise the altered relationship between the Department for Transport and the new police authority when the SRA is no longer the relevant employer.

As hon. Members will know, a working group was set up recently. It is made up of representatives of all the interested parties, and I understand that they are broadly content with the proposals as outlined. A few issues remain to be resolved, including the trustee structure and the investment of assets. Again, I emphasise that those issues are not a direct result of setting up the new police authority; they are a result of proposed changes to the current pensions legislation, as highlighted in the recent pensions Green Paper. Setting up the new BTP authority provides an ideal opportunity to consider those issues.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Is the Minister aware that precisely that coalition of events has caused the British Transport police such consternation? Possibly, that could have been avoided if consultation had taken place earlier, but it would be most helpful if he would agree to monitor those points avidly.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

There is no way other than avidly. I stress that no action will be taken until the working group has discussed the relevant options, but it is useful to take the opportunity to convey to those involved in the schemes the fact that establishing the new authority will have no detrimental impact on the members of both pension schemes and will not cause the BTP's budget to be diverted into pension funds. There will be no undue interference by the Secretary of State in running the schemes, as his powers in relation to the schemes are limited. There are no proposals to change the structure of the existing BTP pension schemes along the lines of the Home Office pension scheme.

The hon. Member for Vale of York also asked why the BTP are not reimbursed when acting under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The BTP provisions on jurisdiction under the 2001 Act were given a statutory basis only in relation to situations in which the BTP were expected to act previously. They act under the 2001 legislation in cases involving non-rail jurisdiction in very much a minority of overall events.

I turn now to the non-Government amendments, a number of which would extend the BTP's jurisdiction, and I understand the concerns that have been expressed. Amendment No. 40, for example, would give the BTP powers to act anywhere in the United Kingdom, including off the railways, first, in the absence of another constable and, secondly, in support of another police officer. Anxiety was expressed in Committee about the BTP's continuing ability to act outside their railways jurisdiction.

As I explained in Committee—I am happy to reiterate it now—we believe that a proposal such as amendment No. 40 is unnecessary, as the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 already allows a BTP constable to act in all circumstances when it would be appropriate for a police constable to act and the public would expect a BTP officer to act.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

rose—

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

If my hon. Friend waits a moment, this may answer his question: the House will also be aware that the 2001 Act is subject to so-called sunset provisions—a review of the Act by the Privy Council. A review was felt necessary because the 2001 Act was introduced at some speed, and one is currently in progress. I stress that it is a one-off review.

The Privy Council's report could specify that certain provisions should cease to have effect six months after the report is laid before Parliament. In principle, that could include the sections of the 2001 Act that extend the BTP's jurisdiction. Of course, even if that were so, Parliament could reject the Privy Council's recommendations and vote to retain the provisions.

So far the House's deliberations on the Bill have indicated that there is much support for the BTP being able to act outside the railways in urgent situations and, no doubt, that would be reflected in any vote. However, the review and our reaction to any of those proposals will take place in the future, and it is right and proper to allow the Privy Council's review to run its course.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

My right hon. Friend misses the point. I did not raise the issue in the context of national security, but was referring to the availability of police officers. He will recall that, in the poll tax riots, a police car in Trafalgar square had a piece of metal thrown through it. It was a British Transport police car, but the officers in it had no more competence or jurisdiction in Trafalgar square than my right hon. Friend or I would. One might find a British Transport police officer in uniform outside St. Stephen's entrance, but he has no competence there. However, if there were an incident, Joe Public would rightly want him to respond. The public do not examine the badges on helmets to find out whether they have the right man or whether they need to find a Metropolitan police officer. That would be absurd. The public want officers available in extremis.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

That was a rousing contribution, but it did not take account of what I said about the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which provides such extended jurisdiction. Given the fact that the Act is covered by sunset clauses, the real question is whether we should on this occasion seek to enshrine such principles in this Bill. I hope that I have outlined the way in which the review will be conducted and taken account of the mood of the House in showing how we would respond were such a review—we cannot presume that it would—to seek to remove such jurisdiction.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I do not disagree with the Minister's reasoning except to say that the Bill sets out the powers of British Transport police constables. It therefore seems the obvious place to set down the powers that he is saying are conferred by other legislation and that he hopes would be conferred by new legislation should the other legislation cease to have effect. With all due respect, that seems to be a silly position.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

I have all due respect too.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

We are such a respectable body. Despite all these theological convolutions, it seems to me that we end up at the same point. We believe that the powers are of value. It is worth pointing out that British Transport police officers have already assisted in more than 1,600 incidents outside their railways jurisdiction. As I have said, the new clauses pre-empt the review. We believe that it would be imprudent to circumvent it in that way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock highlighted another aspect of amendment No. 40. It seeks to provide the BTP with jurisdiction anywhere in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. The BTP have only ever operated in Great Britain and not in Northern Ireland. We have no plans to extend their jurisdiction or operations to Northern Ireland, and we have never, in any of the stages of these proposals, advocated such a change. The BTP have no experience of working in Northern Ireland, and we think that it would be inappropriate to advocate such a change now in this Bill.

New clause 18 and amendments Nos. 3 and 39 would extend the BTP's area of authority to other forms of transport, particularly by air and sea. Although my hon. Friend was right to say that they used to have jurisdictions in ports, they have not policed them for 15 years and have no current expertise in ports or airport policing. Furthermore, they do not have the facilities and manpower to do that. We have considered the issue, as have the Wheeler report and the ports review.

Although it is true that seven ports have specialist police forces, it is worth pointing out that there are 500 ports in Great Britain. It might be more appropriate for those ports to be covered by local forces given the manpower implications, if nothing else. It is also worthwhile pointing out that many operations at ports are not particularly directed by static policing but by intelligence-led policing. Therefore, the location of staff could be a difficult issue. It is also true that at all ports, including those with their own forces, responsibility for tackling serious crime still rests with the Home Office and—it is the appropriate phrase in this case—Home Office police forces.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for providing me with a figure of which I was not fully aware. Five hundred ports around the United Kingdom do not have a dedicated police force. I invite him to visit some of them with me. He will find that not only are there no policemen, but no immigration officers and no Customs and Excise officers. The bandits know that. If we had a proper ports police or involved the BTP, the force would have critical mass, mobility, technology and its own dedicated criminal investigation department. We could stop crime rather than allowing it to happen. We are acquiescing in it by our inaction.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

We are not acquiescing in that. Given the number of ports, the issue needs to be addressed appropriately by the relevant county forces.

We dealt in debate with what happens about funding at airports. It is right to say that the BTP does not police transport undertakings other than the railways. When we went out to consultation on these issues, we emphasised that the focus on the railways should be maintained. We made no mention of extending the primary policing duties beyond the railways. Given that point, it would not be appropriate for the Bill to extend the jurisdiction of the BTP to other transport modes and interchanges. However, I take my hon. Friend's point that circumstances have evolved and that it is a matter that we need to keep under review.

On new clause 1, hon. Members may be interested to know that, following the extension last year of the BTP's jurisdiction outside the railways, the Government issued a co-ordinating policing protocol between the BTP and Home Office forces. A similar code was issued soon after regarding the BTP and Scottish police forces. The protocols were issued after full consultation between the Government, the BTP, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Scottish Executive. A whole range of policing issues is covered in the protocols. They confirm the areas of responsibility and accountability between the BTP and other police forces. They provide a full framework for the relationships between the forces.

A further code concerning airports and seaports would be an unnecessary duplication of the existing protocols and provide little additional benefit. Indeed, it could even be confusing. When enhanced policing co-ordination is needed, the protocols and statutory provisions of the Police Act 1997 provide the necessary framework for enhanced local arrangements. I hope that that has convinced hon. Members that it would be inappropriate to extend the BTP's policing role at this stage to transport undertakings other than the railways. I also hope that it reassures them that further amendments on the BTP's jurisdictions outside the railways are not necessary.

New clause 16 is related to the amendments on jurisdiction. It seeks to require the Secretary of State to authorise the reimbursement of the BTP's costs when acting outside its railways jurisdiction. I recognise that there may be concern that the BTP, which is funded by the industry, may end up subsidising the local force. However, the problem needs to be put in perspective. The BTP's actions outside its railways jurisdiction account for around 1 per cent. of its activity. That is not worth creating a complex billing system for.

Other non-Government amendments concern the make-up of the British Transport police authority. The aim of the authority is to

"ensure the efficient and effective"

policing of the railways. When appointing members to the authority, the Secretary of State shall have regard to appointing persons who have

"capacity in relation to matters relevant to the policing of the railways".

The British Transport police authority must effectively represent and balance the interests of all those involved in the railways. That includes the travelling public, the railway industry in all its forms and the rail community at large. The authority must be able to understand and meet the various needs of those whom the BTP serve. The Secretary of State will appoint people with experience relevant to the policing of the railways, and they will not be representatives or lobbyists of their own interest group or employer. Their collective wisdom will enable the authority to reach balanced, well-informed, decisions about the policing of the railways.

Amendment No. 1 raises the issue of industry representation. Hon. Members have proposed increasing the number of industry representatives so that they could have a dominant role on the authority. There is a case for the industry to be represented, not only because of its skills but because of its financial contribution. The force also has a wide public policing role, which impacts directly on rail passengers and the wider community, not just the industry. The Bill will rightly close the accountability gap. Interestingly, the BTP, and its committee, supported our membership proposals during the consultation period.

In amendment No. 8, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) suggests that the Bill should be amended so that it specifies that Transport for London has a member on the authority. However, schedule 4 already requires that the Secretary of State appoints at least four members who have knowledge and experience of providing railway services. They will, in effect, be the representatives from the railways industry.

At the moment London Underground provides around 25 per cent. of the police force's budget. While the BTP remains responsible for policing the underground it is inconceivable that the organisation running the tube will not have a member on the BTP authority. The authority itself might otherwise lack the knowledge, experience and expertise that that member could bring to the provision of police services to the underground. However, if we begin to specify individual organisations in the Bill, we would remove the flexibility for appointing individual members, and we would create a demand for other, similar amendments.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister says that it is inconceivable that Transport for London would not be represented, so how he can go on to say that specifying that fact would remove flexibility? That implies that there might be circumstances in which Transport for London is not represented.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

As I said, such an amendment would lead to demands for other areas to be covered. It would also imply that individuals were on the board to represent a narrow sectional view, rather than as part of their broad role as representatives of those providing railway services.

Amendment No. 6 would add to the authority members representing non-railway forms of transport. As I have explained, the Government do not support the idea of extending the BTP's jurisdiction, so there is no need to add to the authority's membership in the way suggested by the amendment. Similar considerations apply to amendment No. 5.

Turning to amendment No. 35, I am afraid that on this occasion I shall have to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I accept that railways employees should be represented on the authority, and as he knows, the Government have tabled an amendment to that effect. However, we do not believe that there should be four such members. The fact that the industry will have four members on the authority reflects the responsibility for funding the BTP. We do not want to keep expanding the authority.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

I was following my right hon. Friend until he said that the industry funds the BTP. May I point out to him that the taxpayer funds the industry? Is that a good reason for not having industry representatives on the board?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The Strategic Rail Authority will also be represented. The taxpayer may fund the industry, or companies within it, but other companies may even be paying into the system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington also tabled amendments that specify that the authority should consult trade unions representing railway workers. Government amendment No. 19 specifies that the authority should consult organisations representing railway employees. Those organisations would inevitably, and rightly, include trade unions, and I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.

Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 would add the Mayor of London's transport strategy to the items to which the authority must have regard in performing its functions and setting policing objectives. We have discussed the fact that Transport for London will have a significant role on the authority. It is a major contributor of funds and recipient of services. However, we must remember that the authority will be a national body concerned with the policing of the railways throughout Great Britain, not just London. When consulting on these proposals the main concern raised in this area was not that London would be overlooked, but that it would dominate the authority at the expense of the regions.

If we accepted those amendments, it would only be fair for other bodies also to have similar requirements on the authority, and soon the authority would be required to look at every transport plan that relates to the railways. That would clearly be impossible. It is more sensible that the authority should continue, as required by the Bill, to perform its duties and set objectives that are compatible with the national policing strategies set by the Secretary of State. Rather than place statutory requirements on a national police authority to make those considerations, the adoption and interpretation of local transport strategies within the BTP's objectives are best left to the force's area level commander, where local considerations are best taken into account. There could be local solutions to local problems—something that should appeal to the hon. Member for Bath.

The suggestion that Transport for London should be specified as an organisation that the authority shall consult about railways policing is unnecessary. Transport for London is already included in the category defined in clause 59(c); that is persons providing railway services.

I hope that my assurances mean that hon. Members will agree not to press their amendments and new clauses. I commend new clause 7 to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8 — Interpretation: enactment

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 20, 27, 21, 22, 23 and 26.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The amendments ensure that the Bill recognises legislation made in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Some of the provisions that refer to the word "enactment" already provide that it shall include an Act of the Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland legislation. One example is clause 106(6), which concerns shipping legislation. Others, however, such as clause 29(4), concerning the powers of the BTP, do not. The amendments will ensure that the same meaning applies to the word "enactment" wherever it appears in the Bill.

New clause 8 provides that references to the word "enactment" in the Bill will include Acts of the Scottish Parliament and secondary legislation made under such Acts, as well as Northern Ireland legislation. Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 are a necessary consequence of the new clause, as they will remove existing specific references to Scottish and/or Northern Ireland legislation in clauses 88, 99 and 106. Those will be rendered superfluous by the broader provision in the new clause.

Government amendment No. 26 will repeal paragraphs 7 to 10 of schedule 18 to the Transport Act 2000. The repeal of paragraph 9 is already provided for, but the other paragraphs were overlooked. Those paragraphs amend sections 132 and 133 and schedule 10 of the Railways Act 1993, which provide for the organisation, terms and conditions of employment of the British Transport Police. As those provisions will be repealed by schedule 7 to this Bill, the relevant paragraphs of schedule 18 to the Transport Act which amend them should also be repealed. This is, in effect, a tidying exercise.

Amendments Nos. 20 and 27 require very little explanation. Clause 73 provides an index of the terms and expressions used in this part. The index identifies where the definitions of those terms can be found. The index would be improved if the terms "Railway property" and "Railway vehicle" were added. The amendments achieve that and should assist those who use the Bill at a later stage. I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9 — Part 4: crown application, &c.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

We seem to be making progress.

The amendments have arisen as a consequence of deliberations in Committee. The Government agreed to consider further the position of military personnel, both UK and visiting from abroad. On consideration, we consider it right to except members of Her Majesty's military forces and visiting forces, as defined in the relevant legislation, when they are acting in the course of their duties. Those forces are already subject to their own disciplinary legislation and procedures and it would be undesirable for the two regimes to overlap. On the other hand, we want the provisions to apply to military personnel, including visiting forces, at times when they are off duty. At such times, they are acting in a private capacity—for example, if they have hired a powerboat entirely as private individuals in the course of their leisure activities.

The Government are keen to ensure that their civilian operations are also seen to be beyond reproach. It would send out the wrong message if government officials such as Maritime and Coastguard Agency personnel operating agency vessels were excepted from the alcohol and drugs provisions of the Bill. We want to ensure that the provisions catch anyone who is in the service of the Crown other than military personnel acting in the course of their duties. In short, any mariner will be subject to sanctions in respect of alcohol and drugs—subject to the regulations—either as a civilian, in which case they will be covered by this legislation, or as a member of the armed forces, in which case they will be subject to military discipline under other legislation.

Finally, so as not to risk compromising the operational efficiency of ships being used for a military purpose by Her Majesty's forces, as well as ships forming part of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service, we do not wish them to be subject to possible detention by marine officials pending the arrival of the police. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service is mentioned specifically because such vessels are manned by civilian Merchant Navy crews who would in all other respects be subject to the offences created in part 4. Such vessels are therefore specifically excepted from the provisions of clause 81.

Government amendment No. 29 is a technical amendment pursuant to amendment No. 30 and new clause 9, on Crown application. Amendment No. 29 removes the term "Government ship" from the Bill. There is therefore no need for it to be included in clause 86, which interprets the various terms used in part 4 of the Bill.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) proposed an amendment similar to Government amendment No. 28, although she did not press it. Throughout the Bill's passage the Government have given careful consideration to all the points made and we have therefore tabled our own amendment, which I hope will bring some joy to the hon. Lady and her colleagues.

The Government do not think it necessary to extend to mariners on duty as a whole the medical defence currently available to those on board fishing vessels. However, in the event of an emergency, a seaman who would otherwise be off duty may be required by the terms of his engagement or employment to take action to protect the safety of passengers even when undergoing medical treatment on a ship. In such a situation, it might not be possible for his duties to be taken over by another crew member, and it seems unfair not to provide the medical defence in those circumstances. On other commercial vessels, whose time at sea is comparable to that of deep sea fishing vessels, it should be possible for anyone who might be affected by a medicinal drug to have his or her duties taken over by another crew member. On shorter voyages, when a commercial vessel may operate with a smaller crew, those who are unwell but still working should wait until they go ashore before taking medication that they know will impair performance.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister has not lost face or favour with me by accepting that new clause 9 is necessary: despite his comments in Committee, it was a clear omission. I am grateful for his graciousness in accepting that Committee proceedings do matter and that the Opposition have contributed to the Bill.

The Minister described Government amendment No. 28 as similar to amendment No. 49, which was discussed in Committee on 27 February in a debate starting at column 370. I assure the House that the Government amendment is not merely similar, but exactly the same as our amendment—word for word, punctuation marks and all. We are deeply grateful to the Minister for recognising the Opposition's drafting skills, despite the fact that we do not have a large body of men and women on whom to draw. He made one or two churlish remarks in Committee, but having invited me to his constituency, he has now thought better of them.

On a serious note, we appreciate that the Government have seen fit to add the medical defence, although we still do not understand why it applies only to mariners on fishing vessels and is not deemed worthy of being applied to all mariners. Misunderstandings in that respect could have been avoided had the Government seen fit to introduce a proper definition of what constitutes standby. We were minded to table a modest amendment—I thought that we had and I am not sure what happened to it, but perhaps there is an equivalent Government amendment—to define a non-professional mariner.

May I take this opportunity to press the Minister to confirm and assure us that it will be the driver of a boat who is open to prosecution if he is found to have exceeded the alcohol limit or to be in breach of any drugs provisions, not others aboard the vessel? The industry, especially the boating industry, feels that that issue was not cleared up during the Committee debate on amendment No. 74. Our aim is to define a non-professional mariner as an individual driving a vessel used for sport or leisure purposes and to confirm that it would be that individual who was prosecuted, not someone who happened to be having a good time on the board, was not performing any safety-critical function, was not qualified and would not be expected to drive the board at any stage.

To test the Minister's patience a jot, he will recall our interesting discussion about the taking of an oral swab. Now that some time has elapsed since Committee stage, I wonder whether the Department has considered providing that evidence taken by oral swab may be taken alongside evidence provided by breathalyser, blood and urine tests.

I end with a message of optimism for other right hon. and hon. Members. Never let it be said that Committee proceedings are unimportant. Even in our humble capacity, we have managed to write a part of the Bill.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am delighted that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends have been able to participate in writing a piece of legislation. It may well be the last time that they do so, but in a genuine spirit of conciliation, we, as a listening Government, accepted that it was right to insert the provision.

The hon. Lady said that our amendment was similar to the Opposition's, but it is clearly not the same. Above our amendment is the name of the Secretary of State for Transport, not the names of the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends. I hope that she noticed that.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

As they are not great, perhaps the Minister can explain to the House what the precise differences are?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

As I just said, there is a different name above our amendment. The hon. Lady's arguments in Committee were deeply persuasive and, on careful reflection, we decided to table the Government amendment. We are delighted to have been able to do so.

The hon. Lady made a serious point about the driver of the boat. Probably one person would be in charge of a recreational vessel, and we want this part of the Bill to catch that person. I do not think that we would want others on board the vessel—people having a good time and playing no part in the navigation or steerage of the boat—to be similarly included. However, there may be occasions when more than one person is responsible for the safe passage of the vessel. Those other people would be held responsible.

I have not as yet had the opportunity to consider in more detail the issue of oral swabs. However, I am sure that it is a matter that will detain some of the officials in my Department as they give it further consideration. With that, and on a note of cross-party accord, I commend the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10 — Snow and ice

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—Clearance of snow and ice—

'Highways authorities shall take such steps as they consider reasonable to prevent snow and ice endangering the safe passage of pedestrians and vehicles over public roads.'.

New clause 11—Annual report on road safety statistics—

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare and lay before Parliament an annual report on the incidence and causes of major road traffic accidents that have occurred in the preceding 12 months.

(2) For the purposes of this section "major road traffic accident" shall mean any road traffic accident involving a fatality or a serious injury likely to lead to permanent disability.

(3) A report under subsection (1) shall include—

(a) a summary and analysis of the statistics collected by the relevant bodies responsible for road safety or for investigating road traffic accidents, and

(b) an assessment of those statistics for improving the safety of road design.'.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

This is a small but important amendment. The Government have made it clear for some time that we are minded to introduce a duty for highways authorities to remove snow and ice so as to ensure safe passage on our highways. We welcome the principle behind the Opposition new clause. However, on this occasion we think that our clause is better than theirs, and I urge the House to support it.

The Opposition's new clause mirrors the current duty in Scotland that is contained in section 34 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. It would not properly fit the legislative framework in England and Wales. I hope that the Opposition will agree that the Government new clause deals satisfactorily with the matter and will see fit to withdraw new clause 3.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I was bowled over by our success with new clause 9 and now we move on to snow and grit. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for raising the issue by means of a parliamentary question some time ago. She asked the Secretary of State whether he would list the authorities in England that have direct responsibility for gritting trunk roads and set out the new responsibilities of the authorities for gritting. The Under-Secretary assured the hon. Lady that such gritting is the responsibility of the Highways Agency. In England, there is no statutory duty on a highway authority to remove ice, but he added that such a duty would be introduced at a "suitable legislative opportunity." Here we have it. Indeed, we had the first legislative opportunity in Committee.

At first, the Under-Secretary and the Minister of State were loth to consider any aspect of road transport despite the temptations put before them by us and the Liberal Democrats—not in alliance, but acting independently. I pay tribute to the sterling work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who introduced the same provision in clause 1 of the Road Transport Bill of 2001, which was defeated at the hands of the Government. That was extremely disappointing. About 1,000 people are killed or seriously injured on icy or snow-covered roads, and it is clear that snow and ice clearance is essential to prevent that toll. As recently as July 2000, the House of Lords ruled in the case of Goodes v. East Sussex county council that there is no duty on highway authorities to pre-salt any roads. However, it is worthy of note—I am sure that the House would expect me to note it—that, based on Scots law, new clause 3 would invite highway authorities to take such steps as they consider reasonable.

As I have said, we have modest resources at our disposal. Only four of us were involved in these matters. I am delighted to see my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) and for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who gave me sterling support throughout our proceedings in Committee. We were hugely dedicated to the task of amending the Bill. The Department can draw on much greater resources—we pay our respectful compliments to it—and it is proper that we withdraw new clause 3 in favour of the Government's new clause.

Clearly, many county councils take their responsibilities extremely seriously. North Yorkshire county council, for example, is particularly mindful that there are a number of highways in its area on which more snow and ice is to be found than elsewhere. That approach can be contrasted with that of the Highways Agency. I think that the excuse was used that its equipment was defective. Perhaps it did not give sufficient notice to enable those responsible to get out their ploughs. Early this year, in January or February, we saw dreadful events on the M11 and on most roads leaving London one Thursday evening. That re-emphasises the need for responsibility to be enshrined in law.

I hope that the Minister will be mindful that on both sides of the Pennines we have high ground and inclement weather. I believe that the de-trunking of roads has been postponed for a year, but I hope also that sufficient provision will be made for highways authorities—those that are county councils—to ensure that they will have the means at their disposal to fulfil their responsibility.

I am sure that the Minister will share my concern that liability will be strictly interpreted and that there will not be a flood of cases where highway authorities were seen to have fulfilled their obligations but accidents occurred. I hope that he will join me in ensuring that the proposed provisions are interpreted strictly.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I shall speak briefly in support of new clause 10 and new clause 3, which the Opposition intend to withdraw. I rise from the same place in the Chamber that I spoke three years ago to propose precisely the measures that are now before us.

It is extremely important that we do something about road gritting. About 1,000 people a year are injured or killed as a result of icy and snowy conditions. Until the Goodes v. East Sussex case of 1999, or thereabouts, there was a requirement on local authorities to grit their roads to a satisfactory standard. That is why, backed by the Automobile Association, Age Concern and other organisations, I chose to introduce precisely these proposals in my private Member's Bill.

I understood to begin with, and throughout most of the debate, that my proposals had the general support of Her Majesty's Government. I was told informally that that was indeed the case. My surprise can be imagined when people whom one could only describe as the usual suspects who are here every Friday—the hon. Members for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), who has now moved on to greater things as the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner)—went to great trouble to talk out my Bill, ably assisted by the hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), who was then a Transport Minister but is now the deputy Chief Whip of the Labour party. He was on his feet when the Bill was finally talked out that morning.

That was a strange situation, as gritting is demonstrably worth while. At the moment, thanks to the case in the House of Lords, there is no requirement on local authorities to grit the roads, but there should be. The Government talked out my Bill, but they have now changed their mind. That is not due to the eloquence of my speech two years ago nor, I regret, is it due to the powers of persuasion that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), to whom I pay tribute, demonstrated in Committee. At the beginning of January this year, I was asked on to a host of radio and television programmes to talk about gritting, and the Government were suddenly terribly interested in the matter because the M11 had seized up and there were problems across England.

In those radio and TV stations, I did not find myself up against the Secretary of State or even the Under-Secretary, who were noticeable by their absence. There was no comment by them in the media of any kind whatever in the aftermath of the M11 crisis in January. The people who were put up to speak included the chief executive of the Highways Agency, an unfortunate civil servant who was forced in to the front line to try and defend the indefensible and explain why people were stuck on the M11 for several hours.

Only one other person made some sort of comment—a nameless official in the Department for Transport. Official sources, it was said, whether someone close to Ministers or a person from the Department for Transport said that, in view of the problem on the M11, the Department intended to introduce legislative proposals on gritting. Ministers did not have the guts to go on television and say that they had talked out my Bill three years ago and, as a result, there had been deaths and injuries on the road in the meantime. They did not admit that they had killed the Bill off, but put up a nameless official from the Department to say that they intended to introduce legislation soon.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I was stuck on the M11 for about eight hours on the way to my constituency, where I was due to address a meeting of Equitable Life policy holders who have suffered because of the Government's actions. Unfortunately, I was not able to make that meeting because of the failure to grit the roads.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

A double whammy.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

Indeed.

Does my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) agree that his sad and painful story is clear evidence that there would be better legislation if Governments did less and Members did more through private Members' Bills?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If only the Government, instead of their knee-jerk reaction to private Members' Bills, had listened carefully to what was said in the Chamber two or three years ago, they would already have the relevant legislation on the statute book. They would not have to turn around now and introduce a measure as a result of a little snow and ice on the M11.

Before the Under-Secretary says that in fact the Government may possibly have allowed my Bill to be discussed in Committee and go through, may I tell him that I have come across a letter written by the then Leader of the House, who is now Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? She wrote about my Bill to the hon. Member for Streatham, who was then responsible, and said:

"the Government remain neutral on Second Reading".

She continued:

"If the Bill proceeds to Committee, then we would make it clear to James Gray that it would be blocked on Report unless all the provisions apart from those on seatbelts were removed."

She went on:

"You should develop a robust handling strategy in the event that we do have to block the Bill, as the Government will be challenged as to why it cannot support it"

The Government would indeed be challenged about why they could not support my Bill. They are now being challenged about why they failed to support it three years ago, and they will be challenged about why there have been countless accidents throughout England in the meantime. They will be challenged to explain why they are now coming to the House with a similar provision as the result of one little episode on the M11, seeking to justify it in that way. I entirely support new clause 3, which is a good measure. I am glad that its spirit will be included in the Bill, and that the Under-Secretary has seen the error of his ways and accepts the sense of what I was saying two or three years ago. However, he owes it to the House and the nation to explain why he has taken two and a half years to do so.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on his speech and the passion with which he made it. He challenged the Minister to give answers on the Government's response to his Bill three years ago, and the whole House will be fascinated to hear the reply from the Minister who, we know, is prepared to listen and respond. Fascinatingly, the Opposition parties are each attempting to keep a tally of their successes over the Government so far. My calculation is that it is Liberal Democrats 3, Conservatives 2. However, the Conservatives will be on the verge of scoring an additional success when we come to vote on new clause 10. If that new clause is agreed, I am prepared to accept that we will have a three-all draw.

It is interesting to consider where the credit for that provision lies. As the hon. Member for North Wiltshire pointed out, the disaster and chaos on 30 January on the M11 led to a number of interesting and remarkable responses from various people. He has already referred to the poor official—the operations director, I think—from the Highways Agency who said on the BBC

"I would like to apologise to people who have had to put up with these atrocious conditions".

Action was promised, and an interesting comment appeared in a BBC press report on the following day, 31 January, which stated:

"Transport Secretary Alistair Darling responded to the chaos by demanding the road, rail and local authorities explain why they had not been prepared for freezing weather in the middle of winter."

The Secretary of State demanded to know why gritting had not been done, but others were demanding that action be taken. Given that we are in the business of scoring minor points off each other, it is worth reflecting that in another place on 10 February, at column WA 72, my noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, using the different linguistic formulation that they appear able to get away with in another place, asked Her Majesty's Government

"Whether they will introduce legislation requiring local authorities in England and Wales to grit the road promptly where adverse weather conditions so require; and if not, why not"?

I wish that we were allowed such blunt speaking more often in the Commons. As a result of my noble Friend's question, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston said, as the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) has already noted:

"We shall introduce a duty for a highway authority to remove ice when a suitable legislative opportunity presents itself."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 February 2003; Vol. 644, c. WA 72.]

As we have heard, the Government were prompt in finding that opportunity. We welcome that, and believe that new clause 10 is preferable to the Conservatives' formulation, although the spirit is the same. We certainly support it, but we have an additional concern about the growing number of reports from local councils throughout the land that, because of financial pressures on their budgets, are cutting or planning to cut road-gritting activities. For example, Durham county council proposes a £400,000 cut in its gritting budget.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that every outing of a gritting lorry costs about £25,000? If they are going to go out as often as the provision requires, the Government will surely have to fund local authorities properly?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Gentleman is right. I am sure that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we had a detailed debate about the nature of local government funding. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's hint that the Government often tell us that they are going to allow something to happen, but they turn out only to be allowing the local authority to spend money that it is responsible for raising.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

The cost to local authorities of gritting vehicles was mentioned. Will my hon. Friend bring into the equation the cost to the public purse of a fatal road crash, a serious injury and a slight injury resulting from a less serious accident? Does he agree that £1 million spent on preventing 10 fatal accidents is money well spent?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, with which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire and many others would no doubt concur. One of the concerns echoed in all parts of the Committee was that so little attention had been given in the Bill to road accidents and road deaths. That is why, for example, we proposed in Committee the establishment of a road accident investigation branch to mirror the rail accident investigation branch and the branches that cover aviation and shipping.

The hon. Member for Vale of York introduced new clause 11, which goes nowhere near as far as we would like in regard to the establishment of such a body, but nevertheless proposes an annual report. She probably recalls the statistics that were cited several times in Committee. For example, it is worth reflecting that, since the present Government came to power in 1997, about 150 people have died on our railways and a staggering 17,000 on our roads. The focus on roads is crucial. Much that would be published under new clause 11 will already be contained in the annual publication "Road Accidents in Great Britain", but because it focuses on the issue, and perhaps elicits some additional information that could be used to improve road safety, we support new clause 11, just as we support new clause 10.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for his party's support for new clause 11. As he rightly said, there are already a number of documents that bring together statistics relating to road accidents in Great Britain, not least the document with that title. Nevertheless, the new clause would require the Secretary of State personally to express his views in such a report, so that it would be not merely a gathering together of statistics, but an expression of conclusions that the Secretary of State draws from those statistics—lessons that he believes need to be learned and policies that will be pursued.

At an early stage in our proceedings, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) rightly pointed out that far more lives are lost on the roads than on rail; rail is a basically safe way of travelling, whereas the motor car, sadly, involves a greater degree of risk. That is not the widespread public perception. It is our view, expressed on Second Reading, that we should take any and every opportunity to raise the level of road safety, and in particular do so on the basis of proper, adequate, continuous and comparative research. Although some such work is being done, it is our belief that more could be done.

We have received representations from, among others, the Royal National Institute of the Blind, which reported that its members have serious concerns about the present design of level crossings and how that may have an impact on the likelihood of accidents taking place. Mr. Edmund King of the RAC Foundation stated that he believes that certain aspects of road design can contribute towards accidents, in particular the design and the approach that motorists take towards road junctions. When the House chooses from time to time to introduce safety measures, whether in relation to speed cameras, alcohol restrictions or other factors, it is important that motorists should understand that the House is doing so on the basis of the best research and for no other reason than to save lives and improve the prospects of reducing the tragically large number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads.

We therefore are strongly in favour of new clause 11. We hope that the Minister will address the reasons why the Government may not be able to support it at this stage, but if he cannot support it, we give him advance notice that we propose to press it to a Division. We also hope that even if, as is always possible, especially in the present House of Commons, the Government happen to squeak by in such a vote, they will reflect carefully on the importance of the matter—I do not imagine for a moment that they have anything other than a serious and personal commitment to improving road safety—and that they look carefully at the present range of statistical compilations that is available, and consider whether it might be a good idea for the Secretary of State to have a duty every year to publish his policies for improving road safety. With that, we commend new clause 11 to the House.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am glad that new clause 10 has received such widespread support. It brings the necessary clarity to the law. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) spoke with passion about the number of people killed and injured on our roads each year, and some of them are killed or injured as a result of snow and ice that was not removed at an appropriate time.

With reference to the Highways Agency, no one can make apologies for what happened in January this year on the M11. Mistakes were made. We were clear about that at the time. It was quite proper that the chief executive of the Highways Agency should answer for those. He is initially responsible for operational matters and it is proper that he answered on that occasion. However, I should say that all highways authorities and the Highways Agency realise that proper attention to ice and snow on our roads is far from an exact science. Weather is unpredictable, and sometimes a decision has to be made whether to grit too early, thereby losing the effect of the gritting, or too late or too often. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are also environmental issues involved, as a result of salt and grit entering the watercourses. A careful balance must be struck.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Does the Under-Secretary agree, none the less, that the curious thing is that there is already a statutory duty on the Highways Agency to grit on motorways? The new clause deals not with the M11, but with county councils and A roads.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Indeed. That is why we announced back in October 2002 that our view was that we should introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity. We now have that opportunity, and the measures for which the hon. Gentleman called have been introduced.

In his intervention, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) said that Governments should do less and private Members should do more. Perhaps he should have a chat with the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who seems to think that private Members should not introduce any legislation in this place. There is many a Member on the Government Benches and a few on the Opposition Benches whose Bills have been lost, thanks to the right hon. Gentleman and his cohorts.

The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) essentially accused us of doing the right thing, although I accept his support for what we propose. I am always happy to be accused of doing the right thing, not least by the hon. Gentleman. In response to one of his points, I can tell him that an independent survey of 29 shire counties in 2002 found that not one of them intended cutting back on gritting. Durham is an exception. That is a matter that the council must square with its electorate and with the legislation. Once the measure is on the statute book, all authorities will have to give careful consideration to the matter.

I turn to new clause 11 and the annual reporting of road accidents. New clause 11 seems to disregard the fact that sound arrangements already exist for the investigation of road accidents, for monitoring the associated circumstances and for disseminating the valuable information that is obtained. There is already a well-established investigation process for fatal road accidents, which was improved last year with the introduction of the police national road death investigation manual. I assure the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) that the police investigate such accidents thoroughly, not least because in some cases a prosecution could be brought against a driver. Such investigations sometimes take several weeks.

My Department maintains a national database of road accident statistics and uses those data to inform research studies and, through those, policy development. I assure hon. Members that such information is central to our policy thinking. It also enables us to check that we are delivering our targets to improve road safety by reducing deaths and injuries.

Several research studies are under way to consider the contributory factors in accidents. The studies include detailed on-the-spot investigations of a sample of accidents as soon as they occur and in-depth analysis of detailed police files. By analysing data from a large number of accidents and looking for common threads, that research is much more likely to lead to improved safety measures.

Individual police forces and their respective local authorities share information that helps them to improve their local roads to reduce the risk of accidents. For many years, such data have proved especially helpful to highway authorities for design purposes. Furthermore, analysing the total number of accidents, including slight injuries, provides a far better indicator for remedial action than focusing only on fatal and serious accidents. When an accident is under investigation it would not be apparent to the police officer concerned that a serious injury could lead to permanent disability. That could give rise to issues of confidentiality. I think, therefore, that subsection (2) of new clause 11 is unworkable.

Michael Clapham (Labour, Barnsley West and Penistone)

My hon. Friend will be aware that many road accidents befall people who are working. It is not often appreciated that the road is a workplace for many people. Has he considered whether the Health and Safety Executive should be involved in investigating accidents where it is proved that the person was actually at work?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Indeed, we have. It is an important and complicated matter. Between 20 and 25 per cent. of all injury accidents take place while people are working. We are concerned that a minority of companies may have unrealistic expectations of their drivers and may require them to meet certain targets too rapidly, which involves them in injury or accidents. Good companies, of which there are many, do the opposite: they ensure that drivers have realistic targets. For example, they do not expect drivers to answer mobile phones while they are driving.

I assure my hon. Friend that my Department is giving careful consideration to the point that he raised, but the matter is complex. We are dealing with tens of thousands of companies and the issue cannot be resolved simply and easily, but we are working on it actively at present.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Does the Minister realise that another of the proposals in my private Member's Bill was that the use of mobile phones while driving should be outlawed?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that at the earliest possible legislative opportunity we shall introduce measures on that and look forward to his support. As he knows, we have just held wide consultations on the issue. That was important because we learned a great deal from the process—as we always do. We are analysing the results and will announce some proposals shortly. One of my hon. Friends also tried to introduce a private Members' Bill to deal with the problem, so I hope that our proposals will bring joy to both hon. Members.

I commend the Government new clause, but ask hon. Members to resist new clause 11, not least because if we introduced the measures proposed by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, they would set up a new layer of bureaucracy and extra paperwork that would not bring many extra benefits in road safety.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2 — Prescribed limits

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

After a discussion about the death of so many people on our roads due to snow and ice, it is appropriate to turn to another cause of death on our roads: drink-driving. I preface my remarks by making recognition of the work carried out by Governments past and present, by Departments, local authorities, the police and the media—through publicity—to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by drink-driving. It would be wrong not to acknowledge the work that is already being done.

I realise that setting a limit is one thing, but that without proper advertising and, more important, appropriate enforcement, the exercise would be fruitless. In the UK, we have more advertising and stricter enforcement than in many other countries and, as a result, fewer casualties. None the less, there are several worrying trends, especially involving persistent drink-drivers. During Committee, there was considerable debate about the various medical and other interventions that might tackle the problem of persistent drink-drivers. We referred to work being done in this country and in Sweden, where punishments for persistent offenders include the option of medical treatment programmes.

I appreciate entirely that an amendment that merely referred to changes in the drink-driving limit would be inadequate by itself; we also need to continue advertising and enforcement at their present levels. However, that should not inhibit us from considering and discussing appropriate limits. As I pointed out in Committee, when Barbara Castle introduced the breathalyser legislation in 1967 she said that the 80 mg limit for blood alcohol was "overgenerous". Much more recently, before the 1997 general election and the creation of the Labour Government, the then transport spokesman for the Labour party, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), made it clear, in a speech on 30 November 1996, that, in office, Labour would introduce legislation to reduce the drink-driving limit from 80 mg to 50 mg. The day before the hon. Lady made that speech, she issued a press release that stated:

"The new Labour Government will show no leniency to those who wilfully put their desire for a pint before the life of a person. The pain and misery of drink driving lasts for life, not just for Christmas."

So the Labour party gave a very clear commitment before it became the Labour Government.

Subsequently, in 1998, the Government started a detailed consultation on the issue. In February that year, they published a report entitled "Combating Drink Driving: Next Steps", which stated:

"For drivers in the 50-80mg range, the risk of a non-fatal accident is around 2 to 2.5 times as high as for a sober driver: for a fatal accident the risk is about 6 times as high."

The new clause deals with that 50 to 80 mg category. All the evidence gathered for that report indicated that there would be real benefits in a reduction of the drink- driving limit from 80 to 50 mg.

It was anticipated that the Labour Government would act, but they did not do so. A little later, in March 2000, they told us in a subsequent document that because there was a possibility that European legislation would require EU-wide harmonisation, it would be preferable to wait until that requirement came forward. Well, it did not do so, and although no specific legislation was proposed by the EU, the Commission made a clear recommendation that all countries should move to a harmonised limit of 50 mg.

Despite that, on 20 March last year, the Under-Secretary made it clear that the Government had decided that there would be no change after all. In a written answer, he said:

"The limit will stay at 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood."—[Official Report, 20 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 360W.]

A clear statement was made that the Government were not prepared to move on the issue, despite all the clear evidence that was before them about the benefits and the lives that would be saved. It is worth reflecting that this country, Ireland and Luxembourg are the only ones in the European Union that continue to have an 80 mg limit. All the other countries have already reduced their limits to 50 mg and some did so a considerable time ago. Indeed, every single European country that is seeking to join the EU in the relatively near future already has a limit of 50 mg or less. We remain one of the very few countries that have not heeded all the research evidence showing that a change such as the one that I propose in the new clause will save lives.

How many lives would such a change save? Clearly, it is difficult to be precise. As I said, the issue will depend not only on the limit, but on advertising and enforcement. Nevertheless, the research is pretty clear that the minimum number of lives that would be saved each year is 50, and it is almost certain that more would be saved. Indeed, a very significant number of serious accidents running into many hundreds would be avoided as a result of introducing such a measure. Sadly, despite all that evidence, the Government have decided not to move.

Given the very large number of deaths that occur on our roads, 50 may not seem many, but it is worth reflecting that we have today spent the vast majority of our time discussing issues relating to the railways, the rail accident investigation branch and the establishment of new structures for the British Transport police, predominantly in relation to their work on railways. Yet, as I said, 150 lives have been lost on our railways since 1997. Set against that level, 50 lives a year seems a very significant number. We should be working hard to save those lives, and that is what the new clause would do.

I am delighted that an early-day motion dealing with the issue has attracted a large number of Labour Back-Bench supporters. I therefore hope very much that, even if the Under-Secretary is not prepared to be moved in the light of all the prevailing evidence suggesting that he has got it wrong so far, a large number of his hon. Friends will be doing what they have indicated they will do by signing the early-day motion and supporting the new clause.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

I rise to speak very briefly in support of everything that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has said, and not only because he is wearing what looks suspiciously like a Labour party tie.

I have felt for a very long time that we must bring the limits down to a level that is seen as sensible in other countries. We are better drivers and we have a lower death rate on our roads, and that is an admirable quality in our fellow citizens, but there is inevitably a downward curve when alcohol consumption is plotted against driving deaths—lower alcohol means that fewer people die.

I also believe that our Government will introduce the legislation at some point in the not-too-distant future; they simply need to be pressed a little harder. I hope that they might introduce it at the same time as legislation to outlaw the use of mobile phones while driving. There is another aspect of our character: as well as being good drivers, we are always reluctant to make such changes. We resisted introducing legislation on seat belts for too long, but have saved thousands of lives in the years since they were made compulsory. We have just heard about the gritting of roads. We hold off, but eventually give in. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary seriously to consider giving in on this one too and introducing the lower limits forthwith.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Opposition recognise that drink-driving is a very serious offence that is well established on the statute book with widespread popular support. For a number of reasons, we wish to keep under review the specified level of alcohol in the blood, but we recognise that the existing limits enjoy widespread support and are concerned about the introduction of any measure that might break that popular consensus without a longer consultation period than has been allowed and without compelling evidence.

We are aware that a number of studies and research projects are under way and we would like them to have time to reach their natural conclusions. Personally, I recognise that alcohol exists naturally in the blood, I think in the form of ethanol, and that it can be contained in certain legally prescribed medication. For that reason, we have reservations about considering making a reduction at this stage. However, we would like to keep an open mind on the matter, to which we would like to return at a later date.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I have to declare a non-pecuniary interest as a co-chairman of PACTS, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which is a registered charity and an associate parliamentary group whose charitable objective is to promote transport safety to save lives through research-based solutions. I should like to explain to the House that PACTS strongly supports reduction of the blood alcohol concentration limit in this country, partly because of research that has shown the need for such a reduction.

As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) pointed out, 10 deaths a week on our roads are attributable to drinking and driving. Adding together deaths and serious injuries produces an average of about 10 incidents a day, so the problem is very serious. Who are the drink-drivers? The research tells us that they are overwhelmingly male; only 8 per cent. are female. Almost half of all drink drivers are over 33, and, surprisingly, 40 per cent. have a criminal history in addition to their propensity to drink and drive. That suggests that the offence rewards attention by the police in tracking down other sorts of crime. It also saves us from thinking, as we might be tempted to do, "There but for the grace of God go I." Clearly, we in this House do not have a propensity to commit criminal offences generally.

A lot of the pressure to lower the limit comes from hon. Members, safety organisations, people who have been injured in road accidents that involved drinking and driving and, not least, those who have been bereaved due to such accidents. That is a powerful electorate to which we should pay attention. Research from the Grand Rapids study shows that 50 mg alcohol in 100 ml blood is the concentration at which a person's inability to drive becomes more seriously impaired. There is a scientific basis for a limit of 50 mg, and the hon. Member for Bath pointed out that 11 EU member states have such a limit. Sweden's limit is 20 mg and two other countries have the same limit as ours. Although there is no EU directive to set a standard limit throughout Europe, there is a directive about the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications throughout states. That creates an obvious pressure because if we are to recognise other states' disqualification due to drink-driving offences, it makes sense for all countries to have the same alcohol limit.

A lower limit will save lives although, as the hon. Member for Bath said, it is difficult to know how many until after the measure has been implemented. He said that estimates show that about 50 lives a year would be saved due to a lower limit, and most people predict that between 50 and 100 lives a year would be saved. That is a valuable prize at which to aim. Like the hon. Gentleman, I agree that this country's media campaigning, enforcement and prosecution policy has been so successful that we have made drinking and driving beyond the current limit socially unacceptable. We must not disturb that position and I understand why the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said that we must be careful to carry the public with us—I totally agree.

I am not convinced that lowering the limit would be unhelpful. There is a common misconception among the public that the legal limit represents about two drinks. That attitude is out of date in these days of larger measures and drinks with stronger alcohol content. People would definitely be below the proposed 50 mg limit if we said, "One drink and no more." That would be a simple message, although we and the police would want to say, "If you are the driver of a vehicle, please do not drink at all", because any alcohol impairs one's ability to drive.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain the Government's somewhat confusing position? They say that they are unwilling to support reducing the limit to 50 mg, but they have a policy that people should not drink at all. Their position is not consistent.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

That is not the Government's problem but a problem for all of us. People want to drink and then drive, and our responsible advice must be that drivers should not drink. That brings me to the nub of my point about opposition to reducing the limit: it is not Government-led opposition, it is more general. However, to conclude my answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, the written answer on 20 March 2002 at column 360W that the hon. Member for Bath cited does not give us a clue why the Government will not go for the reduction.

Objection to a change comes from people who make money from selling drink, such as those who run public houses. There is a lot of concern in rural areas that a reduction in the limit would affect such people's businesses. Those people are a powerful lobby group because they have many customers who would not want politicians to tell them how to behave in their private lives. The answer is to have a more public promotion of the concept of a nominated driver. Public houses and similar places of fun, relaxation and entertainment should promote the idea that designated drivers deserve a decent range of reasonably priced drinks and other items when they go to such places because that would persuade them that they are doing the responsible thing by not drinking. That would give public recognition to the good deed that is done by being a driver who lays off alcohol. That is how the Minister should persuade people that doing that is right.

I suspect that the Minister will mention the 400 or so deaths a year that are not caused by drink-drivers and cite the unquantified deaths caused by people who are miles over the legal limit and who persistently drink to excess: the high-risk offenders. However, if we continued to define high-risk offenders as people who are two and a half times over the limit, reducing the legal limit for everyone would reduce the limit for high-risk offenders. Consequently, we would catch more high-risk offenders and more people would be subject to more intensive treatments and punishments that would be required before they might get their licences back.

We could consider going further and reducing the multiplier to define high-risk offenders to twice the legal limit in order to catch more people. We would tell such people that they pose a greater risk to people who behave lawfully and innocently on our roads and that we do not want their behaviour to kill such people. However, we would not want to keep them off the road for ever provided that we could correct their behaviour. We try to give high-risk offenders treatment and ask them to take tests to prove that their attitude has changed and that they are competent and safe drivers. If people drive more safely after going through the process, what is wrong with catching more people and putting them through it? I hope that the Minister will give a more sympathetic hearing to the proposal this year than his Department did last year.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

The last time I addressed the House, I said that there was no point in it expressing its will if it was not prepared to support the means necessary to meet that will. The debate is all about willing means and willing ends. We will the end of achieving road safety, but for a strange reason that I do not understand, we baulk at willing the means to that end.

The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) reminded us that the new Labour Government were committed in 1996 to introducing legislation to reduce the legal limit from 80 to 50 mg of alcohol. However, given that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) made the commitment, I have my doubts. That was not the first time that such a change was contemplated because I know of a Secretary of State for Transport who thought seriously about reducing the limit. However, before he had time to do anything about his thoughts, he was moved to another Department, so I was.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) made the perfectly valid point that it is important not to lose public support for whatever limit might be set, and we would all agree with that. However, that has echoes of debates long gone. Some of my hon. and right hon. Friends and, indeed, some Labour Members had a problem with the principle of whether we should interfere with people's lives. We have had the same debates about seat belts, crash helmets and alcohol limits. Perhaps the House will one day have the same debate about the effect of drugs on people's ability to drive. However, a principle has been established from those debates. We are in an unusual, yet interesting, situation of saying that reducing the limit would be to the advantage of many people because they would be enabled to live, but that we must not lose public support. It is kind of hard to believe that the public could not be encouraged to support reducing the limit to save lives.

I understand the point that the hon. Member for Bath made on this issue; indeed, I agree with him. Road safety is at least as much about messages, promotion, guidance, encouragement and setting good examples as anything else. In my time, I have done the Christmas drink and drive message, as has the Minister. We have all been there and done that, and we have all given our support to fairly robust measures, so far as the courts are concerned. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made that point eloquently.

The issue is whether there would be a genuine benefit in this reduction. I am not desperately impressed by the fact that it has been done elsewhere, although that is an argument that can be put forward. The question is whether we should do it here, and I shall listen with great interest to the Minister's arguments as to why we should not. I hope that he will not take us down the "We need more consultation" route. We have consulted, then we have consulted on the consultations. We have researched, then we have researched the research. We have then consulted on the research and researched the consultations. We know what the facts are. The problem is that the House has difficulty in willing the means to achieving the laudable end.

Having said all that, this is a matter for the Government. I find it extremely difficult to be supportive of the Liberal Democrat party on anything.

Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

You will be all right.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for that view.

I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will not push this amendment to a vote. I hope that he will understand that the importance of this little debate is the message that it sends to the Government, because unless and until the Government honour that 1996 pledge, this reduction is not going to happen. That is the reality. I do not wish to be overly melodramatic, but the Minister needs to understand that, with every year that passes without the limit being reduced, people die who would not otherwise do so.

Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I had not intended to contribute to this debate, but this is an issue on which I feel strongly, and I was moved to speak by the weasel words of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). I am grateful, too, for having had the opportunity to listen to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney), because he has confirmed me in my view.

Before I come to the issues that have already been addressed, I would like to respond to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on the issue of rural licensed premises. There are a great many in my constituency, and the Cornishman is capable of taking his drink, just like the best of them. I hope that the Minister will agree that nominated drivers are becoming increasingly popular and that taxis are now doing very good business in this regard. In rural areas, there is an increasingly responsible attitude to the problem of drinking and driving. I do not know the exact figures for Cornwall—I have not had the opportunity to check them—although I should perhaps declare an interest, in that my wife is a magistrate and therefore takes a particular interest in these matters. I did not, however, manage to check the latest figures with her last night. It is true, though, that in rural areas, as in urban areas, people are becoming more and more responsible. I have not noticed any more pressure being brought to bear by rural licensed premises than by urban ones.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

The licensing industry produces its own newsletter, called The Bullet-Inn, which it sends to Members of Parliament. It regularly states that the industry opposes this reduction from 80 mg to 50 mg. I am not saying that it refers specifically to rural premises, but the point is that the industry represents a strong body of opposition.

Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I understand that point, but I was trying to suggest that it is not merely rural licensed premises that take the view that I have outlined. Indeed, based on my own private, local experience, I believe that the rural community in Cornwall would address this issue with the same seriousness of approach that has been demonstrated by a number of hon. Members tonight—not only my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, but the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire.

I want to spend a moment on the issue of public support. Many attempts have been made to improve the quality of the safety that we accept as a natural discipline—through the introduction of safety belts and drink-drive legislation, for example—and I am sure that the same will apply to the use of mobile phones; I hope that the Minister will respond to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Luton, North on that. I am also sure that people now recognise that death and injury on our roads are such serious issues that the House constantly has to lead on these matters, rather than coming in from behind with endless consultation and research.

I disagree with the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire on only one point. I believe that we should take into account the experience of other countries. That evidence might not be conclusive, but we should add it to the body of research and consultation carried out in this country. We cannot just ignore it. The evidence that has been placed before the House this evening has been placed before successive Secretaries of State, and Ministers should take it very seriously indeed.

I would like to pay tribute to the work of Brake on road safety—I am not referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), although he happens to be a distinguished member of that pressure group—which has been absolutely outstanding. I know that the Minister agrees with that, because he said so to some of its members just the other day when I was there. I hope that he will therefore support its efforts, and those of other organisations, to bring this issue to the top of the agenda again. I do not recall precisely when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire was—no doubt undeservedly—moved from his position as Secretary of State for Transport, but it was many years ago. I believe, that sufficient time has elapsed since then, and that we now need to make a decision.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I well recall a debate taking place in the students union during my college years—that was quite a long time ago, although not quite as long as for the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney)—in which the motion before the house was that drink-driving laws were an affront to personal liberty. If my memory serves me correctly, the motion was narrowly carried. If such a motion went before even a body of students these days, I believe that it would be well and truly defeated. That is an indication of how attitudes to drink-driving have changed substantially over time, just as they have changed in relation to the use of seat belts and crash helmets. Who knows?—they might even change in relation to using a mobile phone while driving.

We have a good record on road safety in this country. Indeed, it probably compares with the best in the world. For the amount of traffic that we have on our roads, we have the lowest number of casualties. Anecdotally, one can say that our roads are generally safe places to be. However, we still have a substantial number of casualties and we can never be complacent. We have to carry on driving down those figures. We have to focus on what is important in this debate, which—as hon. Members have mentioned—is not lowering a limit or reducing a speed but getting rid of the casualties. We need to get to the issue that really affects people's lives. Road accidents create a great deal of misery for the people involved and, when there are deaths, for their families. Account must also be taken of the enormous economic cost of those casualties, which the country has to bear.

The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) spoke with sincerity on this issue, and we are agreed that we need to reduce the number of casualties, not only from drink-driving but across the board. I know that he and I share that aspiration. I also accept his argument that measures other than reducing the limit need to be taken—that is right and proper—but I would not necessarily want European harmonisation, nor would I want to say that that would benefit this country, as most other European countries have a much worse record on road casualties. Some have lower limits, but they have lower penalties. Some are very low indeed, at the 50 mg level, and they can hardly be called a deterrent. Were we to go down that road, we could find ourselves being pressured to have lower levels of punishment for lower blood-alcohol levels.

Furthermore, as the hon. Gentleman knows, many other European countries have much lower levels of enforcement. He mentioned some accession countries. They may have drink-driving laws on their statute books and limits lower than 80 mg, but in some of those countries enforcement is not just low, but zero. In this country, enforcement is very strict indeed.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

I make the simple point to my hon. Friend that it is not a sufficient condition to have lower limits, but a necessary one. Other factors are equally important.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I accept that, and I shall move on to those points.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Will the Minister give way?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

In a moment, when I have dealt with the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), who spoke with great sincerity. If lower limits were introduced, would that have the effect that we wanted it to have? That is the genuine question. I say to him that if the evidence for that being the route forward were overwhelming and compelling, perhaps in the future that is the road that we would go down, but I have yet to be convinced.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I thank the Minister for allowing me to interrupt him. Do the figures not speak for themselves? Alcohol-induced accidents involve significantly fewer casualties, fatalities, serious injuries and slight injuries than those caused by speed. If anything, there is more pressure on him to act against speed rather than alcohol as a cause of road accidents.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Yes, and the two issues are sometimes closely related: people who are speeding are over the alcohol limit as well. The simple answer is that we must tackle all three issues that are involved here. Alcohol is important, as are speed and issues such as people facing unwarranted and unreasonable expectations at work, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham).

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who is a doughty campaigner on road safety issues, raised some good points, such as the important matter of having a designated driver. That is probably prevalent among younger people, the vast majority of whom are extremely responsible—perhaps, I might say, more responsible than the older generation. They have a "des", or designated driver, who elects not to drink alcohol and takes the rest of the group home. I say that as one who has had teenagers, who are now in their twenties. I have seen that system in operation and younger people are very responsible in that respect, but it is also true that a small minority, particularly younger men, are not. I shall come to that in a moment.

The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire made a powerful and compelling speech, but I am not going to allow him to chide me for anything that we may or may not be doing. He was Secretary of State—he left the job in 1995, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) may be interested to know—but, although I was not a Member of the House at the time, I do not recall him campaigning on that particular issue. I accept, however, that he may have changed his position, and we are pleased about that.

The hon. Member for North Cornwall made the point that the vast majority of people in rural areas are responsible. That is the case, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, but unfortunately a small minority are not responsible. I shall move on to those people in a moment.

The merits of introducing a blood-alcohol content limit of 50 mg or even lower have been extensively examined and debated over a long period. Much research has been done and the experiences of other countries have been taken into account. In our 1998 consultation paper, "Combating Drink Driving: Next Steps", the Government acknowledged that many drivers experience some impairment below the 80 mg level, but the potential injury savings from lowering the limit to 50 mg depend very much on assumptions and estimates.

The extent of driving impairment below 80 mg in individual drivers is less certain than at over 80 mg. We would probably all accept that. We know that the results of research based on experience in other countries where legal limits have been reduced to below 80 mg are likely to have been affected by the influence of other anti-drink-driving measures. In most cases, it seems that the underlying trends and concurrent factors such as publicity and enforcement policies were not always measured in relation to the reduction of the blood-alcohol level limit. That makes it difficult to apportion the beneficial effects of the whole package of measures to each contributory factor, including a reduction in the limit.

Another factor that needs to be taken into account is the penalty regime for road traffic offences, which is a key element in the enforcement of drink-driving laws. Penalties in this country are far more severe for exceeding the 80 mg limit than in most other European countries with a limit of 50 mg or lower. There is, for example, a mandatory minimum disqualification of 12 months for any drink-driving offence, which can be combined with up to six months' imprisonment and a £5,000 fine. Most countries with a lower legal limit impose only minor penalties at the lower alcohol levels, and imprisonment and licence removal are not generally available below alcohol levels of 100 mg or more.

Applying our penalties at 50 mg would put us further out of line with Europe in terms of sanctions. It is also likely that that would be regarded as unduly harsh. Critically, it would be unlikely to command as much respect from the motoring public at large. The alternative of adopting a system of lesser penalties at the lower alcohol level would create the unfortunate impression that the Government were willing to regard some levels of drink driving as more acceptable than others. We also have concerns about whether the lower-level penalties would have any real effect on offending rates.

The vast majority of those involved in incidents that cause serious casualties on our roads are well over the 80 mg level, so we must give our time to those people who are probably not even aware of the limits; nor do they care. We have to turn our attention to those people because they are causing the death and injuries on our roads. For those reasons, it is right to be cautious about reducing the prescribed limit.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I have listened carefully to the Minister. He understands, does he not, that he represents the Government? He can set the penalties, draw up the publicity and define those other activities. Also, he has told us that there would be a benefit in a reduction, although he will not quantify it, which is fine. Why is he unwilling to support a reduction?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Because the benefit is difficult to quantify. The benefits of other measures that we are taking on enforcement and advertising—in particular, the focus on those who are ignoring the drink-driving laws, who are mainly younger men, I am afraid to say—mean that it is better to expend our energy in that particular direction.

There can be little doubt that the approach adopted by successive Governments—by the present Secretary of State, among others—involving powerful publicity backed by tougher penalties has reduced the number of casualties by about two thirds. Given that the amount of road traffic has doubled during the period involved, that means that, in terms of miles travelled, we now see about a sixth of the number of drink-driving casualties that we used to see. As I said earlier, that has given us one of the best safety records in the European Union, and indeed in the wider world.

It is encouraging to note the provisional results produced in 2001. They are the latest available figures. The number of people killed in drink-related road accidents had fallen from 530 to 480, and the number of people seriously injured had fallen from 2,540 to 2,410. Of course we recognise that there is a great deal more to be done.

I think that all of us, including the hon. Member for Bath, share the same ambition. We want to reduce the number of casualties on our roads, and to reduce the consequent misery. I think that the new clause is founded on good intention, but I fear that accepting it would lead to a further debate on whether we should reduce the penalty relating to 50 mg because it is too harsh, and whether we should come more into line with Europe. That would distract us from the important issue—for the issue should not be whether low alcohol should apply when people are driving, but whether no alcohol should apply.

I do not want our efforts, which have been very successful over a long period, to be wasted. I think that ours is the best approach: support for a strong deterrent and punishment, backed by the enforcement that operates in this country, along with education and research.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

No speaker today has in any way denigrated the enormously good work that has been done to ensure that we retain our good record on drink-driving. All have acknowledged the tremendous efforts of the present Government and their officials, previous Governments and their officials, and many others. But none has denied the central truth that a lowering of the alcohol limit would save lives.

I am grateful to Members on both sides of the House who have supported the lowering of the limit. It is traditional to comment on the contribution of the Conservative spokesman, but fortunately I do not need to do so, as the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney), on the basis of considerable experience, effectively answered the point made by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). She had argued that more consultation and debate were needed. He said that he hoped that the Minister would not involve us in more consultation, adding eloquently, "We know what the facts are"—and he is absolutely right.

The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) rightly pointed out that studies had been carried out for many years. He referred to the Grand Rapids study, which was conducted in 1962. All subsequent research has confirmed the basic findings of that study. He was also right to point out that we must tackle many other issues relating not just to speed but to drink-driving. We should promote the idea of a nominated driver, and the provision of a good range of reasonably priced non-alcoholic options.

The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire said that we had reached a point at which—knowing the evidence, and knowing that if we accepted the new clause we could save lives—we must start discussing whether or not we were prepared to will the means. Normally I would agree with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), but I am about to surprise and slightly disappoint him. He said that this was one of the occasions on which, without doubt, the House should lead, Parliament should lead and the Government should lead, expecting others to follow—echoing what one or two others had said. The implication was that majority public support for this move does not already exist, although all the evidence suggests that such support exists. Moreover, surveys of other European countries employing the lower limit show that some 77 per cent. of the public in those countries support it.

The Minister told us, as he did on another occasion, that we did not want harmonisation because some things that were done in those other countries were not as good as what we do here. He is partly right and partly wrong. If he wanted—although in fact I will not do it—I could go through the penalty regimes of each European country line by line, and show that ours is roughly the same as those of other countries. I could give the figures relating to public perception of enforcement, and demonstrate that a number of other countries believe that their enforcement regimes are stricter than ours, although some are less strict. I do not need to do that, because we all accept that measures in addition to limit-setting measures are important.

We need a decent advertising campaign, appropriate penalties and appropriate enforcement. We know that a lower limit, along with those measures, would save many lives. I must tell the Minister, however, that it will not be possible to provide for appropriate advertising, to set penalties or to determine what is the right enforcement without first deciding on the limit. The new clause, based on all the research carried out over so many years, suggests an appropriate limit. Notwithstanding what the Minister said, I genuinely believe that—in the words of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins)—now is the time to press the Government a little harder.

New Clause 4 — Rail freight facilities grants and track access grants

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It gives me great pleasure to speak to new clause 4, which calls for the reinstatement of rail freight facilities grants and track access grants. The Minister will be aware of the significant damage that is being caused by the suspension of the two sets of grants for the next financial year, 2003–04, especially to those who have been left high and dry without alternative means. Initially, the conservative estimate—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

With a small "c".

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My hon. Friend is right. The conservative estimate was that, over the coming 12-month period, 2.75 million tonnes of freight are at risk of being moved by road. All hon. Members will deplore that fact, not least because those freight movements will come from the aggregates, construction and metals sectors. The combined impact of the freight facilities grants and track access grants awards that were made in the years for which the most recent figures are available—2000–01 and 2001–-02—is considerable. To move the same volume of freight by road each year would require a fleet of 3,000 heavy lorries, which is equivalent to more than 3 per cent. of the total UK heavy goods vehicles fleet. For the financial year 2002–03, nearly 17 million lorry journeys will have been removed from the road network as a result of the two grants. For the same period, 1 million tonnes of toxic emissions will have been removed from the atmosphere for the same reason. For the period 2003–04, it was expected that more than 12 million lorry journeys would have been removed from the British road network had the two grants proceeded.

Those reductions can no longer be achieved, which will result in increasing road congestion, increasing emissions and increasing numbers of accidents and casualties on the road network. We therefore request that the Government think again about the withdrawal of the freight facilities grants and track access grants for the coming 12-month period. Will they give an early indication that they might reconsider the position for 2003-04 and reinstate the grants at the earliest opportunity, but at the very latest for the financial year 2004-05?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I very much welcome the new clause and the hon. Lady can be assured of our full support for it. In some senses, it is a shame that it does not go further, because, tragically, the Government have scrapped other freight schemes, including the incremental output statement and the small freight grant, both of which we should like to have been included. Other grants that have been cut include the rail passenger partnership schemes, which would have brought significant improvement to passengers in the same way that the freight grants would have improved the availability of freight by rail, thereby reducing the need for freight on our already congested roads.

The new clause would place a financial burden on the Government, but, as I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware, the Chancellor's capital modernisation fund contains some £2.3 billion that will be available over the next two or three years. That would be an eminently sensible source of funding. The Government would have no excuse for not making the money available, because it already sits in the Chancellor's piggybank and could be used to ensure that this sensible and modest new clause can be accepted.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

There are issues of substance in the sentiments that hon. Members expressed, but this is not the right way to process them. A declaration of policy is not the appropriate mechanism for enshrining such a matter in a Bill. There are many other ways of arguing about such policy issues outside the context of what should strictly be a consideration of powers and legal mechanisms, which is what the law is for.

I appreciate the concerns that hon. Members on both sides of the House have recently raised about short-term provision for rail freight grants. The management of the freight grant schemes, including the level of funding that is made available, is primarily a matter for the Strategic Rail Authority. As the authority has made clear, its suspension of freight grants for next year does not mark a change in policy, but is a short-term budgetary decision and, as such, a matter on which hon. Members need to reflect as to whether the Government should seek to intervene. The SRA has responsibility for the global budget that the Government have allocated to it.

The Government recognise that the Strategic Rail Authority's decision to suspend its freight grant scheme for the time being has been a difficult one, but it must be a judgment for it to make in the light of available funding and the balance between income and expenditure. The SRA is conscious of the considerable effort that its partners, including local authorities and freight customers, have made to put together viable funding packages, and it is aware that concerns will exist about ongoing support. That is why it sought to avoid wasted effort and expense on the part of stakeholders by informing them of the decision at the earliest possible opportunity. The authority has also taken the opportunity to assure those who already receive awards that it will honour its contractual commitments, and it will continue to provide an advisory service through its internal expert teams.

I accept that a result of the decision will be to halt or delay the development of a number of potentially useful local projects, but I assure hon. Members that the Government and the SRA remain committed to our sustainable distribution objectives. That includes seeking a significant increase in modal share for rail freight where it provides value for money.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Earlier, the Minister acknowledged that responsibility for gritting motorways lay with the Highways Agency. Nevertheless, the Government made it absolutely clear that they were unhappy with the decision of the Highways Agency with regard to the problems of 30 January. In a similar spirit, even though the Strategic Rail Authority is responsible for this particular decision, does the Minister support it, or disagree with it?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is not an exact analogy. The problem with the Highways Agency was that it was already spending money but people were not getting the service required. The travelling public on the M11 were not getting a service either from the agency or from the county police forces. On this issue, the SRA has to consider its overall budget and its budgetary constraints and priorities. It says that it has had to take temporary decisions on some of its schemes. It has done that and made announcements as soon as possible so that many stakeholders did not have to incur unnecessary expenditure. However, it will consider how it can get back to its schemes.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Will the Minister give way?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The matter is of considerable concern in the railway community but, to be frank, the SRA is addressing it. It is certainly not a matter for inclusion in a clause in a Bill.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I have finished my speech.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. The Minister had sat down and will not be responding to the intervention.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I hope that the Government will think about the implications for the opencast coal industry, where strenuous efforts have been made to transfer freight on to the railways, thereby reducing the enormous problems on the roads in some already congested areas. I hope that the Government will consider whether they should intervene—especially in view of the massive increase that there will be in the transportation of coal by road. That is one of our biggest and most dangerous problems.

New Clause 11 — Annual report on road safety statistics

New Clause 16 — Reimbursements of costs

Clause 2 — Meaning of "railway accident" and "railway incident"

Clause 4 — General aims

Clause 24 — Special constables

Clause 59 — Public consultation

Clause 73 — Index of defined expressions

Clause 76 — Professional staff off duty

Clause 86 — Interpretation

Clause 87 — Crown application

Clause 88 — Territorial application

Clause 98 — Military application

Clause 99 — Territorial Application

Clause 106 — Shipping legislation: application to structures, craft, &c.

Schedule 4 — British transport police authority

Schedule 7 — Repeals

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House will, I am sure, join me in thanking the members of Standing Committee D for their careful scrutiny of this important Bill. We met 18 times during February and March, and the Committee proved tireless in its extremely detailed questioning of the Government's proposals. The House has now considered on Report a Bill that has been through a fine-toothed comb. I pay special tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who shared the chairmanship of the Committee. They were helped by my hon. Friends the Members for Bootle (Mr. Benton) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood), to whom we are also grateful.

Although we have been discussing the details today, we all recognise the general picture—that the Bill will mark an important step in improving safety in our railway system, and in transport more widely. It will thereby help to strengthen passenger confidence, and to answer the public's justified demand for the highest standards. Part 1 makes provision for a rail accident investigation branch with responsibilities to investigate rail accidents. That is in response to one of Lord Cullen's recommendations following the Ladbroke Grove incident. Like its air and marine counterparts, the rail accident investigation branch will investigate the causes of accidents, so that remedial action can be taken as soon as possible. It will act independently of both the industry and its regulators and carry out its investigations openly.

The Bill also modernises the governance of the British Transport police, who provide an essential service policing Britain's railways. Currently, the powers and accountability of the British Transport police are derived from a hotch-potch of measures shaped by the railways of the 19th century, and altered by nationalisation and then privatisation. The Bill will give the British Transport police similar governance and a similar statutory basis to the Home Office police forces and the Scottish police forces, with a clearly defined jurisdiction and proper accountability.

The Bill replicates for the civil marine and aviation sectors the well-understood measures combating drink-driving on the roads. Drink-driving on the roads can be fatal, whether the driver is a professional or a non-professional. The same principle is true on the water and in the air. However, we need to be proportionate about this. Everyone recognises that an aeroplane travelling at 500 mph is more dangerous than a car travelling at 50 mph which itself is more dangerous than a boat travelling at 5 mph.

The maximum permitted alcohol limit for air crew will be 20 mg per 100 ml of blood, in comparison with 80 mg for car drivers. The Marchioness tragedy showed us graphically that all boats can be imperilled by sailors drinking, but there is a difference between a large passenger ship, with a professional crew, and a man in a rowing boat. We have, therefore, included a power to except vessels piloted by non-professionals, by reference to the power of their motor and to their size and location. We shall hold consultations about such exceptions so as to strike the right proportionate balance between regulation and protection for the public.

Among other provisions, the measure will restructure the Office of the Rail Regulator. It will be headed by a board rather than a single regulator, in line with the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force, and will bring the railways into line with other regulated industries.

Tonight, the House completes its deliberations on a highly important Bill that will significantly promote public safety and confidence in our transport networks. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

On behalf of the official Opposition, I welcome the Bill. I agree with the Minister for Transport: there was excellent scrutiny in Committee. Indeed, the measure received about 50 hours of scrutiny. I join him in his eloquent thanks to our presiding Chairmen. For the most part, our 18 sittings were good-humoured and good-natured.

The powers of the new rail accident investigation branch will be wide ranging. We welcome the fact that the branch will be modelled on the air accidents and marine accident investigation branches, both of which were set up under a Conservative Government. Regrettably, several matters are still unresolved, as we pointed out during Report, especially the relationship between the RAIB and the Health and Safety Executive.

I pay tribute to the work of the British Transport police. The provisions for the BTP will put the force on a wholly statutory footing for the first time, which is welcome. There are questions about its jurisdiction, which, in the view of the force, should continue to extend to property in the vicinity of railway lines and stations. There is still concern about employment and pension provisions. Following the Wheeler report on airport security, there is potential for further liaison and co-operation between the BTP and the officers who police our airports.

The Bill includes provisions on offences for drink and drug abuse by air and sea personnel. We support the main thrust of the provisions but, in relation to aviation personnel, it would be simpler and clearer if there were a single limit for all safety-critical personnel, whatever their specific function. As regards maritime personnel, the provisions relating to non-professional recreational mariners could be further clarified and a clearer definition of what constitutes standby duty would be welcome. It would be better still if the clauses on marine and aviation offences had been consistent. For example, under clause 80 the police are given power to breathalyse when there is an accident involving a ship. The procedure is similar to that followed after a road accident. In clause 93, however, the same provision does not extend to an accident involving an aircraft.

We especially regret the fact that lack of time prevented consideration of our new clauses 14, 15 and 17 and that we were unable to press them to a vote. There is great merit in asking the Civil Aviation Authority to introduce a peer intervention programme on drink and drug abuse at work. Will the Government consider that proposal in the imminent future?

There is also merit to the proposal that someone other than a uniformed officer should escort a suspect from a plane, as that would cause less alarm to other passengers. As the provisions on aviation are especially extensive, it would be welcome if the CAA could issue guidance to the industry on their enforcement.

In Committee, we were told that the Bill would have monetary consequences but that they would not be huge. The Government have resisted our requests that they consider wider aspects of road safety as part of the Bill. However, we are pleased that the Government have caved in to our request for a legal responsibility on highways authorities to clear the roads of snow and ice.

Indeed, so many of our amendments caught the attention of both Ministers in Committee that we feel that much of the Bill is part of a Conservative agenda. In that regard, we welcome the Bill and wish it Godspeed in the other place.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Now that the passage of Bill is nearly over, the Minister has suddenly become fulsome in his praise of members of the Committee on both sides of the House. He rightly described us as having been tireless, but whether all hon. Members are happy to be called a tooth comb is for them to decide.

The Minister is right that the Bill is important and underwent intense scrutiny during the 18 Committee sittings. Of course, its passage has also been enjoyable at times. We have found out more about the pleasures and dangers of jet-skis and discussed at some length what constitutes the vicinity of a railway line. We have contemplated the implications for a constable in carrying out his duties of his hat blowing off and learned more than we might want to know from the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) about the use of swabs in taking samples for various forms of testing. Indeed, we have also heard a very lengthy list of interests, which she has declared on numerous occasions. We have even discovered a trolley bus in Scotland.

However, we have also debated many important issues. I am delighted that we have now established the rail accident investigation branch and turned the function of a single individual—the rail regulator—into that of a board such as those in all other regulatory organisations. We have also given the British Transport police a statutory basis. Sensibly, we have introduced appropriate alcohol limits in respect of aviation and maritime activities.

Of course, I am disappointed that a number of issues have not been dealt with. Perhaps the most notable is the attempt to reduce the current drink-driving limit. Equally, I am disappointed that there has been no opportunity to discuss road safety as much as many members of the Committee would have wished. We hope very much that the Government will introduce legislation in that area before too long. There should also have been an opportunity to streamline some existing structures, particularly in respect of the Office of the Rail Regulator. Such measures were promised by the previous Secretary of State following the turning of Railtrack into a not-for-profit public interest company. That has still not happened.

We have also wisely accepted the need for a change in the way in which the Health and Safety Executive is funded for its work in the railway industry and a move away from the per-hour system. Unfortunately, however, we are introducing a new levy system that many people believe is not the most appropriate way forward. I share their concerns and I suspect that that issue will exercise the minds of those who will debate it in another place.

Like the hon. Member for Vale of York, I am disappointed that there have not been more opportunities to discuss aviation security. We will all look with interest to the answers that I hope to receive shortly to parliamentary questions about Sir John Wheeler's excellent report on aviation security and want an assurance that the Government will implement his many sensible recommendations as soon as possible. Questions remain about whether it is right for the Government to appoint the chief constable of the British Transport police authority, but those are all matters that will no doubt be for another time and place.

Meanwhile, good progress has been made on this important Bill, to which, as we said on Second Reading and repeat on Third Reading, we broadly give our full support.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

May I say how pleased I am, as the only Back Bencher left to speak, to follow such eminent Front-Bench speakers? They have all made significant contributions to the Bill, as I have tried to do. We are all pleased to support a Bill that has cross-party support. I believe that it is a substantial step in the right direction but I would like more progress on other aspects of rail safety.

We have not received the results of the investigations into Hatfield and Potters Bar. That is a failing but it possibly arises due to the privatisation legislation introduced by the Conservative Government because that took away the legal responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive and Her Majesty's rail inspectorate to investigate rail accidents, although they retained rights. Perhaps that was done to make life somewhat easier for the private companies that were to follow. The Bill will plug the gap by providing again for a serious investigation process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) wants to make legislation stronger and more coherent and she pointed out that other bodies must be examined. I mentioned the new rail safety and standards board earlier today and the problem that has clearly arisen due to the shift to a more arm's length relationship with the industry. We thought that the chief executive of the existing body would have been automatically asked to transfer to the new organisation and I hope that the Minister and the Under-Secretary will examine that because newspapers speculate that the situation is unhappy and we want to know whether something in the murky depths must be studied.

The HSE rail inspectorate has not covered itself with glory in recent times and although the British Transport police have done a good job, the inspectorate has not investigated as enthusiastically as it might have done. I understand that several of the staff who undertake investigations are not experts on railway matters. Running a railway is very technical and to appreciate what is going on, one must have an appreciation of engineering, and especially mechanical and electrical engineering. I have a modest knowledge of the subject and I appreciate it when people explain what is happening. However, a person with a background in the law or accountancy might not be the appropriate person to undertake such an investigation. We should examine that gap and ensure that people who undertake investigations have an appreciation of engineering. That knowledge need not be specific to railways because one can adjust to a new engineering field over time. However, a person who has no expertise in engineering at all will find it harder to appreciate problems that arise on railways.

Track circuits are currently a subject of controversy and are likely to attract press coverage. A system using track circuits allows the detection of whether a train is on a particular stretch of track. The axle and wheels of a train make contact across rails and signallers can use that to discover where a train is. However, that is being replaced by a system of axle counters, which counts axles as they enter and leave a section of rail. That is fine but it does not address the problem of broken rails because while the track circuits system detects broken rails, axle counters do not. It is argued that axle counters are used in Germany, but they are used only on concrete slab track, which holds the track firmly and rigidly. That makes it less prone to breakages and even if it does break, it is held safely so that trains will not derail. Many railway engineers argue that the use of axle counters on ballast track is dangerous. I would like to move toward using slab track rather than ballast track because it is safer and its price is coming down. We could look forward to a safer railway if we moved in that direction. Slab track is generally used in Japan.

We have had a great deal of discussion on the British Transport police, and almost everyone has spoken highly of them. Indeed, I have a very high opinion of them myself. In every sphere, however, there are not enough of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich talked about the problem of controlling football crowds moving from train to train at Crewe station. She said that just four police officers had been on duty to deal with a massive crowd of good-humoured but somewhat inebriated football fans. That was clearly not enough. There are also problems involved in patrolling ports, relating to illegal immigration, drug trafficking and so on. If there were more transport police, those matters could be dealt with more adequately.

All the safety bodies must work together much more effectively. One of my concerns in recent years is that some of them have had too close a relationship with the industry. They have to be independent, and I am pleased to see that the rail accident investigation branch will indeed be independent of the industry. The people who work in these bodies must have a sense that they are working in the public interest, rather than looking over their shoulder at the commercial interests of the railway industry. Since privatisation, commercial and financial pressure has inevitably been brought to bear on railway operations. One does not want to see a wholly inefficient public system, but, where public safety is concerned, it is vital to ensure that safety comes first and commercial interests come second.

One of the points made earlier was that the rail accident investigation branch will look at what happens after an accident. The key to the problem, however, is to ensure that the accidents do not happen in the first place. If they happen, something has gone wrong, and we need to have much more rigorous inspection of railway systems before they occur. Although railway travel is much safer than road transport—we have heard a great many statistics on that from the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—it is still a fact that one accident involving a train can cause an horrendous number of deaths and injuries. We want to avoid accidents altogether.

We are moving in the right direction, and I welcome the Bill very much indeed. I look forward to seeing how it will work in practice. One of the new body's first jobs will be to investigate the accidents at Hatfield and Potters Bar—I had some experience of those, having lived in the area for most of my life—and I hope that it will do a very thorough job so that the truth can come out. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have recently exerted pressure to introduce the concept of corporate manslaughter, so that people in commercial organisations who are responsible for deaths can be taken to task and prosecuted. If people have not behaved well in relation to their responsibilities on the railways, and such behaviour has caused problems or accidents, those people should be prosecuted and, when necessary, have an appropriate fine or prison sentence imposed on them.

These are serious matters, where life and death are concerned. We might scrape our knee if we have an accident on a bicycle, but anyone who travels on an aircraft has a strong sense that an accident in those circumstances could result in hundreds of people dying. Trains are much more like aircraft in that sense. They travel at very high speeds and carry a lot of people. They are inherently safe, but we nevertheless need to be rigorous in ensuring that the track and all the systems in the railway industry work properly and safely. I think that we are moving in the right direction on that. I am delighted to support the Bill, and I look forward to its Third Reading going through on the nod, as they say—I understand that there is to be no opposition to it. I want the legislation to go further in future, but I am delighted to support the Bill today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.