House of Commons Standing Committee D (pt 7)

Railways and Transport Safety Bill

[back to previous text]

Miss McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No.29, in

clause 3, page 2, line 22, at end insert—
'(5) The Rail Accident Investigation Branch shall be constituted with regard to regional representation, including the Scottish
Column Number: 25

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

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

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

The moment has come.
David Cairns (Greenock and Inverclyde): The moment has not quite come. I was referring to the regulator and the board that will replace it, not the rail accident investigation branch.
Miss McIntosh: I am interested to hear that. I am sure that we have time to transpose an amendment to deal with the provisions relating to the rail regulator.
For the reasons I gave earlier, we are concerned with the aspects of reserved and devolved powers alluded to earlier by the Minister. That is the most vexing question concerning regional representation in the Bill. In the spirit of openness and co-operation, and to ensure smooth passage of the Bill, we would like the rail investigation branch to be constituted with regard to regional representation, which the hon. Gentleman would prefer to see only for the rail regulator. We would like representation from, or formal consultation of, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Perhaps the Minister could explain the precise constitution of the rail accident investigation branch and what formal consultation there will be with the three devolved powers.
Tom Brake: We support the measure, and have tabled a similar amendment.
David Cairns: The hon. Member for Vale of York was kind to draw attention to my remarks on Second Reading. I share the general concern—if that is not too strong a word—about getting the matter right. The issue of transport crosses the boundaries of the devolution settlement. It is not by any stretch of the imagination unique in that. Many issues cross the boundaries of devolution, but because we are dealing with safety and risk to human life, the area under discussion is more important than any other.
I am slightly puzzled as to why the amendment is much more specific than the one tabled by the hon. Lady and her colleagues in relation to the Office of the Rail Regulator, which simply speaks of the need to ensure regional representation. If she were to table that amendment to this clause, I might be minded to encourage the Government to accept it. However, what has been tabled is a specific and highly inappropriate amendment to a provision dealing with the investigatory branch.
My reading of the amendment is that it would require Members of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly to be rail investigators. Enormously talented though those
Column Number: 26
individuals are, I do not imagine that they have the expertise to go around—
Mr. Foster: They are not all wonderful.
David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman must name names. Perhaps he is speaking about his own Members. I have an enormous regard for Ross Finnie, so perhaps that is who he has in mind.
It is simply inappropriate for Members of the Scottish Parliament to be members of the rail accident investigation branch. I cannot believe that that was the amendment's intention. Perhaps it was tabled inadvertently and should have referred to the Office of the Rail Regulator. The hon. Member for Vale of York perhaps hinted at that in her speech. I urge the Government not to accept the amendment.
Of course, it is entirely right for us to be sensitive to the devolved bodies, but let us imagine that there has been a very bad crash in England or Wales. We know that there would be 10 investigators. Would a Member of the Scottish Parliament come down to investigate it? Or would a Member of the Welsh Assembly come here to do the same? Would such people investigate crashes only in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland? The amendment is something of a dog's breakfast, and I hope that it is rejected.

10.30 am

Miss McIntosh: Is the Minister not responding?
Mr. Spellar: I thought that after that eloquent demolition of the amendment, the hon. Lady would want to intervene rapidly to avoid further embarrassment.
I merely reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde. The amendment would probably be contrary to civil service procedures and employment law. I am sure that the hon. Lady will concede that the Opposition have probably made a typographical error and will wish to withdraw her mistake.
Mr. Randall: I hear what the Minister says. Does he have sympathy with the view of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde that the amendment might be acceptable if it were worded differently and referred simply to representation that further involves the regions? When we come to that later, will he support it?
Mr. Spellar: There are two different issues there. We are looking at employed civil servants and whether we should put geographical requirements on the employment of inspectors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde pointed out, a further issue is that the amendment appears to suggest that the inspectors would have to be drawn from the Scottish Parliament. There might then be conflicts of interest relating to office of profit under the Crown. They would have to resign from the Parliament to take up that position.
The amendment is defective. We are talking not about a board, but about actual inspectors. I am sure, therefore, that the hon. Member for Vale of York will wish to withdraw the amendment.
Column Number: 27

Miss McIntosh: I am satisfied that the probing amendment has served its purpose. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde has indicated his early support for the principle contained in the amendment. If ''regional consultation'' were substituted for ''regional representation'', the Minister might be inclined to support the amendment.
In the clause stand part debate, we can elucidate one of the amendment's purposes—to explore how thin the Government's proposals are for the establishment of the branch. We are sensitive to issues raised by various hon. Members on Second Reading. Matters remain to be resolved, and the official Opposition are happy to take them head on to try to resolve them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Foster: The stand part debate provides an opportunity to raise several issues on the establishment of the RAIB that have not been discussed under the amendments. In particular, I seek greater clarification from the Minister on its size. On Second Reading, I referred to the proportion of accidents and incidents investigated by the existing body, Her Majesty's rail inspectorate, and pointed out that it has about double the number of staff assumed to be employed by the RAIB.
[Mr. Michael Clapham in the Chair]

The excellent briefing from the Library on the establishment of the RAIB suggests that about 10 investigators are likely to be appointed. The clause deals with the Secretary of State's power to appoint investigators and make one of them the chief inspector. The Library briefing suggests that on the customary ratio of support staff to professionals, 10 investigators are likely to be supported by eight employees. Annual total costs are estimated at Ł1.4 million, with staff costs of about Ł1 million and the rest taken up by running and other costs.
I welcome you, Mr. Clapham, to the Chair. Will the Minister tell us whether the estimates by the Library are correct? What are the Government's own estimates of the running costs of the RAIB? On Second Reading, I asked about the support services—for example, laboratory space for conducting forensic investigations—that could be made available to the RAIB. Can some laboratories be used for that purpose and, if so, how hefty would the charge be? In his response, I hope that the Minister can clarify what size of establishment the Government envisage, and whether the Library's assessment of staff and running costs is correct.
Miss McIntosh: I, too, welcome you, Mr. Clapham, to the Chair.
We are worried about the omissions of the size and budget of the rail accident investigation branch. I recall serving my apprenticeship on the Committee considering the Bill that set up Ofcom. It was much more specific about what Ofcom would be like. The main concern of the official Opposition is the number
Column Number: 28
of inspectors appointed. In a worst-case scenario, where more than one incident may be ongoing at any particular time, 10 inspectors may be insufficient to carry out all the necessary work. It is another example of where the clause should be more specific about who the inspectors will be.
[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]

The Secretary of State was quite specific on Second Reading that the main justification in the Cullen report for establishing a rail accident investigation branch was ensuring a speedy investigation that reached a swift conclusion. It would be regrettable if, through the failure to appoint sufficient inspectors, that objective were called into question. It would be helpful to know more about the roles of the inspectors and the investigators and how they tie together. The Cullen inquiry was specific about the branch's work. Without the branch being too unwieldy, in a worst-case scenario of more than one investigation going on at a time, the inspectors should be sufficient in number.
Clause 3(4) states that the inspector of rail accidents

''shall carry out such of the functions of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch as may be assigned to him by the Chief Inspector''.

We believe that the Bill should be more specific.

©Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 4 February 2003