| Railways and Transport Safety Bill
|
|
Dr. Murrison: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the nature of the work that the RAIB is conducting, and whether it is paid, would be reasonable things to include in the annual report, about which the Minister was so positive earlier? Mr. Foster: I absolutely agree, but I suspect that that would give us the opportunity to be critical after the event and would not necessarily mean that procedures were in place to ensure that the important work that the RAIB is to carry out is not deflected in directions that might not help to achieve its general aims. Tom Brake: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that it is important that the RAIB has the priorities for its work load set out very clearly. It should not be allowed to move away from its core business to take up paid work. Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and, of course, all that would have been helped had there been greater clarity about the body's aims and objectives in the debate on the previous clause. This is an opportunity for the Minister to ensure that there is greater clarity about such aspects of the work of the RAIB. Notwithstanding the fact that he, like me, does not like giving additional powers to the Secretary of State or making additional regulations, I hope that on Column Number: 36 this occasion he will move in the direction of the proposals.Miss McIntosh: Although I have listened to the hon. Member for Bath and read his amendments with great interest, I am not convinced that they add much value. Amendment No. 8 states that the Secretary of State will have the opportunity to
In recent history, a previous Secretary of State gave very specific directions that were contrary to how a rail regulator wished to behave. It is not opportune to give the Secretary of State powers of direction in any circumstances, and I would be loath to acquiesce in that. I am not persuaded that written consent from the Secretary of State is required. Mr. Randall: Those who prophesied that my alliance with the Liberal Democrats would be fragile were correct; I am afraid that it is now at an end. The amendment is completely unnecessary. I feel rather sorry for the Secretary of State, who has quite a lot on his plate. The transport system is not exactly excelling itself. To burden the poor chap with writing notes to give permission for such things seems a little over the top. Perhaps it shows that the Liberal Democrats are a little more cynical than I would have thought about the way in which they regard public servants. I hope that the Government will take a similar view and, if the Liberal Democrats insist on pressing their amendment, perhaps I could urge Labour Members to join my colleagues and me in rejecting it.
11.15 amMr. Spellar: The hon. Member for Bath thought that I might be surprised that the Liberal Democrats were trying to sit on both sides of the fence. I was slightly concerned at the over-centralisation suggested, but was waiting to hear that local decisions must be made by local people. In the end, we did not hear that cliché. I want to put the situation in context. The RAIB is to follow the well-established precedent of the aviation and maritime accident boards. The rail accident investigation branch will be independent of Government direction. We expect that the chief inspector will have significant management experience and knowledge that can be drawn upon to determine when it would be appropriate to offer assistance to third parties, but his prime regard will be rail safety in the United Kingdom. He will be best placed to determine on case by case whether his organisation has resources available to assist with another investigation or matter. The Secretary of State is not consulted on the day-to-day operation of the aviation and maritime accident boards, and we see no reason why the RAIB should be treated differently. At the moment, the aviation accident investigation branch is assisting the Turkish authorities in their investigation of a crash in Turkey in which some 75 people died. We have the experience to assist wider transport communities, and we can also learn from other countries. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn. Column Number: 37 Mr. Foster: It will be. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Miss McIntosh: I think that I am getting into the swing of things and knowing when it is a good time to catch your eye, Mr. Hood. I want to draw the Minister's attention to an omission to which I alluded earlier. The annual reports of most organisations that fall within the remit of the Department for Transport include two or three pages that refer to the Government and the Department entering into public service agreements whereby specific targets must be met, particularly when there is an opportunity of the branch providing assistance to other bodies. In principle, I have no objection—I am sure that my hon. Friends do not object—to the laudable aim of the chief inspector arranging for the branch to offer assistance in the United Kingdom, the European Union or elsewhere, with or without charge. The omission that concerns us greatly is not that laudable aim, which we support wholeheartedly, but the omission of a public service agreement. Is that a typographical error? Has the matter not crossed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's desk? The poor man has enough problems to be going on with, but it would lighten the Government's burden and the deficit they face if a public service agreement were envisaged. I am sure that the Minister will seek the opportunity to confirm that that is not a typographical error but an omission and that he will put our minds at rest about why the Government have not been minded to enter into a public service agreement. Under clause 31, we will consider the establishment of a public service agreement in connection with the police. That is a rather elaborate, lengthy clause dealing with the police services agreements that will come in in the fullness of time—I have resisted using an acronym and shall do so for the lifetime of this and any other Committee on which I serve under your astute chairmanship, Mr. Hood. I have some difficulty in understanding why the Government have gone to such lengths to draft a very full clause 31 on police services agreements. Neither we nor the Liberal Democrats have a problem with a charge being made, but if the Government have gone down the path of public service agreements later in the Bill—in clause 31—I find the omission here breathtaking. Why do the Government wish to proceed with the provision of assistance to others without the discipline of a public service agreement? I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his canniness—coming from my side of border—would have liked the strictures and the discipline of a PSA here. Column Number: 38 So far as we are concerned, the jury is still out on public service agreements, although we have the expert on PSAs among us, on this side of the House. If the Government are going to try to seduce us into supporting clause 31 on police service agreements later, they could equally seductively have had a public service agreement for the important matter here: allowing the rail accident and investigation branch to provide assistance against a charge. Mr. Foster: I have much sympathy with the hon. Lady's remarks. The use of a public service agreement would be another way of ensuring that we could be confident that additional work carried out by the RAIB was ultimately to the benefit of its overall objectives as set out in clause 4. Given that she spoke so passionately about using that route, I must place on record slight disappointment that she and her colleagues totally condemned the alternative method. It seems to me that she has merely come up with a different means of achieving what I was seeking through my earlier two amendments. Nevertheless, we are as one on the underlying aim. The hon. Member for Uxbridge is wrong; the alliance is still alive and kicking, and long may it last. Question put and agreed to. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| Prepared 4 February 2003 | |
