|
Dr. Murrison: The key to this is the chief inspector. Everything else falls from him. He sets the tasking for the inspectors and it appears that he is set to be a significant individual in rail safety. It follows that the terms of reference and description of the chief inspector need to be more clearly laid out in the Bill. What manner of individual is he to be: is he to be an executive, a career civil servant, or a safety professional, for example, recruited from the Health and Safety Executive? It would give us a better feel for how the body is to be formulated and how it is to work if we were given a clearer idea of who the chief inspector is to be. That would be an important provision in the Bill.
Mr. Spellar: I point out that Her Majesty's rail inspectorate and Health and Safety Executive staff numbers cover rail safety work other than accident investigation. The hon. Member for the Vale of York made a comparison with Ofcom. Of course, there we are dealing with a separate statutory body as opposed to an accident investigation branch that, like the other branches, is part of the Department for Transport. We therefore have made an estimate as to the numbers likely to be involved and the estimated cost of averaging out likely salary levels.
The chief inspector will be able to call in external assistance. We may come to that issue on subsequent amendments. In terms of flexibility, we would not want a branch that was staffed up to deal with every eventuality. It could be dealt with flexibly by external assistance under the guidance of the chief inspector.
Miss McIntosh: Can the right hon. Gentleman pause for a moment and tell us what the chain of command would be with regard to any external assistance for the purposes of clause 3? We took evidence on Railtrack, which largely contracted out
Column Number: 29
maintenance. With hindsight, it appeared to break down dramatically where there was not deemed to be a sufficient chain of command and control. It would satisfy the Committee a great deal to know what that chain is to be. The Secretary of State said loosely on Second Reading, without going into too much detail, that external systems would be called on.
Mr. Spellar: I think that it is clear from the Bill that the chain of command is to be the chief inspector. That is why one of the inspectors is designated that role. In response to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), a chief inspector is currently being recruited and we hope that an individual will be in post by spring or summer who will bring the necessary capabilities to that role.
A question was raised about the Health and Safety Executive and other bodies being used by the RAIB. It would be able to use them, paying the appropriate commercial rate for inter-departmental transactions. I hope that I have dealt with a number of points that were made.
Mr. Foster: I still seek greater clarification as to the size of the body. The Minister will be aware that HMRI has between 19 and 28 inspectors notionally available in any one week. We are advised that the RAIB will have 10 inspectors, yet HMRI investigates only a very small number of rail incidents. Although we have not yet had a full definition of what an incident is, for the benefit of intelligence gathering, it would be helpful for the body to have more inspectors than HMRI does. We have a body that is half the size of HMRI. It will, I hope, do more than HMRI can.
10.45 am
Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted that point. HMRI covers a wider remit, which is why one cannot draw an exact comparison between HMRI and the RAIB. With that in mind, I hope that hon. Members will feel free to support the clause.
Miss McIntosh: My point is not dissimilar to that of the hon. Member for Bath. The specific scenario that concerns us is that more than one accident or incident may be being investigated at any one time. It is incumbent on the Minister to let the Committee know a ballpark figure for how many inspectors the Government have in mind.
Mr. Spellar: The possible structure would be of a chief inspector, a deputy chief inspector, two principal inspectors, 10 inspectors and nine support staff—23 in aggregate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
General aims
Tom Brake: I beg to move amendment No.7, in
clause 4, page 2, line 25, leave out 'the desirability' and insert 'its objectives'.
The amendment is intended to firm up the Government's objectives for the rail accident investigation branch. The clause says that the RAIB
Column Number: 30
''shall have regard to the desirability of—
(a) improving the safety of railways, and
(b) preventing railway accidents''
That sounds extremely vague, which I am sure is not the Government's intention. No doubt the Minister will explain why it is not vague. Our amendment would ensure that the functions and the objectives of the RAIB were much clearer. That is why we would like to see the above provisions defined as objectives.
That would receive the support of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which has drawn a comparison between the sole objective given to the air accident investigation branch, and the much looser terminology associated with the RAIB. I hope that the Minister will explain why he feels that the vagueness of wording is appropriate. Following on from our discussion on the need to report back on progress and implementation of recommendations, I hope that the Minister might comment on whether the general aims could be expanded to include some of the reporting points mentioned, even if he accepts the objectives but leaves the wording as it stands.
In conclusion, the purpose of our amendment is to firm up the responsibilities and role of the RAIB. I hope that the Minister will be able to support it.
Mr. Randall: I find myself in the strange position of thinking that the Liberal Democrat amendment has a great deal of merit. For them to put a bit of backbone into something is rather remarkable.
''Desirability'' does not mean much. To put it in personal terms, I recognise the desirability of losing weight, but my wife might say that it is not one of my objectives. With that example in mind, keeping desirability in the clause makes it meaningless. We all agree that the objective of the RAIB should be to improve the safety of railways, but it not just a matter of desirability. It must be a firm objective. For that reason, I support the Liberal Democrats on this occasion.
Mr. Spellar: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for explaining what his amendment seeks to address, and I am interested in the new alliance that is forming on the other side of the Room.
At first glance, I had some sympathy with the amendment, but there is a difficulty. As we will see under clause 5, the RAIB will need or wish to be able to offer assistance and operate wherever there is a call for it to do so, much as the AAIB does now; for example, that would be the case on the border with the Republic of Ireland or in the Channel tunnel. Such assistance may not be a matter connected with the safety of railways as defined in the Bill, which extends only to the United Kingdom. Equally, such assistance may not be connected with railways but may be, for example, to assist marine inspectors with their investigation techniques. The proposed amendment could prevent the RAIB from providing such assistance.
Column Number: 31
However, I offer to reflect further on the matter to see whether there is a way to incorporate the valid points that have been made.
Tom Brake: Given that the Minister has indicated that he is somewhat sympathetic and is willing to review the matter, perhaps he would consider a slight change to the wording of the amendment, from ''its objectives'' to ''its main objectives''. That would somewhat widen the scope, if the Minister thinks that that is required.
Mr. Spellar: I will certainly reflect on that suggestion and bring it to the Committee if it can be incorporated.
Mr. Randall: As we are offering suggestions, I wonder whether it would be possible simply to delete ''the desirability of'' so that the RAIB shall have regard to
''(a) improving the safety of railways, and
(b) preventing railway accidents and railway incidents.''
That is just a thought. I am not an expert but I want to be helpful.
Tom Brake: On the basis that the Minister has openly said that he is willing to reconsider the wording of the clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Miss McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in
Amendment No. 30 explores the specific relationship between the RAIB and the proposed railway safety and standards board. The board may be in place before the RAIB, but the thrust and the philosophy behind amendment No. 30 is to explore the Government's thinking on their relationship. The amendment states that the branch
''shall be consulted on the establishment of any statutory body established for the purposes of setting standards for the safety of the railways.''
Presumably, the Minister will confirm that the railway safety and standards board will be similar to the RAIB, as an agency falling under the auspices of the Department. It would be helpful to know the interrelationship between the two. The rail accident investigation branch, whose two main purposes are to improve the safety of railways and prevent railway accidents and incidents, will have a view about not only the desirability of any safety standards, but the practicality of the standards and the chances of their being physically implemented. The inspectors appointed under clause 4 will have that job. We await the Government's response.
We face a great omission in the Bill because, other than two minor references, there is no mention of road safety. As has been said, there will be three separate investigation branches—one each for rail, air and maritime activities—and we believe that it is important
Column Number: 32
for the consideration of accidents, deaths and injuries in all modes of transport to be transparent. We hope not to lose sight of that, bearing in mind the large omission of roads from the Bill.
The amendment is probing, and I hope that the Government will satisfy our curiosity. We want to explore the precise relationship between the rail safety and standards board and the rail accident investigation branch, and clarification would be most helpful.
| 
