|
Miss McIntosh: We have teased out one or two issues on which perhaps the Government themselves were not clear. I reserve the right to return to these matters to seek further clarification and to give a greater steer. I do not want to pun that we have driven a coach and horses through clause 6, but the circumstances in which an accident involving a road-running vehicle or a rail-running vehicle would be investigated are still not entirely clear.
Column Number: 055
Mr. Randall: There is a further point, although I should perhaps not raise it at this time. When we are talking about the police, I shall be interested to know whether the road traffic police or police constables will investigate.
Miss McIntosh: That is the second point. The first point is that it is as clear as mud what constitutes a road-running vehicle and what constitutes a rail-running vehicle. The Minister describes two different types of vehicle, both of which draw electricity from overhead. What differentiates them is that one is on a track and one is on a road. We still have not had satisfaction on that point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge eloquently and succinctly put it, in which circumstances would the police investigate and in which circumstances would the branch investigate? Secondly, which arm of the police would conduct the investigation—the British Transport police or the British police force?
I take issue with the Minister over another issue to which the Committee may wish to return. He draws a distinction, with which I have some sympathy, between the statutory limitations referring to a court case, particularly for criminal proceedings and those for civil proceedings. However I think civil actions also have a statutory limitation relating to clause 6(8). I refer to note 15 on the reopening of the investigation in the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996. The Minister may assure us that the Government want to implement this regulation after the Bill's adoption. It states specifically:
''(1) The Chief Inspector may cause the investigation of any accident or incident to be reopened and shall do so—
(a) if, after the completion of the investigation, evidence has been disclosed which is in his opinion both new and important; or
(b) if for any other reason there is in his opinion ground for suspecting that the reputation of any person has been unfairly and adversely affected.
(2) Any investigation reopened shall be subject to and conducted in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations''.
I welcome the Minister's earlier explanation of why the aviation and maritime Acts left to regulations the implementation of provisions that appear in clause 6 for the rail accident investigation branch. But there is a serious omission in clause 6(8), in that the Bill does not go on to specify either the limited time within which the investigation may be reopened—so it would be time-barred—or the circumstances in which there would be a new investigation. I am sure that the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996 are equally reflected in the maritime regulations.
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Lady asks about the circumstances in which an investigation would be reopened, but the Bill is quite clear on that. It says
''if . . . significant new evidence may be available.''
Miss McIntosh: I hear what the Under-Secretary says, and that is helpful as far as it goes. However, regulation 15 of the 1996 regulations specifically deals with the circumstances in which the chief inspector may reopen an investigation:
''if . . . evidence has been disclosed which is in his opinion both new and important; or . . . if for any other reason there is in his opinion
Column Number: 056
ground for suspecting that the reputation of any person has been unfairly and adversely affected.''
Clause 6 has been drawn very loosely—I use that word advisedly. We may seek to revisit it at a later stage, but we have used this opportunity to have a very good explanatory and probing debate. A number of questions remain to be answered. It is welcome that the clause goes further than equivalent provisions in maritime and aviation legislation, but it does not go far enough.
I have referred to the Secretary of State's comments. He said that the Bill
''gives a fair amount of latitude to the chief inspector as to what he investigates.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 771.]
I would go further. The Bill does not just give a fair amount of latitude. Clause 6 is too wide, too loosely drafted and deserves to be revisited.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Investigator's powers
Miss McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 17, in
No. 10, in
clause 7, page 4, line 35, leave out subsection (5) and (6).
No. 4, in
clause 7, page 4, line 43, at end insert—
'(7) A formal protocol of understanding and working practices will be made between the Rail Accident Investigation Branch and each of—
(a) the Health and Safety Executive and the H M Railway Inspectorate;
(b) the British Transport Police
under directions and guidance provided by the Secretary of State.'.
Miss McIntosh: I shall be fairly brief because clause 7 is worthy of a stand part debate for reasons similar to those that applied to clause 6. This is the meat of the Bill, the most controversial issue that we have reached so far and the most controversial in part 1.
Amendment No. 18 would define more narrowly the ''dwelling-house'' referred to in clause 7. We would prefer a reference to a dwelling-house within 500 yd of the railway property. The Secretary of State said on Second Reading:
''I agree that the granting of permission to enter people's property should be used sparingly.''
He went on to say that the Committee would be afforded an opportunity to ensure that the Bill
Column Number: 057
''is sufficiently tightly drawn to avoid unnecessary intrusion but still allows the investigation branch to carry out its work properly. In the past, investigators have sometimes found that their progress and ability to find things out quickly have been stymied because they could not get access . . . it is important that investigators should be able to get access as quickly as possible.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 771.]
The Secretary of State rightly points out that it is for the Committee to put those provisions in place.
As I have said, the clause is drafted too loosely. Under subsection (1)(b) an investigator may
''enter land (which may include a dwelling-house) which adjoins or abuts railway property''.
I feel that the Government should be more specific. I am glad to see that the Minister for Transport will respond to the debate, and I look forward to hearing his comments. Amendment No. 18 is tabled in a co-operative spirit.
3.45 pm
The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): The hon. Lady talked about properties being within 500 yd, but her amendment would apply to land that was within 500 yd of railway property. We are talking about going across land, which may be necessary to move heavy lifting equipment and so on to get access to the railway. Her amendment would preclude that. This is not about the invasion of houses, but the crossing of property, which may include houses.
Miss McIntosh: The Minister has pointed out the finer details, which may need further probing and refinement. He will know that the Railways Act 1993 defines ''premises'' as
''any land, building or structure''.
We will have a further opportunity to discuss that in the clause stand part debate. I am concerned that the right to enter a dwelling house—a private property as opposed to land—involves an invasion of privacy. The Secretary of State expressed concern on Second Reading.
Dr. Andrew Murrison (Westbury): Does my hon. Friend agree that the term dwelling house is confusing? It may have a specific legal meaning. The word house is difficult because many people do not live in a house, but some other form of dwelling. Some of my constituents live in houseboats and boats. Would she like to press the Minister on whether we need to expand on the term ''dwelling house'' to make it more inclusive?
Miss McIntosh: My hon. Friend raises a pertinent point; I hope that we will be able to pursue it. The Minister will be aware of concern relating to the rather sweeping statement on the front page of the Bill:
''Mr. Secretary Darling has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998: In my view the provisions of the Railways and Transport Safety Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.''
Obviously certain provisions of the convention relate to the right of an individual to guard property and to privacy. We can return to that at a later stage.
I do not argue that 500 yd is necessarily the appropriate distance, but the amendment is meant to probe. The force of the impact in the Potters Bar crash carried carriages some considerable distance down the
Column Number: 058
track. I think of small commuter stations that line the route of the railway in my constituency, quite apart from private land. A considerable number of dwelling houses would be affected should there, God forbid, be a disaster. I hoped that the Minister might see fit to provide the further clarification and definition requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison). Will he clarify the distance from the accident and the damage caused by the railway carriages to adjoining properties?
Amendment No. 17 singles out a glaring omission. As I said, there are others that it will be more appropriate to discuss in the stand part debate. The clause states:
''For the purpose of conducting an investigation by virtue of section 6 an inspector of rail accidents may''
and goes on to list those powers. We believe that it would be more in keeping to list powers given to inspectors and investigators under the two existing boards—the aviation accident investigation branch and the marine accident investigation branch. They are more specific about the powers given to the inspectors and how they inspect them. I hope that the Minister accepts that a warrant, or a summons written by his own hand—an expression used elsewhere—would be more appropriate. That power is again rather sweeping, but at least there would be a document to which one could object.
There is no defining document in the Bill, and no procedure that the inspector would have to follow. An alternative view, such as that of the occupant of a dwelling house or the owner of land, could be expressed in a decision reached by a magistrates court. We believe that it would be appropriate for the investigator to enter a property or cross land only when accompanied by a member of the British Transport police. These are provisos that would help the Government to keep within the provisions of the European convention on human rights. I hope that the Minister will agree that without amendment No. 17, the powers will be perceived to be sweeping in comparison with the powers of the other two bodies. I await the Minister's reply with baited breath.
| 
