Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

The purposes of amendment No. 21 are broadly similar to those of the previous amendment . It is designed to specify more tightly the definition of property, which should include reference to ''adjacent to railway property''. The items of a rail disaster would not spread out over as wide an area as the horrifying fall-out of the US shuttle—rail accidents tend to be more localised—but it would be helpful to specify that properties adjacent to railway buildings are included, which would lend further weight to the investigator's powers of investigation.

Amendment No. 1 arose from a far-ranging and excellent debate on Second Reading, in which the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) spoke powerfully about the lack of definition in the Bill of what counts as an accident or an incident.

In his introduction to the Second Reading debate, the Secretary of State mentioned that a degree of latitude would be given to the rail accident investigation branch in deciding which types of accident should be investigated. Members of the Committee will have had the opportunity to study the detailed briefing provided by the Royal National Institute of the Blind on the sort of accident that may not lead to a fatality or serious injury, but may still be significantly harmful to individuals. For example, someone with an eye infection or, like the Under-Secretary, with a streaming cold may be deprived of normal vision. He may be only temporarily impaired, but could easily trip over a step on accessing a platform. It would significantly reassure such a person if the Government allowed such incidents to be deemed worthy of investigation.

I shall leave the hon. Member for Bath to speak to his amendment, but amendment No. 22 is designed to press the argument that non-serious accidents and

incidents should be deemed to have occurred and be viewed as potentially significant in certain circumstances. Following the scenario through, someone tripping on the platform could roll on to the track and cause a serious accident. The amendment is designed to elicit the Minister's clarification of how far-reaching the RAIB's discretion will be.

The Secretary of State said on Second Reading:

''The whole point in having a rail accident investigation branch is precisely in order to get an explanation of what happened as quickly as possible.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 766.]

He went on to say that that was the purpose of setting up the body. We should enable the RAIB through clause 2(1) to decide precisely what type of accident should be investigated.

We believe that a serious accident should be deemed to have occurred where

''the operation of a train or collision with railway property has caused a fatality or serious injury involving an individual, whether employee, passenger or third party''.

The Potters Bar crash was the first occasion on which I saw vividly the consequences of a railway carriage collision, but only last week disaster was narrowly averted on the Central line when a railway carriage collided with a tunnel on entering a station. The Secretary of State alluded to the fact that the RAIB would have been authorised to investigate those two accidents, but it would be far better if the Bill included such a definition.

Our amendment goes on to specify

''a train or railway property sustains serious damage or structural failure which adversely affects the operations or the structural strength of the trains or railway property which would require a major repair or replacement of the train or closure of the railway property.''

We believe that that is a fairly concise definition, but it would help the RAIB and the investigators if the Government said what a serious or non-serious accident or railway incident should be.

Again, in response to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, the Secretary of State said that there would be

''sufficient latitude under clause 6 to allow the chief inspector to take a decision as to whether or not he ought to investigate.'' .''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 772.]

I humbly submit that it is not sufficient to leave that to clause 6. We need a clear and concise definition. With the Potters Bar and Central line accidents in mind, we propose amendments Nos. 21 and 22 as probing amendments that would strengthen the Bill. Indeed, the Minister's hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, pleaded with him to include a concise definition.

See this speech in context