Clause 9 - Requirement to investigate
Railways and Transport Safety Bill
9:30 am
Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)
My questions are not dissimilar from those on the issues explored in the debate on clause 8.
Subsection (1) provides the chief inspector of rail accidents with the power to direct that an industry investigation be carried out by the relevant party. Subsection (3) creates a new offence and makes it an
offence for that party to ignore that direction. I shall dwell for a moment on subsection (1) and let the words speak for themselves:
''The Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents may direct that any railway accident or railway incident of a specified kind or which occurs in specified circumstances shall be investigated by each person who manages or controls, or participates in managing or controlling, all or any part of railway property—
(a) on which the accident or incident takes place; or
(b) which is involved in the accident or incident.''
Curiously, the explanatory notes, which are so helpful on other clauses, say nothing about clause 9. I question its drafting, as there appears to be another typographical error. There has already been at least one, and there are one or two more on today's amendment paper. The Department must be much more careless than it was when the Conservatives were in government, but the Minister is responsible and I am sure that he will give us good reasons for the errors.
Will the Minister say what is a railway accident or railway incident ''of a specified kind'', and what are ''specified circumstances''? On Second Reading and in Committee, we have explored at length what constitutes an accident or an incident, although I hesitate to suggest that the Opposition parties have been more helpful in defining an accident or incident than the Government or the Bill have been.
It is unacceptable that a new offence is created under the clause. Under subsection (4),
''a person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (3) shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or,
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.''
Subsection (3) says:
''A person to whom a direction under subsection (1) applies commits an offence if he fails to comply with it.''
It is incumbent on the Committee to be able to explain to people what the specified circumstances are and what the specified railway accidents and railway incidents would be.
Again, subsection (2) is far reaching. It states:
''A direction—
(a) shall specify the manner in which the investigation is to be conducted; and
(b) may make provision for a case where more than one person would be required to conduct an investigation, whether by requiring a joint investigation or by requiring or enabling one or more persons to conduct an investigation on behalf of others.''
That is a very sweeping direction, and the Bill should be more specific.
Subsection (5) states:
''The Chief Inspector shall publish a direction issued by him under subsection (1) in a manner which he considers will bring it to the attention of each person who is likely to be required to comply with it.''
How does the Committee know that the manner in which the investigation is to be conducted will be sufficiently public and well directed? How do we know that the person to whom the direction has been issued will know that it is directed against him or that he will pay any attention to it? What is the purpose of the clause? It would seem to have a very serious purpose as it creates a new offence that carries a not insubstantial penalty. The chief inspector is given a specific power,
but we are no further forward in knowing what his function is under clause 8. We do not know how the person to whom the direction is issued will be informed of it, or whether he will have committed an offence.
On reflection, the Minister may feel that the clause is not as well drafted as it might be, and I would sympathise with him in that respect. However, if he honestly believes that the clause is well drafted, I have some substantive questions. In two or three years' time, hon. Members might be approached by a constituent who has been issued with a direction and not even known that he or she had committed an offence. The clause's drafting is questionable; if the Government want to create a new offence they should be much more specific in stating that the offence will be brought directly to the attention of the person concerned, and in specifying the manner in which the chief inspector will do that.