Clause 9 - Requirement to investigate
Railways and Transport Safety Bill
9:30 am
Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)
I am sorry that the Minister has finished his speech and is not just giving way, as he has failed to answer any of our questions. I hope that he will have another opportunity to respond later.
I asked why an industry investigation will be carried out under a direction that specifies how the investigation is to be carried out but not what issues will be covered. The hon. Member for Vale of York asked the same question in slightly different language. As the Minister was unable to answer my question, I shall express it differently: it would be most helpful if he could confirm that an industry body investigating an accident would be allowed to look at all the factors that it believes might have had a bearing on that accident or incident. For example, following a collision after a signal passed at danger, would it be permissible for the train operating company to consider issues that are outside its direct responsibility, such as those that relate to signalling or the track in that area?
The second point relates to someone being summoned for failing to follow a direction when he was simply unaware that the direction had been issued. Subsection (6) says:
''in proceedings against a person for an offence . . . of failing to comply with a direction it shall not be necessary to prove that he was aware of the direction.''
That seems totally unfair. There must be a clear requirement to demonstrate that the person was aware that he had received such a direction. If the Minister's answers so far are the best we are going to get from the Government, I remain totally unconvinced about the wording of various aspects of the clause and would be minded to suggest that the Committee vote on it.