Oral Answers to Questions — Transport – in the House of Commons at 11:30 am on 8 March 2005.
When he last discussed corporate responsibility with the chairman of the Office of Rail Regulation.
I have regular meetings with the chairman of the Office of Rail Regulation. We have discussed corporate responsibility, and if the right hon. Gentleman would care to let me know which aspect he has in mind, I would be happy to help him further.
As I understand it, the Government want to increase corporate responsibility and the liability of company directors, who may in future be additionally liable for corporate manslaughter charges if their companies cause accidents or injury. My question is this: are Ministers and the Government also to be made liable for their acts or omissions which may cause accidents on the railways, or are the Government planning one set of rules for the private sector while protecting themselves against similar liabilities?
I hope that the Government will present their proposals on corporate manslaughter in the not-too-distant future. In relation to the Office of Rail Regulation, the right hon. Gentleman may be aware that I have had discussions with the chairman of the board. I want to ensure that the rail regulator and his board can carry out their functions without fear of litigation so that they can ensure that we have a safe and reliable railway, but at the same time I accept that, where appropriate, someone who is responsible for certain activities should face up to that. In the meantime, we have made it clear that the Government will indemnify the rail regulator and the board, and a minute to that effect has been laid before the House.
On corporate responsibility, we should bear in mind that a majority of Network Rail members recently voted to improve its accountability by establishing a members' council to scrutinise this business, whose operations remain largely shrouded in secrecy and which may well be spending considerable sums of taxpayers' money inefficiently. Will the Secretary of State back that call; and if not, is it because he is afraid of what it might reveal?
Not really, no. I am aware of the move by several members of Network Rail to establish greater scrutiny. I welcome and support that, because the more questions that can be asked of the company, the better its management will be. Nevertheless, since it took over from Railtrack—the Conservatives are probably the only group of people left in this country who support that company—it has become much more efficient and accountable, and is running its responsibilities far better than Railtrack ever did. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asks where is the evidence for that. Let me give him one example. When Railtrack was around, it told us that it could do up the west coast main line for £2.5 billion—that was the back-of-the-envelope calculation that it came up with. By the time that it finally stopped trading, the cost had risen to £13.5 billion for the same amount of work. Now, the final cost is likely to be about half that—about £7 billion—as a result of the increased efficiencies and improvements brought about by Network Rail. So yes, I back what is happening in Network Rail because it is a much better way of running the railway than Railtrack ever was.
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot have two bites at the cherry. He stood earlier and I called him, so his question is now unstarred. That is the rule of the House.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Order. Mr. Wareing was not called because he was called during a previous question. That is the rule of the House.