Clause 102 - Railways safety levy

Part of Railways and Transport Safety Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 4:00 pm on 6 March 2003.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Don Foster Don Foster Shadow Secretary of State for Transport 4:00, 6 March 2003

The hon. Gentleman is right. I have made a slight departure from the hon. Lady's style. Nevertheless, the advice that I have received has been extremely helpful. It is worth bearing in mind that the

charges that are currently made by the HSE, which will be revised under the levy that is proposed in the clause and which I want to amend, are on an actual basis the recovery of full costs and the time spent by the HSE for conducting a relevant activity for a duty holder on a particular occasion.

The Committee will be fascinated to know that, from 20 October 2001, the charge out rate has been £130 per inspector hour. There exists, however, widespread consensus in the industry that the present system is unsatisfactory. Among the views of the membership of various trade unions about its introduction, it was said that there is less likelihood of the railway group company contacting the inspectorate and seeking advice and constructive discussions at £130 an hour. At meetings with the HMRI, people are always conscious of the meter running. Form filling and bureaucracy distract HMRI inspectors. The HSE charging officers failed to issue a 100 per cent. accurate invoice and that has necessitated queries and is time-consuming.

It is pointed out that the SRA effectively pays the charge anyway, as the train operating companies factor in the hourly rate in their franchise negotiations with it. The charging system has necessitated the introduction of a monitoring and tracking system for invoices, which is an extra cost and distraction. It is interesting to note that in 2001–02 the Health and Safety Executive costs for enforcement of railway safety legislation were £6,240,000. Yet it received only £5,251,000 in income, which leaves, the Committee will have worked out, a deficit of £411,000.

With all those concerns to consider, the Government, after consultation through the Health and Safety Executive—the review not being made public—decided to present the current proposal. We understand that regulations to require the payment of a levy need primary legislation, because levies cannot be imposed under regulations made under section 43(2) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which provides vires for the existing charging regime. We now have a proposal for a levy system.

Many people—increasingly, I feel like one of them—wonder why we need any complex system, and why the Government could not simply pay directly for the costs incurred by the Health and Safety Executive in the relevant work. After all, even the proposed levy system will be paid for from the taxpayers' pocket. The train operating companies who will pay the levy will in the end raise their charges; either the travelling public will pay or the money will come through the SRA contribution to the train operating companies, which, again, comes from the taxpayers' purse. There are questions to be answered about whether even a levy is a sensible approach.

However, because I am a magnanimous man and because I knew that the Committee would listen to erudite arguments from the Minister explaining why a levy is better than a direct grant, I decided to table a small amendment to improve the Government's proposals. As the Committee will know, the

amendment would insert into the clause the following provision:

''The Executive''—

that is the Health and Safety Executive, for anyone who is still with us—

''is required to consult with all relevant parties with regard to the proposed budget for activity referred to in subsection (2).''

In case anyone is lost, subsection (2) of course refers to

''activity undertaken by the Executive in reliance on section 117 of the Railways Act 1993 . . . or . . . activity undertaken by the Executive, under or by virtue of any other enactment, in relation to a transport system to which that section applies.''

The amendment—this is going on for some time and the Under-Secretary is beginning to look worried—would mean that the budget for the work done by the Health and Safety Executive, which will form the basis for calculating the levy, would have to be discussed with all those affected by the levy. It strikes me that those who pay for the work should have the opportunity to scrutinise the executive's budget.