1. Mr.GunnelTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes in operational practice on matters affecting railway safety have taken place since 1 April as a result of the Railways Act 1993.
§ The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman)Railtrack has operational responsibility for a new safety regime which will ensure that the already high standard of safety on the railways is maintained and improved.
§ Mr. GunnellHave not there already been changes? Before privatisation, drivers went to a training school and the central fund that provided that training has now been abolished. Before privatisation, when an incident occurred, the focus of the investigation was on finding the cause of the accident and learning from it. Trade union observers were present. Now the focus of the inquiry will be on how to apportion blame and costs among the different companies involved—Railtrack, the station owners and the operating companies. Is not it inevitable that increased bureaucracy will lead to less safety?
§ Mr. FreemanAbsolutely not. The safety of the railways, which has been the pre-eminent concern of the British Railways Board in recent years, will continue. A privatised railway will be as safe as, if not safer than, a publicly owned railway. As for the investigation of accidents, there will be no change. Her Majesty's inspectorate will continue to focus on the cause of each accident, not initially on seeking to apportion blame.
§ Mr. FormanIs my right hon. Friend aware that my rail-travelling constituents will expect nothing less than that the interests of safety will be paramount in the new arrangements of British Rail? Can he assure me and my constituents that sufficient provision will be made for infrastructure investment in British Rail once Railtrack is really operational? It is important that we deal with the problems of signal failure and the like in a manner that enables people to travel to and from work reliably.
§ Mr. FreemanAs a result of the reforms, Railtrack's investment budget, which will be higher this year than for comparable types of investment last year by British Rail, will be protected by its own depreciation flow. Therefore, it will generate sufficient funds to maintain a high level of investment in the infrastructure. We expect that to be £500 million in the existing railway this year, £600 million next year and £750 million the year after.
§ Mr. WilsonDoes the Minister accept that Opposition Members welcome hearing his Back Benchers already begging for mercy from the implications of rail privatisation, which, of course, played a significant part in the humilation of the Tory party last Thursday? Does he accept that the biggest threat to rail safety is the wanton breaking up of experienced teams of railway personnel? How does he defend the fact that £303 million of taxpayers' money—almost half the amount needed for the refurbishment of the entire west coast main line—has been spent not on railways but on redundancy and early retirement payments to more than 13,000 railway workers? Instead of breaking up, contractorising and fragmenting the railways, will the Minister put that kind of money into 3 investment in the railways, which is threatened and undermined by the procedure that he is going through at the moment?
§ Mr. FreemanThe hon. Gentleman has never understood the difference between the wisdom of investing in infrastructure and improving the productivity of the railways. The reduction of 13,000 in the staff of British Railways, with no effect at all on the operational efficiency of the railways, is a good investment.