National Transport Safety (Hansard, 2 December 1997)

§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create a National Transport Safety Authority. The Bill is designed to create an authority to promote safety in all modes of transport, including aviation, rail, road and maritime; to investigate accidents and all safety-related occurrences; to report to Parliament annually; and to receive information on all related matters.
The reality of modern transport is that, overall, it is becoming safer, but every time there is a major accident of any kind in any form of public transport it attracts considerable attention and worries the travelling public, who want to feel completely confident in the method of travel that they have chosen. It is not only those of us who are especially interested in transport who feel like that.
After the Clapham and Cannon Street rail crashes caused fears about the age of rolling stock—which is a real concern to anyone watching what privatised companies are bringing back on to the rails—the whole question of safety was raised in the reports on both crashes. After Zeebrugge, the deficiencies in the design of roll-on roll-off ferries were very worrying. The marine engineers who gave evidence to the Transport Select Committee suggested that there was a good case for reconsidering the granting of safety licences to new types of ferry.
The Civil Aviation Authority was reluctant to introduce a system of inspection for foreign-registered aircraft when that subject was raised by Members. Concern is increasing about safety on London underground, especially as it is becoming so congested. The channel tunnel is governed not by normal safety procedures, but by a treaty, so the House does not receive reports that provide the level of detail that many of us feel we ought to receive. It must be clear from those examples that the public have real worries about the provision of safe transport.
It is also clear that there are many instances, even in the properly regulated safety authorities, of people acting as judge and jury in their own cases. Railtrack gave evidence to the Transport Committee last week, explaining that the part of Railtrack that was responsible for safety was independent. We were told that a Chinese wall existed between the two parts of the authority. I am of a suitable age to have grave reservations about organisations with Chinese walls between one part and another.
The time has now come for us to set up a national, independent—I emphasise independent—transport authority that would cover the whole range of transport facilities in this country. It already exists in embryo in certain organisations, such as the Civil Aviation Authority and the maritime authorities. A number of agencies could be combined into one large, independent unit that would investigate and report on problems; make the reports public, if necessary; and take advice and transmit it from some parts of the transport industry to others. The unit's role would be clear to the public.
The idea is not revolutionary, because it has already been done successfully in the United States of America, Canada, Sweden and elsewhere. We could benefit from 189 several aspects of those examples. The Canadian system, for example, provides the opportunity for people working in the transport industry to report, in confidence, any worrying aspect that they have discovered during their working lives. That opportunity is not restricted to workers in the industry.
Confidentiality is respected and it is possible to report to the safety authority any incidence of equipment not being properly used or some aspect of safety legislation that is not being operated correctly. Of course, personal grudges are carefully ruled out, but it is made clear that people reporting to the authority will have their cases taken seriously and that their names and involvement will not be disclosed without their agreement. If there are sufficient cases of misuse, or clear evidence in one case, that will be investigated. That does not happen in this country.
It is essential to have a national transport authority that seeks to improve safety at every level. It should not, as many of the agencies currently do, be only reactive: it should consciously offer support and help to all aspects of the transport industry. All areas of transport could benefit from the reports made by the safety authority. If other countries can do that successfully, we should follow their lead.
Such a move would also restore the public's confidence, given the true independence of the authority. How often do Members find themselves arguing with Ministers about inquiries into rail crashes, air crashes or ferry disasters? Individual Members often have to demand the publication of reports. If a national transport authority made an annual report to the House of Commons, the evidence would be available and the House could demand, in specific instances, that it be made public for the benefit of everyone with a specific involvement.
190 The time has come to demonstrate that although we appreciate and respect those working on safety in the various transport industries, a wholly independent agency would have more muscle, better support and an obvious transparency which is lacking at present. Because this is a Bill presented under the ten-minute rule, I would not dream of suggesting any monetary support for such an authority, but there are several ways in which we could set up such a unit and give it sufficient muscle to carry out its work.
I have great faith in the transport industry, those working in it and, above all, those who seek to regulate it, but that is no longer enough. The changes that have happened—including the privatisations, the pressures on ferry operators and the intense pressure on the national air traffic services—mean that we should have a national authority that stands outwith any of the existing structures. A national authority could ensure that it reported consistently and continually to Parliament, and could be seen to be doing its job. I believe that such an authority would be warmly supported by the general public.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
Second Reading what day?

§ Mrs. Dunwoody
On 12 December, my birthday.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Mr. Gwyn Prosser, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Kate Hoey, Mr. John Heppell and Mr. Nick Ainger.