Contribution
My Lords, I am very glad that the Public Office (Accountability) Bill has enabled the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to rejoin us in Committee. Sadly, it continues to detain the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, with whom I have brought Amendment 133, which is a probing amendment relating to the heritage rail safety and standards board that we would like to see come about.
Sadly, improvements to the operational safety of railways have often been forged in the wake of tragedy. The story of Britain’s railways is one not just of engineering prowess but of constant learning, adapting and improving not only in terms of speed and service but of safety too.
Since the days of William Huskisson, the Tory MP and statesman who was sadly struck down and fatally injured by Stephenson’s “Rocket” at the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1830, we have known how accidents have focused minds and driven improvement. It was the Armagh rail disaster of 1899, in which 80 people lost their lives—many of them, very sadly, Sunday school children on an excursion—which prompted Parliament to pass the Regulation of Railways Act just two months later. The devastating rush hour crash at Harrow and Wealdstone in 1952, which involved the death of 112 people, accelerated the adoption of the automated warning system across our railways. The Ladbroke Grove crash in 1999, in which 31 were killed and more than 400 injured, and Lord Cullen’s inquiry into, it led to the creation of the Rail Safety and Standards Board and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch. The Croydon tram derailment of 2016, which involved seven fatalities and more than 60 injuries, led to the creation of the Light Rail Safety and Standards Board. Both that and the Rail Safety and Standards Board are publicly funded and have driven many improvements to our railways across the country.
Mercifully, the heritage rail sector has not had a comparable significant incident, thanks in large part to the diligence and high standards of those who work and volunteer in it. But they are operating old technology, built and designed for a different age, with a skills and knowledge base which is always changing and needs to be passed on to new generations, so they are acutely aware of the dangers involved in all forms of rail travel.
In the wake of the Croydon tram derailment and the RAIB report, the then Chief Inspector of Railways, Ian Prosser, recommended the establishment of a safety and standards board dedicated to heritage rail. In the absence of public funding, as we have for the rail and the light rail safety and standards boards, the Heritage Railway Association, of which I am the chairman and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, is the president, has on its own initiative established a volunteer-run safety and standards board. This has led to the publication of one very detailed standard for the sector, with two more nearing completion, but it is a painstakingly slow process and not really what I think the chief inspector had in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, kindly gave us some time ahead of this Committee and I am most grateful to him for it. He and the Minister may argue this is not an issue for this Bill; neither the rail nor the light rail safety and standards board needed to wait for legislation to come into existence. Our Amendment 133 perhaps puts the tender before the engine in an effort to find a way to raise this issue in Committee. But I hope they will understand why, 10 years on from the Croydon derailment, we want to ensure that the very highest standards can be maintained, and to reassure all those who enjoy visiting and travelling on heritage railways and tramways that they can continue to do so safely and securely. I would be very grateful if we could continue the discussions on how we can see the establishment of a heritage rail safety and standards board in line with those which have been established for other parts of our rail sector.