Contribution
I would be very happy to write, but what I can say as a top line is that the £17 million that will go towards CCTV cameras and connectivity is separate from the £63 million. Among the top lines is increasing the number of staff, including having around 36 staff members who are focused on violence against women and girls in particular; we can send out any further details that we have at present if that would help.
Additionally, the recently published strategy on rolling stock and infrastructure makes it clear that this Government’s wider ambition to tackle violence against women and girls includes working closely with British Transport Police, passengers, their representatives and other partners to identify opportunities for train design technology and operational practices to reduce risk, improve confidence and support rapid response when incidents occur. For example, as laid out in the strategy, Northern Trains is currently trialling onboard video systems that are designed to enhance operational visibility, increase timely interventions and create a reassuring environment for passengers.
I hope that it is clear, therefore, that passenger safety is already prioritised and is supported by a substantial programme of continuous improvement across government and industry. There is also a process already in place for regular reviews of safety by the ORR, with action taken to implement the proposed changes each year. I hope that this reassurance will allow the noble Baronesses not to press their amendments; the Government would be very happy to continue working with them on this important issue outside of the Bill.
I turn to Amendments 131, 132 and 144. Nothing in this Railways Bill will change the current safety regime. This is exactly why Clause 19 replicates the existing safety duties under Section 4 of the Railways Act 1993, which applies to the ORR, the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Additionally, the ORR’s general duties, including the duty to promote competition, are already specifically disapplied from the ORR’s safety function in order to ensure that the existing comprehensive legal framework around safety is not compromised by anything in the Bill.
However, the duty to promote competition is distinct from Section 67(3) of the Railways Act 1993, which enshrines the ORR’s role as the competition regulator for the railways; it carries that out alongside the Competition and Markets Authority. To ensure that regulation is effective and enforced consistently, the Competition and Markets Authority and the ORR must be working under the same rules. This is why the ORR’s existing duties under Section 4 of the Railways Act 1993, including its safety duties, do not apply when the ORR is exercising competition functions under the Competition Act 1998. This is right because, when the ORR and the Competition and Markets Authority are acting as competition regulators, they must apply competition law rules to all operators fairly and must assess compliance objectively. Enforcement should be based on whether operators are compliant with the rules, not on other priorities that may lead to further unfair outcomes.
That said, I do not dispute that safety is of paramount importance in all cases. That is why the ORR explicitly states in its competition guidance that, should anti-competitive conduct be objectively necessary for health and safety reasons, that would be considered as part of its overall decision. Noble Lords have mentioned having the right balance, and that is something that we should all bear in mind.
I turn to GBR. We have deliberately not applied the general safety duty to GBR as it will already be subject to extensive legal requirements under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006. These obligations include duties to manage safety risks, maintain appropriate safety management systems and comply with regulatory oversight, including the separate duties of GBR, which would only duplicate existing requirements, creating potential unnecessary overlap and confusion.
I must rush on now to Amendment 133, which has stirred noble Lords this evening. First, I recognise the support of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for a heritage rail safety and standards board and the benefits that it could bring to the sector. That is a view that we in government share, and any organisation that furthers safety in the sector is welcome, but it must be integrated in the existing safety structures, processes and forums that ensure that British railways remain among the safest in the world. The ORR already has a strong relationship with the heritage sector and will continue to engage with it effectively. I am also happy to meet the Heritage Railway Association to discuss this further as I appreciate that this is an important issue for the sector, but legislation is not needed to guarantee the development of a heritage rail safety and standards board or for discussions around its benefits to take place. It should be noted that the Rail Safety and Standards Board is not a statutory body established in legislation. I hope the noble Lord agrees with me that the heritage rail safety and standards board similarly does not need to be established in legislation. As I mentioned, I am more than happy to meet him and others who are interested in this area so that we can look into this matter in further detail.