PARLIAMENTARY COLUMN

9 As part of the campaign to maintain sub-surface fire-safety regulations, MPs forced a special parliamentary debate on January 25. The debate was secured by Celia Barlow, Labour MP for Hove, who argued “sub-surface stations are a special case and require an assured minimum standard of protection, which cannot be afforded by risk assessment and guidance alone”. Celia reminded MPs of the greater need for the regulations following the appalling terrorist attacks on London “The views of rail workers and those in the emergency services, who performed so honourably, professionally and bravely, need to be taken very seriously indeed,” she said. Celia urged the minister responsible Jim Fiztpatrick to update rather than scrap the regulations. “The regulations should be modified to take into account the need for any changes that has arisen since their introduction, coupled with support for the principle that sub-surface stations are a special case and that that fact needs to be reflected in a statutory approach,” she said. Labour MP for North-West Leicestershire, David Taylor, said that one of the problems with government proposals was that the proposed new guidance would not have any legal force. In a moving and highly effective contribution, Labour MP for Hendon, Andrew Dismore, recalled how he visited Kings Cross Fire station on the Sunday after the fire and “the sights that I saw then will haunt me forever”. Andrew is currently chair of the FBU Parliamentary group and was previously an FBU solicitor for 17 years who had represented the family of Colin Townsley, the fire officer who was killed at the fire and posthumously awarded the George medal for bravery. “I never thought that I would see the day when my government would consider watering down fire safety protection. “The recommendations made by Sir Desmond Fennell in his report are still valid, if not more so given the current situation with London Underground. “I have nothing particular against safety assessments, but they should go hand in hand with the underpinning of the detailed regulations that we are debating. “It is not either/or; let us have both. I am concerned that there will be a watering down,” he said. RMT Parliamentary groups convenor John Mc Donnell MP urged the government to take their proposals back to the House of Commons regulatory Reform Committee for further consider the wisdom of the proposals. John pointed out that the regulations were more necessary than ever with a 20 per cent increase in passenger traffic and fragmentation of the underground and railway system since the Kings Cross Fire. “The government has delayed again, so it is not too late to think again, to put the matter out to consultation again, to take on board the expert advice or to take into account changes. “I dread us introducing such measures as a result of what is almost a stubborn belligerence,” he said. He asked why the government making the proposals at this point in time, and what pressures were on the government to make such proposals. “What reason is there for the haste with which the government tried to introduce the regulations previously, with inadequate consultation? I am at a loss to see why that change in principle needs to take place at this moment,” he said. Replying on behalf of the government, Jim Fitzpatrick, Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister said that there was “a fundamental disagreement about the impact of the new orders”. However, he said that the government said it would not remove the 1989 regulations “until and unless it can be clearly shown that all necessary protections are continued under the new regime”. In a welcome move, he said “we are always open to further discussions about safety and we are maintaining an open dialogue on the issue with the RMT and honourable members” and would take away the points made in the debate. Parliamentary column MPS FIGHT TO RETAIN FIRE- SAFETY REGULATIONS www.rmt.org.uk :: january 2006 :: RMTnews A delegation of RMT’s parliamentary group met rail minister Derek Twigg and environment minister Elliot Morley recently to make the environmental case for rail. Amid concerns about line closures and bustitution, the meeting arose from a parliamentary question by RMT group member Katy Clark MP. The group explained that protection of the environment was a key part of the RMT’s campaign to protect and expand the railway. The group reminded ministers that the government has set itself a target of reducing carbon emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 and 60 per cent by 2050. Rail is less polluting than cars, lorries or planes for passenger journeys. Car travel produces six times as many C02 emissions as rail on a journey from London to Edinburgh, whilst a plane journey produced eight times as many emissions as rail. However, road transport accounts for almost a quarter of all carbon emissions and the RAC has estimated that car use will be 50 per cent higher in 2031. The Department for Transport calculate that civil airline use is also expected to increase substantially, with the highest estimates predicting it will double over the next 20 years. At the meeting RMT group members argued that the railways are one of the most environmentally friendly forms of transport. In light of the government’s commitment to reduce carbon emissions, the group sought to establish what joint working was taking place between the Department for Transport and the Department for the Environment. In a constructive meeting, Elliot Morley and Derek Twigg said that the departments worked closely on this issue to ensure that environmental considerations were taken into account when developing transport policy. Ministers agreed that it would be useful to write to the RMT group setting out how the department made its environmental assessments. Ministers also agreed to hold a joint conference/seminar with the rail unions, TUC and others to discuss the sustainable case for rail. RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP MAKES ENVIRONMENTAL CASE FOR RAIL