Oral question asked in the House of Lords, by Lord Snape (Labour). It was answered on Wednesday, 20 June 2007.

Railways: Paddington Crash

Question: My Lords, given that the layout at Paddington was devised by British Rail prior to privatisation, that it was approved at the time by the Health and Safety Executive, that it was installed by Railtrack or its contractors and that the prime cause of the accident was, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, implied, the tragic failure on the part of a driver to stop at a red light, how is the public interest best served by prosecuting Network Rail, which was in no way involved, and in effect fining the taxpayer?

Answer: My Lords, so far as the cause of this terrible event was concerned, it emerged that in the Paddington area there had been no fewer than eight occasions when that signal had been passed at danger. Those responsible for the infrastructure ought to have held signal-siting committees to determine what to do about that so as to avoid what ultimately came about, which was that a driver missed that red signal with terrible consequences, as we know. The issue of fining public bodies arises from time to time. Where a serious crime is committed, even by a public body, it is right to mark that and bring some degree of accountability. It is also right to impose a penalty to deter not just that body but others from committing similar offences in the future.

Secondary information

Type: Oral question
Reference: 693 c215
Session: 2006-07
Oral question type: Supplementary
Chamber / Committee: House of Lords chamber
Subjects: Accidents Prosecutions Public interest Railways Network Rail Ladbroke Grove
Link: View this Oral question on www.publications.parliament.uk