1-20 of 61 results for subject:"Ladbroke Grove"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.252 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.001 seconds
- Search query
- subject:"Ladbroke Grove"
- We searched for
- subject_t:"Ladbroke Grove" OR subject_ses:100452
Type
-
Early day motions (1)
+
Members' contributions (26)
-
Oral answers to questions (13)
+
Oral questions (13)
-
Prime Minister's questions (3)
-
Topical questions (1)
+
Parliamentary committees (1)
-
Select Committee reports (Government responses) (1)
+
Parliamentary papers (8)
-
Command papers (1)
-
Deposited papers (7)
+
Parliamentary proceedings (2)
+
Statements (2)
+
Oral statements (2)
-
Ministerial statements (2)
+
Parliamentary questions (37)
+
Oral questions (13)
-
Prime Minister's questions (3)
-
Topical questions (1)
-
Written questions (24)
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
Twenty-five years ago, two trains collided just west of Paddington station, in what was one of worst rail accidents of recent times. Thirty-one people lost their lives and many more were injured. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to all those who were affected by the Paddington rail crash?
Twenty-five years ago, two trains collided just west of Paddington station, in what was one of worst rail accidents of recent times. Thirty-one people lost their lives and many more were injured. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to all those who were affected by the Paddington rail crash?
Asked by
Matt Rodda
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Transport
Topical questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
10 October 2024
I commend my hon. Friend for his bravery in recently speaking out about his personal involvement in that tragic crash, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and my officials for attending the commemoration last weekend. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) in paying tribute to the families of the victims and to all those heroes who responded on the day.
Subjects
Accidents; Anniversaries; Railways; Ladbroke Grove
Date
10 October 2024
Reference
754 c451
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
I commend my hon. Friend for his bravery in recently speaking out about his personal involvement in that tragic crash, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and my officials for attending the commemoration last weekend. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) in paying tribute to the families of the victims and to all those heroes who responded on the day.
I commend my hon. Friend for his bravery in recently speaking out about his personal involvement in that tragic crash, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and my officials for attending the commemoration last weekend. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) in paying tribute to the families of the victims and to all those heroes who responded on the day.
Answered by
Louise Haigh
(Labour)
Asked by
Matt Rodda
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Transport
Type
Oral answers to questions
Twenty-five years ago, two trains collided just west of Paddington station, in what was one of worst rail accidents of recent times. Thirty-one people lost their lives and many more were injured. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to all those who were affected by the Paddington rail crash?
Subjects
Accidents; Anniversaries; Railways; Ladbroke Grove
Date
10 October 2024
Reference
754 c451
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Whether they have assessed the extent to which the prosecution of Network Rail for the Paddington crash was in the public interest.
Whether they have assessed the extent to which the prosecution of Network Rail for the Paddington crash was in the public interest.
Asked by
Lord Bradshaw
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord Goldsmith
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
For answer on
20 June 2007
Answered on
20 June 2007
My Lords, it was clearly in the public interest to prosecute. The independent inquiry by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, described there having been, "““a serious and persistent failure””,"
to deal with the recognised problem of signals passed at danger in the Paddington area. Thirty-one people were killed in the crash. The Crown Prosecution Service applied the Code for Crown Prosecutors and held that it was in the public interest to prosecute. I entirely agree with it.
Subjects
Accidents; Prosecutions; Public interest; Railways; Network Rail; Ladbroke Grove
Date
20 June 2007
Reference
693 c214
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The crash happened when Railtrack was in charge of the network, but the network is now governed by Network Rail, so totally different people were prosecuted. The operator that failed to train its driver was fined, and I have no quarrel with that, but since the accident Network Rail—or should I say the taxpayer?—has spent £500 million on installing a train protection and warning system to prevent such an accident from happening again. I want to press the Minister on whether there was any guilty mind on the part of the people who were prosecuted, because it seems that the mens rea in this case was absent.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The crash happened when Railtrack was in charge of the network, but the network is now governed by Network Rail, so totally different people were prosecuted. The operator that failed to train its driver was fined, and I have no quarrel with that, but since the accident Network Rail—or should I say the taxpayer?—has spent £500 million on installing a train protection and warning system to prevent such an accident from happening again. I want to press the Minister on whether there was any guilty mind on the part of the people who were prosecuted, because it seems that the mens rea in this case was absent.
Asked by
Lord Bradshaw
(Liberal Democrat)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
20 June 2007
My Lords, the defendant pleaded guilty to the offence. That seems to me to be quite significant. As the noble Lord will know, the responsibilities of the former body were passed to the new body. I see no difficulty with this at all.
Subjects
Accountability; Accidents; Prosecutions; Railways; Railtrack; Network Rail; Ladbroke Grove; Public interest
Date
20 June 2007
Reference
693 c215
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, my noble and learned friend appears to suggest that the design of the layout outside Paddington was wrong. As my noble friend Lord Snape said, that was done by British Rail and approved by the Health and Safety Executive. Is not the situation a bit odd, given that after British Rail designed it and it came into operation, it was taken over by Railtrack, after which Network Rail took over responsibility when Railtrack failed? It is a long way from Network Rail accepting all the obligations and liabilities from Railtrack to the company being prosecuted for something that was done two predecessors ago.
My Lords, my noble and learned friend appears to suggest that the design of the layout outside Paddington was wrong. As my noble friend Lord Snape said, that was done by British Rail and approved by the Health and Safety Executive. Is not the situation a bit odd, given that after British Rail designed it and it came into operation, it was taken over by Railtrack, after which Network Rail took over responsibility when Railtrack failed? It is a long way from Network Rail accepting all the obligations and liabilities from Railtrack to the company being prosecuted for something that was done two predecessors ago.
Asked by
Lord Berkeley
(Labour)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
20 June 2007
My Lords, I repeat: the company accepted its responsibility for the liabilities that had been passed to it. It is not so much the design outside Paddington as the fact that the signal was for some reason obscured and not visible. No one really knows why the driver drove through that red light. There had been eight incidents in which attention had been drawn to drivers passing that signal at red. It ought to have been looked at and a new solution found, as it subsequently was when a system was put in place under which, if a driver passed that signal at red, the brakes would automatically come on. Had that system been in place then, this would never have happened.
Subjects
Accidents; Prosecutions; Public interest; Railways; Network Rail; Ladbroke Grove
Date
20 June 2007
Reference
693 c216
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, who determined the public interest in this case? Was it the Health and Safety Executive, which brought the prosecution, or the CPS? Were the law officers consulted and, if so, did they give their opinion on what was in the general public interest, having regard to the history of corporate failings to which the noble Lord referred?
My Lords, who determined the public interest in this case? Was it the Health and Safety Executive, which brought the prosecution, or the CPS? Were the law officers consulted and, if so, did they give their opinion on what was in the general public interest, having regard to the history of corporate failings to which the noble Lord referred?
Asked by
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
20 June 2007
My Lords, as I understood it, the noble Lord actually referred to the failings of the driver, not to corporate failings. The decision was taken by the Crown Prosecution Service, which prosecuted the case. The service consulted the law officers and me. As I have made clear to the House, I agreed with its view.
Subjects
Accidents; Prosecutions; Public interest; Railways; Network Rail; Ladbroke Grove
Date
20 June 2007
Reference
693 c215
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I do not absolutely know. It is possible that, if the Bill had been passed in its present form, there could have been a prosecution for corporate manslaughter. It would have depended on determining tests that were not necessary for this prosecution; namely, whether there was a gross breach of duty and a senior management failing. But it is possible that that offence would have been made out.
My Lords, I do not absolutely know. It is possible that, if the Bill had been passed in its present form, there could have been a prosecution for corporate manslaughter. It would have depended on determining tests that were not necessary for this prosecution; namely, whether there was a gross breach of duty and a senior management failing. But it is possible that that offence would have been made out.
Answered by
Lord Goldsmith
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Kingsland
(Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, in the opinion of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, what difference would it have made to the prosecution if the proposed offence of corporate manslaughter had been available?
Subjects
Accidents; Prosecutions; Public interest; Railways; Network Rail; Ladbroke Grove
Date
20 June 2007
Reference
693 c216
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, as I understood it, the noble Lord actually referred to the failings of the driver, not to corporate failings. The decision was taken by the Crown Prosecution Service, which prosecuted the case. The service consulted the law officers and me. As I have made clear to the House, I agreed with its view.
My Lords, as I understood it, the noble Lord actually referred to the failings of the driver, not to corporate failings. The decision was taken by the Crown Prosecution Service, which prosecuted the case. The service consulted the law officers and me. As I have made clear to the House, I agreed with its view.
Answered by
Lord Goldsmith
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, who determined the public interest in this case? Was it the Health and Safety Executive, which brought the prosecution, or the CPS? Were the law officers consulted and, if so, did they give their opinion on what was in the general public interest, having regard to the history of corporate failings to which the noble Lord referred?
Subjects
Accidents; Prosecutions; Public interest; Railways; Network Rail; Ladbroke Grove
Date
20 June 2007
Reference
693 c215
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I repeat: the company accepted its responsibility for the liabilities that had been passed to it. It is not so much the design outside Paddington as the fact that the signal was for some reason obscured and not visible. No one really knows why the driver drove through that red light. There had been eight incidents in which attention had been drawn to drivers passing that signal at red. It ought to have been looked at and a new solution found, as it subsequently was when a system was put in place under which, if a driver passed that signal at red, the brakes would automatically come on. Had that system been in place then, this would never have happened.
My Lords, I repeat: the company accepted its responsibility for the liabilities that had been passed to it. It is not so much the design outside Paddington as the fact that the signal was for some reason obscured and not visible. No one really knows why the driver drove through that red light. There had been eight incidents in which attention had been drawn to drivers passing that signal at red. It ought to have been looked at and a new solution found, as it subsequently was when a system was put in place under which, if a driver passed that signal at red, the brakes would automatically come on. Had that system been in place then, this would never have happened.
Answered by
Lord Goldsmith
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Berkeley
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, my noble and learned friend appears to suggest that the design of the layout outside Paddington was wrong. As my noble friend Lord Snape said, that was done by British Rail and approved by the Health and Safety Executive. Is not the situation a bit odd, given that after British Rail designed it and it came into operation, it was taken over by Railtrack, after which Network Rail took over responsibility when Railtrack failed? It is a long way from Network Rail accepting all the obligations and liabilities from Railtrack to the company being prosecuted for something that was done two predecessors ago.
Subjects
Accidents; Prosecutions; Public interest; Railways; Network Rail; Ladbroke Grove
Date
20 June 2007
Reference
693 c216
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
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?
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?
Asked by
Lord Snape
(Labour)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
20 June 2007
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.
Subjects
Accidents; Prosecutions; Public interest; Railways; Network Rail; Ladbroke Grove
Date
20 June 2007
Reference
693 c215
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, in the opinion of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, what difference would it have made to the prosecution if the proposed offence of corporate manslaughter had been available?
My Lords, in the opinion of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, what difference would it have made to the prosecution if the proposed offence of corporate manslaughter had been available?
Asked by
Lord Kingsland
(Conservative)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
20 June 2007
My Lords, I do not absolutely know. It is possible that, if the Bill had been passed in its present form, there could have been a prosecution for corporate manslaughter. It would have depended on determining tests that were not necessary for this prosecution; namely, whether there was a gross breach of duty and a senior management failing. But it is possible that that offence would have been made out.
Subjects
Accidents; Prosecutions; Public interest; Railways; Network Rail; Ladbroke Grove
Date
20 June 2007
Reference
693 c216
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, it was clearly in the public interest to prosecute. The independent inquiry by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, described there having been, "““a serious and persistent failure””,"
to deal with the recognised problem of signals passed at danger in the Paddington area. Thirty-one people were killed in the crash. The Crown Prosecution Service applied the Code for Crown Prosecutors and held that it was in the public interest to prosecute. I entirely agree with it.
My Lords, it was clearly in the public interest to prosecute. The independent inquiry by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, described there having been, "““a serious and persistent failure””,"
to deal with the recognised problem of signals passed at danger in the Paddington area. Thirty-one people were killed in the crash. The Crown Prosecution Service applied the Code for Crown Prosecutors and held that it was in the public interest to prosecute. I entirely agree with it.
Answered by
Lord Goldsmith
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Bradshaw
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Whether they have assessed the extent to which the prosecution of Network Rail for the Paddington crash was in the public interest.
Subjects
Accidents; Prosecutions; Public interest; Railways; Network Rail; Ladbroke Grove
Date
20 June 2007
Reference
693 c214
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, the defendant pleaded guilty to the offence. That seems to me to be quite significant. As the noble Lord will know, the responsibilities of the former body were passed to the new body. I see no difficulty with this at all.
My Lords, the defendant pleaded guilty to the offence. That seems to me to be quite significant. As the noble Lord will know, the responsibilities of the former body were passed to the new body. I see no difficulty with this at all.
Answered by
Lord Goldsmith
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Bradshaw
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The crash happened when Railtrack was in charge of the network, but the network is now governed by Network Rail, so totally different people were prosecuted. The operator that failed to train its driver was fined, and I have no quarrel with that, but since the accident Network Rail—or should I say the taxpayer?—has spent £500 million on installing a train protection and warning system to prevent such an accident from happening again. I want to press the Minister on whether there was any guilty mind on the part of the people who were prosecuted, because it seems that the mens rea in this case was absent.
Subjects
Accidents; Prosecutions; Public interest; Railways; Network Rail; Ladbroke Grove
Date
20 June 2007
Reference
693 c215
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
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.
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.
Answered by
Lord Goldsmith
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Snape
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
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?
Subjects
Accidents; Prosecutions; Public interest; Railways; Network Rail; Ladbroke Grove
Date
20 June 2007
Reference
693 c215
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, which of the contractors responsible for rail safety in the (a) Paddington and (b) Hatfield rail crashes operated quality management systems.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, which of the contractors responsible for rail safety in the (a) Paddington and (b) Hatfield rail crashes operated quality management systems.
Asked by
Mark Field
(Conservative)
Answered by
David Jamieson
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Transport
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
25 March 2003
For answer on
1 April 2003
Answered on
1 April 2003
Mr. Mark Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of the contractors responsible for rail safety in the (a)
Paddington and (b) Hatfield rail crashes operated quality management systems. [105605]
Mr. Jamieson: I understand that Network Rail's safety procedures require contractors to have suitable and sufficient Safety Quality
and Environment Management systems in place in accordance with the company's railway standards. Both Amey and Balfour Beatty had
such systems in place at the times of the Paddington and Hatfield rail crashes.
Subjects
Contracts; Accidents; Railways; Quality control; Safety; Hatfield (Hertfordshire); Balfour Beatty; Amey; Ladbroke Grove
Date
1 April 2003
Reference
105605; 402 c613W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will place in the Library a copy of the official note of his meeting on 12th September 2001 with the Paddington Survivors' Group; what matters were discussed at the meeting; and if he will make a statement. - Ref to...
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will place in the Library a copy of the official note of his meeting on 12th September 2001 with the Paddington Survivors' Group; what matters were discussed at the meeting; and if he will make a statement. - Ref to...
Asked by
Andrew Turner
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Darling of Roulanish
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Transport
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
23 May 2002
For answer on
5 July 2002
Answered on
5 July 2002
Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the official note of his
meeting on 12 September 2001 with the Paddington Survivors' Group what matters were discussed at the meeting; and if he will make a
statement. [60541]
Mr. Darling: :I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. Theresa May) [59820].
Subjects
Accidents; Railways; Victims; Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry; Ladbroke Grove
Date
5 July 2002
Reference
60541; 388 c611W;388 c613W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, if he will place in the Library a copy of the note of his meeting with the Paddington Survivors Group on 12th September 2001.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, if he will place in the Library a copy of the note of his meeting with the Paddington Survivors Group on 12th September 2001.
Asked by
Baroness May of Maidenhead
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Darling of Roulanish
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Transport
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
22 May 2002
For answer on
5 July 2002
Answered on
5 July 2002
Mrs. May: :To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of
the note of his meeting with the Paddington Survivors Group on 12 September 2001. [59820]
Mr. Darling: :I have been asked to reply.
My predecessor met the Paddington Survivors' Group on 12 September and 24 October 2001. I met the Group on 13 June 2002. It is not
the normal practice to place notes of Ministerial meetings in the Library. I agreed with the Group when we met in June that I would
not publish minutes of our meeting.
Subjects
Accidents; Railways; Victims; Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry; Ladbroke Grove
Date
5 July 2002
Reference
59820; 388 c611W;388 c613W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when the next progress report on the Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry Part I will be published; and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when the next progress report on the Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry Part I will be published; and if he will make a statement.
Asked by
Lord Foster of Bath
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
David Jamieson
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Transport
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
27 June 2002
For answer on
2 July 2002
Answered on
2 July 2002
Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the next progress report on the Ladbroke Grove rail inquiry part I
will be published; and if he will make a statement. [66307]
Mr. Jamieson: On 29 April 2002, the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) stated that in future it will report progress on all 295
public inquiry recommendations in a single report under eight broad headings. This will include the Southall inquiry, so far as it
is still relevant, the joint inquiry into Train Protection Systems, and the two Ladbroke Grove inquiries. The HSC plan to publish
this report in November 2002.
The HSC and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) will continue to track action on each recommendation to ensure that none are
overlooked. The HSC believes that presenting the information in this format will help everyone involved to gain a better
appreciation of the overall safety benefits being delivered as well as sharpening focus on the key issues.
Subjects
Accidents; Inquiries; Railways; Safety; Safety measures; Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry; Paddington; Ladbroke Grove
Date
2 July 2002
Reference
66307; 388 c207W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, what (a) contracts and (b) technical support contracts were (i) awarded and (ii) used by the Health and Safety Executive as part of their investigation into the Ladbroke Grove rail crash in October 1999; and if he...
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, what (a) contracts and (b) technical support contracts were (i) awarded and (ii) used by the Health and Safety Executive as part of their investigation into the Ladbroke Grove rail crash in October 1999; and if he...
Asked by
Tom Brake
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
David Jamieson
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Transport
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
20 May 2002
For answer on
24 June 2002
Answered on
24 June 2002
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what (a) contracts and (b) technical
support contracts were (i) awarded and (ii) used by the Health and Safety Executive as part of their investigation into the Ladbroke
Grove rail crash in October 1999; and if he will make a statement. [58649]
Mr. Jamieson: I have been asked to reply.
In addition to all the work undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) internal laboratory, HSE engaged the following
contractors to support their investigations of the Ladbroke Grove rail crash:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Contractor Research
Grant Fire Consultants Review of existing fire standards and a review of the literature
in respect of the behaviour of fires on porous ground
Intertek Testing Testing of gas/oil samples
Forensic Science Services Paint analysis
Astra Zeneca Auto ignition temperature test of samples of gas/oil
University of Sheffield ICP analysis
Garvic Development Design advice related to fuel tank impact test
IC Consultants Technical support in respect of the failure of fuel tanks and of
the collision dynamics
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
However, it should be noted that providing an exhaustive list of contractors would entail disproportionate cost.
Subjects
Contracts; Accidents; Health and Safety Executive; Railways; Ladbroke Grove
Date
24 June 2002
Reference
387 c662W;387 c660W; 58649
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, if he will make a statement on the meeting between his Department and the Paddington Survivors' group on 12th September 2001; and if he will place copies of the minutes in the Library. - Including fact that...
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, if he will make a statement on the meeting between his Department and the Paddington Survivors' group on 12th September 2001; and if he will place copies of the minutes in the Library. - Including fact that...
Asked by
Lord Foster of Bath
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
David Jamieson
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Transport
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
22 May 2002
For answer on
17 June 2002
Answered on
17 June 2002
Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the
meeting between his Department and the Paddington Survivors' group on 12 September 2001; and if he will place copies of the minutes
in the Library. [59879]
Mr. Jamieson: I have been asked to reply.
The Secretary of State met the Paddington Survivors Group on 12 September to hear their views in advance of the publication on 20
September of part 2 of Lord Cullen's report into the Ladbroke Grove rail crash. Recent allegations that the Secretary of State
suggested at this meeting that Railtrack would be taken into administration are without foundation.
It is not normal practice to place the minutes of ministerial meetings in the House Libraries.
Subjects
Accidents; Railways; Victims; Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry; Ladbroke Grove
Date
17 June 2002
Reference
59879; 387 c68W
House
House of Commons