DOCSLIB.ORG

Review of the Balance of Competences Between the United Kingdom and the European Union

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Review of the Balance of Competences Between the United Kingdom and the European Union Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union Transport: Consultation Response February 2014 The Department for Transport has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the Department’s website. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard please contact the Department. Department for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR Telephone 0300 330 3000 Website www.gov.uk/dft General enquiries https://forms.dft.gov.uk © Crown copyright 2014 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. You may re-use this information (not including logos or third-party material) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. 2 Contents Maritime 8 British Maritime Federation 8 British Ports Association 11 International Group of P&I Clubs 15 Lloyds Register 18 Maritime Workshop 22 Port of Dover 27 Royal Yachting Association (RYA) 29 Trinity House 35 UK Chamber of Shipping 38 UK Major Ports Group - UKMPG 54 Aviation 58 Aerospace Defence Security (ADS) 58 Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) 64 Airport Operators Association (AOA) 68 Association of International Courier and Express Services (AICES) 74 Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) 76 Aviation Workshop 82 Graham Avery 87 British Airways 93 British Air Transport Association (BATA) 101 Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) 103 3 Crown Dependencies/Channel Islands 124 easyJet 125 GA Alliance 129 NATS 134 Rolls Royce 138 Thomas Cook Group 141 Rail 152 ASLEF 152 Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) 156 Bruges Group 159 Eurostar 178 Freightliner Group 183 Hamburg Koln Express (HKX) 193 High Speed One 218 Mofair e.V 221 National Express 223 Network Rail 225 Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) 231 Passenger Focus and London TravelWatch 238 Private Wagon Federation 241 Rail Freight Group 246 Rail Future 271 Rail Standards and Safety Board (RSSB) 273 Rail workshop 280 RMT 284 4 Roads 294 AB Sugar 294 Agricultural Engineers Association (AEA) 302 British Historic Vehicle Club 305 British Motorcyclists Federation (BMF) 307 British Parking Association (BPA) 311 British Vehicle Rental & Leasing Association (BVRLA) 313 Nick Beadle 319 David Clark 322 Nigel Cockayne 324 Community Transport Association UK 326 Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) 329 Cumbria Green Fuels Ltd 335 M Downes 338 Andrew Dudman 340 European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) 342 Freight Transport Association (FTA) 347 Government of Alberta, Canada 359 Trevor Hartley 360 Trevor Jenkins 362 Kapsch Austria 364 Maria Kinning 367 Motorcycle Industry Association (MCI) 370 MIRA Ltd 382 Optical Confederation 391 Terry Phillips 395 5 Prestons of Potto-Hauliers 398 RAC Foundation, RAC and AA 399 David Read 414 Renewable Energy Association (REA) 416 Retail Motor Industry Federation (RMI) 421 Road Haulage Association (RHA) 424 Roads workshop 430 David Robinson 432 SMMT 435 Alexander Watson 440 White Bike Training 443 Other and cross modal respondents 444 Catherine Bearder MEP (Liberal Democrat) 444 Phil Bennion MEP (Liberal Democrat) 447 British International Freight Association (BIFA) 455 Brussels and Europe Liberal Democrats 463 Business for New Europe 467 Business Taskforce 470 Channel Islands Brussels Office 509 Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT) 510 Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) 518 Tony Depledge 529 DHL 540 DRDNI 544 European Commission 550 European Scrutiny Committee report 15 April 2013 567 6 European Scrutiny Committee report 10 June 2013 573 Karin Hakl (Austrian MP - OVP party) 579 Local Government Association (LGA) 583 HIGs Event 592 MEP meetings Brussels 595 Merseytravel 598 PACTS 603 Royal Academy of Engineering 612 Scottish Government 618 Senior European Experts Group (SEEG) 623 Transport for London 638 Transport Planning Society 646 Transport Select Committee report 23 March 2005 651 TUC 673 Unite 681 7 Maritime British Maritime Federation The British Marine Federation (BMF) welcomes the opportunity to assist the Government with this wide-scale review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The British Marine Federation The BMF is the trade association for the UK leisure, superyacht and small commercial marine industry, representing over 1,500 member companies. Our industry is almost entirely comprised of small and medium-sized enterprises with over 95% of companies within our membership employing less than 50 people (based on BMF membership statistics). In total the UK leisure, superyacht and small commercial marine sector directly employs around 31,000 full time equivalent employees and generated annual revenues of approximately £2.9 billion in 2011/12, of which 35% represents international trade. The BMF provides support to its membership across a wide range of legislation, including EU and international requirements. Our industry’s interests outside the UK are supported by the international trade association, ICOMIA (International Council of Marine Industry Associations). Modal Annex – Maritime (Environmental) Q8 – What advantages or disadvantages are there for the UK in the EU having a greater or lesser say in negotiating agreements internationally (e.g. ICAO or IMO) or with third countries (e.g. EU – US, EU – China)? It is our industry’s experience that the shared competency in transport related matters might not be working in the best interests of the UK. There would appear to be a great deal of confusion, not just in the industry, but within Government agencies, about what powers the EU has to direct member states on matters relating to international agreements (e.g. IMO legislation). We have provided a case study below, to highlight the issues recently faced by the UK’s leisure marine industry, by a dispute between the UK and the EU over competency. Case Study – EU interference with UK interests at International Maritime Organisation 8 The revised International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships 1973 as modified (MARPOL) Annex VI entered into force on 1 July 2010. Regulation 13 of MARPOL Annex VI introduces three Tiers of mono-nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission standards from ships. The Tier III standards provide for 80 per cent reduction of NOx emissions by 1 January 2016. The superyacht (vessels commonly over 24m in length) industry has been addressing the challenges of Tier III NOx emission standard since 2010. However, it is considered that sub SOLAS (International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea) Yachts of over 24 meters and less than 500gt cannot be built to be Tier III compliant as the existing technology is not yet suitable for installation on these vessels due to constraints on space, design restrictions and significant cost impact. As such the industry faces the loss of the most commercially vibrant market sector with significant threat to revenue and jobs. The UK has been actively involved in a correspondence group set up by IMO to discuss this issue, which ultimately led to the UK (the Maritime & Coastguard Agency [MCA], BMF and UK boatyards), working alongside other European industry members via ICOMIA and SYBAss (Superyacht Builders Association), to undertake a full technical, economic and social study to support a proposal that the deadline for implementing the Tier III NOx emission standard in yachts of less than 500gt be postponed by three years. The EU has ‘observer status’ at IMO and was kept informed of this work and the UK’s intention to submit a paper to IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC65). In fact, the UK’s paper had the support of a number of Member States, so the Commission was also aware of its importance to a significant number of Member States. However, it was not until the penultimate pre-MEPC65 meeting of the Commission and Member States that the matter became of interest to the Commission as an air pollution issue, rather than an economic one. It was at this point that the Commission claimed competency and set about requiring the UK and other Member States to withdraw all support for the proposal. From this point on the Commission refused to consider the merits of the industry’s proposal and Member States were threatened with infraction proceedings if they did not adhere to the Commission’s competency. Both the MCA and the UK’s permanent representative to the Commission worked hard to push the UK’s position, but to no avail. The only opportunity the Commission offered to contest this decision was if the Council of Ministers voted that Member States would retain competency on this matter, knowing full well that this issue could not be brought before the Council within the timeframe prior to the MEPC65 meeting. Owing to this decision by the Commission, the UK and its partners had to find an alternative IMO member (from outside the EU) to submit the paper on its behalf. While the UK was able to secure the support of other IMO members to undertake this submission, the Commission’s position still meant that the UK and other member states were unable to support or vote on the proposal at MEPC65. The Commission had, in effect, rendered 27 votes at IMO redundant. 9 As it happens, it appears the Commission was not as confident on its decision of competency as it first appeared to be. Just prior to MEPC65, the Commission withdrew its declaration of competency, but at a point where it left next to no time for the UK or its partners to undertake any meaningful support work of the proposal, beyond that already done for the paper’s submission by another IMO member.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • European Elections Why Vote? English
    Europea2n E0lecti1ons9 THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS WHY VOTE? ENGLISH United Kingdom Results of the 23 May 2019 European elections Show 10 entries Search: Trend European Number of Percentage of Number of Political parties compared with affiliation votes votes seats 2014 Brexit Party EFDD 30.74% 29 ↑ Liberal Democrat Party Renew Europe 19.75% 16 ↑ Labour Party S&D 13.72% 10 ↓ Green Party Greens/EFA 11.76% 7 ↑ Conservative Party ECR 8.84% 4 ↓ Scottish National Party Greens/EFA 3.50% 3 ↑ Plaid Cymru, Party of Greens/EFA 0.97% 1 ↑ Wales Sinn Fein GUE/NGL 0.62% 1 = Democratic Unionist 0.59% 1 = Party Alliance Party 0.5% 1 ↑ Showing 1 to 10 of 10 entries Previous Next List of MEPs Rory Palmer Labour Party S&D Claude Ajit Moraes Labour Party S&D Sebastian Thomas Dance Labour Party S&D Jude Kirton-Darling Labour Party S&D Theresa Mary Griffin Labour Party S&D Julie Carolyn Ward Labour Party S&D John Howarth Labour Party S&D Jacqueline Margarete Jones Labour Party S&D Neena Gill Labour Party S&D Richard Graham Corbett Labour Party S&D Barbara Ann Gibson Liberal Democrats Renew Europe Lucy Kathleen Nethsingha Liberal Democrats Renew Europe William Francis Newton Dunn Liberal Democrats Renew Europe Irina Von Wiese Liberal Democrats Renew Europe Dinesh Dhamija Liberal Democrats Renew Europe Luisa Manon Porritt Liberal Democrats Renew Europe Chris Davies Liberal Democrats Renew Europe Jane Elisabeth Brophy Liberal Democrats Renew Europe Sheila Ewan Ritchie Liberal Democrats Renew Europe Catherine Zena Bearder Liberal Democrats
    [Show full text]
  • European Parliament Elections 2014
    European Parliament Elections 2014 Updated 12 March 2014 Overview of Candidates in the United Kingdom Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 CANDIDATE SELECTION PROCESS ............................................................................................. 2 3.0 EUROPEAN ELECTIONS: VOTING METHOD IN THE UK ................................................................ 3 4.0 PRELIMINARY OVERVIEW OF CANDIDATES BY UK CONSTITUENCY ............................................ 3 5.0 ANNEX: LIST OF SITTING UK MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ................................ 16 6.0 ABOUT US ............................................................................................................................. 17 All images used in this briefing are © Barryob / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY-SA-3.0 / GFDL © DeHavilland EU Ltd 2014. All rights reserved. 1 | 18 European Parliament Elections 2014 1.0 Introduction This briefing is part of DeHavilland EU’s Foresight Report series on the 2014 European elections and provides a preliminary overview of the candidates standing in the UK for election to the European Parliament in 2014. In the United Kingdom, the election for the country’s 73 Members of the European Parliament will be held on Thursday 22 May 2014. The elections come at a crucial junction for UK-EU relations, and are likely to have far-reaching consequences for the UK’s relationship with the rest of Europe: a surge in support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) could lead to a Britain that is increasingly dis-engaged from the EU policy-making process. In parallel, the current UK Government is also conducting a review of the EU’s powers and Prime Minister David Cameron has repeatedly pushed for a ‘repatriation’ of powers from the European to the national level. These long-term political developments aside, the elections will also have more direct and tangible consequences.
    [Show full text]
  • An Investigation of Rail Crew Fatigue and Well-Being
    AN INVESTIGATION OF RAIL CREW FATIGUE AND WELL-BEING Jialin Fan A thesis submitted for the award of PhD, 2018 Word count: 57,263 SUMMARY Occupational fatigue is a severe problem in the rail industry, potentially jeopardising train crew health and train safety. The aim of this thesis was to investigate fatigue, its risk factors, and the associations between fatigue, well-being outcomes, and performance among staff members in the rail industry by conducting a series of studies. It also aimed to develop a usable online fatigue measure to examine fatigue in a real-life setting. A large-scale questionnaire survey was conducted to examine the prevalence of fatigue, identify the risk factors related to fatigue, and investigate the associations between fatigue and well-being outcomes among railway staff in general. An online experiment was then run to investigate the effects of time of day and workload on fatigue and the association between subjective fatigue and objective performance, with a student sample. Finally, a questionnaire exploring the potential risk factors and greater details for fatigue among railway staff was conducted, followed by a diary study investigating the effects of workload and other risk factors in the prediction of fatigue, and the impact of fatigue on objective performance in work life, with a railway staff sample. The results of this thesis suggested that job demands, especially mental workload and overtime work were the main predictors of different types of fatigue among train crew, although the risk factors for fatigue appeared to differ between job roles. Job demands, shift-work and other negative work characteristics were shown to increase fatigue, while positive work and individual characteristics were shown to play a buffering role against it.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservative Party
    Royaume-Uni 73 élus Parti pour Démocrates libéraux Une indépendance de Parti conservateur ECR Parti travailliste PSE l’indépendance du Les Verts PVE ALDE l'Europe NI Royaume-Uni MELD 1. Vicky Ford MEP 1. Richard Howitt MEP 1. Andrew Duff MEP 1. Patrick O’Flynn 1. Paul Wiffen 1. Rupert Read 2. Geoffrey Van Orden 2. Alex Mayer 2. Josephine Hayes 2. Stuart Agnew MEP 2. Karl Davies 2. Mark Ereira-Guyer MEP 3. Sandy Martin 3. Belinda Brooks-Gordon 3. Tim Aker 3. Raymond Spalding 3. Jill Mills 3. David Campbell 4. Bhavna Joshi 4. Stephen Robinson 4. Michael Heaver 4. Edmond Rosenthal 4. Ash Haynes East of England Bannerman MEP 5. Paul Bishop 5. Michael Green 5. Andrew Smith 5. Rupert Smith 5. Marc Scheimann 4. John Flack 6. Naseem Ayub 6. Linda Jack 6. Mick McGough 6. Dennis Wiffen 6. Robert Lindsay 5. Tom Hunt 7. Chris Ostrowski 7. Hugh Annand 7. Andy Monk 7. Betty Wiffen 7. Fiona Radic 6. Margaret Simons 7. Jonathan Collett 1. Ashley Fox MEP 1. Clare Moody 1. Sir Graham Watson 1. William Dartmouth 1. David Smith 1. Molly Scott Cato 2. Julie Girling MEP 2. Glyn Ford MEP MEP 2. Helen Webster 2. Emily McIvor 3. James Cracknell 3. Ann Reeder 2. Kay Barnard 2. Julia Reid 3. Mike Camp 3. Ricky Knight 4. Georgina Butler 4. Hadleigh Roberts 3. Brian Mathew 3. Gawain Towler 4. Andrew Edwards 4. Audaye Elesady South West 5. Sophia Swire 5. Jude Robinson 4. Andrew Wigley 4. Tony McIntyre 5. Phil Dunn 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Reports to Conference
    Reports to Conference Spring Conference 2016 REPORTS TO CONFERENCE SPRING 2016 Contents Federal Conference Committee ........................................................... 2 Federal Policy Committee .................................................................... 6 Federal Executive .............................................................................. 10 Federal Finance & Administration Committee .................................... 18 Parliamentary Party Report (Commons) ............................................ 22 Parliamentary Party Report (Lords) ................................................... 24 Parliamentary Party Report (Europe) ................................................. 28 Diversity Engagement Group ............................................................. 31 Campaign for Gender Balance .......................................................... 35 Federal Appeals Panel ...................................................................... 38 Federal Conference Committee Bournemouth 2015 Last autumn we held our conference in Bournemouth. This proves to be one of the more popular venues we visit with 88% of members rating it as an excellent or good venue for an autumn conference. We asked attendees how they felt about the earlier finish time on the final day. 60% of those that responded said they preferred the earlier finish time with only 9% saying they preferred to break for lunch. Next autumn we are trialing greater use of the weekend (see below for details). We will continue to ask all attendees
    [Show full text]
  • Reports to Conference Spring 2015 Contents
    REPORTS TO CONFERENCE SPRING 2015 CONTENTS Contents Page Federal Conference Committee……….……………………….……………..4 Federal Policy Committee......................…………...……………………......9 Federal Executive.............………………... ………………………………...17 Federal Finance and Administration Committee………….….…..............25 Parliamentary Party (Commons)……………………………. ……………...29 …………. Parliamentary Party (Lords)………………………..………………………...35 Parliamentary Party (Europe)………………………….……………………..41 Campaign for Gender Balance……………………………………………...45 Diversity Engagement Group……………………………………………..…50 3 Federal Conference Committee Glasgow 2015 Last autumn we went back to Glasgow for the second year running. As in 2013 we received a superb welcome from the city. We continue to ask all attendees to complete an online feedback questionnaire. A good percentage complete this but I would urge all members to take the time to participate. It is incredibly useful to the conference office and FCC and does influence whether we visit a venue again and if we do, what changes we need to try and make. FCC Changes Following the committee elections at the end of last year there were a number of changes to the membership of FCC. Qassim Afzal, Louise Bloom, Sal Brinton, Prateek Buch, Veronica German, Evan Harris and David Rendel either did not restand or were not re-elected. All played a valuable role on FCC and will be missed. We welcome Jon Ball, Zoe O’Connell and Mary Reid onto the committee as directly elected members. FPC have elected two new representatives onto FCC and we welcome back Linda Jack and Jeremy Hargreaves in these roles. Both have previously served on FCC so are familiar with the way we work. One of the FE reps is also new with Kaavya Kaushik joining James Gurling as an FE rep on FCC.
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 Annual Return
    Annual Return Reporting on the year 2004/05 31 July 2005 Page 2 Contents Executive summary.....................................................................................................................................................................................................5 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................................................16 Network Rail’s regulatory targets....................................................................................................................................................................20 Key performance indicators................................................................................................................................................................................24 Section 1 – Operational performance .........................................................................................................................................................27 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................................................27 Summarised network-wide data (delays to major operators) ........................................................................................28 National delay data by cause...............................................................................................................................................................30
    [Show full text]
  • County and European Elections
    County and European elections Report 5 June 2009 and Analysis County and European elections Report and 5 June 2009 Analysis County and European elections 5 June 2009 3 Contents 5 Acknowledgements 7 Executive summary 9 Political context 11 Electoral systems 13 The European Parliament elections 27 The local authority elections 39 The mayoral elections 43 National implications 51 A tale of two elections 53 Appendix 53 Definition of STV European Parliament constituencies 55 Abbreviations County and European elections 5 June 2009 5 Acknowledgements The author, Lewis Baston, would like to thank his colleagues at the Electoral Reform Society for their help in compiling the data from these elections, particularly Andrew White, Hywel Nelson and Magnus Smidak in the research team, and those campaign staff who lent their assistance. Beatrice Barleon did valuable work that is reflected in the European sections. Thank you also to Ashley Dé for his efforts in bringing it to publication, and to Tom Carpenter for design work. Several Regional Returning Officers, and Adam Gray, helped with obtaining local detail on the European election results. Any errors of fact or judgement are my own. County and European elections 5 June 2009 7 Executive summary 1. In the European elections only 43.4 per cent 9. Many county councils now have lopsided supported either the Conservatives or Labour, Conservative majorities that do not reflect the the lowest such proportion ever. While this was balance of opinion in their areas. connected with the political climate over MPs’ expenses, it merely continues a long-term 10. This is bad for democracy because of the trend of decline in the two-party system.
    [Show full text]
  • Directory Liberal Democrats Autumn Conference Bournemouth 14–17 September 2019
    DIRECTORY LIBERAL DEMOCRATS AUTUMN CONFERENCE BOURNEMOUTH 14–17 SEPTEMBER 2019 Clear Print This clear print / large text version of the Conference Directory matches as closely as possible the text of the published Directory. Page number cross references are correct within this clear print document. Some information may appear in a different place from its location in the published Directory. Complex layouts and graphics have been omitted. It is black and white omn A4 pages for ease of printing. The Agenda and Directory and other conference publications, in PDF, plain text and clear print formats, are available online at www.libdems.org.uk/conference_papers Page 1 Directory Liberal Democrats Autumn Conference 2019 Clearprint Welcome to the Liberal Democrat 2019 conference Directory. If you have any questions whilst at conference please ask a conference steward or go to the Information Desk on the ground floor of the Bournemouth International Centre. Conference venue Bournemouth International Centre (BIC) Exeter Road, Bournemouth, BH2 5BH. Please note that the BIC is within the secure zone and that access is only possible with a valid conference pass. Conference hotel Bournemouth Highcliff Marriott St Michael’s Rd, West Cliff, Bournemouth, BH2 5DU. Further information, registration and conference publications (including plain text and clear print versions) are available at: www.libdems.org.uk/conference For information about the main auditorium sessions, see the separate conference Agenda. DEMAND BETTER THAN BREXIT Page 2 Directory Liberal Democrats Autumn Conference 2019 Clearprint Contents Feature . 4–5 Our time is now by Jo Swinson MP Conference information: . 6–13 Exhibition: . 14–26 List of exhibitors .
    [Show full text]
  • Liberator September 2020
    A shot of this would protect you 0 0 Illiberalism and identity politics - David Grace Radical 0 Does the Compass point to inter-party dealings - Simon Hebditch A pandemic of mental health problems - Claire Tyler liberalism Issue 405 - February 2021 £ 4 Issue 405 February 2021 Liberator is now free to read CONTENTS as a PDF on our website: www. liberatormagazine.org.uk and Commentary.............................................................................................3 please see inside for details of Radical Bulletin .........................................................................................4..7 how to sign up for notifications “YOU’RE ALL INDIVIDUALS” of when issues come out. “I’M NOT” ................................................................................................8..9 It’s Life of Brian’s most famous exchange, but identity politics is denying individuality See the website for the ‘sign up and will end up in aggressive nationalism, says David Grace to Liberator’s email newsletter’ NOT ALL THAT STUFF, AGAIN ...........................................................10..11 link. There is also a free archive Labour can’t win a majority and the Lib Dems and Greens can’t make much progress, of back issues to 2001. it’s time again for cross-party co-operation says Simon Hebditch MARCHING AWAY FROM THE SOUND OF GUNFIRE ..................12..13 The drift of the Liberal Democrats risks becoming terminal unless radical action is taken, to fight for people’s freedoms, writes Gareth Epps THE LIBERATOR THE PANDEMIC’S
    [Show full text]
  • European Newsletter
    Published by Phil Bennion for the Liberal Democrat European Group, Haunton Manor Farm, Haunton, Tamworth, Staffordshire. Design and typesetting by Ben Jephcott THE COALITION: How will it work at European level? Coalition is the norm in the rest of Europe, but the first in Britain since 1945 is still a revolution for the body politic here and those who report on it. Many have asked what difference the agreement will make to politics at a European level. FIONA HALL, Leader of the UK Lib Dem MEPs reports. The first thing to remember is that guard their red lines. MEPs are in MEPs do the coalition government is Her touch directly with their agree on is Majesty's Government - it is an constituents and are more aware that we will agreement made about a of the inconsistencies and be the ones programme of government for the difficulties which arise when there to decide United Kingdom. So what Liberal is a lack of a common European whether we Democrats do at other levels, be it approach. agree or not, not the British media. local councils, devolved So MEPs not infrequently disagree We are determined to manage the assemblies in Scotland, Wales and with their own governments and process of difference and make Northern Ireland, or in Brussels, is take a different line even when sure that the media does not set not affected. And of course, Liberal they are from the same party. It us up against each other or use Democrat MEPs disagree with was Liberal Democrat MEPs who our views to undermine the right-wing MEP colleagues on supported the Labour Government coalition government.
    [Show full text]
  • The Southall Rail Accident Inquiry Report Professor John Uff QC Freng
    iealth 6 Safety Commission The Southall Rail Accident Inquiry Report - Professor John Uff QC FREng 2 Erratum The Southali Rail Accident Inquiry Report iSBN 0 7176 1757 2 Annex 09 Passengers & Staff believed to have sustained injury as a result of the accident Include 'Stuttard, Janis, Mrs Coach H' Delete ' Stothart, Chloe Helen, Miss Coach C' MlSC 210 HSE BOOKS 0 Crown copyright 2000 Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to: Copyright Unit, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, St Clernents House, 2-16 Colegate, Nofwich NR3 1BQ First published 2000 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. LIST OF CONTENTS Inquiry into Southall Railway Accident Preface Glossary Report Summary PART ONE THE ACCIDENT Chapter l How the accident happened Chapter 2 The emergency response Chapter 3 The track and signals Chapter 4 Why was the freight train crossing? Chapter 5 Driver competence and training Chapter 6 Why were the safety systems not working? Chapter 7 Why the accident happened PART TWO EVENTS SINCE SOUTJULL Chapter 8 The Inquiry and delay to progress Chapter 9 Reactions to Southall Chapter 10 Ladbroke Grove and its aftermath PART THREE WIDER SAFETY ISSUES Chapter 11 Crashworthiness and means of escape Chapter 12 Automatic Warning System (AWS) Chapter 13 Automatic Train Protection (ATP) Chapter 14 Railway Safety Issues PART FOUR CONCLUSION Chapter 15 Discussion and Conclusions Chapter 16 Lessons to be learned Chapter 17 Recommendations ANNEXES THIS Report follows an Inquiry held between September and December 1999 into the cause of a major rail accident which occurred on 19 September 1997 at Southall, 9 miles west of Paddington.
    [Show full text]