Spending halt on rail safety urged
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE SUSPENSION of all further spending on rail safety measures was urged last night by David Willetts, Conservative MP for Havant, in a paper complaining of the increased burden of red tape regulation.
Mr Willetts, former director of the Thatcherite Centre for Policy Studies, said in a Social Market Foundation paper that tomorrow's No 10 seminar on deregulation would give John Major a chance to seize the initiative on an issue of increasing concern to consumers and business.
He said that the impetus had to come from the Prime Minister because the Department of Trade and Industry represented the interests of large rather than small business, while the Treasury appeared more concerned with spending controls than the stimulation of a free market economy.
Analysing a variety of regulatory case studies, Mr Willetts said that Whitehall aimed for the highest standards regardless of the costs it was imposing on private enterprise; officials tried to put the blame on Brussels or local authorities for their own excess zeal; and that regulation driven by considerations of health, safety and environmental protection could not be allowed to override all cost constraints.
Underlining that latter point, Mr Willetts posed a riddle for Mr Major: 'How can you spend over pounds 200m a year on rail safety and increase transport deaths?'
He said the answer was that by forcing higher spending on rail safety, passengers were being driven on to the roads by higher fares, where the risk of death was almost five times greater.
The Prime Minister should ask for a comparative study of rail and road safety requirements to maximise the number of lives saved, Mr Willetts said.
He added: 'He might also call for a moratorium on implementation of all further rail safety requirements until it has been shown that these will save lives in total.'
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments