JOHN HUMPHRYS: But first, inevitably, the story that has dominated the week and will be with us for a very long time to come - safety on the railways. It's being reported this morning, as you've heard, that the government intends to strip Railtrack of its responsibility for safety. With me is the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. Mr Prescott, is that true? JOHN PRESCOTT MP: Well everybody, every company has a responsibility for safety but we do think there's a conflict of interest here and when I first came to office I was concerned about a number of things on the railways on safety. One, I didn't think the regulatory framework was tight enough, I've completely reformed that, we've new regulators to toughen up controls on accountability. I also felt that automatic train protection was something that was causing concern and delay. I immediately then ordered the system of the Train Protection Warning system, which is the one now to come into place. But alongside that I want also to see Automatic Train Protection, not only for the existing lines which was the European one, the Heathrow to London one Paddington, the new come one that will be coming on the North West. I also want it on the East Coast as well as the East Midland line. So I have made decisions about doing that. And at the same time, what I wanted to see was something done about safety. We always said that this kind of organisation of the railway would lead to a blame culture, it was fragmented, everybody would want to blame everybody else when you get into a serious incident.. HUMPHRYS: ..because of privatisation? PRESCOTT: Yes, well it was fragmented into these different companies, it was inevitable whether it was Railtrack or an operating company. We were very concerned about that and we were also concerned about..that safety itself had been put into the hands of Railtrack in standards for example effecting all of the companies like the Train Operating Companies. We believe that to be a conflict of interest. So I asked, last year, for the Health and Safety Commission, to go in and look at Railtrack and that's the report that's now come on my desk and at the same time, of course, I ordered a major review of all the safety twelve months ago, across the transport system. So, yes, we are concerned, we have been acting through this period to improve the safety and the latest report on my desk suggests to me that perhaps in Railtrack the conflicts that I am concerned about, they have actually highlighted in their report and I've now sent the independent inspectors to look at that and I have legislation on the stock that's very shortly I would imagine and under those circumstances any legislation recommendation or changes in this way could be catered for. HUMPHRYS: Right, so it is likely that that regulation, that new legislation will include the removal of the regulatory aspect of Railtrack's responsibility for safety. PRESCOTT: Yes, what happened is, for example, every company under the Health and Safety legislation, and health and safety still applies right across the system here, they supervise the regulatory role, but certain powers were given to Railtrack to decide some of the safety standards for those .... like the train operating companies. Now there has been a complaint about that, there was a conflict of interest in different standards for example, and facts that should be with an independent body and those complaints I have received in the report and concerns expressed by people in the industry, are sufficient for me to ask the report body to go in and look at those aspects of regulation that I do believe should be an independent and public control and don't create the kind of conflict of interest of commerce and standards which I think is the fear in this case. HUMPHRYS: Because at the moment, the man who's responsible for that aspect of safety in Railtrack is actually on the Railtrack board. PRESCOTT: Yes, when British Rail were there they did have a separate standards committee and body dealing with this, because obviously they had to send the standards through, but it was one completely owned by the state anyway, but it was separated from the board. In this case, they've still kept those same organisations that were originally with the British Rail and have gone to Railtrack. The trouble is now that that board obviously has to sit on a commercial board which is Railtrack.. HUMPHRYS: ...it's a profit making.. PRESCOTT: ...which first of all raises these issues of conflict of interest and I think that case was established when we argued against it when the previous government brought in this kind of organisation and the report which I commissioned last year, now arrived on my desk, confirms those fears and concerns, that's why I've sent the independent group of people, through the HSC, in to look at it and we do have a legislative framework, in my view, to be able to deal with any changes that are necessary. HUMPHRYS: So who will assume those regulatory responsibilities that are removed from Railtrack? PRESCOTT: Well that's a big question. The Select Committee in fact did look at this matter and reported April last year when they said (a) it should be separated from Railtrack - I agreed with them - they suggested that it should go into an independent body dealing with safety. HUMPHRYS: ..a new body? PRESCOTT: Yes a new body, one that covered all of them. We've still got a decision to make about that. I think the principle is right, I hope now we can actually get on with looking at that. I Welcome the fact that Railtrack have actually now said that they would be quite prepared to remove this part of their operation from them. That, I think, is a welcome step forward. Where do I put it, do I put it with the Health and Safety Executive, that's what I hope I can now make the decisions about. But do bear in mind John, this is an important point, Lord Cullen, that I have put in to conduct this inquiry, is not only to find out what happened in this terrible tragic accident, but at the same time is to ask him to look at the safety regime. Now, he looked at the whole safety regime for the North Sea, I used to campaign for safety in the North Sea many years ago, because it was exempted from the Health and Safety coverage. He then brought in a whole new safety regime. I want him to be looking at that, but I can't wait until his final conclusions, he will understand, if there's something causing any conflict with the safety regime at present, and I can change it to improve it now, I will. Safety is the top priority. I've spent my life fighting for the improvement in safety in industry, both as a politician and as a seaman before that. I'll not compromise on that issue. HUMPHRYS: Some people might say if it goes to HSE that would be inappropriate because it was after all the HSE who was presided over the .... had a very large part to play in its regulatory roles it being responsible for safety because if you look at what has been happening on the railways as you know very well over the last year we have seen all these trains going through red lights and twenty-two of those lights have had constant trains going through them on red. Now the HSE has not actually done anything about that. It has asked for a report certainly but it hasn't done what it's now done in the case of Paddington and said - close down this signal 109, have another signal altogether - it should have done it, you could argue, with all these others over the past several years. PRESCOTT: Well I think that's a very fair point and I think that's about the safety regime in the industry and I am sure Lord Cullen will address himself to that. Can I be specific about the ones that you mention passing red signals. Do bear in mind that a few years ago there were nine-hundred. It's now down to six-hundred. It's far too many but there was a cut of almost a third through that period of time which is very welcome because pressures were being put on by the previous administration as well as ourself to get the changes over this period, I was alarmed about it and asked them to give me a report on it, the Health and Safety Executive, they put extra pressures to make these kind of changes, but I am still not satisfied and indeed neither are the Health and Safety Executive, because they gave me a report in September saying, look we are still very much concerned about this, it's about signalling, it's about positioning, it's about driver training and they came up with twenty-two points and basically those points that they gave to Railtrack and the industry to improve and we're just, I think their response has just arrived from Railtrack now, so we were in the process of getting further changes in this area. Now of course the appointment of David Davis who I appointed to look at the arguments about these different technological protection systems that are available, I have also referred to him the six-hundred passing of the signals, hopefully we will be able to do an awful lot more. But just one point John, just remember that many of these drivers, professional drivers doing this job up and down their country, when I look at one of the worst signals, it's something like two a year passing, right, when you look at some of those on that list that was published, you know, against all the things that are happening of how many times drivers pass it is small, but we are reminded by one incident, by what is happening at the moment, the terrible tragedy at the moment, still trying to clear it, the sheer horror that people have to deal with there, so one is not enough, but I would like to put it a little bit in perspective and say to them, many of these drivers doing very very good jobs, very professional, being as concerned as we are, but we have to get them down, it's far too many, and I have been dealing with it the last twelve-months, some success, but I think still not enough. HUMPHRYS: Because what is needed clearly looking at the record is greater urgency. PRESCOTT: Well I think this is, urgency, I tried to explain to a lady who came to me that her son had died on the Southall, and she said, nothing has happened in the two years, and to her point of view she was probably right. But what had happened in those two years, I come into power, I actually order the review, ask further.... I want this train protection system to be brought in, I don't want any more arguments..... HUMPHRYS: ......No I wasn't referring to that...I was talking about these dodgy signals. PRESCOTT: ....No, no, I know you do but I want to give you the point, I had to make the decision now to bring in that order which I did in August to start implementing the system. But for two years the process of decision making is something that I have to say to myself, could it be done quicker, don't you have to go through consultation. Now safety regime is the essential issue. I am concerned about the safety regime, so whether we do this quick enough, whether we spend too much time consultating, this concentrates the mind in the most horrific way, yes you are having success but couldn't you get more. For example you could say to drivers, how do we get past a red light system, they go through two yellow warning light systems first, but there is a certain amount of pressure involved in the system and I notice that some of the incidents take place largely between eight and nine, and five and six, when the most intensity of rush hour is involved, so we should ask ourselves, are we taking too much pressure at the yellow lights, should we make the warning system further back than it is in the red light, now that might be one of the more positive ways you can do it, but all those are a matter of balance and I can assure you I will be doing everything I can to make sure we get that balance. HUMPHRYS: Just a quick thought on that, two drivers on the train? PRESCOTT: Yes, I've heard that said and of course you know two drivers do take place when a person is being trained and in his early stages in the training somebody is accompanying whether also it might be the manager training with the person and I have asked the Health and Safety Inspector and they have been looking for the last few months at how we might improve the training techniques, as for the manning, whether there should be one or two. Under certain conditions, I think over one-hundred-and-twenty mile an hour, there has to be two drivers on a train, but up to now it's been one in others, or in the London Dockland Railway there is no driver and there the Automatic Train Protection System works and controls, and it's a different system on the Great Western Line, but there they operate without train drivers. HUMPHRYS: This new body, the new safety body - will it be responsible for the train operating companies as well and will it have the sorts of powers that many people believe it should have so that it could say for instance, to a train operating company whoever it happens be, Great Western Trains or whoever, your safety record isn't good enough, you're going to lose your franchise next time around? PRESCOTT: Well, let me come to the first - first of all the Health and Safety Executive Commission is the one that is responsible for the safety right across our industry, right. They would still remain there. HUMPHRYS: That's not going to change...... PRESCOTT: It's not going to be changed, but having a separate one would still be related to it. There used to be a separate rail inspectorate set inside the Department of Transport. This was still related to the health and safety, but in the department. That was changed and put into Health and Safety, so whether it would be - I think there has to be a separate body, whether it's Health and Safety or another body where companies can get their standards - rail companies like train operating companies decided by that body rather than the Railtrack who obviously are in that conflict situation. I think that's what the chairman Mr Corbett was talking about, the managing director, the chief executive that the sort of changes should make. Now that led me to the franchisers. If you look at the franchise organisation at the moment, which again I'm now reorganising - I've appointed a new franchise director to do it and a strategic rail authority so we can at last begin to get a national approach to railways, in franchise negotiations the safety standards set for them are based on what we call the automatic warning system - you know the bells and the gongs and - that would stop the train by the way as long as the driver doesn't cancel it, and that's what happened in this case. Clearly it was being cancelled. Now, the franchise negotiations on say, the West coast line, the re-negotiated one now has got the automatic train protection. I want to see that coming on the East coast line and therefore franchise negotiations will have to take into account a higher level of safety on automatic train protection. HUMPHRYS: And they have the power to say: If it isn't improved you are out? PRESCOTT: Oh yes. If you have a franchise even now and you are not operating to the standards that are set. At the moment they're just set at the automatic warning system. If they don't meet those requirements they lose their licence to operate for safety, and the regulator can take that away, and that means well, as the regulator actually sets the standard for it, the franchise negotiating - you know negotiates with you and I with you as an operator as to what the terms should be, but the answer is this, yes, they can lose the franchise, and if they weren't operating their standards so they should. HUMPHRYS: Because the same principle applies to them doesn't it, the conflict between - and this is a matter of fundamental principle, the conflict between safety and profit. PRESCOTT: Oh yes, I mean that's a balance I think affecting most industries, certainly where it's private some pressures in the public sector as well where there's a balance between how much we invest in safety and how much we might be offering and what resources are available. What we're saying on a public railway system, the level of safety that has to be maintained and sustained, that is what you have to pay for. I'm not have a half safe railway because you can't afford it this week. We can lay down and will do, and the Health and Safety lay it down, that this is the level of safety I want. What I did in the first couple of months was to say to the Health and Safety I want to lift it, and if this train protection system can actually do it and reduce these incidents by something like over seventy per cent I want it in now. I don't want any more arguments about whether the standards is right, whether it working on Great Western - let's have more consultation. I came in from day one, ordered the changes, brought them in, implemented it, and therefore it's never just about money as I told you on another programme, it's about how fast you can implement it, how can you lift that safety, and the one I ordered could come in three years or four years, can reduce these incidents by seventy per cent, and I see that the Rail Inspector said if this decision had been applicable and that system had been on this one it would have been avoided. I just want to get on with it. HUMPHRYS: Because of that conflict between profit and safety you're going to have to rethink the privatisation or the introduction of private sector into air traffic control as well aren't you? Same principle. PRESCOTT: No. Well, not - the same principle is that the safety and control of safety should be in the hands of public authorities and not private authorities, and not in the commercial - again the Health and Transport Select Committee recommended in regard to rail that we should take it out of Railtrack - they're the owners of the private, where that conflict existed. It is also recommended that I take the safety out of the hands of the aviation authorities which I am proposing to do, and that's what would happen here, so that both are consistent that we don't get the conflict between the profit and the decisions, because the safety standards enforced and implied and laid down are regulated by a public body and not a private one. HUMPHRYS: But the pressure on you not to go ahead with that is going to be enormous now, (INTERRUPTION) because, - well people - I've just explained to viewers why that is the case because people are going to say : Look, here we've got a privatised rail service, admittedly quite a different set up because of the way it was broken down and all the rest of it, but air traffic control at the moment is a public body, and therefore we trust it because it doesn't have to worry about making profits for its shareholders. The minute that stops people are going to think, well hang on now, yes I know there's a regulatory body overseeing it, but nonetheless it is still an organisation that's going to have to produce profit, and there is, as you freely acknowledge an inherent conflict between producing profit and safety measures . PRESCOTT Well, whether it's publicly or privately owned the people who lay down the safety standards have to be a body that's solely got that responsibility, not necessarily having to take or have a conflict of interest above money. I'm separating the safety function from both. There's still an argument about the air traffic control if you like, and that's being deployed with me at the moment, but they are lacking billions of pounds that they want actually in investment to make it an improvement, and I am faced with the question can I get that money from other sources rather than the Treasury which may decide to put it into health, schools and hospitals. Now that's quite an economic......altogether. HUMPHRYS: Surely the railway story has told us that that is exactly what should happen, that public money must go into safety, surely that's what you.... PRESCOTT: That's my first priority. I've got no argument about that. But you know the type of technology and equipment that you use and how effectively you can do it...let's take aviation, the Aviation Authority can lay down: I want this kind of technology and want to see it, because I think it's the best. We're trying to do that with Swannick and the changes that we are doing at the moment. But in fact, it requires an awful lot more money. All I am doing with that, is suggesting we can get it from the income stream, raise the money, mortgage if you like the same thing in the Underground and improve the safety, unfortunately a lot of modernisation has not taken place because the Treasury has found it self in conflict - does money come for hospitals, schools or this. If I can do it by another way of raising money, mortgaging or re-mortgaging, why not. That's nothing to do with safety. But I would say to people who use this argument, do not use this argument, the name of safety to achieve either an ideological or an industrial end, let's separate safety and I'll not compromise on that at all, and my record shows it and will continue to show it. HUMPHRYS: John Prescott, thank you very much.