Search

Attention: Industry and transport correspondents, health and safety media

Keep railway safety with HSE, warns TUC

The TUC has written to the Secretary of State for Transport today (Thursday) warning that Britain’s railways could face a safety disaster if the Government’s rail review, due out next week, moves rail safety regulation from the independent Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to the Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR).

The TUC says this shift has been sought by the rail companies and represents a major victory for those who want to reduce safety standards in the industry.

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said:

'The TUC is extremely concerned that the regulation of rail safety may be removed from an independent body that the public trusts. For months now the rail industry has been campaigning against what they claim are 'high' safety standards, but the TUC does not believe that company bosses should be able to choose the regulation authority that suits them.

'Rail safety is a matter of major public concern. There is a strong need for an independent regulator that will ensure that the standards within the rail industry are no less than for other industries and are enforced no less rigorously.

'The TUC is calling on the Government to reject this aspect of the rail review and to ensure that the Health and Safety Executive has the appropriate resources and structures to effectively ensure the safety of the public and employees on Britain’s railways.

'There are no doubt relationship problems between the HSE and rail operators but the government should help settle the differences. Any moves to take rail safety regulation away from the HSE would fly in the face of the Cullen Enquiry report following the Ladbroke Grove crash (1999), which said that the HSE should retain responsibility for rail safety.'

Background brief

Cullen report

The rail inspectorate was transferred to the HSE in 1990, in the aftermath of the Clapham Junction and Kings Cross disasters. The Cullen report was concerned that the industry wished to return to the 'light touch' approach to safety that immediately followed privatisation (Cullen, page 136). Cullen’s arguments in favour of retaining rail safety within the HSE include: 'cross-fertilisation of ideas, sharing technical resources and the support of a well-developed regulatory framework.'

Having given all the alternatives serious thought, Cullen was 'not persuaded that a new safety regulator for the railways should take the place of the HSE. I recommend that HSE, through HMRI, continue to fulfil that function.' (para. 9.66)

The TUC is fundamentally opposed to a move that means that the regulation of railway safety is the direct responsibility of those responsible for the financial and /or operational regulation of the industry.

Managing safety

Moving the rail safety regulator from one body to another does not address the complex root causes of the industry’s performance and cost problems, which relate to broad cultural and management issues.

The major drivers of cost escalation in the rail industry are poor management of projects and a lack of basic cost controls. Significant gains could be achieved by tighter control of projects and better incentives to achieve value for money.

In the short term, gains from work currently in hand will be lost and a more complex and fragmented regulatory structure created. In the longer term there is a real risk that rail safety performance will be adversely affected, as the new safety regulator becomes isolated from the national source of expertise in the regulation of safety management within the HSC/E.

There is no evidence to suggest that this move of HM Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) to the ORR will maintain or improve safety. It is more likely to stall much needed reform and entirely miss the underlying causes of the industry's problems.

Differing standards

The removal of safety regulation of the railway industry from HSC/E would lead to differing standards of health and safety implementation/enforcement between railways and other similar industries.

Removal of rail safety regulation to another body would complicate rather than simplify regulation. Issues of demarcation with continuing HSC/E responsibilities would arise. Where will HSC/E’s responsibilities in rail premises end - e.g. at the ticket barrier, the platform? Similarly would HMRI continue to regulate beyond the mainline railway (the extent of ORR’s current responsibility) e.g. London Underground, tramways and heritage railways? This proposal will result in more fragmentation, not less.

Contacts:

Media enquiries: Ben Hurley 020 7467 1248 or 07626 317903 (pager) or email bhurley@tuc.org.uk

Press release (800 words) issued 8 Jul 2004