Fact sheet on Railway safety
Why we need an independent rail regulator
This factsheet tells you:
- What the government is planning to do about safety in the railways
- What it could mean for rail safety
- Why we need to keep an independent regulator
What is being planned
There has recently been speculation in the press that the regulation of rail safety is to be removed from the HSC/E and should be transferred to the Department of Transport or the Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR). This would represent a major victory for those who want to reduce safety standards in the industry.
A recent article in the Financial Times (27/04/04) headlined, ‘Railways wins fight over safety’, suggested that rail safety regulation looks "certain" to be removed from HSC/E. This would be a victory to the rail industry that is lobbying to choose its own safety regulator rather than be regulated by the independent HSC/E, but a disaster for rail safety.
For some months now the Rail Industry has been campaigning against what they claim are 'high' safety standards.The Secretary of State for Transport is currently undertaking a Rail review. This will look at various aspects or regulation, including that of safety. The TUC has broadly welcomed the review, however we are extremely concerned over the safety aspects of the review.
It is important that the Rail industry is regulated on the same basis as other industries, and that safety is not used as an excuse for the underlying problems within the industry.
The TUC does not believe that rail safety standards are too high, as the recent tragedies at Tebay, Hatfield and Paddington testify.
There is no evidence to suggest that a move of HM Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) to the (ORR) or the Department for Transport would maintain or improve safety. It would be more likely to stall much needed reform and entirely miss the underlying causes of the industry's problems. The TUC is also fundamentally opposed to any moves that would mean that the regulation of railway safety was the direct responsibility of those who are responsible for the financial regulation of the industry.
Need to solve the real problems
Simply moving the rail safety regulator from one body to another would be change for change’s sake. It would not address the complex root causes of the industry’s performance and cost problems, which relate to broad cultural and management issues. It is clear that the major drivers of cost escalation in the rail industry are poor scoping and management of projects and a lack of basic cost controls. The TUC believes that 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 would be lost and a more complex and fragmented regulatory structure created. In the longer term there is a real risk that rail safety performance might be adversely affected, as the new safety regulator became isolated from the national source of expertise in the regulation of safety management within the HSC/E.
Why we need common standards
Many in the rail industry argue against the application of general health and safety law to the railways. In particular they question the underpinning concept of ensuring safety 'so far as is reasonably practicable' (SFAIRP), which they consider too onerous. This is the level of safety that every other industry has to operate to. To argue that the basis of health and safety law should be changed form 'risk' to 'affordability' is completely irresponsible and would lead to different standards for each company depending on their profitability.
The TUC believes that regulation by HSE under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act has delivered real benefits - in the rail industry, headline safety performance has improved since the HSE began to enforce rail safety in 1990 and continues to do so, with significant achievements such as the installation of TPWS. However, there is no room for complacency, as the recent tragic deaths of track workers show. In fact the rail Unions have long argued for greater enforcement and increased resources for HMRI.
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. There can be no justification for this. The Health and Safety at Work Act is generally regarded as one of the most effective pieces of legislation of its kind, and as a result of its application, Britain has one of the best records for occupational safety in the world.
Recent research by MORI demonstrated that HSC/E is very well recognised and trusted by the public and has good relationships with those it regulates. Only the rail industry is out of step with this view - (with the exception of London Underground who are a strong advocate for HSE’s approach to rail safety regulation).
Alternative models for rail regulation
A number of alternatives, which have been sadly lacking in detail, have been proposed by the rail industry. These have not identified any justification for change other than the view that rail industry doesn’t get on with the HSE. The industry’s favoured alternative is to transfer HMRI to the ORR. Such a move would compromise the independence of the rail safety regulator.
The rail safety regulator should be visibly independent from the rail industry and from the economic regulator. This is particularly relevant for the railways because of the large amount of public funding. If safety regulation formed part of any body that made decisions about funding and/or economic regulation, there would be a real risk that safety would be compromised when economic decisions are made that have a safety dimensions. Lord Cullen, in the Ladbroke Grove Inquiry, opposed such a change and the current head of the ORR, Tom Winsor, has also publicly stated that he does not favour such a move.
Removal of rail safety regulation to another body would complicate rather than simplify regulation. Issues of demarcation with continuing HSC/E responsibilities would arise, as in the case of airports and docks there would need to be agreement as to where HSC/E’s responsibilities in rail premises should 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? The proposals would result in more fragmentation, not less.
Safety of the public and workers
The TUC is also concerned about the proposal from some sections of the industry for a separation of worker and passenger safety in the rail industry. This proposal is unworkable. Workers and passengers are often subject to the same risks at the same time - they travel and work on the same trains and track. Lord Cullen was adamant that there should be no distinction between safety of the public and rail employees.
A split approach would also create considerable practical complexities, for example in identifying where the boundaries would lie, whether the same level of safety applied, and whether the same regulatory approach would be adopted.
In summary, the TUC does not believe that employers should be able to choose the regulation they like. Rail Safety is a matter of major public concern and the regulation of safety must be kept separate from economic regulation. 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. If the rail industry gets its way it could be a disaster in every sense of the word.
What you can do
Until a public announcement is made the TUC is hopeful that common sense will prevail and the Government will realise that independent regulation is the only way forward.
You can help by writing to your MP expressing concern at the press reports that rail safety may be compromised, or writing to your local newspaper alerting people to what is going on.
The TUC are holding a conference on the future of rail safety on 25th June in Central London. Speakers will include Brendan Barber the TUC General Secretary and Bill Callaghan, the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission.
Stay Updated
Want to hear about our latest news and blogs?
Sign up now to get it straight to your inbox