New safety rules

GOVERNMENT proposals in the rail review to transfer responsibility for rail safety from the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) to the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) will also affect London Underground, heritage and light rail systems. This controversial move is opposed by RMT which believes that there should be only one safety regulator, who needs to be completely independent of any economic and government pressures. The problem with the government proposals is that it joins safety and economic regulation together, and creates the potential for safety decisions to be influenced by afford- ability rather than any degree of risk and the cost of reducing it. Financial considerations could also dictate the timetable for safety improvements, as has happened with disastrous results within the airline industry, which has combined economic and safety regulation. Commercial pressures It raises questions as to whether issuing safety certificates to train- operating companies will be more about how little government subsidy they require rather than any safety arrangements. In addition, as highlighted by Lord Cullen in his 2001 inquiry into rail safety, the creation of a single-issue, single-industry safety body is more vulnerable to ‘regulatory capture’ – that is, they are likely to fall prey to undue commercial influence. The purpose of moving the Railway Inspectorate into the HSE in the first place was because a Department of Transport review in 1987 identified that it needed greater support and expertise than they were able to provide. The resulting problems became apparent during the inquiry into the Kings Cross fire. Taking responsibility away from the HSE and moving it to the ORR would simply re-create those same deficiencies. As part of his inquiry, Lord Cullen also rejected alternative models of safety regulation. While government is now arguing that things have moved on, nothing new has arisen that Lord Cullen did not consider. The latest EU regulatory requirements were well sign- posted and were referred to throughout his inquiry. The truth is that government has given in to private sector demands for a softer regulatory approach. The case the employers have put forward has often involved blaming HSE safety demands for their failure to control costs. In reality their spiralling demands for more subsidies have largely been caused by their own incompetence, lack of planning and the fragmented nature of the privatised network. Weak leadership Another victim of this fragmentation is safety leadership, which the government has acknowledged remains very weak. This is one of the roles that the Rail Standards & Safety Board (RSSB) was established to undertake, but since its transfer into the joint ownership of the industry some 18 months ago, it has become a virtual hostage of the employers. Much of its work is now the provision of services on behalf of the industry, which theoret- ically could be undertaken elsewhere. As a result of the rail review, employers are already being consulted regarding the structure and services provided by RSSB. This has presented them the opportunity to question the need for a separate safety organisation. What employers cannot undertake themselves, they believe can be contracted out, providing them with the opportunity to exert greater control over safety standards. RMT opposes move to compromise safety SAFETY: Staff from Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate, part of the Health and Safety Executive, at the site of the 1999 Paddington rail crash. HMRI was in charge of the search for evidence as to the cause of the accident, which resulted in the death of dozens of commuters. Under rail review proposals to transfer rail safety to the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) safety could be compromised by pressure from privateers. Photo: reportdigital©Stefano Cagnoni 15