Examination of Witnesses (Questions 360
- 371)
TUESDAY 23 NOVEMBER 1999
MR BILL
CALLAGHAN, MS
JENNY BACON
AND MR
DAVID EVES
360. Would it not be far better to actually
have targets in which there was some penalty if they were not
reached?
(Mr Callaghan) I think, Chairman, what the Commission
is doing is having this discussion which you have been having,
quite properly, with the Executive, and we on the Commission have
set a strategic plan, the Executive are working on that and I
think the Commission, in terms of exercising their strategic judgment,
will have to be monitoring progress against that plan. I think
when we know the outcome of the strategic appraisal, obviously
the Commission then will be reflecting that in developing its
plan. But just to emphasise a point which the Director-General
made before, the Commission did consult widely on the balance
of objectives and targets which were set out in the plan, and
I am certainly keen to make sure that process of consultation
with our key stakeholders continues.
Chairman: When we set up this inquiry we were
keen not to spend a lot of time on rail safety, although it is
obviously a very important issue, but we have just one or two
questions.
Mrs Dunwoody
361. I just want to ask you very briefly that
it is very clear you understand what happens when an industry
is fragmented, if you are talking about construction in the South
East. Since the railway industry is a classic example of fragmentation,
what lessons have you learned from, for example, the recent tragedy?
(Ms Bacon) One of the things we want to look at is
whether the regulatory regime we have in place, including the
cascade system for safety cases, is appropriate, given the degree
of fragmentation of the industry.
362. So you did not think it was necessary to
do that after Southall but you think it is necessary after Ladbroke
Grove?
(Ms Bacon) We did think it was necessary to do so
after a suitable period of time. We had started evaluation of
these regulations at the point when the accident occurred.
363. The truth is, though, that the industry
has been in total disarray on things like safety cases for well
over five years. It is not that they do not have very good, old
and tried systems, it is that they have been totally reorganised.
Has your particular establishment reacted to the changes that
have taken place in the railway industry since privatisation?
(Ms Bacon) We have reacted as best we are able in
circumstances which are changing. We have been drawing attention
to particular difficulties which are occurring, including the
results of fragmentation and what happens when you have multiple
interfaces and a great deal of contractorisation. We have produced
reports on that and gone back to companies and asked them to look
at it in their safety case assessments, against which inspection
takes place. We drew attention to the problem of SPADs and broken
rails and a number of other things which are not going well over
the industry as a whole. That said, the number of significant
accidents and the number of injuries has been going down over
the period in question.
364. Well, there is some argument about that
and we have discussed that in another Committee, and of course
another Committee did a whole report on railway safety to which
you were asked to give evidence. Very briefly, what lessons have
you learned and what are you doing differently?
(Ms Bacon) What we are doing differently at the moment
is issuing improvement notices, perhaps where we would have asked
for action before. In other words, we are putting it on a formal
basis with a formal timescale, because as I have said to you before
we have begun to get rather fed up with delays in response—
365. You have been a bit relaxed in getting
fed up. You do not get as fed up as some of us do with quite the
same speed, do you? You have been a very tolerant establishment.
(Ms Bacon) We have to work within the law. We now
think we have enough of a case history, or a record, that we can
afford to be tougher and not be challenged on every single decision
we take or piece of action we ask for. So that is one lesson we
have learnt over a period. The second is that we have to look
pretty carefully at what is going on within the organisation of
Railtrack's S & SD, which of course we did a report on, and
were wanting action on and that has now been expedited. Thirdly,
I think we have big question marks for ourselves about our role
in approvals and whether it is appropriate for us to be as deeply
involved in approvals as we are. This is fundamentally something
which ought to be the responsibility of the industry itself and
we should not be drawn into every single decision.
366. So you suggest we might remove some of
that regulation?
(Ms Bacon) No, we suggest it might be dealt with on
a different basis which enables it to be done systematically across
the piece, as it is for example in the offshore industry, where
verification is done by third parties and not by the regulator,
so the regulator is at one remove and can inspect better.
367. That evidence will have to come out from
one of the many inquiries which are taking place which presumably
you will use as the basis for some of these decisions.
(Ms Bacon) We will certainly—
368. Can you assure us that you have been much
more vigorous in your prosecution of changes within the railway
industry than you were before?
(Ms Bacon) I can assure you that we had started to
be much more vigorous, and I think the action we took during the
course of the summer on, for example, the Severn Bridge, where
we were pretty disturbed about the broken rails, was one example
of that. The SPADs report was another. I can assure you that we
are now fully tails up on being rather more up-front and, as I
have said, formal in the kind of action we are requiring.
369. "Tails up", it sounds like little
dinosaurs, does it not? Could you just tell us in simple terms
what urgent action you will be taking with the railway companies
in the next six months?
(Ms Bacon) We shall be making sure that they do respond
to us and take action on SPADs, particularly on the 22 most SPADed
signals.
370. Are you going to name and shame some of
them? Mind you, it is rather difficult to shame some of them.
(Ms Bacon) That is already out, so there is no need
for us to add to the publicity. That is one aspect. SPADs is only
part of the problem. We shall be taking similar action on, for
example, rails, rolling stock, in trying to make sure that standards
are met and that timescales are kept to.
Chairman
371. On that note, thank you very much for your
evidence.
(Ms Bacon) Thank you very much.
|
