Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-199)
MR ANSON
JACK
10 NOVEMBER 2004
Chairman: Members having an interest
to declare?
Clive Efford: Member of the Transport
and General Workers' Union.
Mr Stevenson: Member of the Transport
and General Workers' Union.
Ian Lucas: Member of Amicus
Miss McIntosh: I have interests in First
Group Eurotunnel and I am on a parliamentary and industry trust
scheme with Network Rail.
Chairman: ASLEF.
Mr Donohoe: Member of the Transport and
General Workers' Union.
Mrs Ellman: Member of the Transport and
General Workers' Union.
Q180 Chairman: As you can see, we have
a broad range of unions on this committee. May I firstly warmly
welcome you. I am going to ask you, in a moment, just to identify
yourself, Mr Jack. May I make one remark before we begin? We know
from the statement of the Secretary of State today that your Board
is undertaking an investigation. Am I to take it that it would
not be possible for you to comment on that, given the ongoing
nature of the investigations?
Mr Jack: I am happy to confirm
that we have just initiated an inquiry into the events of the
weekend. I would prefer it if you did not speculate on that.
Q181 Chairman: I therefore ask the agreement
of members that we do not follow that particular line of questioning.
Mr Jack, will you please tell us who you are?
Mr Jack: I am Anson Jack and I
am the Director for Standards at the Rail Safety and Standards
Board. I joined the rail industry 25 years ago. I have worked
in British Rail, Railtrack and Network Rail and joined the Rail
Safety and Standards Board in July of last year.
Q182 Chairman: Can you tell us briefly
the difference between the RSSB, Network Rail and Her Majesty's
Rail Inspectorate in regard to safety standards?
Mr Jack: Basically, there is a
hierarchy. HMRI is a part of the safety regulator, the Health
and Safety Executive. They supervise the industry and its compliance
with the rules and regulations that govern the industry. They
do not themselves set regulations. Those will be set by the Secretary
of State.
Q183 Chairman: So theirs is a directly
monitoring role?
Mr Jack: That is correct. They
do issue guidance to the industry as to what they expect. They
publish documents from time to time, such as Reducing Risks,
Protecting People, and that gives guidance to the industry.
The Rail Safety and Standards Board sets the standards and manages
the process for the industry to set its standards that basically
govern the relationships across the industry, so typically between
train operator and Network Rail, but there are also some other
standards relating to the industry. Network Rail have their own
suite of standards but they are, if you like, lower level standards.
They specify either to their contractors or to their own staff
what they are to do and they collectively enable Network Rail
and the other operators in the industry to fulfil their obligations
under their safety cases and under the Health and Safety at Work
Act.
Q184 Chairman: Am I correct in saying
that you are introducing some new group standards?
Mr Jack: The group standards are
for the suite of standards that govern the industry, and there
is an ongoing process of review and improvement of those standards.
Q185 Chairman: By "an ongoing process",
you mean it is a constant, rolling re-examination of existing
safety standards?
Mr Jack: That is correct. The
basic rules are that we review things every five years but between
those five years, if any member of the industry or we identify
something that needs to be looked at and potentially adjusted,
then that can be done.
Q186 Chairman: You are not looking at
things particularly because you think the previous standards have
become rather too elaborate and too expensive?
Mr Jack: When RSSB picked up the
reins at the beginning of last year, in April of 2003, we did
start looking at standards and asking questions as to whether
they are fit for purpose. We have just reached the end of a process
to review what standards are and should be in the future. During
that process, we have identified a number of standards that we
consider to involve excessive cost in relation to the safety benefit,
and changes have been made to those standards.
Q187 Chairman: What exactly is a railway
group standards code?
Mr Jack: That is the set of rules
that the industry signs up to, both by licence and contract, for
how standard will change. It is the process for changing the standards.
Q188 Chairman: So it is not the parameters
themselves; it is actually the business of how you can continue
to evolve your examination of the standards?
Mr Jack: Yes. You could put it
as the Government's rules for standards change, but within the
document called The Railway Group Standards Code is a set
of criteria for how standards should be judged.
Q189 Chairman: Is the aim to simplify
those standards?
Mr Jack: Yes, that is one of the
aims. The fundamental aim is to aid compliance with the Health
and Safety at Work Act, but the Health and Safety at Work Act
requires that people manage their business and the risks so far
as is reasonably practicable, so there is a balance that is correctly
struck between the input that you make and the output that you
get.
Q190 Chairman: Is there any other legal
constraint on your work apart from the Health and Safety at Work
Act?
Mr Jack: The law at large of course
is a constraint and there is a number of specific laws and regulations
that constrain us. The most significant, I believe, are the fairly
recent regulations that have been coming out of the European directives
relating to interoperability and the recent safety directive.
Those are going to set the tone and the environment in which standards
are developed in the future.
Q191 Chairman: I take it that you look
at those very carefully as to how they would affect the British
system?
Mr Jack: We do. In fact the Rail
Safety and Standards Board facilitates the industry's participation
in the process of generating those European standards.
Q192 Chairman: So you are actually to
blame and you are looking at what you have done. Is that it?
Mr Jack: No. The legislators have
decided to create a framework for standards to be created and
the industry is reacting to that by seeking to influence them
and make sure that they have as much practical, economic and safety
input as is appropriate.
Q193 Chairman: Who do you consult when
you are doing that?
Mr Jack: We consult across the
industry all our members and we run an open and transparent process.
We welcome anyone who has a contribution to make.
Q194 Mrs Ellman: Can you reinterpret
the Health and Safety at Work Act in the light of directives or
other changes?
Mr Jack: I do not think it is
for any member of the industry to interpret an Act. It is for
us to comply with it. There are some debates going on about the
exact relationship between the Health and Safety at Work Act and
the new safety directive, but we would say that we believe we
understand the Act and what it requires. We are seeking to understand
what the requirements of the safety directive are, but it is only
when the safety directive is implemented into UK regulations,
through a process that the Department of Transport and the Health
and Safety Executive would oversee, that they would be telling
us what we have to do and if that is different.
Q195 Mrs Ellman: Are there any specific
areas where those discussions are taking place and where there
are differences?
Mr Jack: There are areas where
people are trying to understand what the exact intention of the
safety directive and the interoperability—
Q196 Mrs Ellman: Could you name any of
those areas?
Mr Jack: In general terms, there
is a debate going on under the European legislation about the
role that Network Rail fulfils, which is called an infrastructure
manager, and the train operator, which is called a railway undertaking.
The exact relationship between the infrastructure manager and
the railway undertaking is one that is clearly important to understand,
particularly in the light of the implementation of the Secretary
of State's White Paper.
Q197 Chairman: You are not telling us
that that is not clear? The only reason that we have this split
between operator and infrastructure is because of European ideas
in the first place.
Mr Jack: It is not for me to comment
on why we have the split.
Q198 Chairman: I am not asking you to
comment. I am stating that this is not working, believe me. What
I am asking is: surely, when these were agreed, it was made quite
clear where the line of demarcation lay between the two? You are
giving me the impression that is not the case.
Mr Jack: No, I am not saying that.
I think it is quite clear what the respective responsibilities
are but, in the light of new legislation which is coming in from
Europe, it is important to retain clarity, and, if anything changes,
to understand clearly what those changes are.
Q199 Mrs Ellman: There has been some
suggestion of derogation from group standards for community rail
lines. Who would be taking that decision about derogation?
Mr Jack: The process for standards
change is the same process as for derogation. The group that would
take the decisions is what is called a subject committee, which
consists of elected industry representatives. They are all experts
and they all have qualifications. They sit on something called
a subject committee, which we oversee and participate in. They
make decisions on standards changes or on derogations; that is
fundamentally the same thing.
| 
