Mr A Maginness (Chairperson)
Mr Bradley
Mr R Hutchinson
Mr McNamee
Mr Savage
Mr M Robinson

Mr T Hesketh ) Translink Mr A Mercer )

The Committee welcomes Mr Hesketh and Mr Mercer from Translink to the first formal evidence session on the Railway Safety Bill. We will have a question-and-answer session after Mr Hesketh's submission.

We are glad to be here again and pleased at the interest the Committee is taking in these matters, not least in the issue of railway safety, which is very important to us as a business. I am the author of the response from Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company (NITHC)/Translink of which I understand the Committee has copies. Alan Mercer, who is director of human resources, aided and abetted me in the preparation of the submission. Mr Mercer is here not only as director of human resources, but as the senior manager at board level with responsibility for railway safety in the senior management team. He is involved in that work on a day-to-day basis.

Railway safety came to the fore as a result of the A D Little safety report, which was commissioned by Northern Ireland Railways (NIR). At that time the board was becoming seriously concerned about railway safety and hired external specialist consultants to prepare a report on the state of the railway. Our primary concerns, as the Committee knows only too well, were the state of the infrastructure and the rolling stock. In the report, AD Little rightly highlighted the fact that most of the legislation governing railway safety was out of date and related to the nineteenth century. Some 10 years earlier, the same could have been said of the railway in GB, but in anticipation of privatisation, all railway legislation had been brought up to date there. Enabling legislation was passed and successive legislation prepared. Our Department proposed treading the same path of passing enabling legislation and introducing secondary legislation in steps.

In response to the consultation, Translink proposed taking advantage of the body of legislation already in existence in GB and passing it all in one fell swoop as the quickest way of bringing Northern Ireland up to date; in other words, replicating the consolidated weight of railway legislation that exists in GB. That view did not prevail with the current Bill. Nonetheless, we have received a detailed list of the proposed further legislation, which takes care of our objections.

There are two other matters, which I would like Mr Mercer to speak about, to do with legislation relating to drugs and alcohol and the policing of the transport system. However, before that, I would like to mention a few other points for the Committee's benefit. We have good relations with Irish Rail. Northern Ireland Railways and Irish Rail meet regularly to discuss safety matters, because there are issues of interoperation between the North and the South. The other organisation that uses our network is the Railway Preservation Society of Ireland. We are working with that body to draw up a network agreement, which, if successful, will enable us to allow it to operate on the network. There are technical difficulties, mainly to do with insurance, but they are being addressed. However, until they are resolved, we cannot let the steam trains run, which is a very great pity, but we are endeavouring to deal with those matters properly.

Apart from the current Railway Safety Bill, developments on railway safety are coming over the horizon in Europe, and a fresh Directive is emerging on that. Among other things, it will deal with interoperability; the issuing of safety certificates; the recognition of each other's safety certificates by member states; setting down rules for accident investigation and the creation of bodies to investigate accidents; and a whole raft of other issues. That Directive will not have a direct bearing on this topic - I mention it only so that the Committee is aware of it. That is the end of my presentation. Perhaps Mr Mercer may address the issues that I mentioned.

Yes, indeed.

Mr Hesketh referred to drugs and alcohol and security matters. Translink would have preferred the primary legislation, or the regulations that are planned, to make provision parallel to that of the Transport and Works Act 1992 in GB, which requires railway operators to carry out drugs and alcohol testing. NIR has a voluntary agreement with the trade union on drugs/alcohol testing, and we carry out tests regularly. However, we would be happier if that were enshrined in law, because if a case involving an employee were to arise, it could be challenged under human rights legislation.

This is an opportunity that is being missed. We all know the societal issues involved, and as we test for drugs and alcohol at all levels throughout Translink, we regularly have people who fail the tests. We are concerned about train drivers or people in other safety-critical roles slipping through the net.

The other issue is security provision. Attacks on public transport are well documented and attract a high level of publicity. We prefer formal policing arrangements for the security of public transport. It is not just a matter of employee protection, though we are very mindful of that. This problem undoubtedly gives us added difficulties when recruiting people for public transport jobs.

It is also well documented that a lack of personal security is a barrier to travel, and particularly so for women and evening travel. We want a resource, and we are not particularly concerned about who owns it. Special arrangements already exist - the Harbour Police and the airport police, so it might be appropriate for "transport police" to police the transport system; perhaps a dedicated unit of the Police Service. Regrettably the existing resource cannot meet our needs.

Translink was hoping for a more comprehensive and substantive piece of legislation dealing with railway safety, and you adverted to this in your response to the Bill to the Department and in your comments this morning. The Department is not minded to go along that avenue and will introduce secondary legislation and create enabling legislation through the Railway Safety Bill. Are you content with that or is it simply a fait accompli that you are prepared to accept?

The Department is the responsible body, and it decides the approach to be taken. I am happy with what is being done as long as secondary legislation follows quickly. My only concern is that there will be lengthy delays. We have had meetings with the Department, and satisfactory indicative timetables have been proposed. Where appropriate we take the GB position as best practice and anticipate implementation of the law here. We do not rely on the fact that just because the law does not apply here, we do not adopt the policy. Translink adopts a best practice attitude to this.

We are working with the Department. Complex approvals are required to introduce new trains. The Committee may have heard stories of large number of trains sitting in sidings across the water because of technical difficulties with approval procedures. We have worked closely with the Department to ensure that does not happen here. We have developed an outline approval procedure that is unique to our circumstances with the Department's wholehearted co-operation.

To summarise: you welcome the Bill but have some concerns about it; you are prepared to live with the Department's approach; and you believe that delays would not be damaging.

They would not be damaging because of the attitude the company is taking in anticipating the legislation. However, I would be concerned if there were lengthy delays, and the sooner that secondary legislation is on the books the better for everybody.

I was trying to read a document and listen to Mr Mercer at the same time, and that was not a good idea. My ears pricked up when you spoke about testing for alcohol and drugs. Are you less than satisfied with the procedure? What would you prefer to happen?

We are operating a voluntary arrangement at present. We have consulted with the trade unions, which have accepted, in principle and for the benefit of public safety, that drugs and alcohol testing should be carried out. However, they have reserved the right, if an employee falls foul of that, as is their role, to support that employee. As there is no legal basis for the tests, someone could take a case against the company under the human rights legislation.

Are you saying that there is no mechanism for testing Joe Bloggs before he gets on the train?

We have a voluntary mechanism for testing at recruitment and promotion.

There is a voluntary procedure, but if a driver has been drinking or taking drugs, obviously he will not volunteer to take a test.

It is very simple: if a driver refuses a test, he does not drive. However, this is a grey area - and the Chairman knows a lot more about it than I. If somebody wants to leave the premises without being tested, and we say that he cannot go without taking the test, that could result in accusations of unlawful imprisonment under the human rights legislation. Mr Mercer was trying to show how complex this is, and if that were in the legislation, it would be a great help to us as employers.

Have you any figures to show how many drivers have tested positive or been over the limit?

No drivers have tested positive for drugs or been over the limit for alcohol. Some employees have tested positive for drugs, and many job applicants have tested positive for drugs.

Have many drivers been on the borderline?

There is no borderline for drugs.

I am thinking about alcohol.

We have not had that situation with alcohol. By and large we work with very responsible people, but the regime is important. If someone refused to take a test, Translink would discipline him.

If a person refuses to take a test and, as a consequence, is told that he cannot drive on that day, surely there is an element of compulsion there that contradicts the idea that the test was voluntary.

"Voluntary" came after the agreement with the trade unions, acting on behalf of the employees.

The employee/management agreement is that there will be tests and if you refuse to take a test, you will not be permitted to drive.

That is correct.

I have some statistics from recent recruitment for bus drivers, and they show that there is a problem. Out of 18 people who applied to become bus drivers, four people failed an initial driving test, and four people failed a drugs test.

That is a high number.

It is very high. It is over 20%, but I am not saying that is typical.

Is it correct that 20% of people who applied to drive buses were refused because they tested positive for drugs?

I am quoting the last assessment that we carried out with 18 people. That is not a normal figure with all applicants.

Would you like some part of the primary legislation to deal with the problem of drugs and alcohol being used by employees and drivers in particular?

We would like to see it flowing quickly, if it is not in the primary legislation. We are asking for legislative back-up for what is there by agreement with the trade unions. What we have is working well, but it is open to challenge, and that is where we could be in difficulty.

This is a grey area, given the human rights legislation, and you could find yourself in difficulty. However, I want to put on record your preference that any measure dealing with this should be in the primary rather than in the secondary legislation, though it is all well and good if it is in the secondary legislation.

If it comes in a reasonable time, it does not matter which vehicle it comes through.

I would like some clarification on the 18 applicants. When did this happen?

Within the last month.

That is awful.

Mr Hesketh said that initially there were concerns that the Bill was not comprehensive, but that you have been provided with the detail of the legislation that will flow from it, and that eventually you will be satisfied.

Evidence from other submissions highlighted concerns about the piecemeal approach to producing legislation. Among the concerns - although I do not advocate this - was the division of responsibility for infrastructure, services and rolling stock under a public-private partnership. Piecemeal legislation could make it difficult, in cases of joint responsibility for a service, to apportion responsibility after an incident, or to determine who is responsible for an investigation. Are you satisfied that the legislation that is proposed to follow on from the Bill sufficiently identifies accountability for incidents and responsibility for investigations?

In your initial submission, you stated that having viewed the approach of Irish Rail, a comprehensive Bill would be preferable to enabling legislation, which would be followed by other legislation. Given that Translink will operate a service in conjunction with Irish Rail, are you satisfied that the Bill, and the detailed legislation that will flow from it, is compatible with the Southern legislation?

I will answer the last question first. There have been discussions between the two departments and the two operating companies. That aspect has been fully catered for.

The Bill does not anticipate every possible case in a privatised situation in Northern Ireland. A recent, stark example was the tragic accident that took place on Translink's Bangor line while it was in the full possession of a contractor. Questions arose about who was responsible for carrying out the investigations, which have now been satisfactorily resolved.

We have not yet seen the detail of the supplementary Regulations. We have an outline of their aims, but Translink will need to see them in detail before it can be certain about them. We expect that the Regulations would cater for the points that Mr McNamee raised. The Department is keeping us fully abreast of its thinking, and it is liaising with its colleagues in the Republic who are dealing with the legislation there.

Were the 18 Translink job applicants who tested positive for drugs or alcohol consumption male or female?

I do not have those figures.

Soon of the new trains that are to be introduced soon will travel much faster than existing stock. Are the existing tracks capable of withstanding those new trains?

That is, quite rightly, an issue. Translink was allocated, from the Budget that the Assembly agreed on 18 December 2000, the resources to upgrade the core network to an adequate standard. That work is ongoing, as evidenced by the relaying of the Bangor line.

Has anything been done to eliminate disruptions, including hoax calls, to the service between Moira and Lurgan?

Translink has launched several initiatives to prevent false security alerts; for example, it is working with local businesses to help community members to develop a sense of ownership of the railway company. In addition, it has worked with local elected representatives and has been helped by church volunteers. Hoax calls are still made, but, thankfully, on a smaller scale. It is hard to judge whether such initiatives are successful, but disruptions happen less often now.

A good deal of work is going on to eliminate hoax calls, which were very disruptive, and the Chairperson has thanked Translink for its initiatives.

Mr McNamee asked the question that I was going to ask. In view of Translink's links with rail services in the South, was it invited to provide input to the Republic of Ireland's Bill on railway safety, and did it do so?

It did not have a direct input. However, because of the close working relationship between the two operating companies, Translink and Irish Rail, officials in Dublin were fully aware of Translink's views and the relevant issues. Therefore, although Translink was not directly consulted, its views were taken into account.

It would be ironic if Translink's views were taken into account in the South, despite the fact that the measures that it wants introduced here cannot be implemented.

In transport terms, there are no borders. To operate railways on both parts of the island requires a professional working relationship, and Irish Rail and Translink work well together.

We have discussed the trains on Translink's tracks a good deal, but I assume that the Railway Safety Bill applies to all Translink property. For example, Translink's safety measures at railway stations such as Newry leave a lot to be desired, although they are the best that it can provide at the moment. Would those aspects be dealt with under the Bill?

Many of those matters would be covered by general legislation.

Mr Bradley is asking whether rail companies' premises come under the railway safety legislation.

The safety case Regulations will be key to the Railway Safety Bill. Those Regulations will require Translink, or NIR, to make a risk assessment throughout its operations and state what steps are taken to remove, control or deal with any residual risk. Therefore, those issues will be dealt with in the safety case that Translink must build.

Mr Bradley asked about the relationship between Translink and Irish Rail. In order to make the partnership work, the safety case regulations will be the key regulations on both sides of the border. The train operating companies will be in close liaison with their respective Departments and with each other. Translink will be required, as a train operator, to prepare a safety case to respond to the Irish legislation, just as Iarnród Éireann will be required to prepare a safety case to respond to ours. Close liaison will ensure that the process is seamless.

Does the same requirement to provide a safety case apply, North and South, in both cases?

Yes.

One would assume that the same criteria would underline each safety case, North and South.

The detailed Regulations are not yet available, but both Departments are working on them, and both operating companies are working to ensure that co-ordination.

We all want the highest standard of safety - that goes without question. How can we accommodate preservation societies and steam trains? Mr Hesketh, you and I travelled from Larne to Belfast on those trains when we were weans. How can we help those societies?

The safety case concept applies to anyone who operates over the Northern Ireland Railways network, of which Translink is the custodian. The Railway Preservation Society of Ireland (RPSI) must satisfy Translink that it can operate safely. That is not simply a theoretical exercise. A historical train was derailed during my time as managing director, and that alerted us to the serious issues to be considered. Translink has been working with the RPSI for a long time to reach an agreement that will enable its trains to use the network. The process has involved both parties taking advice on the safest speeds at which to operate old trains and carriages.

Is it possible to accommodate those trains? I would hate it if the steam train were to cease to operate. They work on a limited timetable, but it would be sad to lose them. Can an accommodation be reached between the preservation societies and Translink?

I hope so, and, although certain constraints may have to be placed upon their operation, the RPSI could live with that. On the mainland, most preservation societies' trains operate on closed lines. The RPSI does a good job, and it maintains people's interest in vintage rail travel - a bit of nostalgia does us no harm. Translink wants to reach an accommodation with the RPSI, and it is working towards that.

Is it the case, therefore, that the only obstacles to the RPSI's operation are the minimum safety requirements? Could you confirm that Translink will work with the RPSI, as opposed to pushing them aside?

No, that is not the situation. The management team wants to maintain the preserved railway.

Can I quote you on that, Mr Hesketh?

It is on the public record.

I love trains, and I take every possible opportunity to mention to Translink the need to develop the Belfast to Dublin line. Although there is no chance of getting a direct line to Banbridge, the stop at Scarva, which is only one mile outside Banbridge, could be upgraded to allow passengers to board trains for Dublin or elsewhere. Translink should explore that opportunity to promote the rail network.

Are you thinking about the introduction of a park-and-ride scheme at Scarva?

Such a development would enable passengers to travel to and from Scarva to Dublin, at a cost of up to £65 return. Translink should not miss that opportunity.

I will bear that in mind. At present, Translink wants to provide 150 to 200 car parking spaces for Lisburn rail station, specifically for park-and-ride passengers.

Can I quote you on that?

Yes. We are on record.

That opportunity is waiting to be developed.

Mr Mercer mentioned that new European Directives on railway safety might be introduced in the near future. Might we have to review the Railway Safety legislation, once it is enacted, in the light of European Directives?

There might be a need to introduce additional Regulations through the Railway Safety Bill. Our department will pick up the many European issues that will emerge over the next few years, and it does so at present.

Can the Committee do anything in anticipation of those changes?

The White Paper entitled 'European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide', which comprises what is known as the railway package, contains five proposals, one of which relates specifically to a Directive on railway safety. I will leave samples of that with the Committee Clerk. Although the Department has examined the proposal in anticipation of its introduction, it is a fresh development, therefore no one will have had sufficient time to scrutinise it thoroughly.

That would be helpful. You said that security on trains could be maintained by either a dedicated unit of the PSNI or a transport police. What would be your preference, and would such provision be necessary?

The question of security provision refers to both buses and trains, and it is not unique to Greater Belfast. We must do something. Translink is having difficulty in coping with the increasing number of incidents and their growing seriousness. Great Britain has a transport police service. Translink has no strong view on how the resource should be provided, but it is certain that an additional resource is needed to "police" the transport network.

If a transport police service were introduced, would they be under the authority of Translink, or an independent body?

That is for others to decide. A consultation paper on the issue was published in Great Britain recently. It seems to favour the introduction of a separate arrangement, similar to that of the Police Authority. I would be happy to forward copies of that paper to the Committee Clerk.

You have adverted to this problem in the context of your consideration of the Railway Safety Bill. Should the Committee examine the matter now, or are you merely signposting it?

We are signalling that a problem exists. If it were decided that transport police were needed, legislation would be required to regulate that provision. However, that could be introduced much later.

Are you happy that the Bill would cover cases where subcontractors are working on the railway service, and that those subcontractors would be obliged to adhere to the safety standards that the railway operator will establish?

The safety critical work Regulations cover those matters; they will be dealt with in the secondary legislation. In our original submission, we identified that as the most urgent piece of legislation to be introduced.

Are you content that that will be dealt with under the safety critical work Regulations?

It will be subject to a study of the details. The advantage of doing that as the Department has chosen is that we will have more time to look at the details. There are swings and roundabouts in the approach that has been taken.

I would like to tease that out a little further. There was a tragic incident recently in which a contract worker was killed. I will not go into the detail of that incident, as it is still under investigation. One would assume that under the safety critical work Regulations, a subcontractor carrying out work on a railway track, which involves the operation of the railway track, would be responsible. Would the subcontractor be obliged to provide a safety case before he carries out that work?

The safety case Regulations would oblige subcontractors carrying out significant work to provide a safety case. All work would have to go through a safety assessment whereby safe working practices would be agreed.

In future such an incident would come under different Regulations. At present it is dealt with under the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978.

There would be separate, discrete, secondary legislation to deal with such situations.

Thank you for attending today's Committee meeting.

Menu / 6 March 2002 (ii)