Committee for Regional Development

Wednesday 24 April 2002

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Mr A Maginness (Chairperson)
Mr Byrne
Mr Bradley
Mr Ervine
Mr R Hutchinson
Mr Hay
Mr McNamee
Mr Savage

Mr G McKenna ) Department for Regional
) Development

I welcome Mr McKenna from the Department for Regional Development.

The Railway Safety Bill was introduced to the Assembly on 18 February 2002, and the Committee Stage commenced on 27 February 2002. The Committee first received briefing from departmental officials on the proposed Bill on 9 May 2001. Further discussion took place on 5 December 2001, following completion of the public consultation process. During the Committee Stage, evidence was taken from the main interested parties: Translink; Peter Rayner; the Railway Preservation Society of Ireland; and the Department for Regional Development. Evidence was also taken from an independent railway safety expert, Mr Rick Eager, from AD Little Consultants.

The Committee's approach has been thorough, and the key issues have been discussed at length. I do not wish to revisit those issues; however, a key point was whether the Bill should be prescriptive and set out the main provisions, or take the form of enabling legislation, with the main provisions being introduced through secondary legislation. Clearly there are arguments for and against both approaches. Whatever approach is used, the overriding consideration is the swift introduction of effective railway safety guidelines and standards. During the debate on the Second Stage of the Bill on 26 February 2002 the Minister stated:

In the same paragraph of the Official Report he stated:

We will now move to a formal clause-by-clause consideration of the Railway Safety Bill. Officials from the Department for Regional Development are present, and may be called to answer Members' questions.

This clause provides for the Department for Regional Development to make Regulations in respect of railway safety. The Department intends to introduce such Regulations as soon as possible. However, this will depend on Northern Ireland Railways giving priority to the preparation of a safety case priority. Translink, in its evidence, stated that it wished to see the speedy introduction of the provision.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 2 provides the Department with power to make Regulations, giving it a veto over certain types of railway development. Prior departmental approval will be required before Northern Ireland Railways brings works, plant or equipment, including rolling stock, into use.

When railway tracks are being repaired it is important that the rolling stock being used does not come into contact with moving trains on main lines. Does the Bill cover such a situation?

Would you advise the Committee, Mr McKenna?

Yes. Mr Savage's point is covered in several ways. He is possibly referring to the fatal accident that took place on the railway recently. Railway (safety case) Regulations will require Northern Ireland Railways to satisfy itself that any contractor carrying out work on the railway has made proper arrangements for safe operations and systems of work.

I will not comment on the accident at Bangor as it is under investigation by the Health and Safety Executive because of non-compliance with safe systems of work. However, where rolling stock is on the track, the contractor's safety arrangements must clearly prevent such incidents from happening.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

This clause gives the Department power to make regulations requiring and governing the reporting to it of certain accidents or situations involving risk of accident. Northern Ireland Railways will be required to report accidents formally to the Department.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

This clause empowers the Department to give direction to a railway operator imposing maximum speeds and weights. There is currently no power to give directions limiting speed and loads.

Are there limits or controls on voluntary societies trying to get steam trains reactivated, given that they charge money and provide tourist expeditions? There is a question about liability and insurance.

The provision is primarily aimed at heritage railways. An operating condition of such railways would be that they operate within constraints on the weight of the train and the speed at which it can travel. A railway line opened recently under licence at Bushmills is limited to carrying trains that weigh less than six tonnes and travel no faster than 25 mph. That takes into account their level of operation.

Until now there have been no Regulations allowing the Department to make similar provisions for Northern Ireland Railways. However, for the most part, we would expect Northern Ireland Railways to deal with this aspect under its operating requirements for speed limits on lines where work is being carried out or where they require reduced speed. We expect these restrictions to be carried out operationally, but the Department will have the power, if necessary, to give similar directions to Northern Ireland Railways.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

This clause, together with schedule 1, makes provision for the placing of signs and barriers on or near private roads or paths that cross a railway. Translink was keen to see this provision included as there is evidence that most railway accidents are connected with railway crossings. There is obviously some concern about having to place a sign on an individual's private property, but the appropriate siting of signs may be of greater importance in the circumstances.

Where a sign instructs a person driving a long vehicle or agricultural machinery to telephone ahead when crossing a railway line, will that requirement apply in all cases? Will those who do not do so be liable to prosecution?

Secondary Regulations will be made to prescribe the sign to be used and the wording on the sign. Much of the work will be done in consultation with Northern Ireland Railways. Local by-laws already require people using many of the crossings referred to by Mr Bradley to phone ahead when using them. It is a technical requirement, and if it were not complied with, even though the individual were to cross successfully, he or she would technically be liable to prosecution. Northern Ireland Railways would not wish to take such action unless it were apparent that, by not phoning ahead, the individual had posed a risk to himself or to train passengers who would otherwise be using the crossing. Theoretically, prosecutions could be considered, because the individuals would not have complied with the requirement.

Are you referring to schedule 1, paragraph 4(1)?

Yes. If the requirement to phone ahead were necessary, the sign may state: "People wishing to use the crossing should use the telephone to ensure that it is clear to do so". By not complying with that sign, people would be effectively committing an offence under the Bill.

There has been concern about this aspect in the past. I am not technically competent to proof-read or qualitatively assess the paragraph. Has the point been duly considered?

Yes. The powers will not apply until secondary Regulations are made: a draft already exists and is being considered by the departmental solicitors and will be forwarded to the Committee for examination before it becomes law.

The Committee will be able to consider the issue in more detail then.

Mr Bradley has raised a very important point. An accident occurred in my constituency where a farmer, who was spreading slurry, crossed a railway line. It was a very serious accident and pieces of the tractor were never found. I do not know whether the tractor stalled or the driver panicked when he saw the train coming as he was crossing. Clear indications are needed on crossings so that such accidents do not happen again. Prevention is always better than cure. I hope that this point is well covered in schedule 1, paragraph 4.

The paragraph relates to signs and barriers at private crossings, not necessarily the public highway. Are there similar provisions for public crossings?

Yes. Regulations already govern public crossings. Each level crossing has its own set of Regulations, which make detailed provision about how the railway is to be operated, including how the barriers are to be operated and the action to be taken by people approaching the crossing. Normally, level crossings are open or closed, depending on whether a train is passing. The difficulty with private crossings is that they are operated by individuals wishing to cross the lines. Normally, such crossings are closed and are only opened as people need to use them; there are no set times. It is imperative that individuals wishing to use these crossings ensure that it is safe to do so. The signs will require them to do exactly that.

Northern Ireland Railways operates the publicly operated crossings, so when a train is coming, protective mechanisms will always be in place.

Modern technology has enabled there to be a facility in every train station to tell people when the next train is due. Is that technology too expensive to install at crossings?

Regulations governing a level crossing do not currently require that provision. The requirement is that certain protection systems are in place at level crossings.

The technology would not be too expensive to install.

Perhaps the Department would take the suggestion on board?

The Department will contact Northern Ireland Railways and advise them that the Committee considers the matter to be significant.

How many private crossings are there?

There are well over 400 crossings. I do not have an exact figure, but I can arrange to have it provided to the Committee. The crossings are primarily rural and used for agriculture-related activity. However, several crossings are on land close to private dwellings, which may have been farmhouses once, but because of agricultural practice are no longer operated as such. However, people who live and work on such premises regularly use the crossings.

The problem arises when people get into the habit of using crossings routinely. They often forget about safety.

Are there any statistics on accidents or near misses at private crossings?

We have figures for the railway in general. We could easily disaggregate those figures to find out which accidents were at private crossings.

Such accidents tend to be serious and high profile. Recently, a contractor was seriously injured on the Antrim to Knockmore line because he was not expecting a train to be running on the track. Services were technically reduced; however, the contractor was hit by a ballast train as he drove a slurry tanker across the line. He had not checked with Northern Ireland Railways because he understood that there would not be a train on the line. However, although there was no scheduled service, a Northern Ireland Railways operational train hit him. It is imperative that people check what is happening on the line when they use the crossings. Accidents do not happen often, but they are serious when they do.

That happened in Aghagallon.

That is correct.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

This clause provides for definitions of words used in the in the Bill, such as Department, operator and railway. It is a necessary part of any Bill.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

This clause provides for amendments to the Regulation of Railways Act 1871 and the repeal of legislation listed under schedule 2.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

This clause provides for most of the Bill to come into operation two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. As mentioned earlier, safety case Regulations may take slightly longer. However, in the debate on the Second Stage of the Bill the Minister stated that the Department will continue to urge Northern Ireland Railways to complete that work as quickly as possible.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

I thank the Committee and Mr McKenna for their contributions.

18 April 2002 / Menu / 18 September 2002 (part i)