To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the backlog in implementing safety recommendations made as a result of investigations by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch.
My Lords, it is for the Rail Accident Investigation Branch and the Office of Rail and Road to monitor recommendations. We are aware of 117 outstanding recommendations of the more than 1,800 made since RAIB was formed. The vast majority of RAIB recommendations are closed within five years. However, some will require a significant programme of work to be completed across multiple organisations and therefore will be open for longer.
I thank the Minister. The latest published list of safety recommendations from RAIB shows outstanding items dating all the way back to 2008 which have not yet been implemented. The Department for Transport told me that ensuring action on this list is the responsibility of the regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, but the regulator told me otherwise and disclaimed responsibility for managing some of that list. Can the Minister please set out the Government’s plans to resolve what is clearly an unhelpful, and perhaps even worrying, discrepancy between what the department and the regulator think about who is responsible for what?
We can certainly look into the response that the noble Lord has received. Obviously, we all know, sadly, that accidents happen on the railways, despite Great Britain having one of the safest railways in Europe. It is down to RAIB to identify what happened and issue recommendations that aim to avoid similar incidents happening again. As he quite rightly says, the Office of Rail and Road then assesses the action taken by those to whom RAIB has directed recommendations, using clear criteria and experts, before deciding when or whether they can be closed. Clearly, as I think the noble Lord is highlighting, some of the responses and recommendations that come out of accidents are very complicated and involve different actors to pull them together, but I am very happy to find out, if he can give me the specific detail of the cases he is referring to.
My Lords, given RAIB’s success in detecting what went wrong with various different accidents and making the recommendations—some are late but some of the recommendations are responded to very quickly—have the Government thought of extending its remit to the roads? Some 1,600 people die on the roads each year, compared with 14 on the railways. Maybe a similar arrangement for roads would save a great many lives.
My noble friend touches on a subject very dear to my heart. I find it quite extraordinary how we are prepared somehow to tolerate the excessive numbers of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. He makes an interesting proposition and I will endeavour to look into it on his behalf.
My Lords, in the latest data published from the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, there are 13 different railway incidents that occurred over a decade ago that still have outstanding safety recommendations. When will these safety issues finally be resolved?
My information tells me that only 11 remain overall. Of course, I say “only”, but that is still a number. Five of the recommendations that are open are the responsibility of the DfT, and three are in the process of being closed. Two are of a complex nature and are taking time to resolve. It would be wrong of me to pre-empt the necessary work that needs to happen to make sure that there are no unintended consequences from the actions recommended.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pack, uses the word “backlog” to describe the situation with the implementation of these recommendations. Does the Minister agree that there is a backlog in implementing these recommendations and will she say unambiguously whose responsibility it is for clearing the backlog? Is it not the department’s?
As I have clearly explained—I assume by his question that the noble Lord believes that we should describe it as a “backlog”—the complexity of these accidents and incidents undoubtedly means that they need to go through the process. The process was set up because previous accidents were not dealt with effectively, and we had more and more of them. It would be wrong to interrupt that process, as we are seeing good results because of it. We need to make sure that everything is done appropriately and that we reach conclusions as soon as practically possible.
My Lords, I draw attention to the role of the trade unions in improving safety on the railways. I have acted on behalf of ASLEF on a number of occasions, and I commend the trade unions for all their efforts to improve safety not only in the railways but in other industries.
I thank my noble friend for those comments. Throughout tragic incidents, we need to remember the roles of the people who work on the railways, supported by their trade unions. Their actions are nothing short of heroic in many cases. We need to pay tribute to them and to make sure that safety remains at the heart of everything that we do to progress the railways in this country.
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that both the department and the regulator need to focus sharply on the root causes of accidents? They include the fragmentation of safety-critical work on the track.
Interestingly, we can see the main causes of accidents highlighted in this. We know, for example, that level crossings are a critical point and that the weather is becoming an increasing risk. The work that has been done following different accidents when track workers have been injured and, unfortunately, sometimes killed has led to a focus on trackside safety. I am delighted that the statistics are going in the right direction in that area.
My Lords, the noble Baroness described what has been done by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch. Over the years, I have had some experience of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, which publishes detailed commentary on some incidents almost monthly. Is the Rail Accident Investigation Branch also able to publish documentary evidence when its reports are complete, so that we can all read it?
My understanding is that the reports are published and that it should be possible to look through them in great detail. Otherwise, what is the point? We need to learn from these tragic cases and make sure that, wherever possible, we bring in these recommendations and adhere to them to make sure that they never happen again.
My Lords, I will just pick up the Minister’s point about level crossings. They are a real point of vulnerability in the rail system, especially when those level crossings are on private land. I understand that, in 2024, statutory instruments were brought in to update the legal requirements on signage and barriers, particularly for those private lands. Does the Minister have any assessment of the follow-up to those statutory instruments and whether they have made a difference?