The need to have an independent regulator with more teeth has never been greater in the rail-based transportation sector as the Indian Government tries to get more private investments in both the Railways and metro through public private partnership (PPP) projects.

This is particularly so as there can be disputes – such as the one in Delhi Metro’s Airport Express Line, which involved Reliance Infrastructure – where the decisions of the regulator can have commercial ramifications for Government investments, which involve taxpayer money and private investments.

To understand the regulatory environment in the UK, the Business Line caught up with Carolyn Griffiths , Chief Inspector of the UK’s Rail Accidents Investigation Board (RAIB) , an independent regulatory body with the sole aim of carrying out investigations to ensure safety.

Griffith was here for a global meet. Edited excerpts:

The UK has 150-year-old railway industry so why was the accidents investigation board operationalised as late as 2005?

The Railways themselves investigated accidents in their own territory earlier.

After an accident, it was decided how can the supervisor of the Railways, which was the Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate (HMRI), independently investigate the Railways given that the supervisor is also making standards and approving equipment.

I was recruited in 2003 by the UK Government.

When I was recruited, the primary legislation had not been put in place, it was work in progress. In October 2005, RAIB became operational.

Did the need to have an independent rail safety authority coincide with the time when the Railway sector was privatised (a time when Railway network owners were separated from railway operators; or the railway sector was unbundled)?

The Railways were privatised in the late 1990s. A separate directive also required all European countries to set up organisations like RAIB, completely independent from the Railways to look at safety. That was also the time when a separate piece of legislation required separation of the infrastructure operator from the train operators across Europe. So, the UK might have been one of the first to put a railway safety authority.

Did you always put your reports in public domain?

Not to the extent that we put our reports today, no. Sometimes, there were public enquiries (during HMRI’s time). But, not to the extent that we do now.

We make our reports public as there were learnings that can go across the piece. We investigate the UK, Northern Ireland, metros, tramways and the channel tunnel (an undersea rail tunnel that connects the UK with France). That does happen. We have gone to other railways and have heard them say that they have learnt from the reports put out by us.

The fact that the public sees there is a totally independent investigation is very important. Hopefully, the public should know that the investigation is for safety, not for blame, not for liability, and partly for Railway workers.

Are there any reports that are not public?

No, it is enshrined in European legislation. RAIB always has made reports public.

You said RAIB reports are not for blame or for liability, only for safety. How can a report – by the very nature of it being an accident report – not blame anybody? It may not name .…

We report the incident faithfully. We do anonimise (sic) our investigation. But you are absolutely right. But, if the driver did not do something, we have to report that. We don’t go into naming and blaming. Our reports do not go into courts. We only give facts. We do not give opinions and we do not become expert witnesses.

Related Topics