Railway Employment Inspectors

The responsibility for occupational health and safety at work and the associated recruitment of railway employment inspectors represented a major change to the Railway Inspectorate, perhaps the most dramatic this century. Its remit was greatly extended and its numbers doubled to cope with the extra work. The new inspectors were very different from the army officers who had traditionally been recruited into the Inspectorate (see Ch. 3) and increasingly the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) competed with the Department of Transport for responsibility for the Railway Inspectorate. Indeed the Railway Inspectorate worked for HSE on an agency basis until December 1990 when it became part of the Executive. 

At the time of this research the Railway Inspectorate comprised a chief inspector and on average some six inspecting officers and fifteen railway employment inspectors. Their main employer was the Department of Transport, in whose London offices the Railway Inspectorate s headquarters was located. They also... 

The Railway Inspectorate s oi anization at this time reveals a strong division between what it termed its traditional activities and its newly acquired health and safety duties." Railway employment inspectors who were primarily responsible for health and safety matters were numerically dominant within the Railway Inspectorate but inspecting officers, who in the main dealt with the more traditional activities, were more senior. The inspection of new works was exclusively the remit of inspecting officers accident investigation was undertaken by all members of the Railway Inspectorate. Public inquiries were undertaken by inspecting officers whereas the less public investigations were undertaken by railway employment inspectors. 

Routine inspections comprised the major part of the work of railway employment inspectors. The Railway Inspectorate did not operate a formal inspection programme rather railway employment inspectors were given the discretion to decide how frequently and when to visit each area in their jurisdiction. They took account of such considerations as the accident rate associated with a particular area or activity and the degree of confidence they applied to the management and workforce. In essence this was a risk-based approach, albeit an informal one which had not been systematized by the Inspectorate. Central guidance was given on particular problems that inspectors should be... 

Following a visit, railway employment inspectors usually sent letters which outlined the matters requiring attention. These were sent to local managers and copied to safety representatives. When such letters were sent they could be followed by a shorter check visit to ensure that outstanding matters had been rectified. 

Reactive work made variable demands on the Inspectorate. Complaints did not represent a major demand upon Railway Inspectorate time. Accidents figured rather more prominently in mobilizing resources. Accident investigation was an important part of inspecting officers workload but it figured less prominently in the work of railway employment inspectors. ... 

The Inspectorate s mobilization of resources therefore emphasized the importance of the objectives of prevention of non-compliance and the constitution of everyday compliance. This was especially the case for railway employment inspectors whose remit was, of coiurse, largely concerned with occupational health and safety. Accident investigation could take up substantial amounts of time especially if there had been a high profile accident involving the public. But this tended to be the concern of inspecting officers and was, as history would suggest, very much a public safety concern and not so much a matter of occupational health and safety. Overall therefore the Railway Inspectorate s objectives, as revealed in their mobUization of resources, were in line with the apparent legal objectives. 

The Inspectorate s routine enforcement activity typically involved the use of a wide array of informal non-legal enforcement techniques. These enforcement activities were generally long term and incremental in nature. Much of their work was educational and advisory. Railway employment inspectors were important disseminators of information within BR. They passed on information about how other sectors of the railway managed technical problems and identified sources of specialist help within the company. Where necessary they would advise on how to meet safety standards, while national or potentially difficult problems would be referred upwards for consideration by inspecting officers and senior managers within the railways. Likewise, they would when necessary explain the requirements and the reasons for them to managers and employees. 

Chart 5.2. Knowledge of local railway employment inspectors... 

These interviews revealed confusion at all levels about the status of inspectors, with a significant minority clearly believing that they were BR personnel rather than government inspectors. One railway employment inspector in particular was repeatedly cited as the BR manager with special responsibility for health and safety within the company. One worker referred to this railway employment inspector as a big chap in the railway . 

In order to probe respondents knowledge of the Inspectorate and its enforcement of health and safety legislation in greater detail, interviewees were questioned about the latest visit to their area by a railway employment inspector. They were asked when an inspector had last visited their area if they had been visited in the previous twelve months and how frequently their premises were inspected. Awareness of visits was again positively related to the respondents place in the hierarchy, although the large majority of those interviewed did not know how frequently their premises/area/activities were inspected. This was the case with all grades of staff. ... 

Safety representatives knew more about the Inspectorate in terms of its name and the name, appearance and location of railway employment inspectors, than the rest of the workforce, but less than managers and about the same as supervisors. This suggests that their training and position did allow them to acquire a greater than average amount of knowledge compared to their colleagues in the workforce. 

Also even if they did talk to railway employment inspectors, it is quite possible that they were not fully aware to whom they were talking. 

It was certainly the case that national union officials expected safety representatives to know the name of their local railway employment inspector and his telephone number. Indeed, one expected them to know him personally. This was partly because information about railway employment inspectors was contained in local policy documents and partly because these officials expected railway employment inspectors to keep safety representatives informed of their visits. 

Managers, supervisors, and safety representatives were asked if they would approach inspectors for advice on health and safety matters. Of these 74 per cent (52/70) would consider this option, with 78 per cent (25/32) of managers, 52 per cent (12/23) of supervisors, and 100 per cent of safety representatives (15/15) being so inclined. One supervisor and six safety representatives said that they had approached the Railway Inspectorate with problems but just three of the safety representatives considered that an improvement had been effected as a result. The two reasons for consulting railway inspectors were for advice and where the usual internal BR channels had failed to effect a solution. Staff were more willing to consult railway employment inspectors informally I d phone X up—maybe cos I know him. I think if it was someone I didn t know and hadn t met I wouldn t do it (manager, interviewee 110). 

I have to say that over ten or twelve years that a lot depends on the personality. I find Y [railway employment inspector] absolutely excellent. He believes that he has a positive role to play, he understands. He is not from the railway I don t think, but he understands what a manager s life is like. I find him the ideal protector of the legislation. In the past I have come across people who have thought they were dictators and I think that becomes negative, builds barriers, causes distrust between the two organizations and the staff and the environment suffer because of it, so I do believe that the personality is quite valuable, (manager, interviewee 43)... 

At this level there was little contact with railway employment inspectors. Health and safety officers were in regular communication with inspectorate staff locally, especially the civil engineering and mechanical and electrical engineering safety officers. Only one departmental safety officer was in regular contact with inspecting officers. There was little knowledge at these senior levels about railway employment inspectors activities and requests unless a problem arose. So there was no central monitoring of railway employment inspectorate activities by... 

BR. Meanwhile national union officials maintained tegular contact with both Inspecting officers and railway employment inspectors. 

Despite some criticism, there was no doubt amongst this group that railway employment inspectors visits and the Railway Inspectorate in general were useful to the extent that they provided an outside view and external control ... 

The views of the national union officials interviewed were very similar to those expressed by senior railway personnel. For instance, they aigued that the relationship between the Railway Inspectorate and BR was too close, especially the relationship between railway employment inspectors and the railways. Interestingly they also felt that the relationship between the unions and railways was too close and cosy . They also argued that the Railway Inspectorate was underresourced. 

The social dimensions of knowledge and understanding were striking. Senior railway personnel had the most contact with the Railway Inspectorate but this is partly an artefact of organization. Inspecting officers and senior railway officials were both in charge of policy decisions, decisions about capital expenditure, and a much wider remit than occupational health and safety, and moreover they were few in number. Railway employment inspectors, whose remit solely centred on occupational health and safety, were only fifteen in number and had to cover the entire rail network. It is therefore not surprising that they were not... 

In 1974 the Railway Inspectorate had a field force of 15 Railway Employment Inspectors, by 1988 this had dropped to 8, largely because of retirements. More money became available to both attract mote inspectors and to increase their pay In 1989 7 extra inspectors joined and by 1995 25 officers were working at field-level. Privatization increased the demands on the Inspectorate and this led to further recruitment in the 1990s. 

---