So finally, after five years, Hatfield can be put to bed. Today the high court fined Network Rail £3.5m and Balfour Beatty £10m. These are record fines and given the gross negligence involved, well deserved. This case has been dogged with controversy because the corporate manslaughter charges and health and safety charges against individuals failed. The failure of these prosecutions was a good thing.
“The Safe Trains Action Group welcomed the severity of the fines imposed today.
Carol Bell, the organisation’s vice chair, said: “We have said that there have to be bigger, swingeing fines for companies, and it’s good to see that there have been in this case.”
However, Ms Bell – who was injured in the 1997 Southall train crash, which claimed seven lives – said she was disappointed that prosecutions for manslaughter and corporate manslaughter had failed in this case and in other previous cases.
“It’s terrible that people can be in charge of companies involved in these crashes and get away with it,” she said.
“If they knew they could go to jail, maybe they would take safety more seriously. I would support any change in the corporate manslaughter laws. There has been plenty of talk about changing them, but nothing seems to be happening.””
Ms Bell is hopelessly wrong and demonstrates by her comments that she has little understanding of the industry’s machinations and human nature despite an obvious involvement through the action group.
While the safety management systems in Railtrack left much to be desired, it is not true that the privatised rail companies put profit before people as has been popularly claimed nor was it true that there was a culture that led to a cavalier attitude towards safety. Certainly senior executives are not “getting away with it” as she claims.
If anything, the opposite was true. People became so obsessed with safety that the industry was crippled by executives and managers being unwilling to make a decision because of it. Believe me, I’ve been there. Getting someone to make a decision based upon a reasoned assessment of risk becomes a nightmare when they are required to put a signature to the final documentation. This is because they can hear the clanging of the cell door in their heads and not without reason. People like Ms Bell are lining up to turn the key. The culture in recent years has been one of revenge, of hounding individuals for the failure of safety systems that led to death on the railways. Given that, a change to the status quo means putting one’s name to a decision that could, in retrospect, be proved erroneous leading to personal liability and people are reluctant to take that risk. Even in my own area of competence management I came across this inertia created by an unwillingness to be the one to be seen to make the crucial decision – even when people realised that such a decision was necessary and that the current situation was untenable. The result tends to be decision by committee which means all too often no decision at all. Ms Bell’s desire for revenge would just produce more inertia and not as she would wish, improved safety systems.
The rail industry needs talented, motivated people to make it work effectively. Holding the threat of imprisonment over them will merely cause those talented and motivated people to seek a career elsewhere to the detriment of the rail industry. Sometimes, if you read the newspapers and watch the television and listen to people like Carol Bell, you might be forgiven for thinking that rail industry executives are bloodsucking leeches who think that killing their customers is the best way to make a profit. It isn’t true, of course. It never was. But then, a little matter such as the truth never stopped a good myth…
I have to disagree with this one, I think the situation regarding ATP highlights the endemic failure of the rail industry and the government to put people before profit. It illustrates how you cannot have a public service in private hands.
I’m afraid I also disagree with the failure of corporate manslaughter at the most senior level, I do not believe that a select few should be able to earn profane amounts of money and yet remain immune from responsibility. I do not agree with the idea of revenge but that is not the same as responsibility.
I’m also putting a blog together about the rail industry after the latest judgement so we’ll see how our opinions differ.
”’Longrider replies: Having worked in the industry for over a decade, I saw it go from BR to private ownership. While I was not happy about this process (for a variety of reasons) the principle of a public service in private hands does not mean a less safe service. BR managed its fair share of deaths. The underlying myth of people before profit is unfounded – and, frankly, lousy business practice.”’
”’One problem with the industry is too much safety legislation and too many recommendations. This may sound contradictory, but I’ve experienced first hand the paralysis that this causes. The Health & Safety at Work etc. Act of 1974 is both simple, and covers everything we need to operate a safe system. The plethora of regulations made under it are largely unnecessary and complicate matters to a point where the paralysis I mentioned sets in. People become so afraid of compromising safety that they do nothing.”’
”’The failure to implement ATP was a pragmatic decision made by the then transport secretary and the industry based upon an assessment of risk. The tool used – cost of life – was misrepresented to look like profit before safety, yet is a standard tool used to justify large scale investment in all transport sectors. There has to be some measure to use when making these decisions otherwise millions are spent to “improve safety” that in reality achieve little. Public funds will always be limited and must be targeted appropriately. The failure to implement ATP across the network was a bad decision and one that they will have to live with. Most people I know in the industry agree with me on this one. Dr Malwhinney got it catastrophically wrong.”’
”’Corporate manslaughter is a bad idea – unless you change the law to the point where the burden of proof becomes too loose, securing a conviction will be almost impossible. Also, it leads to a culture of witch hunts. Working for Railrtrack during 1999 – 2001 was a painful experience. A whole group of dedicated and motivated people became demotivated and treated as pariahs. This was a nasty, unnecessary and counter productive exercise that needs to stop.”’
”’On your point about responsibility, I agree. That is what these people get paid for. If you want motivated, competent people in these position, holding the sword of Damocles over them is going the wrong way about it. If they fail, they lose their jobs – I know that brings about a whole can of worms with things like golden handshakes, but my underlying point stands. “Take this job and go to jail if you make a mistake” is hardly an inspiring recruitment slogan. Talented people will take those talents elsewhere and rightly so.”’
”’I stand by my original point. There is sufficient law to impose sanctions on companies that fail in their duty of care. There is no evidence – and therefore no justification – that any one individual chose to put people in danger. Therefore, manslaughter does not apply. Carol Bell is wrong – hopelessly wrong.”’