Network Rail fine

[Dod101]

As some may be aware, Network Rail have been fined £6.5 million for what would appear to have been a totally preventable accident on a rural track just outside Stonehaven in Scotland in which two employees and one member of the public died. They admitted culpability.

I can see the need for some sort of recognition of their negligence but I cannot see the point in fining the corporate body this sort of money. They are 100% owned by the Department for Transport and where does the money go? I assume that the families of the three who died have already been compensated so presumably not to them. See if the newspapers have anything to say on this matter but if into the 'public purse', what does that mean?

Better surely that they are required to overhaul their supervision both of work done on the railway and how they handle bad weather. In any case, NR need more money spent on the tracks rather than less.

Incidentally, the problem was a drain/culvert that was not apparently built to spec by guess who? None other than the now defunct Carillion. NR failed to check that the work had been properly carried out.

Dod

[Nimrod103]

As some may be aware, Network Rail have been fined £6.5 million for what would appear to have been a totally preventable accident on a rural track just outside Stonehaven in Scotland in which two employees and one member of the public died. They admitted culpability.

I can see the need for some sort of recognition of their negligence but I cannot see the point in fining the corporate body this sort of money. They are 100% owned by the Department for Transport and where does the money go? I assume that the families of the three who died have already been compensated so presumably not to them. See if the newspapers have anything to say on this matter but if into the 'public purse', what does that mean?

Better surely that they are required to overhaul their supervision both of work done on the railway and how they handle bad weather. In any case, NR need more money spent on the tracks rather than less.

Incidentally, the problem was a drain/culvert that was not apparently built to spec by guess who? None other than the now defunct Carillion. NR failed to check that the work had been properly carried out.

Dod

A similar situation to fines imposed on NHS trusts or the police for negligence etc.
it is while since I looked at the Stonehaven accident evidence, and I’m sure the blocked culvert could have been better constructed and inspected. And the reversing train really should not have been proceeding at 75 mph given the conditions. There was a vaguely similar situation on the heritage West Somerset railway where run off from a ploughed field brought a lot of debris onto the track, blocking it. What culpability do farmers have to retain drainage within their own fields?

[Dod101]

Re the speed I agree that proceeding at 75 mph seems like bordering on foolhardy in the circumstances but then I know nothing about how trains are marshalled on tracks. Presumably the network requires trains to proceed at certain speeds so as to accommodate others. Anyway that was never raised as an issue as far as I can tell.

My point is though that I cannot see that depriving a public body of the resources to carry out its job is helpful as punishment, since for instance it is not hurting or punishing the directors/managers who are supposed to be directing and managing the operation.

Dod

[Nimrod103]

My point is though that I cannot see that depriving a public body of the resources to carry out its job is helpful as punishment, since for instance it is not hurting or punishing the directors/managers who are supposed to be directing and managing the operation.

Dod

Can the same argument not be used about damages if Network Rail was a private company? The money is better spent on investment, improving systems and procedures, and training.
Or the fines are imposed on staff deemed to be culpable? You might find it hard to recruit people, particularly managers. There is already a big gulf between vulnerabilities in different jobs. People who carry safety responsibilities should be paid a lot more, and those doing safe jobs sat behind a desk or wfh in the Civil Service should be paid a lot less.

[Dod101]

My point is though that I cannot see that depriving a public body of the resources to carry out its job is helpful as punishment, since for instance it is not hurting or punishing the directors/managers who are supposed to be directing and managing the operation.

Dod

Can the same argument not be used about damages if Network Rail was a private company? The money is better spent on investment, improving systems and procedures, and training.
Or the fines are imposed on staff deemed to be culpable? You might find it hard to recruit people, particularly managers. There is already a big gulf between vulnerabilities in different jobs. People who carry safety responsibilities should be paid a lot more, and those doing safe jobs sat behind a desk or wfh in the Civil Service should be paid a lot less.

Were Network Rail a private company, in theory anyway, the shareholders could arise at the next AGM and vote out whoever they deem to have been culpable in depriving the shareholders of their dividends. As it is, Network Rail will turn to the Department of Transport and say, 'Sorry but we cannot do that extra bit of maintenance because we have just been fined £6.5 million. How do you expect us to pay that and fix the culvert?'

Public bodies like the NHS, Network Rail and the like should be behaving more like the way that airlines do. Report all incidents and pool the knowledge so that a safety culture is built in and they can all learn from each other.

Dod

[dealtn]

Public bodies like the NHS, Network Rail and the like should be behaving more like the way that airlines do. Report all incidents and pool the knowledge so that a safety culture is built in and they can all learn from each other.

Dod

So you think airlines aren't fined for safety issues (or shouldn't be)?

[servodude]

Public bodies like the NHS, Network Rail and the like should be behaving more like the way that airlines do. Report all incidents and pool the knowledge so that a safety culture is built in and they can all learn from each other.

Dod

So you think airlines aren't fined for safety issues (or shouldn't be)?

You must admit though that when it's a truly "public" body the fine is little more than tokenism? "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" ...or at worst a diversion of some public funds to some other public expense without consideration of public benefit.

[dealtn]

So you think airlines aren't fined for safety issues (or shouldn't be)?

You must admit though that when it's a truly "public" body the fine is little more than tokenism? "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" ...or at worst a diversion of some public funds to some other public expense without consideration of public benefit.

Not really. If fines etc are used as a method of judging and incentivising performance and behaviours their purpose goes beyond the literal moving of finance.

Do you propose that workers in the public sector should be paid less, but pay no tax? That's just "tokenism" with a circular movement of funds around government bodies.

[servodude]

You must admit though that when it's a truly "public" body the fine is little more than tokenism? "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" ...or at worst a diversion of some public funds to some other public expense without consideration of public benefit.

Not really. If fines etc are used as a method of judging and incentivising performance and behaviours their purpose goes beyond the literal moving of finance.

Do you propose that workers in the public sector should be paid less, but pay no tax? That's just "tokenism" with a circular movement of funds around government bodies.

I had not proposed that.. but if it saved unnecessary cost and paperwork I can see the sense in it.

What I can't see the sense in is a fine that's little more than a performative sherricking. If it isn't actually punitive (and from the description Dod gave it's not) it's not an incentive - it's just the public blob moving funds internally and virtue signalling at the same time

[dealtn]

Not really. If fines etc are used as a method of judging and incentivising performance and behaviours their purpose goes beyond the literal moving of finance.

Do you propose that workers in the public sector should be paid less, but pay no tax? That's just "tokenism" with a circular movement of funds around government bodies.

I had not proposed that.. but if it saved unnecessary cost and paperwork I can see the sense in it.

What I can't see the sense in is a fine that's little more than a performative sherricking. If it isn't actually punitive (and from the description Dod gave it's not) it's not an incentive - it's just the public blob moving funds internally and virtue signalling at the same time

Unless you have a different definition of "just", it isn't. If I am high in the DoT and looking at relative performance across the number of operators it is a useful metric to know which are fined more, which have more accidents per mile etc. Similarly if I am responsible for management within such an operator and I know my remuneration, my budget, my likelihood of winning (or renewing) contracts is partly based on a safety record, the fines incurred etc. then I am incentivised to adopt practices and behaviours reflecting such.

I have few issues with public bodies having some of the incentive mechanisms adjusted and reflected to be more like that of the private sector. This shouldn't be about "just" financial circularity.

[Dod101]

Public bodies like the NHS, Network Rail and the like should be behaving more like the way that airlines do. Report all incidents and pool the knowledge so that a safety culture is built in and they can all learn from each other.

Dod

So you think airlines aren't fined for safety issues (or shouldn't be)?

I am not talking about airlines except to say that they report accidents obviously, but all near misses and suchlike so that they can learn for the future.

Dod

[dealtn]

So you think airlines aren't fined for safety issues (or shouldn't be)?

I am not talking about airlines except to say that they report accidents obviously, but all near misses and suchlike so that they can learn for the future.

Dod

Ok, but that's what the NHS and Network Rail already do. They are already acting like airlines (maybe with less scrutiny or as effectively perhaps).

[Dod101]

I had not proposed that.. but if it saved unnecessary cost and paperwork I can see the sense in it.

What I can't see the sense in is a fine that's little more than a performative sherricking. If it isn't actually punitive (and from the description Dod gave it's not) it's not an incentive - it's just the public blob moving funds internally and virtue signalling at the same time

Unless you have a different definition of "just", it isn't. If I am high in the DoT and looking at relative performance across the number of operators it is a useful metric to know which are fined more, which have more accidents per mile etc. Similarly if I am responsible for management within such an operator and I know my remuneration, my budget, my likelihood of winning (or renewing) contracts is partly based on a safety record, the fines incurred etc. then I am incentivised to adopt practices and behaviours reflecting such.

I have few issues with public bodies having some of the incentive mechanisms adjusted and reflected to be more like that of the private sector. This shouldn't be about "just" financial circularity.

In this case we are talking about National Rail which is a sole operator with no competition. In these circumstances, the fine of however much is just a token and in reality just means that things do not get done that should get done. I cannot believe that they are sitting a on a spare £6.5 million (as I quoted, although reports say £6.7 million before you pull me up on that) without some effect on their ability to finance maintenance and so on.

Dod

[Dod101]

I am not talking about airlines except to say that they report accidents obviously, but all near misses and suchlike so that they can learn for the future.

Dod

Ok, but that's what the NHS and Network Rail already do. They are already acting like airlines (maybe with less scrutiny or as effectively perhaps).

Not worth arguing with you on this but not much evidence that the NHS does so, although I am commenting on simply NR.

Dod

[dealtn]

Unless you have a different definition of "just", it isn't. If I am high in the DoT and looking at relative performance across the number of operators it is a useful metric to know which are fined more, which have more accidents per mile etc. Similarly if I am responsible for management within such an operator and I know my remuneration, my budget, my likelihood of winning (or renewing) contracts is partly based on a safety record, the fines incurred etc. then I am incentivised to adopt practices and behaviours reflecting such.

I have few issues with public bodies having some of the incentive mechanisms adjusted and reflected to be more like that of the private sector. This shouldn't be about "just" financial circularity.

In this case we are talking about National Rail which is a sole operator with no competition. In these circumstances, the fine of however much is just a token and in reality just means that things do not get done that should get done. I cannot believe that they are sitting a on a spare £6.5 million (as I quoted, although reports say £6.7 million before you pull me up on that) without some effect on their ability to finance maintenance and so on.

Dod

Again, unless we have different definitions of "just", it literally isn't

[dealtn]

Ok, but that's what the NHS and Network Rail already do. They are already acting like airlines (maybe with less scrutiny or as effectively perhaps).

Not worth arguing with you on this but not much evidence that the NHS does so, although I am commenting on simply NR.

Dod

My wife worked for many years in the NHS (and is still a nurse), and we personally know many still employed there. There is literally daily reporting on incorrect procedures, some of which would be described as near misses. What evidence are you looking for?

[Spet0789]

Ok, but that's what the NHS and Network Rail already do. They are already acting like airlines (maybe with less scrutiny or as effectively perhaps).

Not worth arguing with you on this but not much evidence that the NHS does so, although I am commenting on simply NR.

Dod

Completely agree with this. The aviation industry has a fantastic culture of investigating accidents not to assign blame but to ensure that the lessons are learned and that the same mistake cannot cost lives again.

The NHS is a million miles from this culture, as the Lucy Letby case showed us recently (in the sense that concerns were not taken seriously, obviously her actions were abhorrent). In my view changing this is one of the quickest wins in the whole public sector. Improve the service, reduce costs, reinstate public trust.

[Lootman]

Not worth arguing with you on this but not much evidence that the NHS does so, although I am commenting on simply NR.

Completely agree with this. The aviation industry has a fantastic culture of investigating accidents not to assign blame but to ensure that the lessons are learned and that the same mistake cannot cost lives again.

The NHS is a million miles from this culture, as the Lucy Letby case showed us recently. In my view changing this is one of the quickest wins in the whole public sector. Improve the service, reduce costs, reinstate public trust.

I imagine that the NHS sets aside a considerable amount of money for settling lawsuits for malpractice, and the like. It probably self-insures since it is all just government money anyway, so who cares right?

Airlines get fined or charged for all kinds of things. That would include both the private ones and the ones that are government owned and operated.

[dealtn]

Not worth arguing with you on this but not much evidence that the NHS does so, although I am commenting on simply NR.

Dod

Completely agree with this.

Really? The rest of your post makes a lot of sense. But you think the there isn't much evidence the NHS does report accidents etc.? It is literally a daily occurrence at ward level, let along hospital, or NHS Trust levels.

[Dod101]

Completely agree with this. The aviation industry has a fantastic culture of investigating accidents not to assign blame but to ensure that the lessons are learned and that the same mistake cannot cost lives again.

The NHS is a million miles from this culture, as the Lucy Letby case showed us recently. In my view changing this is one of the quickest wins in the whole public sector. Improve the service, reduce costs, reinstate public trust.

I imagine that the NHS sets aside a considerable amount of money for settling lawsuits for malpractice, and the like. It probably self-insures since it is all just government money anyway, so who cares right?

Airlines get fined or charged for all kinds of things. That would include both the private ones and the ones that are government owned and operated.

According to NHS Resolution (whatever that is) the NHS pays out around £2.6 billion in compensation claims, but that is not quite the same thing as my point about the National Rail fine. The NHS £2.6 billion is at least some sort of recompense for negligence in patient care and I imagine most of it goes to relatives or dependents. The NR fine is just going from one government pocket to another, helping no one as far as I can see. I assume that compensation payments to the three who were killed in the accident are being or have been dealt with separately.

Dod