Consultation Report on Channel Tunnel Order 2007 to transpose Railway Safety Directive for the UK
This report records the Department's response to the two representations it received to its Consultation exercise on the Channel Tunnel (Safety) Order 2007 to give effect to the European Railway Safety Directive (2004/49/EC) for the UK part of the Channel Tunnel. The Consultation commenced on 16th July and concluded on 16th October 2007.
The first was from Eurostar (UK) Ltd (“EUKL”) and related to article 13viii of the bi-national Regulation (duty of the Concessionaires to take protective measures if they identify, or are advised of, a clear and present safety risk arising from serious or repeated default by a railway undertaking). EUKL questioned the appropriateness of this provision and whether it had a direct basis in the Railway Safety Directive. They considered an underlying principle of the Directive was to place railway undertakings and infrastructure managers on a level footing with a duty to co-operate. They suggested that by placing this duty on the Concessionaires, this balance could be affected. They believed any duty to take action should be with the Intergovernmental Commission (IGC), which could do so under article 54 (power to suspend, revoke etc a railway undertaking’s safety certificate).
The UK Secretariat to the IGC has drawn the attention of EUKL to assurances that had already been provided on this article and to the fact that it had been reworded following EUKL's earlier representation that it should be amended to make clear that it related to protective, rather than enforcement, measures. On this basis EUKL has indicated that it is content.
The other representation was from the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB). They sought confirmation that Chapter 6 of the bi-national Regulation (investigations into accidents and incidents) would not supersede or otherwise compromise the existing UK transposition measures for this aspect of the Railway Safety Directive. They were advised that article 7 of the Order maintains the primacy of the existing UK transposition legislation. On this basis they indicated they were content.
