Minimum age for volunteer crews

HRA Guidance simply states:
"ROGS sets no minimum or maximum age for staff engage on safety critical work. However, the following are nationally recognised norms and it recommended that they are followed.
No person (other than a trainee) ............should undertake safety critical work until they attain the age of 18. No person may perform the duty of driver of a railway train (other than as a trainee) under the age of 21.
Staff may train for safety critical tasks once they are 16 (18 for drivers) They must not be allowed to undertake such work unless properly supervised by a fully competent qualified person.
There is no upper age limit for staff undertaking safety critical work. To bar an individual from safety critical work on grounds of age alone may be a contravention of the Equality Act 2010."
This Guidance is endorsed by the ORR. Interestingly, the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010 gives a minimum age for drivers of 20.

There is seemingly some variation amongst heritage railways on age, which is why I'm interested. I hadn't realised that upper age limits were still enforced, though.

 

Fair comment.

Picking up on the age point in the HRA guidance, my understanding is that it's not on age alone, but based on an assessment that the age in question is a valid measure of whether the individual can still meet the job requirements.

That said, I remain surprised that mandatory age limits have either not been challenged or, if challenged, been upheld.

 

I find it difficult to believe that any of the "No-Win, No Fee" ambulance chasing lawyers would be willing to fight the case of a volunteer on a heritage railway - which is what this discussion is about.

 

No, but some of the rights lawyers might - regardless of funding. And my question about case law was about what may happen on the national network - which could influence heritage railways.

 

Although they are not volunteer footplate crew, the January 2019 edition of Steam Railway reported the retirement of Jacobite driver Alexander John MacDonald last year at the age of 77, and Gareth Jones, a steam Traction Inspector (and former driver) for DB Cargo at the age of 80.

 

Is this thread minimum or maximum ? No place for youngsters on the railway.
Maximum not helped by HMG policy which allows seniors to work on forever,

 

The discussion is about minimum ages permitted by heritage railways for volunteers undertaking safety critical work It is still a grey area with the HRA, the APP working party on young volunteers and heritage railways all having different views. I'm particularly interested to know what 16 year old volunteers can undertake, bearing in mind that, in BR days, a person could go firing at 16 years old.

 

BR days long gone, no kids now.

 

And we were having such an intelligent, informed discussion...

 

Went back looking for this thread, didn't realise it was quite so long ago! Anyway, the HRA's long awaited guidance note following their successful campaign to change the law regarding young people volunteering on heritage railways last year was published yesterday. Extremely helpful with a lengthy list of example tasks and roles they consider suitable for 14-16 year olds. I was actually surprised at how generous the scope is.

Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920: Guidance for Heritage Railways and Tramways on the application to young volunteers

 

I would cross-reference that with your safeguarding policy. Eg, if you have a 14-yr old fireman (of any gender) on the footplate with one other person, that person might need to be DBS-checked. As ever, risk assesment, training and policies to be considered

I'm coming at this from a rugby coach safeguarding training p.o.v. Given what has happened in the past with sports coaches, the RFU takes a very risk-averse view.

Then again, it's all fine until it's not.

 

The new guidance has to come with the caveat that who the young person is volunteering for may be relevant.

The Children and Young Persons Act of 1933 has not been amended. That stipulates that any child doung work for an organisation undertaken for profit is deemed for the purposes of child protection law to be employed. Although many heritage railways involve charities in some form it's common for their volunteers to be managed by an operating company, which may or may not be a subsidiary of the charity, and which is designed to generate a surplus. It's common for that entity to hold the Light Railway or TWA Order and to be the responsible entity under ROGS. In such cases it would be hard to argue that individuals are volunteering for a non-profit charity even though it may be the ultimate beneficiary of their input. Accordingly its child volunteers would be subject to the same restrictions on hours and activities, including any additional local authority regulations, as apply to any children who may be employed.

Incidentally the restrictions are often stated as applicable to 14 to 16 year olds. Technically the upper limit is not age in years but the individual's statutory school leaving age which varies from one part of the UK to another.

As to upper age limits for safety critical roles a volunteer excluded on age grounds cannot assert discrimination because the Equality Act only applies to employees.

 

Sadly, there have been a number of cases involving sexual offences against minors on heritage railways, some of which have resulted in the successful prosecution and conviction of the perpetrators.

 

Puffing Billy in Australia had a particularly serious incident

 

That shouldn't affect what the individuals can do though, which is what the guidance document has been created for, just how long they might be allowed to do it. Other than a few operational roles I wouldn't have thought that would ever be a particularly restrictive factor for someone who's likely only volunteering once a week or so.

And yes, safeguarding is the unaddressed element there - perhaps the next thing on the HRA's agenda? A similar guidance document with some worked examples would be incredibly useful.

 

The what and for how long distinction is broadly correct subject always to local authority bye laws which may be more restrictive. The latest ORR Guidance is very helpful in clarifying what activities are likely, subject to local restrictions, to be OK with or without competent supervision and those which are unlikely to be suitable.

A Guidance note on Safeguarding ( which includes reponsibility for vulnerable adults as well as children) should be available soon.

 

Brilliant, thank you John!

 

There will undoubtedly be another incident in the future, one which isn't covered by those rules. At which point, the rules will be extended yet again. Repeat.

Noel

 

Safeguarding will always present that kind of a challenge, and can only be adequately managed through constant vigilance.

Guidance tailored to the specific circumstances will be invaluable, but the real challenge for railways running such schemes will be to ensure that they have volunteers who are willing to both share their enthusiasm and work within the constraints of modern safeguarding practice. As others have mentioned, "but it'll never happen here" is not an adequate response - or mindset.