Minimum age for volunteer crews

I would be inclined to suggest the limit for guards training on the Bluebell would be 18 and 1/2. I say this because you need to have spent 6 months as a leading porter on the platform, which you can't be until 18 as it is safety critical. It is possible to pass some or all of the LP competencies prior to being 18, but not to actually be an LP. You may be able to sign up to be a guard at 18 on the dot had you passed the LP competency elements before 18. Additionally, you would have to wait for a guards training course to open; I believe they tend to be in September.

As far as I am aware, most departments on the Bluebell will take volunteers from 16, but not safety critical until 18.

 

I do believe however (though I'm not involved there) that being a larger line with more organisational headroom, they do have younger members groups that do some volunteering

 

Yes, there is the 9F Club, for 9-16 year olds, which I have some involvement with. The tasks undertaken, all under supervision of numerous experienced adults, include:

• Cleaning of engines from ground level
• Breaking of wood for lighting up of engines
• Clearing ash pits
• Painting
• Cleaning / greasing of track / points in the loco yard

Young people are also involved at the Bluebell by dressing as elves for santa specials. There are many safeguarding considerations when it comes to this.

Unfortunately the club has a very long waiting list (over 100 people) which vastly exceeds the actual or potential capacity of the club.

The volunteer coordinator is looking into expanding opportunities for 14-18 year olds.

At age 16, in my department, one is able to carry out most duties provided you are supervised by a safety-critical colleague. Some tasks require saefguarding supervision, but not saftey wise, e.g. ticket barrier. Some tasks are out of bounds to 16 year olds, for example cleaning with hazardous chemicals, or use of the barrow crossing.

 

Thanks for the comprehensive reply @SECR 65 , it is always interesting to see how other railways work

 

Interesting, SVR policy for guards is they must be 18 when they pass out so I know a couple that were passed out shortly after turning 18. They would have done their training for a while beforehand and there is no equivalent of the Leading Porter.

 

AIUI, you don't have to be a leading porter before progressing to guard's training - you can go sideways from another safety-critical operational role, so I think in principle you could start training before 18. I suspect it is vanishingly rare though.

Tom

 

Has any railway got an 85 year old steam driver?

 

I guess the point is that naturally individual railways are going to be more risk averse if left to make these decisions for themselves than if everyone's sat round the table with the ORR and got agreement, which is why I think this document is so useful. If railways wish to be a bit more liberal in allowing younger volunteers to do more, for whatever good reason, they now have some "air cover" in the form of this guidance to point to if something ever went wrong and they were asked "why did you lower your age limit?".

Sent from my PGT-N19 using Tapatalk

 

Please enlighten me.
If a child doing work is deemed to be employed, and the Equality Act applies to employees, then how are the older volunteers not employees?
Pat

 

Because, taking @Lineisclear's answer at face value, the deemed status is a function of child protection law rather than wider employment law.

 

Precisely! Where junior volunteers are deemed to be employed ( and that's only where they are working for an entity intended to be run for profit) that deemed status only applies for the purpose of child protection law, not for other laws such as the Equality Act. which only protects those with an express or implied contract of employment.

 

Ensuring compliance with safeguarding law is presumably not the ORR's responsibility, though. I don't believe they're responsible for enforcing every single law that might apply to a railway.

 

They aren't. But those running railways are responsible (and in some cases criminally accountable) for making sure those laws being adhered to.

 

Which is true - but it's not the ORR's job to remind the railways of all applicable laws, either.

 

Indeed - which neither I nor I believe @Bikermike suggested. Indeed, re-reading that email he said what I would have thought - that while this provides useful clarification of one aspect, it needs to be made to work in parallel with other legal duties.

 

I think there is a definite element of "shoot the messenger", it's not our fault the guidance doesn't address every statute...

Guidance never trumps statute (except where the specific statute says it does, looking at you Bribery Act).

Statute trumps Statutory Instrument trumps guidance

New Statute over-rules old statute to the minimum extent necessary to give effect to the new statute (other than specific amends set out in the new statute)

 

Not to mention that many (including me) would be concerned if guidance on duties in a workplace strayed into safeguarding territory, especially as safeguarding is a rapidly developing field

 

A body should only comment on the areas within its technical competence.

What was interesting (and refreshing) about that HRA / ORR guidance was that it gave some solid examples of where it would, or would not, be appropriate for someone under 16 to be involved. I was surprised, but pleasantly so, just how much they felt a young volunteer could do, given adequate supervision (and in many cases, a clear distinction between the minor, who was responsible for a task, and an older person who would be accountable).

So the guidance strikes me as very good. But no-one is saying that is the only thing you have to consider before engaging under-16 volunteers. You’d have to think of things like safeguarding; rules around minors staying in volunteer accommodation and a whole host of other issues. No-one is saying that because they aren’t in the guidance document that they are therefore irrelevant, just that they are outside the expertise of a safety regulator for railways. In effect they have said “subject to you putting in place all the normal controls around working with young people, we think it is appropriate for those people to perform these railway-related tasks”.

Tom

 

Absolutely.

 

HRA have set the standard with this document. I look forward to the equivalent guidance note on safeguarding being of a similarly high standard - both to see who have contributed to it, and which organisations might be able to benefit from it.

In the context of railway volunteering, praise is also due to the mention by @Lineisclear of vulnerable adults. It's a category of safeguarding that's often overlooked, and is arguably more challenging than youth safeguarding. It's also, I fear, likely to be more relevant to the heritage sector than youth for some time to come.