CIRAS plays a unique role in the transport industry, providing a confidential route for reporting safety concerns when people don’t feel able to use other channels. Director of CIRAS Catherine Baker sat down with RailStaff to discuss hidden risks, the importance of listening cultures, and why seemingly minor concerns can play a critical role in improving safety.
Thanks for joining us, Catherine. For those less familiar, could you start by outlining the role that CIRAS plays across the transport industry?
CIRAS is an independent organisation which provides a place where people can come confidentially when they have health, wellbeing, or safety concerns. We’re here to listen to people when they find that other channels aren’t suitable, for whatever reason.
When people call us, they’ll find a real human being at the end of the line. That gives us the chance to really understand what their concern is, what’s behind it, and how it’s affecting themselves and their colleagues.
Protecting the identity of those who call is critical to our work. We always reassure our callers that we can help get their concerns heard in a way which isn’t going to identify them or their colleagues. We take their concerns to their employer, without providing any details which might identify the caller, so that the company can take action.
All of our member companies commit to trying to understand the concerns of employees who call us. They take away the information we deliver, carry out whatever investigations are appropriate, look into how improvements can be made, and explain to us how they’ve responded to the problem. We then share this information back with the reporter and they have a chance to feedback if the measures put in place have made a difference.
Even though we protect the identity of reporters who use CIRAS, it is very important that we know who they are. In this way, we can continue the conversation with them, attend to any further questions or concerns that they have, and update them on the situation they’ve reported.
At what point should an employee consider contacting CIRAS rather than reporting internally? Are there situations where it wouldn’t be the right route?
If you feel able to raise a concern through internal channels, whether that’s with a team leader, manager, or via formal reporting processes, that’s almost always the best place to start. You’re going directly to the people responsible, and it creates an opportunity for an open conversation. However, if for any reason you don’t feel comfortable using those channels, that’s where CIRAS comes in.
As an independent body, we sit outside of the employer organisation, which means people can come to us with concerns they may not feel able to raise internally. That might be because of workplace dynamics, or because the issue sits beyond their own company. They may have already raised the issue with their company, but it has not been acted upon.
We also hear from people who have spotted something in another part of the industry and aren’t sure who the responsible organisation is. In a sector as complex as rail, with so many interfaces and boundaries, that’s not uncommon. In those cases, CIRAS provides a route to ensure those concerns are still captured and passed on.
Can you point to any examples where concerns raised through CIRAS have led to tangible safety improvements on the network?
There are plenty of recent examples. You can read more on the CIRAS website and in our Frontline Matters newsletter. One involved Stratford International station, where concerns were raised about how crowds were being managed on football matchdays. The volume of passengers was creating potential safety risks, particularly around slip hazards and on stairs.
In response, the organisation reviewed its approach, introducing additional staff, refining announcements, and improving cleaning arrangements. Taken together, those changes have made a noticeable difference to safety during busy periods.
In another case, a concern was raised about manual handling risks during track upgrade work. The way sleepers were being moved on site didn’t align with the original plan, creating potential issues for staff.
The organisation paused the work to investigate and subsequently put measures in place to ensure the right equipment was available when needed. It’s a good example of a company taking a step back, learning from the report, and making practical changes.
A third example relates to skills and training. A worker raised concerns about skills fade around emergency procedures, specifically for working at height. They felt there weren’t enough opportunities to practise and maintain those competencies.
As a result, the organisation reviewed its approach and introduced more opportunities for staff to refresh those skills, ensuring they are prepared should an incident occur.
They’re three very different examples, but each highlights how relatively small interventions can lead to meaningful safety improvements.
What health and safety concerns are currently being most reported through CIRAS?
At the moment, the three areas we’re hearing about most are people’s working environment, health and wellbeing, and rules and procedures.
Within those, there’s a range of issues. One that’s coming through more often is security and work-related violence. That’s particularly evident in stations, but not exclusively – staff are reporting both real and perceived threats during interactions with the public, along with concerns about whether the right measures are in place to keep them safe. That might include access to safe spaces or how incidents are managed as they develop.
It’s not just about the immediate risk, either. People also talk about the impact on their wellbeing: for example, stress, anxiety, and the cumulative effect of working in that kind of environment.
Welfare facilities are another recurring theme. That covers both access and conditions – whether facilities are available, where and when they’re needed, and whether they’re fit for purpose. It’s a wellbeing issue, but also a practical one. If people can’t take proper breaks or are distracted by those concerns, it can start to affect performance in safety-critical roles.
We’re also seeing concerns linked to weather, particularly around extreme heat. Recent hot summers have brought that into sharper focus, with reports around how conditions are being managed, whether that’s ventilation, PPE, or adjustments to working patterns to reduce risk.
The third area, rules and procedures, covers a broad spectrum. In some cases, people feel the processes they’re expected to follow don’t reflect the realities on the ground. In others, the issue is about compliance, where procedures may be sound but aren’t always being followed.
That can span everything from train operations and track work to station management. It’s a reminder of how varied the operational environment is, and how important it is that both systems and behaviours are aligned in practice.
Have you noticed any shifts in the nature of concerns being raised in recent years?
There have been some shifts, although they tend to reflect wider events rather than any fundamental change in the types of issues being reported. For example, periods of extreme weather have led to more concerns about working conditions, particularly during hotter months.
During the COVID emergency phase, we saw a clear increase in reports linked to health, wellbeing, and hygiene. More recently, there was a rise in concerns around rules and procedures, although that has since eased, with reporting now more aligned to themes like wellbeing and the working environment.
So, there is movement over time, but I wouldn’t say there’s been a dramatic shift overall, more a reflection of what people are experiencing at any given moment.
One area that has remained consistently present is work-related violence and security, as previously mentioned. It’s not necessarily increased significantly in volume, but it continues to be a concern, particularly in busy environments or where staff are managing large numbers of passengers, including late-night services. There’s also a growing awareness of issues such as violence against women and girls, and the conflict that staff can face between protecting passengers and protecting themselves.
We’re also mindful that wider changes across the industry, such as ongoing reform, may begin to influence the types of concerns being raised. As those changes take shape, it’s important that people feel able to speak up if they affect their ability to work safely, and that they’ll be listened to.
More broadly, we’re seeing that concerns are often shaped by context; whether that’s operational change, media focus, or wider societal issues. That can prompt people to reflect on their own working environment and come forward.
CIRAS often highlights the importance of a strong ‘listening culture’. How would you assess the rail industry’s progress on that front?
From our perspective, we see this most clearly in how organisations respond to the concerns we share with them. There are some very positive examples of companies treating reports as opportunities to learn: taking them seriously, investigating thoroughly, and, importantly, recognising the effort it takes for someone to speak up in the first place.
In those cases, you’ll often see organisations thanking the reporter and acknowledging that raising a concern isn’t always easy. That kind of response goes a long way in reinforcing trust and encouraging others to come forward.
That said, it’s not consistent across the board. We still see instances where responses are more procedural: where an organisation checks that the rules and processes have been followed and, if they have, concludes that everything is fine. While that’s part of the picture, it doesn’t always get to the heart of why someone felt something was unsafe in the first place.
Fatigue is a good example of that. The industry has put a huge amount of work into fatigue risk management, particularly around rostering. But sometimes the lived experience of individuals or specific teams doesn’t quite align with what the systems say on paper. A truly listening culture means taking that extra step – understanding the context and asking whether something has been missed.
So, there is clear progress but it’s uneven. Some organisations are really embracing the idea of listening as a core part of their safety culture, while others are still on that journey.
Ultimately, a listening culture is strengthened every time an organisation engages with a concern openly and with genuine curiosity – not just to check compliance, but to understand and improve.
In your view, what are the main barriers that prevent people from raising concerns internally?
We ask that question directly when people come to us, because it’s really valuable insight for the industry. The most common reason is a lack of confidence that reporting internally will lead to any meaningful action, either because someone has tried before and didn’t feel heard, or because they believe nothing will change.
There’s also an element of uncertainty, particularly in a complex, multi-organisational industry like rail. People don’t always know who to raise a concern with, especially if it sits across organisational boundaries or outside their immediate employer.
Fear does still play a role as well. It’s not the most frequently cited reason, but for some individuals there is a genuine concern about potential consequences; for themselves or their colleagues. That perception may not always reflect the current culture of their organisation, but it can be shaped by past experiences and it’s important to recognise that.
Another key issue is feedback. One of the things we hear quite often is that people have raised concerns internally but never heard anything back. In some cases, action has been taken but, because that feedback loop wasn’t closed, the individual assumes they weren’t listened to.
More broadly, it comes down to making it as easy as possible for people to speak up, and ensuring they feel it’s worthwhile. That means simple, accessible reporting processes, clear ownership of concerns, and consistent follow-up so people can see that their input has made a difference.
There’s also been some useful work in this area recently, including research with track workers that looks at the capability, opportunity, and motivation to report concerns. It reinforces the idea that removing barriers isn’t just about systems, it’s about building trust and demonstrating that speaking up leads to action.
Beyond encouraging people to speak up, how can organisations ensure concerns are genuinely heard and acted upon?
A lot of focus quite rightly goes on encouraging people to speak up, often framed around psychological safety. But that’s only one side of the equation.
There’s an equally important challenge in making sure organisations create the right conditions for people to listen. Supervisors, team leaders, and managers are often working under significant pressure, balancing competing priorities. If listening to concerns is seen as an added burden, or something that might create further issues, that can become a barrier in itself.
So, it’s not just about giving people the confidence to speak up, but about ensuring those receiving concerns have the time, capacity, and support to engage with them properly. That includes creating an environment where listening is valued, not seen as a threat or a distraction from day-to-day responsibilities.
In practical terms, that means putting as much emphasis on supporting the ‘listeners’ as those who are speaking up. Ultimately, a reporting culture only works if concerns are not just raised but properly understood and acted upon.
Finally, what would you say to a frontline worker who is unsure whether their concern is serious enough to report?
If in doubt, raise it.
There are a couple of important reasons for that.
First, what might feel like a small issue on its own could be part of a much bigger picture. When combined with other reports, it can help highlight a wider problem that needs to be addressed. So even if it seems minor, it may be a crucial piece of the jigsaw.
Second, it’s often the small things that make the difference. The railway operates safely because of the countless everyday actions people take. Equally, it’s small issues that can start to undermine that over time. Something like access to welfare facilities might not seem critical in isolation, but if it affects fatigue, concentration, or wellbeing, it can become a contributing factor to wider risk.
There’s also a broader industry point here. Safety relies on building an accurate picture of what’s happening across the network. That depends on people speaking up. If concerns aren’t raised, they can’t be identified, tracked, or addressed, and patterns can be missed.
The message is simple: don’t second-guess it. If something doesn’t feel right, raise it.
Image credit: CIRAS
