HL Deb 14 February 1939 vol 111 cc734-42

LORD KILMAINE rose to move to resolve, That in the case of an electric railway where the current is on the ground and not overhead, the company be required to fence in their track on both sides throughout, so as to make it impossible for children or dogs and other domestic animals to stray on to the line and come in contact with the live rail.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, some time ago I addressed your Lordships' House on the running of local services on the Southern Railway. Now I wish to draw attention to the danger to the public, especially to young people and to domestic animals, of an electric railway line which derives its motive power from a live rail on the ground. My experience of electric railways is limited in this country to the London electric railways and to the Southern Railway, on which I have travelled a good deal. I have travelled on electric railways in Switzer land and France, but there they use overhead wires. The Southern Railway line between Hastings, Eastbourne, Brighton, Lewes, and Victoria is in places so poorly fenced that any child could climb over and get on to the line, and almost any dog could get under the fence. I know that several foxhounds have been hurt by coming in contact with live rails, and I know that many farmers are anxious about their livestock. I myself have seen two unfortunate dogs—one at Hastings Station and the other at Bexhill—run on the line and come in contact with the live rail, which was not at all a pleasant sight.

The Southern Railway by electrification saved a great deal of expense to the directors and shareholders, and I think they ought to be advised to fence in their line in such a way as to make it safe to the public. I have several times noticed parties of small poor children on the railway embankment gathering primroses. What more natural than that children, who know nothing about electricity, if they see no train in sight and catch sight of far finer flowers on the other side of the line, should stray across the line to get them? It may be said that nobody has any right to go on railway property except the officials and the workmen, who are acquainted with the line, but to children of a certain age there is no greater thrill than occasionally to do what is wrong, and one of the greatest thrills is to go on property that is out of bounds. Also I have noticed that the Southern Railway goes through sporting country. I have seen pheasants and other game near the line. Suppose during a shoot in October a pheasant is wounded and a valuable retriever is sent after it. If that pheasant tries to go across the line it may get across all right, but if the retriever goes across and touches the live rail that is the end of the valuable retriever. I beg to move.

Moved to resolve, That in the case of an electric railway where the current is on the ground and not overhead, the company be required to fence in their track on both sides throughout, so as to make it impossible for children or dogs and other domestic animals to stray on to the line and come in contact with the live rail.—(Lord Kilmaine.)

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My Lords, it is true of course that the Southern Railway have a very large proportion of the electrified lines in this country—something like 680 miles out of a total in this country of 900 miles—and that all of that on the Southern Railway is third-rail electrification. But there are two points which I would like to make. There has recently been agitation from various quarters on the lines of the noble Lord's Motion. It started among the sporting interest as recently as 1927, particularly among hunting people, and it started, not as a result of electrification in areas where there was a dense population and there-for a greater likelihood of people and children straying on the line, but as a result I think of extensive electrification in the open country, where it interfered to a certain extent with the activities of the various hunts. But the railway was there before, and even a railway not electrified interferes with the hunting interest. The actual amount of damage that has been done through electrocution of hounds is not very large, though I have not got the figure.

After the hunting interest had met the railway companies and discussed the matter, the companies did a certain amount to meet their wishes in the way of putting up fencing, over which neither animals nor hounds could get. That is a matter of experiment at the moment, to find out whether it is effective and whether it is necessary. As to the matter of the noble Lord's wounded pheasant and sending the retriever across to fetch it, I thought for one moment when he was speaking that he expected us to fence our line not only against the beasts of the field but against the birds of the air, which would mean encasing the whole line in a wire fence. But I think anybody who has the hardihood to send a retriever across any railway line, whether electrified or not, is running very grave risks and should be distinctly discouraged. I would not do so.

Perhaps it would be just as well to give your Lordships some idea of the measure of this problem. It might be inferred from what the noble Lord has said that we are daily killing children and valuable livestock on our electrified lines. Speaking again only for the Southern Railway, so far as children and grownup people are concerned, in the year 1938 the total number killed by electrocution accidently in electrified areas was six. There are many other activities in the transport world which are far more dangerous than that. Actually the accidental deaths from electrocution of the public in the last nine years total only forty-three—forty children and three adults. I have not included, of course, the suicides, which are numerous, but they would probably be killed whether the line was electrified or not; and, as a matter of fact, unfortunately as a rule they choose to be run over rather than electrocuted. But that is the measure of the problem so far as deaths are concerned.

The noble Lord suggests that we should be required to fence our tracks on both sides so as to make it impossible for children, or dogs and other domestic animals to stray on the line and come in contact with the live rail. He himself said that there is nothing that children like better than doing that which they are forbidden to do, and my own experience of children is that if they really want to do something nothing seems to be impossible for them, and no fence seems to be unclimbable. And so it is impossible for us to put up a fence which it is impossible for children to scale some way or other. Also there are all such things as stations, level crossings, accommodation crossings and the like, which must give access to the line if they are to be of any use whatsoever. Every possible precaution is taken at such points to prevent accidents, and the effect is that on the whole the mortality is not very great.

The noble Lord hinted that the better system would have been to follow the Continental practice of overhead lines. I will not go into details on that, because we have got the live-rail system, and the cost of converting it into overhead lines would be so colossal that no railway company could possibly consider it. But I would say this. So far as the third-rail system is concerned, that system has been approved by Parliament. Two systems have been allowed by Parliament. One is the overhead system, with a maximum current of 1,500 volts, and the other is the third-rail system with a maximum of 750 volts, and the general voltage on the systems in this country is 660. I might add to that that in the Weir Report on main line electrification, this question was considered very carefully, and it in practice reaffirmed what was said in the Pringle Report in support of the system which is now in force, the third-rail system. It was said in the Report, if I remember correctly, that none of the expert witnesses who came before them had any criticism to make of the third-rail system, as then and now in use. I do not think that you can put all the blame for the method used on the railway company concerned, because the public as represented by Parliament must take some of the blame. I do not think there is much more that I can add beyond the fact that if the line was fenced on both sides throughout its length with an unclimbable and imperishable fence of a type we are now using in increasing amounts at danger spots, it would cost the railway company somewhere between £300,000 and £350,000, which is a considerable sum in these days for railway companies, and would produce no increase in the income of the railway company, and I very much doubt if it would do much to decrease the very small mortality.

May I say one word in conclusion? So far as I understand it, I think this is the root of the problem: the agitation about the dangers of the third-rail is based much more upon fear than upon reality. The facts as to the numbers of people who are killed are as I have given them to your Lordships. They are not very big, but I do know that a very large number of people are much more agitated as to the danger resulting to activities such as hunting or children's parties near an electrified line than they are in the case of such events near an ordinary railway line, but in fact, as the figures show, the number of people who are run over as opposed to the number electrocuted is greater in the electrified areas, while the number who are run over in the non-electrified areas is greater than those run over in the electrified areas, so that the danger on the line is much more from other causes than from electrification. If only people would realise that I think this agitation about the third rail would not be such a source of fear to them. I must add, finally, that the noble Lord fails to realise that anybody who is on the line, that is, any member of the general public, is a trespasser and has no right to be there.

THE EARL OF ERNE

My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships appreciate the motive that has prompted the noble Lord to initiate this debate. He aims to create conditions of greater security of life, more particularly perhaps of child life, and that must command the sympathetic consideration of this House. It also gives me this opportunity to make a statement on behalf of His Majesty's Government on this important subject. Now it is necessary in the first instance to recognise where the responsibility lies in matters of this sort and if the House will bear with me I propose to state, quite briefly, what are the responsibilities of the railway companies and the powers of the Minister in regard to the fencing of railway lines. The statutory obligations of the railway companies are of a general character and are laid down by Section 68 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. They are limited in effect to the protection of the adjoining lands from trespass and the prevention of cattle straying from such land by way of the railway.

Before a line is opened for electrical working the approval of the Minister of Transport has to be obtained under Section 41 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and this approval is not given until the lines have been inspected by the Minister's inspecting officers of railways. The Minister's powers too are limited for he may not withhold his approval if he is satisfied that the use of the railway as adapted for electrification will not be attended with danger to the public using it. In practice the companies go further than is required by Statute. The Minister's inspecting officers of railways, when inspecting new electrifications, so far as possible look out for and draw attention to any places where they consider proper fencing has not been provided; and the railway companies are generally willing to comply with these suggestions although they go beyond their strict statutory obligations. The companies are not prepared, however, and the Minister has no power to compel them to provide unclimable fencing throughout all their electrified railways, nor does the Minister think this is necessary. It must be remembered, as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has just mentioned, that any railway, whether electrified or not, is private property and that there must always be some element of danger to persons who, in spite of precautions, make their way on to portions of the line where they have no right to be. None the less all steps reasonably necessary to prevent trespass are taken.

Following certain fatalities on the Southern Railway in 1937 the Minister asked that company to give their earnest consideration to all possible means of preventing such accidents occurring in future, and a statement was obtained from the company respecting their practice together with an undertaking as to their future policy. This was communicated to Parliament by the Minister at the time, but perhaps I may repeat the statement which is an important and authoritative presentation of the Southern Railway I Company's attitude in the matter: The company's officers have been giving active consideration to the provision of more effectual means for preventing children from trespassing upon those parts of the company's system which are electrified on the conductor rail system. At the same time, regard has been paid to recent complaints which have been made in respect of increased mortality from this cause among animals which have penetrated the company's fences. The company has decided to instal in future, under certain conditions, two improved types of fencing which embody the use of chain-link meshing. It is intended that an active policy shall be pursued in the matter. Considerable lengths of the new fencing are to be ordered and erection will be put in hand without delay when the material is received. In all places in the electrified area where trespassing is prevalent, but where the existing 8 or 10-wire fencing is not due for renewal, the meshing, 4 ft. 6 ins. high, will be fixed to the outside of the existing concrete posts, leaving the horizontal wires in position; to increase rigidity, a new post will be added between the existing posts where these are 18 feet apart. The bottom of the meshing will be kept as close to the ground as possible to prevent penetration under the fence. An entirely new type is also to be adopted as a standard in new construction, or when renewing existing fencing, in electrified areas where trespassing is likely to occur. For this type the 4 feet 6 inches high meshing will be carried by three horizontal wires on the railway side of concrete posts, which will be erected 9 feet apart. Above the meshing, four further horizontal wires will be run, about 2½ inches apart, the lowest being on the railway side of the posts, the next through the posts, and the top two on the side of the posts remote from the railway. The top wire will be about 5 feet 3 inches above the ground, and it is considered that the outwardly projecting 'cornice' formed by these wires will make the fence more difficult to surmount either by trespassers or animals. The bottom of the meshing will be kept as close to the ground as possible to prevent penetration under the fence. The smallness of the meshing makes the fence difficult to climb, and the serrations above the top supporting wire are also of value in this respect. Consideration is also being given to the modification of the fencing in those parts of hunting country where there may be special risk of hounds getting on to the line. The company consider that the measures now to be taken will meet all reasonable requirements. During last year that company put up over 50 miles of the improved type of fencing, which covered all places where trespassing had been reported as prevalent or likely to occur. I may add that up to the end of January, 1939, this com- pany has, in fact, erected 63 miles of special fencing. In view of the action taken by the Southern Company and the fact that, in actual practice, the inspecting officers have found the railway companies willing to provide improved fencing where these officers recommend it, the Minister does not feel justified at present in asking Parliament to impose on the companies a statutory obligation to put up this fencing throughout the whole of their electrified lines. But the House may rest assured that the Minister is fully alive to the importance of this question and that he will continue to give it his careful and constant attention. Nevertheless he is grateful to the noble Lord for bringing about what it will be agreed has been a helpful debate.

LORD KILMAINE

My Lords, I only want to add that I did not intend to demand that the Southern Railway should be asked to do anything impossible or anything that would cause great expense. My chief reason for bringing forward the Motion was that, travelling to Eastbourne about three days in the week, I have noticed that the line runs alongside some allotments and is very badly fenced at that point. It has struck me again and again that in the summer some man may go on to his allotment with his little son or daughter, and while his back is turned the child playing with a ball may throw it on the line, run after it and get electrocuted. However, I am quite satisfied with the noble Earl's statement that the Government have the matter in hand and will take the necessary steps. Therefore I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at five minutes before six o'clock.