HC Deb 19 February 1963 vol 672 cc405-14

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

11.50 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger (Goole)

The topic about which I want to speak tonight concerns the Minister of Transport and principally the village of Moorends, a mining village in my constituency, which has four unmanned railway level crossings leading out from it to outlying houses and farms in the vicinity. About two years ago an accident occurred on one of these crossings when a grocer's van, in which there were a young man and a young woman delivering groceries to an outlying farm, was struck by an express train and both occupants were killed. Immediately the rural district council—the local authority—asked the British Transport Commission to install warning signals and, if possible, automatic gates.

On 8th March, 1961, I asked the Minister of Transport a Question about these unmanned level crossings to find whether warning arrangements could be erected there. The Minister gave me what was in effect a very academic answer, including these words: the evidence is that, generally speaking, there is little danger. Three weeks ago another accident occurred, and the danger which was described as "little" by the Minister was proved to be rather more than that.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay)

I have the text of the Question and the Answer here. My right hon. Friend, in giving that Answer, was dealing with what are called public level crossings which, as he said, are mainly on light railways. As regards private crossings, to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, my right hon. Friend said something rather different.

Mr. Jeger

The Minister said: …the British Transport Commission by agreement with the users has provided warning arrangements at some of them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1961; Vol.636, c.45.] I am referring rather more to the attitude of the Minister than to the actual work which has been done by the British Transport Commission, which I think is very slight indeed with regard to these railway crossings.

The accident two years ago was followed by a conference of all the interested local authorities—the county council, the Thorne Rural District Council, and the British Transport Commission. As a result, a lot of investigation and correspondence transpired. In May, 1962, the highways and bridges department of the West Riding County Council summarised the matter in a letter to the Thorne R.D.C. by saying that it thought that something might be done by the county council if it was generally considered advisable to do so. It asked the chief constable of the West Riding for his opinion. He said: In view of the fact that the other three crossings are unmanned, I think that a system of warning lights would serve a useful purpose, particularly at certain points where the sight line along the permanent way is restricted at the approaches to the crossing. On the other hand, the divisional road engineer said this: …in no case do conditions appear to warrant the installation of signals. I understand that the Commission "— that is, the British Transport Com-mission— benefit would be exceptionally small and that by far the greater proportion of the expense would fall on the highway authority. In other words, his was a strictly negative and monetary consideration.

The British Transport Commission said this: …the Commission have given careful consideration to this question and whilst they are willing to co-operate in the installation of suitable warning devices it is regretted that they are unable to contribute to their cost. The Commission went on to say that the estimated cost indicated at a site meeting held in November, 1961, would be in the neighbourhood of £5,000 for the four crossings concerned. The cost appears to have ranked high in the opinion of the people concerned with this question.

There was considerable feeling in the village, particularly when the next accident occurred only three weeks ago in which two brothers, aged 26 and 19, also in a van, were run down and killed on one of these crossings. The vicar of the village was so appalled at this accident that he went to the crossing and erected a six foot high cross and has threatened that, if no action is taken to install safety devices, he will organise a village sit-down on the railway lines. The same vicar wrote to me a year ago to say how appalled he was at the sheer indifference of the authorities to take action. He wrote: It is sheer stupidity to say there is no need As long as people are likely to be killed, there is always need. With these new diesel trains you cannot hear anything until they are on top of you. I know. I had actually opened the gate at one of those crossings before hearing anything, and only the klaxon made me realise that a train was bearing down on me, less than fifty yards away. The coroner at the inquest on the most recent accident said that some more definite form of warning system is required; a warning light providing greater protection and helping to stop the loss of life. The foreman of the jury recommended that a type of warning light should be placed at the crossing.

It may be said that people who use railway crossings have a personal responsibility for their own safety. To a certain extent that is true, but I am asking for an adequate warning system to be installed at all these crossings in view of the way in which people are obliged to use them. I urge the House to consider the process of going across one of these crossings. There are gates at each side and to get over the railway lines one must actually cross them five times. One must open the near gate, cross the lines to open the far gate, cross the lines again for one's vehicle and drive the vehicle over. One must then stop the vehicle at the other side of the lines, go back over the lines to close what is now the far gate, back over the lines again to close the near gate. This shows that, if the gates are to be kept closed except when in use, a person with a vehicle wishing to cross must cross the lines five times.

Not only is the danger very great, but when driving a vehicle across it is even more dangerous, for the railway lines are on a raised embankment and to cross them one must engage low gear, "rev" the engine and in doing this it is more difficult to hear an approaching train. As the vicar pointed out, the new diesel trains are not only faster, but are more silent than the old steam trains. One no longer hears the chug-chug of the engine or sees a puff of smoke against the sky line. Thus, the partial warning of an oncoming train which one got in the past no longer exists.

On some crossings, particularly at times of fog and mist, the trains are upon the crossers before they realise they are there. That has happened to the extent of eight fatal accidents in recent years. I ask, therefore, that these crossings should be installed with flashing signal lights and bells which could be operated by remote control from a signal box. I also ask that there should be automatically locked gates, also operated from the nearest signal box and, where possible, under-passes or tunnels should be built so that pedestrians and light traffic can pass under the railway lines instead of having to go over them.

I appreciate that it would not be possible to do this in every case. That would, I suppose, not be financially possible. But it is vitally necessary in some of the more rural and semi-rural areas which have experienced the same sort of difficulties as have been experienced in my constituency.

There is actually one other crossing, in Knottingley, also in my constituency, on which up to now, fortunately, there have been no fatal accidents. Here the crossing is on a bridle path over a railway line leading to a housing estate on the other side. It is a common sight to see people from the housing estate crossing the railway line to get to the main road from which to take a bus to work. Trains are stopped across the path and one sees men, women and children walking round a train to rejoin the path or actually crawling underneath or between the wagons to get to the main road.

This is a case where there could easily be an underpass, and although the Knottingley Council has raised the matter with the British Transport Corn-mission so far it has not got anywhere. There are no signals, no gates and a pedestrian subway would be the best solution. I searched the British Transport Commission's Report for 1961 to see what it had to say about these level crossings and I found in paragraph 158 only four lines about fully automatic half-barrier level crossings being installed. There are very few of them indeed, and the action which has already been taken by the Transport Commission and by the Ministry of Transport is inadequate to deal with this very important problem of life and death.

The negotiations which have been conducted so far by the local authorities show that there is what can only be described as a callous disregard for human life. I am quite sure that that is not the view taken personally by the Parliamentary Secretary and that he would be the first to say that this matter dovetails really into his general road safety plans. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman would be willing to join with me in extending sympathy to the families of those who have been killed so recently on this railway crossing. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether action can be taken by his Ministry to ensure that those who died did not die in vain.

12.3 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay)

I certainly respond to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) that I should join with him in sending most sincerely, as I do, sympathy to the relatives of those who have, unfortunately, been killed during recent years on some of these crossings. What I have to say does not in the slightest degree detract from the feeling of sympathy which I am sure the whole House feels in matters of this kind.

I think that I can best help the hon. Gentleman by discussing, first, quite briefly the history of this type of crossing in this country. When the railways were first constructed 100 years or more ago the railway companies were required by law to preserve whatever crossing facilities there were for private roads and rights of way. At the same time, they were obliged to provide access for farmers whose farms were severed by the building of the railway line.

It is most interesting to me because the problems which faced the railway companies in these respects so long ago are very similar to the sort of problems that my right hon. Friend's Ministry faces now when we are building motorways. Two types of private crossing have resulted. Those which are on private roads are known as occupation crossings and those between fields are known as accommodation crossings.

I expected that the hon. Member for Goole would probably ask in this debate for various types of safety devices to be fitted to these private level crossings throughout the country and, in particular, to those in his constituency to which he made reference. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman, however, that if the British Railways Board, which has the responsibility as the successor to the Transport Commission, wished to undertake that kind of thing it would involve it in very heavy sums of money indeed, because there are no less than 19,000 of this type of crossing all over the country.

If the figure which the hon. Gentleman quoted of about £1,000 or perhaps £1,200 per crossing was any guide, a simple calculation shows at once how very heavy would be the sums of money involved.

Mr. Jeger

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that not all would have the same degree of danger attached to them; and that a survey of the most important and dangerous would lead to a reduction of the 19,000 to a very much smaller figure.

Mr. Hay

I quite see that point, but we are talking, not in terms of several hundred thousands of pounds, but of a good few millions of pounds. That is the result of any such calculation.

Perhaps I can next say something about the legal obligations, because they form an important part of the background. The British Railways Board has a responsibility and an obligation of providing and maintaining crossings and gates. In addi- tion to that, following a case in the courts in 1952, additional obligations were imposed. In that case, the court said that British Railways had to …do all that may reasonably be required of them, in the shape of warnings, whistles, and so forth, so as to reduce the danger to people using… crossings. Those were the words the court used, and that is the obligation that now rests on the Railways Board.

The courts have also ruled, and this is the other side of the picture, that road users who make use of these crossings are responsible, as the hon. Member has said, for their own safety when they cross. Incidentally, under railway byelaws, it is also an offence to leave the gates open, although that is often done, and it is the fact that the gates are left open that so frequently leads to an accident. A number of prosecutions take place every year under the byelaws, and perhaps I might just mention that the two young men who, unfortunately, were killed in the most recent accident on this Marsh Lane crossing had been prosecuted and fined in the past for having left gates open—so I understand.

I must make it quite clear that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has no power at all to order any protective measures to be introduced at these private crossings, nor has he power to pay for such measures to be instituted. In recent years, by agreement with users, British Railways have provided protective measures in various parts of the country, but so often it turns out to be a question of who shall pay. The local authorities, whom one might say are representative of users to a very great extent, quite frequently very fiercely resist any proposition that they should pay for these measures to be instituted.

Just to fill in the picture, I might just add that where a crossing is on a public road and not a private road, as so many of them at present are, there is an entirely different situation. If the railway line was laid down across a public road, the railways are today still under the obligation that they bore then of providing gates, and staff to operate the gates.

It is quite true, as the hon. Member says, that from time to time accidents do occur at these crossings. During the five years up to 1962, 311 accidents occurred at these private crossings, which works out at an average of 62 per annum. In them, 69 people were killed, which works out at an average over the five years of 14 per year, and 149 people were seriously injured, and the average there is 30 a year. Of course, we all very sincerely regret that injuries and fatalities of this kind happen—one would wish that they did not happen at all—but I would beg the hon. Gentleman and the House to keep the matter in perspective.

The average number of people killed in a year on these crossings—say, 14—is less than the number of people who are killed on our roads in one day. I say this not to minimise the fact that people are killed. It is tragic that they are killed, but we must, I suggest, keep the matter in perspective. What we are asked to do is to spend very large sums of money for a comparatively small—I stress the word "comparatively"—result.

I come now to the crossing at Marsh Lane. This is one of three crossings over the railway near the village of Thorne. Originally, these were private roads; they are now maintained by the county and carry public traffic, but the crossings are still equipped as private crossings. The crossing at Marsh Lane is unattended. It has what are known as field type gates, and these open away from the railway line. There are wicket gates at each side for pedestrians. On each side of the crossing, notices are displayed which say, I understand, "Stop, Look and Listen"—very wise advice—and which explain how the crossing should be operated, that the gates should be opened and closed in a certain order, and so on. In addition, there are on the railway itself signs which require the drivers of trains to operate the whistle as they approach the crossing to give warning of approach.

The hon. Gentleman said that the view of the trains from the road from a vehicle approaching the crossing was restricted. My information is that in one direction at the Marsh Lane crossing there is visibility for at least 300 yards and in the other direction as much as as 550 yards. This is the information I have from our Railway Inspectorate, which advises me that this is a perfectly adequate distance in all the circumstances. However, perhaps we need not argue about that, because the accident record at this series of crossing is, although regrettable, not absolutely disastrous.

Over the past 12 years, there have been at these three crossings, including Marsh Lane, eight accidents, and during that period five people have been killed. It is easy to build up a large number of people if there are several in a car at one time, and in two of the accidents to which the hon. Gentleman referred two people were travelling in the vehicle at the time. Had there been more people, presumably more would have been killed. So the accident rate does not carry us very far. I agree that, on the face of it, it is a disastrous situation. I agree that one wishes that it could be prevented, but, again, I ask the House to keep the matter in perspective.

I understand that the accident on 25th January occurred at about half-past eight in the evening. At the inquest, the jury, having brought in a verdict of accidental death, added a rider drawing attention to the need for better lighting. No doubt, this will be taken into account by the Railways Board in considering what could be done at these crossings.

Generally speaking, throughout the country the problem is not being left alone. Certain things are happening. Last month, a meeting took place between representatives of our Ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture, the British Railways Board and the National Farmers' Union directed to seeing what could be done to deal with the problem of the accommodation crossings which, the House will recall, are those which provide a crossing between two severed parts of a farm. I hope that that meeting, and others which may possibly be held, will lead to the closure of many of these accommodation crossings which are really no longer necessary.

This would undoubtedly help the situation considerably. Where closure cannot take place, I hope that it will prove possible, if agreement can be reached on the cost, for extra safety equipment to be provided. In any event, we shall do all we can to bring about a satisfactory solution of the problem and will use our good offices in trying to bring the parties together.

In addition, the House will be interested to know that experiments have been going on in the Eastern Region to provide a simple and inexpensive form of light signals which would be actuated by the approach of the train itself. This device is under development now, and it looks quite promising. It may well be that it will provide a very satisfactory solution for those crossings which cannot be disposed of.

I must, however, add this. I do not consider that we can expect that there is some kind of broad frontal approach that can be made to the whole problem of these private crossings until such time as we know the new size and shape of the railways. The House is aware that the Railways Board has under review the results of the traffic studies which it has carried out in recent months and we expect to receive proposals from the Board concerning the future size and shape of the railway system. When those proposals come forward, they will be examined, but until at least that stage has been reached I do not think that we could look at the problem of the private crossings generally.

In the North Eastern Region, and particularly with regard to Marsh Lane, I have a little information that the hon. Member may be interested to have. The general manager of the region, I understand, is ready to discuss with the local authorities concerned the provision of extra protection at these crossings and also the possibility of better lighting, on the understanding that this will be at the cost of the local authorities. I am also told that the West Riding County Council has plans for constructing a road which would eliminate the need for the public to use the Marsh Lane crossing. I hope very much that this can be pressed forward, because it would dispose of this problem once and for all.

There, in brief, is all I can say about this difficult matter. I beg the hon. Member and the House to keep a sense of proportion. This is not a case where large numbers of people are being killed or mutilated every year because of these crossings. Generally, they are not dangerous if properly used. It is, however, inevitable that where a crossing is not guarded all the time, people will from time to time get hurt or even killed. However, I am confident that the Railways Board is fully seized of the problems and will do what it can to help.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Twelve o'clock.