HC Deb 27 April 1972 vol 835 cc1915-26

10.39 p.m.

Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer (Lewisham, West)

I raise the subject of the safety of children upon railway property because my constituency has not only a large mileage of railway lines but electric rails of the third rail variety which are of particular danger to trespassers.

I raise the matter in sad circumstances because for the second time in less than a year a child has been killed on the railway lines in my constituency. This brings the total of children killed and maimed in the Southern Region to an alarming number. In four years 21 children have been killed on Southern Region tracks and 29 have been injured, although not all of them in my constituency. However, a high proportion of these instances has occurred in this area of South London where children find it difficult to discover places to play, and naturally they seek every opportunity to climb through the railway fences which are erected to keep them away from the line.

Improvements could be made in a number of areas to save children's lives and to stop them being maimed for life. I am indebted to Mrs. Smith, whose son was maimed, for the enormous amount of work she has done in the South London area. She is determined to ensure that members of the public do not miss the fact that a great deal more could be done to protect children from the railway lines.

It is plain that British Railways have a very difficult problem. They have about 3,000 miles of line and spend over £250,000 a year in fencing. But it remains true that if one travels beside the railway tracks in West Lewisham one can see enough gaps every mile for dozens of children to climb through, and the temptation to do so is enormous. It is true that the first duty is on parents to stop their children from trespassing on the line. It is also true that the schools should do everything possible to encourage children to stay away from the line. But it is the statutory duty of British Railways to ensure that children do not find access to the railway easy.

In my constituency, and in much of South London, it is easy for children to get on the railway. Only yesterday I went to a point to which I had taken the area civil engineer of British Railways about three months ago when I showed him places in the hedge and a large opening abutting a road through which, over which and under which children could climb. Children who can no more than just walk can get straight on to the track. I sadly said then that if something were not done about it another death might occur. One did occur—not at that point, but within a mile of it. I fear that unless we take this matter much more seriously further accidents will happen.

There are two respects in which a considerable change could take place. The first is the fencing of the railway line. British Railways are concerned to fence in all the land they own rather than the line. This involves the erection of a much larger amount of fencing and children are attracted to the land rather than to the railway so that children who have no intention of playing on the railway climb in to play on the waste land beside the railway because it makes good "cowboys and Indians" country. It is after they have been playing there that they fall over or climb over to the railway. British Railways should look much more closely into the possibility of fencing the rail itself and ensuring that the railway embankment is fenced off in areas in London particularly where there is waste land beside the railway.

But more important seems to be the use of that waste land. In my constituency the major problem is housing need. I see compulsory purchase orders made in order to pull down perfectly good houses to make way for further education colleges and for other education purposes. I see hundreds of people every month who are in poor, inadequate or very bad housing. It is appalling to see so much railway land available which could be used for housing. I am sad that this is not done, and I am particularly affected by the fact that local authorities complain that the Railways Board is less than quick in discussing, arguing about and producing the land when it is there for all to see.

The Government should press on British Railways that land which is not to be used for railway purposes—because certainly nobody will build a new railway at West Lewisham—must be released without delay for housing use. This would enable the building in my constituency alone of more than 200 new units of housing—that is, 200 families definitely housed instead of being left in the situation in which they are living at the moment.

In this way we could protect the railway more effectively and we could see that children do not get on to the railway land and that the number of families who face the agony of a child being killed will be diminished. It is also true that if it is to be fenced in, if we are to protect the railway line, it is importaint to draw to the attention of parents and schools and of the children themselves that there is a third, electric rail. One problem is that many people do not understand that this innocent looking rail is highly dangerous.

Anyone who has seen the horrible damage which can be done to a child by an electric rail will realise how essential it is for us to have notices making it perfectly clear that the line is electrified. It is odd that in South London there are fewer notices warning people that the third rail is electrified than there are on most Continental railway stations and railway embankments warning about the dangers of overhead lines which are so much less likely to be touched by a child. It is therefore an essential part of the duty of British Railways to see to it that everything possible is done to prevent these accidents.

I appreciate that it has been argued that British Railways have already done a great deal, that it is expensive, that it is awkward and that it takes a great number of people to patrol the lines. But it is necessary to repeat that it is a major part of the duty of British Railways to protect children from themselves. They must do so first by protecting the lines by building proper chain link fences on the south side of the railway line; secondly, by selling land which British Railways are at the moment hoarding so that homes can be built for the people of London; and, thirdly, they must see that the chain link fencing which is built is clearly marked so that children who are able to read will be able to know that the third rail is electrified and so that those who cannot read can be warned by the use of some of the pictures which are so effective when used by the Continental international standards organisations in warning of the dangers of electricity.

I appeal to the Government to take immediate action to press on British Railways the danger of continuing with a system which involves patched-up fences. In one case of which I have knowledge the fence is repaired with a piece of fencing which provides the children with a climbing frame. The fence is exactly the sort that is found in the formal climbing frames either in schools or in playgrounds. That fence is to be found on a railway embankment and enables children to climb over it.

If British Railways are not prepared to take immediate action in the three ways I have outlined, we should press for an independent inquiry into the state of safety of children on railway tracks, particularly where there is a third rail system. I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to give me some hope that British Railways, having been warned by 21 deaths and 29 serious accidents, will move to improve a situation which is becoming so desperate.

10.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths)

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer), as always, has spoken out powerfully and well on behalf of his constituents. Essentially he has raised and linked together two topics. The first is the danger to children, and I agree with him that this is a desperately serious matter where it occurs. The second is the need to release more railway land for housing. Again, he is right to stress the need for more land to become available in his constituency.

I deal first with the danger to children, and I begin with a definition of what is meant by "a child" in this context. To me, a child is a young person up to the age of, say, 13 years. As we know from experience, within that spread of age there are a number of separate categories.

First, there are those aged up to three. It is with great distress that I have to report that in the last six years 18 of these very small children have been killed by being struck by trains when wandering on the tracks, and two have been killed by the electrified conductor rail. In the same period 21 were injured on railway property.

Then there are the slightly older but still very young children aged between 4 and 6 who may not, because of their age, be able to appreciate the danger of going on to a railway. Over the last six years 17 such youngsters have been killed by trains, 12 by the electrified conductor rail or by contact with the overhead wire and four in other ways on railway property.

The third category are those between the ages of 7 and 9, who probably cannot be strictly supervised all the time but who can understand, if properly warned by their parents, that all railway lines are dangerous, especially electrified lines. Of these children, in the last six years eight have been killed by trains, 17 by contact with electrified lines and four by touching the overhead wire. which almost always involves a deliberate act of climbing.

Lastly there are those youngsters between 10 and 13, the early teenagers about whom I shall have something to say later. In the last six years a total of 38 of these youngsters have been killed, five by touching the overhead wire, which I must repeat is almost always a deliberate act, and 86 were injured, 20 by touching the overhead wire.

The tragic facts are that 149 children have been killed and 230 injured during the past six years. By any measure this is a deeply distressing waste. However, I owe it to the House to put these casualties into perspective, in that there are some 11,000 route miles of railway in the country and that almost always all the children who are killed on railway property, especially on tracks, are trespassers.

Nevertheless these figures are distressing and far too high, and I assure my hon. Friend that my Department is just as anxious as he is, as is the British Railways Board, to see these tragic figures reduced. That is why details of all cases of accidents to trespassers on the railway are returned to my Department. In every case involving an accident to a child my Department's Railway Inspectorate follows up the question of access and looks in detail into the type and condition of fencing.

I should add that in the case of fatal accidents a special report is made to the inspectorate by coroners, and any rider or recommendation made by a coroner is at once discussed with the Railways Board. The special notice that the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways takes of accidents to children has, I think, been made very clear in his last two annual reports. For instance, in 1969 his opinion was that the main cause was lack of proper parental control. I agree with that.

In the following year Colonel Robertson, in his 1970 report, put in a plea which I want to reiterate tonight. He said: The public can do three very necessary things: they can keep their children under proper parental control; some of them can cease their selfish making of gaps in railway fences; and the remainder can report at once to the police or the railway authorities when they see a fence being broken down. I agree absolutely with the chief inspecting officer's remarks.

As trespass is the root cause of almost all these tragedies, it could be argued that trespass itself should be prevented: that the railways should be so thoroughly and strongly, indeed massively, fenced that trespass on to them is made quite impossible. But I must tell the House that there are two major snags about this.

The first was stated with simple clarity by a learned and noble Lord in a recent judgment in another place, when he said: The cost of erecting and maintaining an impenetrable and unclimable, or, as it has been put, a 'child proof' fence would be prohibitive if it could be done at all. The second snag I have already mentioned: namely, that the means of easy access by young children on to the tracks all too often is through gaps in the railways' protective fencing which have been deliberately made for their own selfish ends by adult trespassers. My hon. Friend referred to one which he saw recently. I will ask the chief inspecting officer to look into that particular case.

The kind of thing that happens is that some adults on a housing estate want to take a short cut to the other side of the railway—say, to a public house—and because they want to keep on using that short cut they break down the fences and keep them broken down. In one such place in 1970 the fences on both sides of the line were broken down so often and so thoroughly that they had to be given organised repairs no fewer than six times in nine months. It was at this place precisely that a child of three strayed through the gap and was struck by a train.

Secondly, at another place where determined adult trespass had developed a short cut across the line, the railways' engineer had to report that it had become impossible for his staff to keep pace with repairs. Again, it was at that place that a child of two strayed on to the line and was killed.

Thirdly, at a place in South London during 1969 a small child wandered on to the line and was electrocuted. He had gone through a gap in stout iron railings that had been forced apart. The gap had been seen by railway staff who had blocked it with barbed wire, but the wire had quickly been torn away by trespassers to keep the gap open, and consequently the child was killed.

The question is: how are we to overcome these difficulties? My hon. Friend suggested more notices. I shall, through the chief inspecting officer, put his point to the chairman of the Railways Board.

There is, of course, fencing. British Railways have a statutory obligation to fence their tracks. Originally this obligation arose to prevent cattle and sheep straying on to the track, and the fencing was fairly simple. Later, however, the Government added a further requirement, not statutory, but always most scrupulously obeyed by the railways, that where the line is electrified on the conductor rail system and there is a substantial risk of trespass by children the fences must be made difficult to climb and not less than 4 ft. 6 in. high. Very often the railways go a good way beyond what we ask of them. In particular, where any new work such as electrification presents an increased risk to child trespassers, the railway authorities, as a standard practice, take steps to warn people of the extra risk.

I have looked into this matter with some care, and I consider that the safety precautions and the standard of fencing that is specified are sufficient within the limits set by practicability and cost. I therefore do not consider that an independent investigation is warranted at this time.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer

Would my hon. Friend look into the matter of where the fencing is? I accept that the standard is what is practicable, but what I am suggesting is that many times the railways fence in the land rather than the railway line.

Mr. Griffiths

I take the point and I shall look into the matter.

I want to turn now to my hon. Friend's second point, namely, the sale of surplus land and his suggestion that by selling this more rapidly it would reduce dangers of children going on to the tracks. There is something in this, because children might gain access to the line from adjoining disused railways property, or they might tunnel into the embankments of lines that have been closed.

The board is well aware of this aspect of the problem, and also of the fact that its land resources are an asset that need to be capitalised. The board has a strong financial inducement not to keep its surplus land standing idle. British Railways, as a public body, offer first refusal of any surplus land to the local authority, which normally has about three months, and sometimes considerably longer, in which to make a firm application to purchase. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that there has been rather more progress in this matter than has been generally realised.

In the last three years British Railways' sales of surplus land have totalled more than £36 million. In London over the last eight years the board has made available about 800 acres to the Greater London Council and London boroughs, and in the context of my right hon. Friend's London Housing Action Group British Railways are now conducting a new survey of all their land in London to see what additional sites can be made available. I am glad to say that this has produced a further 90 acres of possible housing land in the nine boroughs with which the board has been in contact.

About 35 of these surplus acres are in the London Borough of Lewisham, whose council officers recently met British Railways' representatives. British Railways have also just sold to Lewisham Council their Forest Hill goods yard of 1¾ acres adjoining the main line, together with parts of closed line—about 1½ acres—at Brook Mill Road, Deptford. This is evidence of the gathering momentum of sales of railway land, but it does not mean that the Government are satisfied with this rate of progress. We want to see much more of the surplus land of all the nationalised industries opened up for better use and in particular, as my hon. Friend has said, for housing.

I must now return to the main subject of the debate, namely, the danger to children. So long as any of their surplus land remains unsold, British Railways have the same liability towards tres- passers as the other owners of property. It is therefore in the board's own interests to take all practicable steps to exclude trespassers and to see that if they succeed in entering they are not avoidably endangered.

That said, I believe that the problem of children on railway lines needs to be approached from both ends. The heart of the matter is not simply what the railways may be able to do, though I accept that they have a large responsibility. The heart of the matter is what can be done to stop children from wandering on to the tracks through gaps that are opened up in the fences, largely by adults. As regards very small children, I am clear that the main responsibility for them must rest wholly with their parents or guardians. "Responsibility" and "duty" are words too little thought of nowadays, but in the context of the care of the very young they are absolute and inescapable.

I find it a sad commentary on parental responsibility that any young child should be allowed to wander about unaccompanied near any railway line. However, this does not and cannot excuse those thoughtless adult trespassers who make and leave holes in fences through which unsupervised children may stray. They should think before they beat down a fence or make a gap in it that the next person to use that gap may be a little child, perhaps their own.

Older children present a different problem, and this is particularly true of teenagers, who do not need adults to make holes in fences for them. Some of these teenagers are bent on mischief, often dangerous mischief, such as playing "chicken" across the line in front of trains. A recent example was when a group of 10 children were playing a game of "dare" on the main line near Fryston in Yorkshire. Two of them failed to get clear and were killed. The Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways has told me that on one of his inspections in the Stoke area he saw some boys playing "last across the line" in front of his inspection coach.

Some of the trespass is really malicious mischief, such as placing obstacles on the line to be run into by trains. In January last alone there were three derailments of trains caused by obstacles placed on the line. One was of a locomotive hauling a train of 100-ton oil tank wagons and it was caused by an obstacle placed on the line by a boy aged 10. That he knew what he was doing was shown by the fact that he had first experimented with a smaller obstacle, and when that failed to derail a freightliner train he put on a bigger one. Another derailment was of a light locomotive. Two 12-year-old boys wedged a pair of points half open in the locomotive's path and caused nearly £3,000 worth of damage.

The figures show that more obstacles are being placed on the line. Many obstructions are placed on the line and found and removed, but the number actually run into by trains has risen from 47 in 1964 to 133 in 1971.

What is the answer to the child trespasser? In my view the safety of children up to the age of 6 is wholly the responsibility of their parents. For children aged from 7 to 9, they can best be kept safe by instruction and discipline, old-fashioned words but wholly relevant here.

As to the last age group, those aged from 10 to 13, it is up to us all to help the railway authorities and the police to keep them off the tracks. When anyone sees any trespassers on the line, he or she should telephone at once to the police or the nearest railway station. If this is done promptly, a young life may be saved or a malicious attempt to wreck a train may be thwarted.

My hon. Friend has done a service not only to his constituents but to the House in raising not one but two real problems. I assure him that I will draw to the attention of the chief inspecting officer all the points he made and, as necessary, to the chairman of the Railways Board.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

May I occupy the few seconds remaining for this debate to ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the need, in the development of surplus railway land, to collaborate with adjoining owners? Railway land is often oddly shaped and uneconomic. Better results from the point of view of the community in the development of such land can usually be achieved if there is collaboration with adjoining owners.

Mr. Griffiths

I am certain that not only will I bear that in mind but that the property board of British Railways will do the same.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Eleven o'clock