HC Deb 19 June 1984 vol 62 cc264-70

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

12.7 am

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford)

I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the transportation of coal to the Drax and Eggborough power stations through the town of Knottingley in my constituency. During the day, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and some Conservative Members have been getting rather excited at the thought of the debate being something to do with the coal strike but, unforutnately, I have had to disappoint them as it is nothing to do with the strike.

I should have thought that it would have been much better, rather than having to detain the House now, if the Minister had felt able to meet me with representatives of West Yorkshire county council when I twice requested him to do so. He saw no useful purpose in doing so, so I had no alternative but to raise the matter now.

In my first letter to the Minister of State, Department of Transport, on 6 March I gave the detailed history of events that have led to the present unsatisfactory circumstances. For the information of the House, I shall present similar information tonight.

In letters, I informed the Minister that both traffic delay and environmental problems at Womersley road level crossing, Knottingley, had given rise to considerable concern for many years. In the mid-1970s, for instance, 120 trains a day used the crossing, of which about seven were MGR trains to and from the Drax and Eggborough power stations. Those train movements meant that, on average, the barriers were closed for 21 per cent. of the time, with the average closure time being two and a half minutes. In that period, about 2,500 vehicles were using Womersley road in a 10-hour day, of which about 25 per cent. were heavy goods vehicles.

The Minister will recall that I have informed him since then of two major issues which have affected the situation. First, following a major public inquiry, planning permission was granted in March 1976 for the development of the Selby coalfield, subject to the planning condition that all coal to the power station was transported by rail. Secondly, in July 1977, the decision was taken to develop the Drax B coal-fired power station.

At that time it was anticipated that the introduction of the second phase of Drax would lead to an increase of 33 per cent. in the number of MGR train movements through Knottingley and that the corresponding increase in closure times, together with the increase in road traffic flows due to new developments south of the railway, would seriously aggravate the already difficult situation at the level crossing. In addition, it was clear that train movemets of the volumes envisaged would considerably increase problems in residential areas adjacent to the rail corridor.

My investigations revealed that a meeting was held in April 1978 between the West Yorkshire county council and the CEGB to discuss the problems at Womersley road and possible solutions. Subsequently, a number of reports on the transportation issues involved were considered by the county council between July 1978 and August 1980. At that time numerous meetings were held and approaches made to other agencies involved. These included the then Minister of Transport, the Secretary of State for Energy and the chairmen of the British Rail Board, the National Coal Board and the CEGB. All were unable to help with the problems identified at Knottingley.

A major option raised was the provision of a new, more direct link from the Selby coalfield drift mine at Gascoigne wood to the Drax power station, completely avoiding Knottingley. A number of alternative alignments for this link, utilising significant track lengths near Selby, were considered. A later option raised was for a rail bypass to the south of Knottingley avoiding Womersley road and major residential areas.

In August 1980, the county council's transportation committee resolved to share with other agencies the cost of an impartial study, to be undertaken by the institute of transport studies at Leeds university. The other agencies supporting the study were the British Railways Board, the CEGB, the NCB and North Yorkshire county council.

The report of that study found that delays and environmental intrusion resulting from rail traffic would worsen in Knottingley in the period 1980 to 1988, that the most serious effects would be that delays at the level crossing would increase by 50 per cent. and that the percentage of local trips within Knottingley affected by the delays would increase from 31 per cent. to 40 per cent. Further, noise and vibration effects from rail traffic would increase for well over 100 properties. The report concluded, however, that there was no viable alternative to the worsening environmental conditions in Knottingley along the rail route other than re-routing coal trains via Selby or providing a rail bypass at Knottingley.

A recommendation in the study was that the West Yorkshire county council should investigate the possibility of providing a new road over the rail bridge at Womersley road, and a subsequent investigation found that the bridge could not be justified. The reason given was that it would lead to new noise intrusion, would introduce an unwelcome new visual feature, and additional land and property would be required.

The county, however, is currently preparing a cost-benefit analysis for the southern rail bypass of Knottingley. The problem here is with finance, since BR and the NCB have not shown a willingness to assist. The issue has already been raised informally by West Yorkshire county council with the EEC, which has stated that the rail bypass does not meet its criteria and so would not commend itself for transport infrastructure funding.There would appear to be no other likely source of EEC funds.

We are therefore faced with deteriorating conditions in Knottingley, as evidenced by independent studies and significant local concern. There is no sign of any help to improve the situation, which will deteriorate as Drax power station is developed. Eventually the problems will be present 24 hours a day and will continue well into the next century.

I regret that the Secretary of State for Transport has left the Chamber, but the House may recall that in a statement on the Serpell report on 24 October 1983, he referred to the objectives set for chairmen, and said: This does not rule out the board proposing changes locally, where they make sense …The Government believe that rail freight has strong environmental advantages over road freight, so we want as much freight as possible to go by rail … The board's plan envisages an increase in investment from present levels. I shall support worthwhile investment which relates directly to the financial and business objectives that we have set." —[Official Report, 24 October 1983, Vol. 47, c. 39.] I should have thought that. BR's income over the next 60 years fell into that category. Given that, I should also have thought that my request for a meeting to discuss the problem would have been received and accepted by the Minister and the Department. I was very disappointed that the Minister thought that a meeting would serve no useful purpose. I was certainly surprised that in his letter to me dated 18 May 1984, the Minister should suggest that the Government can play no direct part in resolving the issue". The Government give specific approval for all major capital projects by BR and all transport projects over £1 million promoted by the county council.

I understand that the Government have recently managed to speed up considerably their response time to project requests from BR, and to be fair, I also understand that the Minister has been largely responsible for that improvement. As that has been achieved by good prior consultation between BR and the Department of Transport, the Government will have to be involved at some stage with such a project — and will have to approve it in the end.

Similarly, if a new piece of railway line has to be constructed, a private Bill has to be promoted. Et is inconceivable that this is a matter that would not concern the Minister, the Department of Tranport and the Government. At the very least, departmental non-objection is required, and in practice, approval and support are needed. I am astounded that the Minister feels that this is not a matter for Government and should be left to the county council and British Rail. The Selby mine and Drax power station—the major producers and consumers of coal going through Knottingley—are both of national significance, and both were approved after consideration at highest Government levels. The planning application, accepted by the Secretary of State, specified rail as the method of movement for all coal coming from Selby.

It astounds me that the Minister can now suggest that the Government have no responsibility for the consequence of these decisions—especially as both the mine and the power stations are in North Yorkshire, and thus their rates go to North Yorkshire county council, but the problem is formulated in west Yorkshire.

It is interesting to compare the Minister's hands-off approach to the Department of Transport' attitude to road investment, some 10 million tonnes of coal will be moved from Selby to Drax. If this were to be carried in lorries, a traffic flow of 400 of the heaviest lorries per hour would be generated. The environmental impact of such a flow on a trunk road would understandably trigger the Department of Transport into providing a road bypass for a town such as Knottingley, and the Department of Transport would provide the funding.

Surely the rail network is like the trunk road network—a national and not a local responsibility. I suggest that the Department of Transport should take action to deal with: his environmental problem on rail in the same way that it would deal with a similar environmental nuisance on road—by building a bypass. This is a national responsibility. It means that more than 10 million tonnes of coal a year will be going through Knottingley for the next 60 years, with all the financial income going to British Rail and the National Coal Board. Is it not reasonable that a mere £4 million to £5 million should be provided by the Government to solve what has become an intolerable environmental problem for the town?

I have had meetings with British Rail eastern division officers, local branches of ASLEF and the NUR and West Yorkshire county council, all of whom support this scheme. Some 180 coal trains will be going through the town of Knottingley each year for up to 60 years. They will almost be going through people's back doorsteps, so one can appreciate the great and serious problem facing the town. Some of my constituents already have to put up with the rail depot. We accept it, but it causes problems of noise for those living near. Their environment is heavily affected. So far, British Rail has refused to provide double glazing or a sound barrier such as that for these people.

I hope that, if the Minister cannot give an assurance that he will assist with this great problem, for a mere £4 million to £5 million—which is small compared to the sums spent on the Selby coalfield and the Drax power station—to alleviate this problem over many years, he will at least consider my request and agree to meet me and representatives of the West Yorkshire county council to discuss the matter further.

12.24 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)

The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) explained to the House that he was raising this matter because I had declined his request to receive a deputation. I assure him that no discourtesy was intended to him, but I have no locus in the matter. I would not wish to bring him and a deputation to London for no useful purpose. I shall explain to the House my reason for saying that.

The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the kind of inherent conflict between the interests of the different modes of transport which have existed for a very long time but which have recently been exacerbated by the general growth in vehicular traffic and in this case by an increase in railway freight activity. Where level crossings are concerned, there are unfortunately rarely any easy solutions. The hon. Gentleman has explained to the House that there are problems about the level crossing and about the noise and environmental effect on those who live close to the line. He has also pointed out that an increase in the intensity of use of a particular railway line means that people living in close proximity to it will be exposed to noise or vibration more frequently than before.

I have already acknowledged to the hon. Gentleman that it is understandable that some of his constituents do not welcome increased levels of coal traffic on the railway line close to their homes, but it should be understood that it is a situation which is not peculiar to Knottingley. Indeed, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if he sat behind my desk and read my post he would find that there are complaints by people about noise when there is a change in the pattern of rail traffic in any area.

Variations in the patterns of rail traffic, as British Rail responds to the changing needs of its customers, must inevitably lead to alterations in the amount of noise or vibration experienced by people living close to the lines involved. Sometimes the changes lead to a reduction in the levels of disturbance and in others to an increase. I think it would be appropriate for me to remind the House of the procedures available to those who feel that they suffer from disturbance as a result of increased rail operations.

Mr. Lofthouse

Can the Minister tell the House if there is anywhere else in the country that has 180 trains per day and 10 million tonnes of coal per year going directly down the middle of a small town on people's doorsteps? I very much doubt that.

Mr. Mitchell

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall endeavour to cover the points that he has raised.

Powers are available under part III of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to control noise from fixed premises including land and, therefore, railways. Action may be taken under the Act by local authorities, and individual occupiers of affected premises through the magistrates courts. For the purposes of part HI of the Act, "noise" includes vibration.

Under section 58 of the Act, once a local authority is satisfied that a noise amounting to a statutory nuisance exists, or is likely to occur or recur, it may serve on the person responsible a notice, which is enforceable in the magistrates court, requiring the abatement of the noise or prohibiting or restricting its occurrence or recurrence. In practice, the local authority will very often discuss the matter informally with the person responsible for the noise to see whether a satisfactory arrangement can be arrived at without the need to resort to legal action.

Under section 59 of the Control of Pollution Act, it is also open to an individual who is bothered by noise affecting his home to complain direct to the magistrates court, which has the power to make and enforce an order with similar effect to that of a local authority's notice, once it is satisfied that noise amounting to a statutory nuisance exists, or is likely to recur. Clearly, that applies in this case. However, in fairness to the House, I should point out that it is a defence in proceedings under the Act relating to noise caused in the course of a trade or business to prove that the "best practicable means" has been taken to prevent, or counteract the effect of, the noise. However, because BR is a statutory undertaker the test of the defence of "best practicable means" will always apply only so far as is compatible with the duties imposed on the railway.

In the case of the railway line in the vicinity of Womersley Road, Knottingley, I understand that the total of train movements is in the region of 20 per cent. above that of 10 years ago. It is the concern over this measure of increase which has led the West Yorkshire county council to look at ways of alleviating the problems to which such growth can give rise.

I am well aware, from correspondence that has passed between the hon. Member and myself, that one solution proposed was to replace the level crossing at Womersley Road with a road bridge over the railway. However, it is now being suggested that the railway should be rerouted to the south of Knottingley. I have to say, though, that such a proposal must be considered in the light of the practical operating constraints acting on British Rail. Even if the coal trains which currently use Womersley Road level crossing were to be diverted on to a new line bypassing Knottingley, the existing line would have to continue to handle traffic to the wagon repair yard and motive power depot, and also to a number of sidings, works and warehouses in the vicinity of Knottingley.

Although the proposal could well result in a reduction of rail traffic on the line crossing Womersley Road, it would not eliminate it altogether. The elimination of coal traffic would certainly reduce the level crossing delays, and at the same time bring about a reduction in environmental disturbance to those people living close by the existing railway line. But British Rail would still be committed to maintaining the existing line, and it would have the considerable expense of building and maintaining a new line.

As the hon. Gentleman said, there were 120 trains a day in 1975, which is a considerable number, although much below the level of traffic on a main line. In the past nine years, that figure has increased by 25 trains a day. I am not unsympathetic, but the problem is very familiar to many city dwellers who live near to railway lines and who have far greater volumes of traffic to contend with.

The arguments that have been put forward in favour of making resources available from national funds to ease these local problems by building a new bypass line misunderstand the real position. Let me remind the House of relevant points in the framework of our policy for the railways. These principally revolve around value for money and efficiency. We must bear that in mind very carefully tonight. Only last year, in its corporate plan, British Rail set itself a series of important objectives, backed up by action plans by which they were to be achieved. Its guiding principle was to run an efficient railway, providing its customers with good value for money, while at the same time reducing its call on public funds.

With regard to the freight sector, which BR is determined to run as a commercial business, it is of course paramount that rates and charges should be as competitive as possible if traffic is to be secured from rivals. Reducing costs obviously plays an essential role in that. Let us make no mistake about it; BR faces severe competition for its freight traffic, particularly from road haulage.

Mr. Lofthouse

British Rail does not compete on this line, because the planning conditions for Selby coalfield are based on the coal being moved by rail. So, British Rail does not face competition in that area.

Mr. Mitchell

British Rail faces fierce competition for freight throughout its freight network, although not on this route because of the planning consent to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, it is in direct competition with roads throughout its freight network, apart from on this section.

There is not a monopoly for the carriage of freight by rail. British Rail has to compete successfully with other hauliers. The freight managers of British Rail have to consider costs and expenditure throughout the system, including the town where the hon. Gentleman lives, in order to keep its expenditure down and to be able to compete successfully. If it does not do so, costs will rise, British Rail will not be able to compete successfully and more freight will go in juggernauts through our villages and towns, on unsuitable roads. The Government are trying to get freight shifted on to the railways. It can be shifted successfully on to the railways—we are using section 8 grants generously to try to achieve that—only if the railways are competitive. They cannot be competitive if they incur expenditure on building new lines that duplicate existing ones.

It makes obvious sense for bulk traffic, such as coal, to be carried by rail, provided that the charges for that transport make economic sense for British Rail's customers. The National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board and their customers want the lowest possible transport charges if their costs are lo be kept to a minimum. If that cannot be achieved, the likelihood is that jobs in those industries, as well as on the railways, will be put at risk. The House will agree that the railways offer by far the best option for the transport of coal, and no hon. Member would wish to see the alternative — a vast increase in the amount carried by road.

The Government have no wish to see that. Indeed, we are fully conscious of the great environmental benefits that can be obtained by removing heavy lorries from unsuitable roads. As the House will know, we make available section 8 grants with that in mind.

The hon. Gentleman said that it was for me to decide on investment. There is a misunderstanding here, which is important to the issue in front of us. British Rail proposes investment, and I and the Department vet those proposals and approve or disapprove them. It proposes, and I dispose. The initiative does not rest with me, but with British Rail, which is why the hon. Gentleman should make his representations to it, not to me. If that results in British Rail coming forward and saying that it wishes to have investment involving expenditure on a bypass at the hon. Gentleman's town, that would come to me for consideration and approval

At that point I should be happy to receive the hon. Gentleman and any deputation he may care to bring. However, it would be wrong for me to mislead him and for the deputation to travel all the way to London to see me when I have no locus in the matter. That was why —it was no discourtesy to him, his constituents or those concerned—that I suggested that it would not be helpful for me to receive the deptutation that he had in mind ——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.