§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Gillian Merron.]
10.21 pm§ Mr. Philip Hammond(Con) (Runnymede and Weybridge)I am delighted to have secured the opportunity to draw the House's attention to a problem that blights the lives of many people in southern England and to address an important safety issue.
The specific issue that I want to consider is that of footpath level crossings on the railway. It has two distinct aspects: noise nuisance that is caused by the sounding of train horns and safety risk from trains, including electrocution in parts of the country that use a live rail.
Hon. Members who represent seats in southern England will be familiar with the surge of complaints about disturbance from train horns, especially at night, that followed the introduction of the modern, sliding-electric-door trains on Connex, South Central and, in my constituency, South West, where the offending units are the class 458 trains.
The new trains are most welcome in every respect except for their noisy horns. When the new classes of train were introduced, it became apparent that the horn, in the range of 115 to 125 dB, was many times more powerful than that of the old slam-door trains, which was typically in the range of 90 to 95 dB. By way of illustration, 90 dB is the equivalent of a lawnmower and 125 dB is that of a jet plane flying at 150 ft. Although they are required to have a 400 m forward range, reports confirm that the new horns can be heard two miles away in specific conditions.
Railway safety rules operate on a type approval system. The old slam-door trains, which were designed in the 1950s and early 1960s, have been allowed to continue operating although their horn volume is considerably less than that under the current safety standards. The new trains comply with the standards that have been in force, but perhaps not in evidence, for many years.
At the same time as the introduction of the new train types, the publicity surrounding the high profile rail accidents in the past few years and the consequent new focus on railway safety have clearly heightened driver awareness of and compliance with the rules on requirements to sound the horn. I am sure that greater awareness is partly the result of improved safety training by train operating companies, but it may also have something to do with the fact that modern trains have data loggers on board. In the event of an incident, they can confirm definitively whether the driver complied with the requisite safety requirements.
The Rail Safety and Standards Board, which co-ordinates safety matters in the industry, has acted with commendable speed to try to tackle the problem.
With effect from December last year, train drivers are no longer required to sound their horn when leaving a station over a level crossing. Nor are they now required to sound it when passing through a station where another train is stationary at the platform. Those two changes will reduce by a significant proportion the 134 nuisance that has been experienced, focusing the use of the horn back on to incidents in which drivers identify a particular danger.
The Rail Safety and Standards Board expects, by June this year, to be able to scrap the rule that requires the horn to be sounded as a train enters a tunnel, and also when it leaves a tunnel during the night, although it will still be necessary to do so, for technical reasons, when leaving a tunnel during the day. That deals with two of the four main categories of situation in which horns are mandatorily sounded. The other two involve footpath level crossings and user-worked crossings—that is, private rights of way across the railway, with or without vehicles—and I make no apology for focusing on the former tonight, as that is the category that is causing the problems in my constituency and in the majority of others in which a problem persists.
Of the 8,000 or so level crossings in the United Kingdom, 2,546 are footpath crossings. Perhaps rather alarmingly, while Network Rail and its predecessors have succeeded in closing a total of nearly 1,000 level crossings since 1991–92, during the same period the number of footpath crossings has risen by 240. Depressingly for me and my constituents, the regular bulletins from the Rail Safety and Standards Board—which wax lyrical on the progress being made in relation to trains moving away from stations and entering and leaving tunnels—have repeatedly had to report that little progress has been made on the issue of footpath crossings.
The Health and Safety Executive sets the requirements for the placement of so-called whistle boards, which instruct a driver to sound the horn. The siting of these boards is based on the line speed and the forward visibility from a footpath crossing towards the direction of the train. Where a whistle board is deemed necessary according to those criteria, all trains are required to sound the horn on approach from either direction, day or night. It is a fact that, in urban areas, footpath crossings are often used late at night, sometimes by people who are not in a heightened state of alertness. In those circumstances, relaxation of the HSE standards does not seem to be a safe option.
Having had my attention firmly focused on the issue of footpath crossings from the point of view of the noise disturbance being experienced in large parts of my constituency, I confess that I had come to think of the problem simply in those terms. I had begun to ignore the no less important issue of safety. That issue was brought firmly back on to my agenda in the most brutal way possible on 17 September last year, when Sophie Storey, aged 10, died 30 m up the line from a footpath crossing at Moore lane in Staines, after falling on the live rail.
There are, therefore, two issues to be addressed: the elimination of the noise nuisance that blights the lives of tens of thousands of people across southern England, which is a relatively new phenomenon; and the reduction of the risk to pedestrians—a long-standing problem, particularly among children—who are using, or misusing, railway footpath level crossings. The obvious and simplistic answer would be simply to close the crossings. Network Rail and its predecessor organisations have long had a policy of trying to eliminate footpath level crossings wherever possible, both to improve safety and to reduce the significant burden of maintaining the crossings in a safe condition.
135 Unfortunately, from Network Rail's point of view, railway footpath crossings enjoy the same rights as the rest of the footpath network and can be closed only after what is often a lengthy public inquiry process. The closure orders involved almost invariably attract opposition from users and, in particular, from the Ramblers Association. As a regular footpath walker myself, I fully understand the association's instinct to resist their closure. I wonder, however, whether a more discerning approach could be developed.
Railway footpath crossings appear to fall into three categories: those in rural areas—probably the majority—where noise nuisance is probably minimal and the status quo is probably acceptable; those in urban or suburban areas which are little used, where, I would suggest, closure should be explored as the preferred option; and those in urban and suburban areas where the level of usage clearly indicates that they are an important local facility that cannot be closed.
My principal purpose tonight is to raise this issue and bring it to the attention of the House and the Government. However, I also want to ask the Minister a couple of specific questions. First, will his Department support an urgent review of all railway footpath level crossings where whistle boards are currently established, starting in the areas where the new trains have been introduced, to establish the numbers falling into each of those categories and, thus, the extent of the problem? Unfortunately, the Network Rail database does not identify the demographic context of individual crossings at present.
Secondly, will the Minister discuss with his colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister the possibility of the development of an accelerated process for the closure of footpaths that are demonstrated to have low-level usage in urban areas? In some cases, I understand that objections have been lodged and pursued vigorously to closures of footpaths that would involve a diversion of only 100 m or so to allow the railway to be crossed at another point. The risk to life and the constant nuisance and sleep deprivation from train horn noise surely cannot be justified by such a minor inconvenience for such a small number of users. A proper balance must be struck.
Thirdly, on the relatively small number, I hope, of high-usage crossings in urban areas, the traditional response to replacement of footpath level crossings has been grade-separated crossings—bridges or tunnels to you and me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, those are phenomenally expensive and often unsightly. There are one or two practical issues, however, which the Minister might be able to address. At present, if Network Rail proposes to replace a footpath crossing that is accessed by a stile with a bridge, the bridge is required to be fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, complete with ramps and all the other facilities to ensure wheelchair and other disabled access. It seems to me slightly absurd that if the track operator wants to replace a dangerous and non-wheelchair-accessible level crossing with a safer bridge, the bridge must be provided with full disabled access. The consequence, of course, is that the bridge, in almost all cases, does not get built. Is there any possibility of creating an exemption to the requirement for full 136 disabled access where the facility is simply a safer replacement for an existing non-compliant crossing? Can the Minister discuss that with colleagues in other relevant Departments?
Even if less elaborate bridge crossings are to be permitted by such an exemption, and even when planning consent for them can be obtained, which is not always easy, there will be significant financial implications. I therefore ask the Minister whether there is a possibility of additional financial support being made available for replacements of footpath level crossings with bridges where train horn noise is a particularly acute nuisance. To save time, however, I will anticipate a negative answer and move on to my next point.
Perhaps the logical next course is to look for more innovative potential solutions. The Rail Safety and Standards Board is about to conduct a test on the south coast using a Japanese device, a broadband frequency horn, which apparently allows the horn to sound at different frequencies in an attempt to narrow the spread of sound. Some research is already under way examining the optimum location of the horn on the train to maximise the forward profile of the noise footprint and minimise the spillage, which causes most of the nuisance to residential properties. I understand that other tests are about to take place using train-activated trackside horns—a horn that is located on the crossing but activated by the approaching train. Clearly, because the horn is on the crossing itself, it does not have to be of the same loud volume as one that is train-mounted. Such a system can be supplemented by sensors on the crossing to detect the presence of pedestrians.
Even those measures, however, will have significant cost implications at a time when the railways are under financial pressure. I understand how difficult that makes any of these suggestions for Network Rail, the train operating companies and the Minister. I urge him, however, to take this problem seriously. The railways are a part of our communities. We all want rail to make a greater contribution to the total transport solution, but the inconvenience being caused to large numbers of my constituents and others across the south of England is creating hostility to the idea of any expansion of services on the rail network.
Additional services produce more horn noise disturbance. Part of the line through Virginia Water and Egham—a particular source of the problem in my constituency—could become part of the route of the proposed Airtrack south-western rail approach to Heathrow. I should very much like that infrastructure development to go ahead, and I expect that the Minister would too; but, if he wants the support of those in the local community, we must ensure that the burden that the railway imposes on them is reduced to an acceptable level.
What is clear is that the railway must act as part of the community. Too often in the past, the railway's attitude has been rather disdainful of the wider community issues. The railway has to modify its procedures to make it an acceptable neighbour. Health and safety at work legislation also imposes a duty of care to the public, and the recent Heathrow night flights ruling has established that human rights legislation can bear on issues that relate to sleep deprivation, and when train horn volumes are equivalent to a low-flying jet plane, there is clearly a 137 direct read-across. I want the railway and the community that it serves to operate in harmony, but that will require an urgent resolution to the intolerable burden that train horn noise at footpath level crossings currently imposes on my constituents and others.
In summary, major steps have already been taken in relation to trains moving away from stations and trains passing through tunnels, but the noise problem generated by footpath level crossings will be more difficult to address. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that the Government are aware of not only the problem and the extreme misery that it causes to tens of thousands of people across southern England, but the animosity that the problem creates towards further expansion in the use of the rail network. It is in all our interest that we find a solution that eliminates the noise nuisance for as many communities as possible, as quickly as possible, and that addresses the very real safety risks by closing those railway footpath crossings that are not sufficiently used to justify the risk and burden that they place on the community.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty)I congratulate the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on securing this debate and on the way in which he has raised these serious issues, which are clearly of concern not only to many of his constituents, but, as he said, to many other people in the south of England and beyond. I shall discuss footpaths in general, and then noise and safety, in turn.
First, on train horn standards, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Rail Safety and Standards Board is currently undertaking a review of the problem caused by noise from train horns to those who live near railways. I am sorry if the RSSB's constant updates, glossy or otherwise, sent to him and to his colleagues talk at length about what the board may or may not do about some of the issues that he has raised—but he has already generously agreed that some progress has been made. The review is considering whether changes can be made to the requirements that apply to pedestrian crossings without increasing the safety risks.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which the issues have been raised, because he clearly recognises that there is a balance between access and safety—both matters of real concern. The review is considering whether there is scope to deal with a sequence of crossings close together with one use of the horn, the types of horn fitted to current rolling stock, and how to work closely with local authorities to find out where alternatives to level crossings or footpaths across railway tracks can be introduced.
The hon. Gentleman has already alluded to the fact that the review is considering the existing requirement to sound horns at level crossings, at the entrances and exits of tunnels, and at some railway stations. The review is also considering research into the possibility of alternative technology for providing warnings, which will minimise disturbance to those living alongside or near railway lines. However, the hon. Gentleman also alluded to the fact that any retro-fitting of rolling stock or providing new systems to give warnings will have clear cost implications that have to be considered against other safety priorities for the railway network.
138 I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the efforts that the RSSB and the industry have made to address the concerns raised by line-side residents.
As has been said, the RSSB has already made some progress in respect of the sounding of horns at level crossings and at a station. I understand that it is also to consult on the requirement for train drivers to sound horns when entering or leaving tunnels. Some degree of progress has been made and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will try to ascertain in more detail where we are with regard to the two areas that he mentioned. If he will forgive me, I will write to him about them.
§ Mr. HammondThe Minister said that if the new technology of train horns and trackside horns proved viable there would still be considerable cost implications, which would have to be measured against other safety priorities for the railway. However, does he recognise that this is not just a safety issue? It is about many people across quite a large footprint of southern England suffering from sleep deprivation.
§ Mr. McNultyI accept that, which is why the problem must be seen in the totality—if I may use the word—in the sense that, alongside the requirements on horn sounding, Network Rail is also developing, for example, new crossing equipment. Approval has been given by the safety review group for the installation and shadow trials of new equipment designed to provide audiovisual warnings at certain types of level crossing, which may eventually apply to foot crossings. Those trials start in April 2004. It is also a question, as the hon. Gentleman said, of what is done at the crossing and how it may mitigate the compulsion to sound the horn. The issue must be viewed in the totality: fitting or retrofitting equipment, and also the issue of resources. I shall ascertain what the RSSB says about those two aspects and write to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned safety, which is an important aspect of the difficulties caused at some crossings. The risk, particularly to children, of accidental contact with the live rail was tragically brought home by the death of 10-year-old Sophie Storey when she came into contact with the electrified conductor third rail near the Moor Lane footpath crossing. I understand that Sophie's mother has raised a petition relating to the safety of foot crossings; I would like to take this opportunity to offer my condolences to her and her family. The hon. Gentleman will know that the circumstances of the incident are still under investigation by the coroner, the British Transport Police and the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate. The HSE is liaising closely with Network Rail about the issues that have been raised by its investigation, and is in contact with Sophie's parents.
The design of the foot crossing at Moor Lane is similar to many others that are in place throughout Britain. It relies on the user going through a special gate known as a "kissing gate", which prevents them from walking across the infrastructure and ignoring the presence of a rail system. The pedestrian must then observe and listen for the approach of trains from both directions and cross when it is safe to do so. Judging the speed of trains is a skill quite different from judging road traffic speed. There are also signs that remind users not 139 to trespass, that identify the presence of an electrified conductor rail, and that warn users to stop, look and listen for the approach of trains.
I am advised by the HSE that, broadly speaking, the risks of electrocution are usually extremely low. However, where there is a risk of electrocution, it is important to provide effective safeguards to prevent access to dangerous live equipment such as the railway's conductor rail power supply or third rail. Protection is generally provided by trespass guards formed of angled timber rails secured horizontally at ground level to make it difficult for a pedestrian to walk off the crossing and on to the railway. Signs are also provided and maintained to deter the public from wandering on to the railway, and to ensure that crossing users follow safety instructions properly.
§ Mr. HammondI have listened carefully to what the Minister said I have looked at the signs at Moor Lane and I do not believe that there is anything out of the ordinary about them, but they are not terribly child-friendly. Given that many trespassers on the railways are likely to be children, could the Minister look further into the possibility of making the signs more child-oriented?
§ Mr. McNultyI shall return to that issue in a few moments.
As I said before, where crossings are used solely by pedestrians, a balance has to be struck between the need to keep the crossing open to maintain links between local communities, and the need to close those that are used infrequently. I will happily take the hon. Gentleman's point into account and try to establish precisely what my colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are doing about underused crossings. I would be pleased to pursue that issue with them.
In general the HSE supports Network Rail's attempts to close footpath crossings, especially where alternative access routes can be provided.
Network Rail is attempting to close pedestrian crossings on a progressive basis, but it is a costly and time-consuming exercise. Network Rail liaises with and consults local residents when it plans to close a crossing, but its proposals are nearly always opposed by local residents—who have become used to the convenience that they offer—and other interest groups such as the Ramblers Association. It is entirely their privilege to object in such a fashion, but I shall check with my colleagues to establish whether the process involved is appropriate.
There are 8,188 level crossings on Network Rail's infrastructure—of which 2,546 are footpath crossings— representing a sizeable source of risk to pedestrian users, motorists and railway passengers. Network Rail calculates that level crossings account for approximately 23 per cent. of train accident risk. In 2002–03 13 people were killed using level crossings, including 11 pedestrians who were struck and killed while using the crossings. Crossings are, however. designed to ensure safety when they are used correctly. It is therefore essential that all users, including pedestrians, follow the instructions and signs provided to ensure safety. However, I will pursue with Network Rail the issue of child-related and child-sensitive signs.
140 Network Rail is responsible for maintaining the safe operation of its level crossings. It has a legal duty to prevent unauthorised access to the operational railway. It is committed to learning lessons from level crossing incidents and ensuring that recommendations are implemented at strategic, planning and operational levels. The HSE investigates serious incidents at level crossings, and keeps the safety standards under review. If necessary, it can legally require action to improve the protective arrangements at level crossings, depending on changes in the level or frequency of risk. It has encouraged Network Rail to reassess nationally all types of level crossing in the light of incidents that have occurred in past years.
A national level crossings safety group has been formed by the HSE, the Rail Safety and Standards Board and Network Rail to formalise work on issues relating to level crossings. The group is beginning to engage with key stakeholders—for want of a better word—such as local highway authorities and other bodies with an interest in rail crossings. The group plans to extend and develop work with other stakeholders. Surrey county council and other local authorities can feed their concerns into the group through the RSSB, which provides the secretariat. If the council wants to contact me to ensue that the RSSB considers specific issues, I shall be more than happy at least to act as a conduit.
Work is in progress to collect accurate information on the numbers and types of level crossings. Network Rail has publicly stated that it will maintain a list of crossings where opportunities for closure exist, and will liaise with landowners and stakeholders to pursue closure where it is feasible to do so.
The HSE is monitoring the progress of Network Rail's strategy. It has started work to establish a database to record the numbers and types of crossing in the UK, and is developing a long-term strategy to review the appropriateness of level crossing types with a view to recommending improvements. I am sure that Network Rail, and the HSE and the RSSB, would endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the railways being part of wider communities rather than an imposition on those communities. Along with others in the Department, I shall keep a close eye on what Network Rail and the HSE are doing.
It saddened me a little that the hon. Gentleman chose to pre-empt any inquiry to me by assuming a negative. It is a negative in terms of a specific response in relation to specific funds, but we are giving local authorities the money that they need—in a broader sense—to deliver better and safer facilities for pedestrians. We are investing locally on a scale not seen for many years. Last month I announced a £1.9 billion package of local transport investment for 2004–05, including over £13 million for small-scale transport improvements in Surrey. Surrey counts council will have the option to use part of that to deliver better, safer facilities for pedestrians, working with Network Rail and others. There is not always a single solution, but the hon. Gentleman may want to put that option to the council; it might prove appropriate where crossings need amelioration or modification.
If he wants to talk further with me on that subject, or to bring Surrey county council in for a chat about the safety of specific rail crossings in his constituency or the 141 county, I shall be more than happy to consider that. We have no plans to set aside capital funding specifically for pedestrian rail crossings because only local authorities can, and should, decide how best to invest in safety in their areas. I am, however, more than happy to work with them and talk to them about that.
I take on board what the hon. Gentleman said about whether the bridges that Network Rail replaces should be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Our starting premise is that they should be, and although I am happy to consider his point, I shall need 142 some persuading. The Department takes such matters seriously—they are serious in Runnymede and Weybridge and beyond.
I conclude by once again congratulating the hon. Gentleman on raising such important matters, which go far beyond his constituency. I also congratulate him on the manner in which he raised the subject, and I shall be more than happy to pursue the matters that I promised faithfully that I would.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eleven o 'clock.