| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.37 pm
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.
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. Hammond: The 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. McNulty: I 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 audio-visual 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 retro-fitting 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
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. Hammond: I 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. McNulty: I 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.
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 county 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
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
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.
- Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |