Larbert (Heavy Rail Freight)
The next item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-4044, in the name of Michael Matheson, on Larbert rail damage. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the serious problems being experienced by residents in the Larbert area as a result of heavy coal freight being introduced to the line; understands that this is having a damaging effect on their quality of life as well as their properties; regrets that to date Network Rail has refused to introduce a speed restriction for freight trains on the line, and believes that the problems being experienced by residents in Larbert are unacceptable.
I thank members who signed my motion and helped to secure time for this debate on what is an important issue for many of my constituents in the Larbert area.
The railway line was first laid in Larbert by Scottish Central Railways back in 1848. Larbert is a community with a long-standing association with the railway. Indeed, Larbert station is one of the busiest in Scotland, with links to Glasgow, Edinburgh and the north of the country.
For many of my constituents in the Larbert area, the railway is part of their lives. They are used to issues that arise from living in close proximity to a railway line. However, towards the end of 2008, residents began to express concern about the problem of significant vibration, the nature and scale of which were in excess of anything that they had previously experienced. The significant change that occurred at that time was the rerouting of heavy coal trains to Longannet power station through the Larbert area and on to the new Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway line. The problem that my constituents in the Larbert area were now experiencing had previously been experienced by those in the Falkirk Grahamston area—the problem had switched from one area to the other.
I recognise that there are issues concerning the Stirling to Alloa line itself, and I know that my colleagues Keith Brown and Bruce Crawford have been pursuing those on behalf of their respective constituents. However, I am sure that members will respect the fact that the motion for debate today specifically relates to the problem in the Larbert area.
I understand, as do many of my constituents, that the use of our railway has changed considerably over the years, particularly with the increasing movement of freight on to rail. Most people welcome the fact that heavy freight is being moved from roads on to rail, as part of a responsible approach to tackling some of the environmental challenges that we face as a nation. As we change the use of our railways, we have to recognise the impact that that can have on communities who live beside them. We have a responsibility to constituents, such as mine in Larbert, whose lives have been badly affected by a sudden change of use of the line there.
To illustrate the scale of the problem, I will run through some of the noise and vibration data that have been collected by Falkirk Council's environmental health department, which were published only last week. The data reveal that coal train vibration readings are higher than those of passenger trains by a significant amount. The average vibration level for a coal train run by DB Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd is 0.075mm per second, compared with 0.025mm per second for a Freightliner coal train. The vibration range for DB Schenker coal trains is more than double that of First ScotRail passenger services or Freightliner coal trains. That raises serious questions about why one coal train operator is causing a level of vibration that is so significantly higher than that caused by another coal train operator, whose length of train is only marginally shorter.
The two extremely high vibration levels that were found by Falkirk Council were 0.091 and 0.097mm per second, and they were both recorded for DB Schenker trains that are classed as fast trains; a level of 0.041mm per second was recorded for a train that is run by the same operator and is classified as medium speed. That, I believe, demonstrates that an acceptable level of vibration could be achieved by reducing the speed of the trains concerned. The comprehensive, manned data that were collected by Falkirk Council demonstrate the extent and nature of the problem that is being caused to my constituents in the Larbert area.
Since the turn of the year, I have been in regular dialogue with Network Rail although, I must say, it has not always been on friendly terms. Its representatives attended a public meeting that I organised for my constituents in the area, and I have also held meetings with representatives of DB Schenker and Scottish Power. All those parties have a responsibility to work to find a solution to the problem and to ensure that the matter is suitably resolved.
I accept that primary responsibility for addressing the issue lies fairly and squarely with Network Rail. I also accept that Network Rail has undertaken some work on the line in the Larbert area. However, I know from the time that I spent at a polling station in Larbert last Thursday, and from my surgery in Larbert on Monday night, that whatever Network Rail has done over the past couple of months, it has made very little difference. One of my constituents who attended my Monday evening surgery, who is deafblind and who is very sensitive to vibration, explained to me that, if anything, the problem has worsened over the past couple of months.
I recognise that the minister cannot direct Network Rail, as a private company, on what it should do to tackle the specific problem in Larbert. However, I hope that he will agree that Network Rail has a corporate and social responsibility to have the matter resolved. I believe that several options are open to Network Rail to resolve the matter. First, it could reduce the coal traffic speed through Larbert, especially at night, as Falkirk Council's data prove would make a difference.
Secondly, it could renew the track at Larbert and introduce measures that have been shown in research from around the world to mitigate vibration problems and have been used in other railway lines. Thirdly, it could request that DB Schenker use the same type of wagons as Freightliner, which the Falkirk Council data show would make a significant difference.
However, the present situation is not an option. I have constituents whose lives have been made a misery by the trains because they are unable to sleep at night and face potential damage to their property. There is growing anger and frustration in the community at Network Rail's failure to address the problem sufficiently. Unfortunately, I suspect that Network Rail thinks that, as time goes by, my constituents will just go away and will get used to the vibration problems. Let me be clear: they will not go away and neither should be they be expected to accept the problem. Network Rail, DB Schenker and Scottish Power all have a serious responsibility to tackle the problem. As I mentioned, they have a corporate and social responsibility to ensure that the issue is addressed sufficiently, and I hope that the minister will do what he can to ensure that they fulfil that responsibility.
I congratulate Michael Matheson on securing the debate, which is important to his constituents and mine. It relates to DB Schenker's transportation from Hunterston to Longannet of coal that was previously transported either across the Forth rail bridge or by road. All who live along the line are affected.
Most people welcomed the development of the SAK railway, which has allowed the transportation of coal from Hunterston to Longannet via my constituency. Of course, the resulting passenger transportation between Alloa and Stirling and on to Glasgow and Edinburgh has been hugely successful and has exceeded the promoter's expectations by a large margin. However, the coal trains have caused complaints from people in Larbert through Braehead, Broomridge and Riverside in Stirling to multiple locations along the line. That is a real problem. Complaints are about noise and vibration, but there is anger that the freight trains are running at night. Why is that? The original proposals for the SAK line indicated clearly that there were would be no night-time running of trains. The disturbance of Michael Matheson's constituents and mine at night is causing the greatest grief.
The original impact report of 2001, which was commissioned by Clackmannanshire Council as the probable bill promoter, excluded night-time running of traffic along the line. Indeed, that report states on more than 13 occasions that the consultants, Scott Wilson, were not asked to consider the night-time running of trains. Transport Scotland must bear the responsibility for acceding to the stated objective of English Welsh and Scottish Railway—now DB Schenker—that freight would not run between 11 pm and 7 am.
Does Richard Simpson accept that Transport Scotland has no powers to grant or deny such traffic?
That is not my point. My point is that the bill was promoted in the Parliament on a fallacious basis. The Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee, Clackmannanshire Council, which is in no way a rail expert, and Transport Scotland, which must surely be the expert, allowed the project to proceed on the publicly accepted assumption that there would be no night-time running of trains.
Network Rail—the successor to Railtrack, which existed when the original report was produced—has made it clear that it must allow 24/7 access if it is safe to do so and that it must allow general speed provided that it is safe. It has no requirement to consider the environmental circumstances.
We must ask the minister why there are fewer journeys per week than were envisaged in the original report. It indicated that there would only be daytime running, so why do we have night-time running?
Was a purely selfish commercial decision taken by DB Schenker that chose to ignore constituents? Some of my constituents tell me, as they tell Michael Matheson, that they and their children are frequently disturbed at night and that their lives are being ruined.
The motion refers only to Larbert, but it applies to all the sections before the new SAK line in Stirling. As Michael Matheson said, families have lived alongside the railway for more than half a century and have had no problems. However, they now have problems. They were offered no pre-operational surveys on the new heavy freight, so they do not know what damage can occur, and they cannot prove it.
Why did the minister, in answering a parliamentary question that I lodged, not know that night-time running was proposed in 2008? He said that he did not know about it until 2009, although his officials knew about it at least five months beforehand. Why has he failed to protect the public by not having any consultation on the significant change of including night-time running? He has allowed families in Michael Matheson's constituents and my constituency to be seriously disturbed by what has been in effect a betrayal of public trust by the Government and all the agencies involved.
I, too, congratulate Michael Matheson on securing the debate. As he said, people in Larbert are facing serious problems as a result of the introduction of heavy coal freight on the rail line. It is important and right that we discuss that in Parliament.
The first members' business debate that I secured was on the development of the rail network in the Central Scotland region. The Scottish Government's efforts in that respect are to be welcomed. I refer to the electrification of the line from Glasgow to Edinburgh via Falkirk High—I am sure that Michael Matheson and other members support that—the work on the Airdrie to Bathgate link, and, of course, the opening of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line last year, which, as Richard Simpson said, most people welcomed. That development and the rerouting of freight trains on to that line and through Larbert have led to the difficulties that we are debating.
Let me be clear. I support the Scottish Government's efforts to encourage more passengers on to the railways and warmly welcome the reopening of the Alloa line. Indeed, in recent months I have undertaken my own surveys in Central Scotland to determine the levels of support for new passenger railway stations at Grangemouth and Abronhill—I know that Michael Matheson has done the same at Bonnybridge. Those ideas have proved overwhelmingly popular, and I am pursuing them with the relevant authorities. I think that there is scope to develop our railways further and to encourage freight traffic.
It is important to increase and improve the use of rail for freight transportation, but that does not have to be done at the expense of the quality of life of people who live near rail freight lines, especially when the introduction or increasing use of freight trains was not anticipated when residents chose to make their home in the area. That seems to be the case in Larbert. Michael Matheson made it clear that people who live in the vicinity of the line there are realistic about what it is like to live next to a railway. People lived next to the line long before freight trains were introduced on it. He also said that it is a long-standing line; its history stretches back to the mid-19th century. The people of Larbert were used to living next to the rail line and then found that the use of the line changed significantly—they think that it has done so to their detriment. That is disappointing.
My understanding is that the problem is not insurmountable. All sides—residents, their elected representatives, Network Rail, Transport Scotland and the transportation companies—need to be willing to work together to find a solution. I know that Michael Matheson has been progressing the matter assiduously on behalf of the people of Larbert, whom he represents, and I wish him well in that task. I am sure that finding a solution that allows freight services to continue on the line and involves greater sympathy for local residents is not beyond the parties involved.
It is important to mention several wider issues. One reason why we want to encourage improved freight transport by rail is that there are obvious environmental benefits. It is ironic that the cause of the disruption that we are discussing is the transport of coal, which is, of course, one of the most polluting forms of energy generation. I accept and agree with the Government's position: we will continue to need traditional power generation techniques until Scotland's renewable potential is fully realised. However, I hope that, in the longer term, the need to transport coal in such a way will be reduced as our dependence on fossil fuels declines. I realise that that will be of little immediate comfort to people in Larbert who are experiencing difficulties at the moment, but the point is still worth making.
I reiterate my support for the Government's efforts to improve Scotland's railways. I restate my belief that further improvements are possible. Although we should welcome increased freight traffic by rail, it should not be at the expense of the quality of life of the people who live along our railway routes. I wish Michael Matheson well as he seeks to resolve the situation in Larbert.
I congratulate Michael Matheson on bringing this debate to the chamber today. To put the issue in context, it is important to recognise that the transport of freight by trains is vital if we are serious about getting trucks off the roads and reducing congestion and pollution. An increase in freight on our railways is, therefore, generally to be welcomed.
The residents who live along the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine track have long accepted the line and the associated rail traffic. One resident stated that he has lived near the line for 39 years and is happy—as are most people—that the coal that is being transported is coming off the roads. However, the transport of up to 2,300 tonnes to Longannet during a single journey at night has resulted in the worst disturbance that he has ever known. That is the nub of the issue.
Although there is no question of the residents asking the carrier to stop transporting the coal during the day, there is definitely an issue with trains running every two hours throughout the night, despite pledges that no trains would run between 11 pm and 6 am, and at a speed that causes vibrations that have not only disturbed sleep patterns but have even caused whole houses to shake. That has happened despite the fact that an impact assessment that was carried out on behalf of Clackmannanshire Council originally indicated that the timetable to which I referred would be implemented. In addition, Transport Scotland, which funded the project, claimed in a press release when the SAK line opened that the timetable had been developed to minimise early morning and late evening services.
Who is responsible for the fiasco of a night service? The previous Executive, along with the Scottish Government, must accept some culpability, as both, along with Transport Scotland, the Government's executive agency, knew of the problem but have apparently been powerless to prevent the rail operator from requesting and implementing a 24-hour timetable.
The member states that the previous Executive was aware of the potential problems. That does not fit with the minister's response to my parliamentary question on the issue, which indicates that he did not know about the night running of trains until February 2009.
There is certainly a discrepancy. It is for the minister to elaborate on why that is the case.
Network Rail, which operates and maintains UK infrastructure, has said that it is legally obliged, as part of its operating licence, to agree to timetable requests for night-time train paths and that it cannot introduce speed restrictions on the railway network except for matters relating to operational safety.
With compensation claims now live, following the expiry of the time bar, it seems that everyone, including the Scottish Government, Transport Scotland and Network Rail, is running for cover. Meanwhile the problem remains and the residents who live along the SAK line are suffering. It is to be hoped that, in the light of the survey of noise disruption that has been undertaken by Clackmannanshire Council, which reveals peak noise levels far in excess of the 60dB threshold that has been set for England and Wales by the Department for Transport, an amicable solution can be found. All the interested parties should get together to ensure either that the night-time operation ceases completely or, at the very least—as Michael Matheson has requested—that the speed of the freight trains is reduced.
Like other members, I congratulate Michael Matheson on securing the debate. However, I do not congratulate him on trying to make the entire blame for the problem fall on to Network Rail and on inferring from that that there is nothing that the Scottish Government can do about the situation. The reality is somewhat different.
The principle that people who are subjected to excessive noise because of night-time rail use are entitled to compensation—or grants for insulation—is actually framed in the Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/428). The regulations not only provide such a right where a new railway is opened, or where an existing line is reopened, but specify differential levels of decibels for day-time and night-time running. Therefore, it is accepted in law that people should not be subjected to such additional forms of night-time nuisance.
Will the member give way?
I will develop the point before allowing the member to respond.
When the bill to reopen the line was introduced, the assumption was that there would be no night-time running, so the line went ahead on the basis that it would not infringe the 1996 regulations. However, without any form of public consultation, the company has now instituted night-time services that disrupt the sleep and peace of local people, especially those who live within 300m of the line. I do not think that that is acceptable, but the legal framework for the railway's construction does not necessarily provide a means of redress.
Does the member recognise that, as I mentioned in my speech, the Alloa line is not a new line but has always been the responsibility of Network Rail? In rerouting the freight, the company has removed the problem from the Grahamston line—my constituents living adjacent to that line experienced a very similar problem—to a line in another part of my constituency. Neither of those lines is new. I accept that the coal needs to get to Longannet, but I want to ensure that Network Rail, which has always been responsible for the two lines in my constituency, does what is necessary to get rid of the vibration problem.
I agree, and I think that the Scottish Government can help the member to do that. For example, the Scottish Government could implement the Environmental Noise (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/465), under which it was supposed to introduce, by 2008, requirements on operators to produce noise maps. Such maps are required not just for railways but for airports and other sources of noise and vibration.
Another issue is that individuals might have had the right to apply for compensation—or for support to provide insulation—but do not seem to be allowed to do so because of a time-barring mechanism that was identified in an answer to a question from Richard Simpson.
The time bar prevents people from claiming only in the first year. People can now claim, as the time bar has been lifted.
It would be helpful if people were given adequate information about their rights in the circumstances.
The minister could perhaps assist the constituents of Mr Matheson and other members if he was prepared to say what the problem is and what he can reasonably do about it. If he publicised that widely through members and through local newspapers, that might go some way towards defusing some of the anger that exists about the issue.
However, there is a wider issue about noise and vibration that is not confined to the particular circumstances in Larbert but affects my constituents who live near the airport as well as the constituents of other members. We need to take noise and vibration more seriously. Through this Parliament's legislative powers, I think that we can begin to address the problems that Michael Matheson and other colleagues have identified. We should work together to do that.
I will first deal with a few of the points that have arisen.
In reference to a written answer in which I said that I became aware of the issue on 6 February 2009, questions have been raised about whether previous ministers knew about the matter. I answered the parliamentary question, which asked specifically when the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change knew about the matter. I answered only in those terms. Under the protocols that exist between successive Governments, I have no knowledge as to the knowledge state of previous transport ministers, who had different job titles. That might not add light to the matter, but it explains that particular point.
Will the minister give way?
Let me develop a few other points first.
In any event, that matter is not one for which I can be held accountable one way or the other.
It would be useful to acknowledge that the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee said in its May 2004 report:
"It is important to note that the scope of the Bill includes only the construction of a railway between Stirling and Kincardine (via Alloa) together with associated works. It is not within the scope of the Bill for it to be amended to include matters that pertain to the operation of the railway (for example the speeds of trains or the times at which they should run)."
Having said all that, let me pose an obvious question. Do the minister and the Government think that there is a problem? The minister and the Government are perfectly prepared to acknowledge that there is a genuine concern being expressed by all members who have participated in the debate. Therefore, I want to speak in some positive terms about that.
I hasten to add that I speak as someone who, for 30 years, lived 10m from the main Edinburgh to Glasgow railway line, along which a goods train travelled at 3 o'clock every morning—I suspect, however, that that train was of lower weight than those that we are concerned with today. Of course, different people will react in different ways and will make their own accommodations with the circumstances that they are in, so I will not draw on my own experience to make any points.
I hope that the parties with whom the remedies most simply, readily and immediately lie and the parties who have, by their actions—which are legal and legitimate, within the framework in which they operate—caused us to be here are listening to the debate. They should take notice of the real concern that has been expressed by members on behalf of their constituents. I am talking, of course, of DB Schenker, Network Rail and, to some extent, Scottish Power.
I do not want to get into who knew what when, but the freedom of information inquiries make it clear that the officials knew about the situation in September 2008, so there is a gap there.
The minister is quite right to say that we need to find a solution. Will he call a meeting of the agencies involved to try to get them together in order to agree how to alleviate the situation? Everybody is denying responsibility and saying that they will not take action.
We and Transport Scotland are taking action. Transport Scotland has reviewed the information that Falkirk Council has gathered and believes that there is scope for further research to be done, and work on that will begin next week. We are not using that as an excuse for delay; we simply want to ensure that we have an absolutely standardised approach to understanding what the issues are.
Is the minister indicating that Transport Scotland will undertake assessment work in the Larbert area as a result of the findings of Falkirk Council's assessment work?
Transport Scotland is doing work along the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line, but there is scope for further work in Larbert. However, we have to remember that the existing line in Larbert is covered by long-standing provisions. Of course, we should also bear it in mind that the issue in Larbert exists because of the trains that are running on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line.
Michael Matheson made three suggestions: reducing speed, as there is a clear relationship between speed and the disruption that is caused to people's sleep and quality of life; renewing the track; and having DB Schenker consider the equipment that it uses. It is important that those issues are addressed. Neither Transport Scotland nor I have any direct powers in that regard, apart from the general power to do what Dr Simpson suggested and get people around a table and knock heads together. We are engaged with the parties concerned, and we will remain so.
If we are talking about ministerial responsibility, I would point out that the ministers who are responsible for the railway network, who might have undertaken some consultation, are Tom Harris and Andrew Adonis at Westminster. However, I am not really going to finger them, because we are looking at long-standing issues, and—alas and alack—the responsibility for the framework under which railways operate and the licence that is granted to Network Rail by the Office of Rail Regulation does not lie with this Parliament and is not within the remit of this Government. However, I agree that there is a problem and that we need to gather more information. We already have a considerable amount of information on Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine and the effect on individual properties, but we can certainly do more to gather information in the Larbert area.
I congratulate those who have gone out and sought to ensure that we are examining the quality of the rails. Some work is already being done to consider whether the freight wagons are of the appropriate quality. The important and interesting thing that has come out of the debate is that different companies are using different kinds of wagons. We should definitely put that into the mix in understand the matter.
We should be absolutely clear that the Government understands the issue. We would certainly like to see what DB Schenker and Network Rail, in particular, can do. A number of members mentioned the speed limits. Network Rail has the power to impose speed limits only in limited circumstances. There might be a case for differential speed limits related to the weight of the train. That might be one way in which Network Rail could usefully examine the matter. I also understand that there are some signalling issues, which cause further disturbance, and Network Rail could usefully examine those.
The debate has been useful. We have not come to a conclusion and there is more to be done on the subject, but the gathering of information is key to understanding the mitigations that the parties who are responsible for creating the problem and fixing it will have to undertake. We will play our part in ensuring that they understand their responsibilities and live up to them.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—