Road Safety Bill [HL]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, who tabled these important new clauses, and to all contributors to what has been a well-informed and important debate. I shall disappoint the Committee because I shall not accept the new clauses, but all those who have spoken in the debate have made important points that we take extremely seriously. Were I not in a position to emphasise how importantly we regard those issues, and to explain the appropriate action that we are taking, I could not reject the amendments. I shall start at the beginning. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned that the Health and Safety Executive agreed with a great deal of what he had to say about the dangers of level crossings. Indeed it does. The reasons have been emphasised in the debate. However, the HSE does not think that legislation is the answer. It supports the measures that we are taking, involving not legislation but the concepts behind the new clauses. That is why they are so valuable and accurate in identifying the issues. There is no doubt that level crossings now represent the greatest risk to safety on the railway, not because they are unsafe or have become more dangerous, but because the railway has done so well in improving its safety record in recent years. The signals passed at danger—SPADS—the operation of the train protection warning system, and the post-Hatfield investment in safety are remarkable tributes to the success of the railway in significantly reducing the risk of death or accident. As my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe emphasised, that puts level crossing deaths and accidents in sharper profile because comparatively they represent the greatest danger. Level crossings are safe when used correctly. The vast majority of incidents at level crossings are the result of misuse by pedestrians and motorists, not because of any failings of the train, the train driver or the equipment. We cannot be complacent when, as all noble Lords have said, accidents happening at speed at level crossings lead to disastrous consequences. That is why more needs to be done to make level crossing users aware of the dangers if they do not follow the correct procedures. The railway industry would welcome and deserves more support from highway and planning authorities to make crossings safer. That is starting to happen. The answer lies in road and rail authorities working together to resolve the issues. It does not lie in legislation. We need to realise how important the issue is to the safety of the railway, and of course to road travellers. We need to recognise that co-operation between those two agents is of the greatest importance in improving safety on the railway and the road that crosses the rails. My officials have explained to Network Rail that they do not consider that new primary legislation is required to bring about the changes that Network Rail wants. We stand by the position that, for reasons of clarity, the traffic authority should be responsible for the highway and the railway operator for the crossing itself. The two need to work together. Powers already exist—under the Level Crossings Act 1983, the Highways Act 1980 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984—that could be used to achieve what is behind the amendments. We aim to ensure that that is achieved because it is an important priority. Under planning regulations a local authority is required to consult before granting planning permission with the railway operator and the Secretary of State on all development that is likely to result in material changes to either the character or volume of traffic using a level crossing. Amendment No. 141 would limit that requirement to 15 miles from the level crossing. The ODPM plans to consult next year on any possible changes to the regulations against the background of the concept that my noble friend has introduced in his amendment. Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 introduce another important concept—reducing the frequency of bridge strikes by over-height vehicles and the need to impress on all concerned the potential danger and cost of such incidents. My noble friend Lord Snape gave his own graphic illustration of just what that could represent, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw on late train times. Changes to penalties need to be considered on that and the railway crossings issues in the context of other criminal penalties. I consider that it would be somewhat incongruous to attach a custodial penalty to this particular instance of careless driving when it is not done elsewhere. It is not at all clear that a dangerous or careless driver cannot create similar mayhem in circumstances other than the railway crossing or bridge—important though they are. We have to put the offences of careless driving and dangerous driving into the context of where people commit crimes and make mistakes as drivers. Although I recognise the importance of the amendments, and what my noble friend seeks as a deterrent, I assure him that we will put it in the context of the totality of road safety and appropriate penalties for those who commit offences. I do not believe that Amendment No. 144 and the new Clause 28 would remove the risk of bridge strikes. Powers already exist under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to enable local authorities to take action to prevent over-height vehicles striking bridges. We shall continue to review the guidance available to local authorities, but we do not consider it appropriate to require consideration of warning devices and protective barriers in primary road traffic legislation. If we decide that it is necessary, we have the powers to do it. We are looking at the issues carefully and shall be giving advice to local authorities accordingly. I want to emphasise what everybody in the debate has emphasised. We have highlighted an area of very real concern—safety on the railway. The consequences of the lack of safety at level crossings are generally borne by road travellers, not by train passengers. Deaths generally occur among people on the road rather than in the train. But I do not underestimate the importance of the issue, which is why I want to emphasise to the Committee that in asking my noble friend to withdraw his new clauses, Irecognise that he has presented a very forthright case of the priority that the issue requires. I assure him that the department is addressing that priority.