Road Safety Bill [HL]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for his comprehensive reply but I am also very disappointed in the reaction which seems to be a case of, ““We do not need the legislation because we are consulting on the matter””. I am not sure that that is sufficient. I give a brief example. I am very grateful for the speech of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. The RSSB produced some recommendations on the Ufton Nervet level crossing. I tabled a Written Question asking who was going to pay for that. Why should the railways pay for something which is caused by road users? I did not receive an answer from my noble friend to that Written Question. I shall keep on. We are still in this fudge situation of saying, ““Let us all share a bit of it””. It is clear who pays for such things as level crossing updates—the road industry. We need a bit of clarity on that. However, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I shall consult with Network Rail, the Health and Safety Executive and others. Perhaps we can have a meeting before Report to decide whether we shall take the matter further. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 141 to 144 not moved.]