---

Road Safety Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 50:"After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—" ““DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALLY AFFECTING TRAFFIC OVER LEVEL CROSSINGS    The Secretary of State shall make provision by a development order under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) to secure that, in any case where a proposed development is likely to result in a material increase in the volume, or a material change in the character, of traffic, or may require changes to the level crossing’s protective arrangements, using a highway which is part of a highway network which includes a level crossing over a railway situated within 15 miles of the proposed development, the local planning authority shall be required to consult the Secretary of State, the rail safety authority and operator of the network which includes or consists of the railway in question before granting planning permission for the development.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments in this group are those affecting the railway. The amendments address two problems, the first of which is level crossings. Level crossing are now the most likely cause of a serious railway accident, much money having been spent on such measures as removing broken rails, TPWS to prevent trains colliding, and the elimination of slam-doors. Level crossings in this country are mostly protected by barriers with or without lights. We have seen films taken in the past few weeks which show alarming pictures of vehicles driving around level crossings, pushing barriers up and being missed by trains by inches and micro-seconds. The first point of the amendments is that Network Rail shall be a statutory consultee when developments affecting traffic over a level crossing are likely to take place. Amendment No. 51 provides for increased penalties if people deliberately weave around or abuse level crossings. Amendment No. 52 applies to careless or inconsiderate driving, whether it is over a level crossing or on a bridge over a road. We give powers to traffic authorities to provide protective equipment at level crossings and in advance of bridges. There are powers to ““stop up”” level crossings where safety would be enhanced by so doing. We have tried to say, ““Yes, a right of way exists over that crossing. But if a bridge is provided nearby, the sacrificing of the right to go over that level crossing should be weighed against the possibility that a train may be derailed at the level crossing, which may involve great loss of life””. I am well aware that when the Minister in another place spoke to us he said that in his opinion some of these amendments are not necessary. It is a very late stage to say that. I ask noble Lords to agree these amendments knowing that the Government have plenty of opportunity in another place to substitute better amendments which might be devised in the mean time. I do not say that these are the best possible amendments to deal with the problems of abuse of level crossings and collisions with railway bridges—that is, bridge bashing. We know that bridge bashing costs lots of minutes in delay. We know that it has the potential to cause an extremely serious accident. We know that there are accidents at level crossings every day. We are just waiting for the really bad one to hit the headlines, after which newspapers will be screaming as to why something had not been done. That is the sort of scenario I want to avoid. Let us get ahead of the game and not say the day after an accident, ““Of course, expenditure on saving a life shall have no limit””. That is rather a silly phrase because it obviously does. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments as the best that we can do to address a very serious problem. If he persists in saying that for some reason or another they are not the best amendments, he should take them away. The Bill will go to another place. There will be plenty of opportunity for them to be considered properly. It was suggested that these issues were suddenly sprung on the Government and we were asked why we did not go to Ministers earlier. For example, the accident at Upton Nervet level crossing in Berkshire was well known to everyone. For days, there were headlines in the newspapers. I urge the Government to take the proposals away and think about them. I do not expect them to come back to us at Third Reading; time is far too short. But while the Bill progresses through both Houses there will be an opportunity to do a workmanlike job and bring forward modern legislation to protect bridges over railways and level crossings that will save lives—which is what this Bill is about—and giving highway authorities a responsibility to consider the welfare of passengers on the railway. I beg to move.