---

Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, my name is added to the amendment. I support it, as I have at previous stages. I am grateful to my noble friend for arranging a meeting last night with Stephen Ladyman, the Minister responsible for this legislation in the other place. But as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has said, we need to put this issue on the record. I understand that representatives from Network Rail met with the Secretary of State well before the election. I also understand that similar amendments were tabled to the first road safety Bill introduced in another place before the election, so the proposals have been around for a long time. The other development since we considered this Bill in Committee is that Network Rail has indicated that it is happy to share with local authorities the costs of any works proposed to protect against bridge bashing and to improve safety at level crossings. I see no reason why Network Rail should pay for everything. In his response my noble friend on the Front Bench may argue that costs will be put on local authorities, but I would argue that the Government are in effect responsible both for the majority of local government finance and that of the railways. I see it as a question of balancing between the pots. Moreover, most accidents of this kind are caused by the road sector rather than the railway sector, and here I declare an interest as chairman of the Railfreight Group. It is only equitable that the costs should at least be shared; indeed, I might go further because Network Rail has been very generous. I want to mention one issue in relation to Amendment No. 54, which I am not sure was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in speaking to the group. Amendment No. 54 concerns the:"““Power to impose requirements on traffic authorities as regards to protective equipment at level crossings””." My noble friend argued in Committee that the Level Crossings Act 1983 permits obligations to be put on highways or traffic authorities, but Network Rail is contesting that. The purpose of this amendment, therefore, is to require local authorities, rather than simply allow them, to have regard to the need to reduce the risk of bridge bashing when exercising their functions. That is an important point. I have a copy of a letter from the Health and Safety Executive to Network Rail dated 23 June which expresses support for these amendments in principle:"““We continue to support fully the objectives of Network Rail’s amendments to the Road Safety Bill in respect of level crossings and bridge bashes””." Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, observed, let us not forget that these amendments will save lives. Over the past 12 months there have been about 40 deaths, including suicides, at level crossings. Network Rail estimates that at least half of those lives could have been saved. Some 40 per cent of all train accident risks are caused by level crossings, and last year saw some 1,800 reported acts of misuse at level crossings. If those statistics do not make us sit up and think, the short video referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, which many noble Lords watched last week, rather puts the cap on the argument. I am keen on these amendments and I fully support them. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some words of assurance that he too welcomes them.