Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Stephen Ladyman (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 9 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Road Safety Bill (HL).


Road Safety Bill [Lords]

For the simple reason that, in my view, the legislation on bridge strikes deals perfectly adequately with anybody who causes a bridge strike. The amendments that were sought at an earlier stage would have provided additional powers that are unnecessary. I take issue with my hon. Friend’s belief that the Department has been caught out. I remind her that it is not the Department under this Government that was caught out, but the Department under the auspices of the previous Government, back in 1990. If I may say so, we are fixing what is possibly the last bungle of rail privatisation—or at least the last one that we know about; it is always possible that others may appear in the near future. We have introduced the amendments to make the legal position what everyone thought it was. I do not think that the technical loophole has been exploited to date, but we want to take the opportunity to make the law on level crossings clear and robust, and new clause 28 will help us to achieve that. I do not think that it is controversial, so I hope that the House will support it. I will comment on the other new clauses later if anyone wishes to raise them in debate.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c58 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Contracts Appeals Death Bridges Breathalysers Buses Licensing Fixed penalties Disqualification EU law Drugs Exemptions Injuries Insurance Level crossings Driving under influence Large goods vehicles Foreign nationals Driving instruction Misuse Motorcycles Taxis Registration Safety Safety measures Roads Testing Speed limits Road traffic offences Traffic lights Level crossing orders
Legislation
Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk