---

Road Safety Bill [Lords]

That is line 6 in the copy that I have, but I fully accept that there is a typographical error. If the Government are prepared, or indeed if the House is prepared, to accept the new clause today, it would still be capable of straightforward remedy in the other place because its agreement on the new clause would have to be sought. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman raises a fatal objection, but I acknowledge that typographical error. The Minister has explained what lies behind the introduction of the Government new clauses. I have one or two concerns that I wish to explore with him in relation to the retrospective nature of the new clauses. The Minister wrote to me on 5 October, and I understand that copies of that letter and others have been placed in the Library. He stated that the Government were"““tabling the attached amendment to put beyond doubt that we can delegate the making of level crossing orders to ORR and to validate those orders made by HSE since 1990.””" What legal advice has he obtained on the matter? He will be aware that retrospective legislation is generally not encouraged and is generally considered to run contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is not without precedent, of course, but must be undertaken with due regard to proportionality. Is the Minister satisfied that the measure is proportionate in respect of its retrospective application? Will he place on the record when Ministers were first made aware that there was an issue, in order for the amendments to be brought before us? I place on record our acknowledgement of the fact that the Conservatives in the other place worked closely with my noble Friends on new clause 37, and I hope they will continue to do so. On new clause 38—the bridge bashing clause, so to speak—it would appear from the frequency of bridge bashing incidents that the current law is not acting as a deterrent to the drivers responsible for it, notwithstanding the awareness campaign launched recently by Network Rail. It is defined as"““an incident in which a vehicle, its load or equipment collides with a bridge.””" In 2003-04 bridge bashing was the 15th worst cause of cumulative delay, which was no less than 335,442 minutes. I am grateful to Network Rail or perhaps trainspotters.com for these statistics. Two hundred and twelve bridges have been struck more than three times a year, and Cook street in Glasgow was struck 17 times last year. Whitehouse road, Swindon, and Southend lane, Lower Sydenham were each struck 127 times since 1996. It is clear that this is a matter of significant difficulty and that it is causing substantial delay and expense to road users and to Network Rail. Current legislation is not adequate and accordingly we shall insist on our proposals in new clause 38.