|
Charlotte Atkins: That is why the Department leaves it to the local authority to decide the appropriate speed limit. That seems perfectly consistent with ensuring that the speed limit reflects local circumstances and conditions.
John Thurso: I am grateful to the hon. Members who have taken part in this short debate. I am even grateful that I enticed the hon. Member for Christchurch to his feet. It proves the old angling adage: if you fish where the fish are and use the right fly, you will usually catch one.
I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) for his supportive dismissal, or dismissive support—whichever it was. If my understanding of the new clause and the advice that I have been given is correct, the circumstance that he puts forward would be exempt because of the way in which the new clause is worded. Clearly, it is not aimed at stopping the operation of a dual carriageway that happens to pass through a village, where the engineering has been undertaken in such a way that the pedestrian is protected. That would be ridiculous. Neither I, nor the Campaign to Protect Rural England, want to do that.
The specific case that concerns us is those villages—I am delighted that the Minister spotted where my definition of a village came from—in which there is no speed limit, which is the situation in many rural areas of the United Kingdom. There may or may not be the odd street light. There is one example in my constituency, where, because there is no speed limit, people take the view that 60 mph is the appropriate limit. The argument used by the hon. Member for Christchurch is turned on itself because when people do not see a limit, they assume that there is no limit, so they go at 60 mph. I agree with him that good motorists should use appropriate speed, but sadly not all motorists do. The fact that we have a hierarchy of speed limits means that people look for the guidance that they offer.
I am sorry that the new clause has not found favour with the Government, as it would be helpful. I hope that we can keep the situation under review, and perhaps the Government will continue to consider the measure. It would be a useful addition to the Bill. I am sure that there is a consensus that safety and the cutting of speed in rural areas is as important as anywhere else. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, and clause, by leave withdrawn.
New clause 8
POWER TO IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS ON TRAFFIC AUTHORITIES AS REGARDS PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT AT LEVEL CROSSINGS
'(1) Section 1 of the Level Crossing Act 1983 (which enables the Secretary of State to make orders as to safety arrangements at level crossings) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), after paragraph (a), omit ''and'' and insert—
Column Number: 328
''(aa) may impose requirements on any relevant traffic authority as to the provision, maintenance or operation of any such barriers or other protective equipment, including the maintenance or operation of equipment provided before the making of the order; and.''
(a) for ''the operator and to each local authority in whose area the level crossing is situated'' substitute—
(b) each local authority in whose area the level crossing is situated; and
(c) in the case of a proposed order which includes a provision under subsection (2)(aa) above, the relevant traffic authority concerned,''; and
(b) for ''or local authority'' substitute '', local authority or relevant traffic authority''.
(a) after ''situated'' insert ''and, in the case of a proposed order which includes a provision under subsection (2)(aa) above, the relevant traffic authority concerned''; and
(b) in paragraph (b), after ''local authority'' insert ''or the relevant traffic authority concerned''.
(5) In subsection (11) (interpretation)—
(a) in the definition of ''protective equipment'', after ''television equipment'', insert '', prescribed device within the meaning of section 20 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (devices for detection of road traffic offences),''
(b) after the definition of ''protective equipment'' insert—'' 'relevant traffic authority' means a traffic authority in whose area all or part of the level crossing in question is or is proposed to be situated or any barriers or other protective equipment in question is or are situated or is or are proposed to be situated;'' and
(c) after the definition of ''road'' insert—'' 'road traffic authority' has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984''.
(6) This section applies in relation to barriers and other protective equipment provided before, as well as after, this section comes into force.'.
Brought up, and read the First time.
John Thurso: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 10—Increase of penalties for failure to comply with traffic lights at level crossings—
'(1) A person guilty of an offence under section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 consisting of a failure to comply with a traffic sign placed at or near a level crossing indicating that vehicular traffic is not to proceed over the level crossing shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine of level 5 on the standard scale or to both and shall have his licence endorsed with six penalty points.
(2) This section applies in relation to offences committed after the date on which this Act comes into force.'.
New clause 11—Increase of penalties for careless or inconsiderate driving causing damage to a railway or other bridge over a road—
'(1) A person who causes damage to a railway or other bridge over a road by driving a motor vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both and shall have his licence endorsed with not fewer than six penalty points.
Column Number: 329
(2) This section applies in relation to offences committed after the date on which this Act comes into force.'.
New clause 12—Measures to promote road safety at railway and other bridges—
'In section 122(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (which sets out the matters to which local authorities must have regard in exercising their functions under that Act), after paragraph (c) insert—
''(ca) the need to remove the risk of heavy commercial and other vehicles from colliding with railway and other bridges crossing highways by installing warning devices and physical barriers on the highways approaching such bridges;''.'.
Amendment No. 40, in title, line 2, at end insert—
'and for related purposes concerning road safety.'.
John Thurso: We now move curiously from the road to the rail, and, more exactly, the interface between rail and road. We all remember the tragedy that took place at Ufton Nervet rail crossing, which was one of many incidents that take place at level crossings each year, the vast majority of which do not end up with the tragic loss of life that occurred in that incident.
I was approached by Network Rail. The new clauses and the amendment have been drafted by Network Rail, so they have a competence way beyond that to which I could ever aspire. I hope that instils some confidence in Committee members about the quality of the proposals. The principles are complex. I could spend time going through the detail, but I should like to address them so that we can make progress.
Mr. Kidney: On the confidence that we may have in Network Rail, it sent me comments that it received from the Health and Safety Executive, suggesting that the new clauses should be amended. Hon. Members should be aware that we cannot rely on them.
John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman pre-empts me because I have the exact same letter. Network Rail sent all members of the Committee comments on the proposals. The HSE would like some amendments, not because of the technical quality of the proposals, but because of how it wants them to work. If, by some miracle of legislation, the Committee were to accept the new clauses, another place would have to tidy them up, as it tends to do from time to time.
The principles revolve around two matters. First, level crossings are safe when used properly. However, the new clauses suggest several changes that could enhance their safety. We always think of accidents at rail crossing as being entirely a rail matter, but they are not. They are very often a road matter, and most certainly an interface matter. It is appropriate that some duties be placed on traffic authorities. Secondly, some of the proposals also deal with what are known in the trade as ''bridge bashes''. There are significant problems for the railway system when most vehicles strike railway bridges because, each time a bridge is struck, a hazard is created and passengers are delayed, as trains have to be slowed or halted until engineers have checked the safety of the bridge.
New clause 8 would give the power to impose requirements on traffic authorities regarding
Column Number: 330
protective equipment at level crossings. The critical point is made in subsection (2), which introduces ''relevant traffic authority'', instead of the local authority and Network Rail, and that is repeated throughout the new clause, putting a duty on traffic authorities to become involved.
New clause 10 would increase the penalties to a term not exceeding six months or a fine at level 5 for failure to comply with traffic lights at level crossings. I particularly support that because, during the summer recess, I spent some time with the British Transport police at one of the level crossings in Dingwall in the highlands and observed at first hand the operation of the camera. It was frightening to discover that the assessment made prior to the camera being installed was, if I recall correctly—although I may have got the numbers slightly wrong—an estimated 70 incidents of cars crossing on red throughout the highland area. Following the introduction of cameras, that number has been revised to something like 700. The problem is that people know there are around 23 seconds between the light changing and the train coming, and locals who know that tend to take more risks when crossing. There is a need for greater enforcement.
New clause 11 would increase the penalties for inconsiderate careless driving that causes damage to a railway bridge. New clause 12 would introduce measures to promote road safety at rail, and other, bridges.
The new clauses, while long and a little complex, are straightforward in principle. I am realistic. I am aware that the Government will not welcome them with open arms, but I hope that they would at least consider what they contain, together with the suggested changes put forward by the Health and Safety Executive, which is broadly content with the new clauses. Perhaps the Government will consider adopting some or all of them at a later stage.
The last in the group is amendment No. 40, with which I need not detain the Committee for long. It just so happened that, when I sought to table an amendment on another matter, the Clerks pointed out to me that the long title of the Bill did not include the words ''road safety''. I could not, therefore, table that amendment. So I now hope to amend the long title to include:
''and for related purposes concerning road safety''.
Funnily enough, the new clauses relating to the rail network would need that stipulation. No doubt the Minister can say why the Road Safety Bill's long title does not contain its short title.
|
