Mr.
Paterson: I am pleased that the Liberal Democrats support
our amendment. The hon. Member for Rochdale is absolutely right. This
is part of our campaign to bear down on the hardcore offenders. I
raised this local element on Second Reading but I would like to remind
the Minister that the number of instances seems to be astonishing.
According to the British Transport Police, there have been 70 incidents
in Shropshire in the past 12 months, and that county has, sadly, less
busy railways than other parts of the
country. Inspector
Derek Cheetham of British Transport Police
said: “We
continue to receive reports of vehicle drivers misusing railway level
crossings in Shropshire. In 2005, 73 offences were reported involving
motorists ignoring the red flashing lights, driving over the crossing,
zigzagging across as the barriers are in the process of lowering and
even colliding with the lowering
barriers.” That is
criminal stupidity and not only puts at risk the person involved and
his passengers but can put those who are completely innocent in the
path of an oncoming train. I hope that the Minister will support the
Opposition parties in wanting to get tough on such criminally stupid
behaviour. 5.45
pm
Dr.
Ladyman: There is some common ground among us here. As the
hon. Gentleman said, the behaviour in question is criminally stupid.
None of us would have a moment’s sympathy for drivers who treat
level crossings in such a manner; there can be no excuse for it. It is
the most hideously stupid and horrendous act imaginable of callous
disregard for other people’s
lives. The hon. Member
for Rochdale inadvertently put his finger on the reason why we should
not support the amendments, however. As he described, and as in the
case of the offences that we discussed earlier in the Committee, these
offences are dangerous driving. They go beyond the offence of just
jumping a red light; they clearly involve a dangerous disregard for the
lives of other people on the road. They should be treated as such, and
people who commit them should be prosecuted for dangerous driving with
all the penalties that that can
bring. I am again
going to advise the Committee not to allow the clause to stand part of
the Bill and to turn
down the amendments. I assure Opposition Members that I am prepared to
take other action that does not necessarily need legislation. Under the
terms of the Bill, we will have further consultation about graduated
penalties. I am prepared to offer the Opposition the
concession—they are entirely right to highlight this
issue—that we will include in that consultation the possibility
of increasing the penalty for jumping a red light at a level crossing
to £5,000 and six penalty
points. I am also
prepared to discuss with the Home Office whether it would be
appropriate to change the sentencing guidelines to recognise the
seriousness of offences committed at level crossings above and beyond
the seriousness with which the courts currently consider them. I stand
firm on the principle that when somebody is responsible for jumping
across a level crossing when the train is coming, if the police have
evidence, that person should be tried for dangerous driving with all
the penalties that it brings to
bear. The final
assurance that I am prepared to give Opposition Members is that I will
discuss with the Association of Chief Police Officers its attitude to
such offences at level crossings, to trying to enforce them more
rigorously than at the moment and to having a campaign to crack down on
them. In so doing, we might demonstrate that it would be more
appropriate to use such offences as dangerous driving when people are
guilty of such
activity.
Mr.
Paterson: I would be reassured if we were getting
prosecutions, but I cited a local situation: there have been 73 cases
in Shropshire that have not led to prosecutions for dangerous driving.
Why is the current law not being
used?
Dr.
Ladyman: That is exactly the point with which I was going
to conclude. I do not know whether those involved in the 73 incidents
to which the hon. Gentleman refers were prosecuted at all, even for
jumping a red light. That offence is already available and it is not
being used. If such things are happening at level crossings—the
evidence that he and Network Rail have provided clearly shows that they
are happening—we need to do something more about enforcement.
There is no point worrying about the level of the offence if even the
current offences are not being properly used. I want to talk to the
Association of Chief Police Officers about what we need to do to ensure
that greater efforts are made to catch people who jump the lights at
level crossings.
Mr.
David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): Since my hon. Friend is
talking about enforcement and looking ahead to new clause 30, may I ask
whether it is possible to install safety cameras at crossings to record
people who jump the lights? Does new clause 30 make it clear whether
Network Rail or local authorities will pay for
them?
Dr.
Ladyman: Yes. The red lights at a level crossing are
exactly the same as red lights anywhere else, and they have the same
status, so enforcement can be done by CCTV. We will come to the matter
of who will pay
later in our considerations, but I assure my hon.
Friend that the responsibility will be clear when we have finished
debating the Bill. We
should clamp down on those who commit this offence and work with the
police, Network Rail and the British Transport police to catch people
doing it. When there is a clear and callous disregard for human life,
the offenders should be prosecuted for dangerous driving, and we will
consider in the consultation the possibility of imposing a much steeper
fine for a less serious offence. It would be worth discussing the
imposition of six points in such cases.
With the assurance that I
intend to try to crack down on such incidents, I hope that Opposition
Members will not press the amendment and join me in removing the clause
from the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond: I have given great thought to what the Minister
said. He and the Committee recognise the seriousness of the
offence. The
Minister’s concessions will go to another round of
consultations, but we are concerned about the hard core who commit the
offence and about the lack of action now and when the Bill comes into
force, and the potential delay. We feel that a term of imprisonment
would be appropriate for this
offence. Question
put, That the amendment be
made:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
9.
Division
No.
9] Question
accordingly negatived.
Question put, That the
clause stand part of the
Bill:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
9.
Division
No.
10] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 50 disagreed
to.
Clause
51Increase
of penalties for careless or inconsiderate driving causing damage to a
railway or other bridge over a
road Motion
made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
9.
Division
No.
11] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 51 disagreed
to.
Clause
52Measures
to promote road safety at railway and other
bridges Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond: This is another eminently sensible clause. We
want to ensure that we put in place preventive measures that reduce the
risk of incidents at railway or other bridges crossing highways by
requiring local authorities to install warning systems. The clause is a
sensible preventive measure and the Opposition are happy to support
it.
Dr.
Ladyman: Once again, my advice will be that the clause
should not stand part of the Bill. Local authorities already have
powers to restrict certain types of traffic on certain roads and to put
in place all the necessary measures to protect bridges. The fact that
powers are not being used is no good reason for us to legislate to
provide more powers which presumably will be just as little used. We
need to ensure that local authorities and others are aware of their
duties and their powers and that they use them more rigorously in
future. I entirely agree with the intent behind the clause, but it is
not necessary and we can achieve its objective with the existing
laws. Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. The Committee
divided: Ayes 5, Noes
9.
Division
No.
12]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 52 disagreed
to.
|
