Clause
53Power
to impose requirements on traffic authorities as regards protective
equipment at level
crossings Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Clause stand
part. Government
amendment No.
111. Government new
clause 30—Safety arrangements at level
crossings. 6
pm
Dr.
Ladyman: Once again, I recommend that the clause does not
stand part of the Bill. I hope, however, that the Committee will
support new clause 30 and amendment No. 111.
This group of clauses is well
intentioned. Every one of us agrees with the intent behind them. As we
said, drivers who try to go through level crossings need to be dealt
with severely, and we must think much more clearly about what
protective measures and other measures are appropriate at level
crossings. The clauses represent a cri de coeur by Network Rail, which
felt that people were not listening to it when it identified the need
to improve level crossings. I take full responsibility for that,
although I wish that it had come to me first, rather than tabling
amendments. We could have helped each other to arrive at the
Government’s new clause, rather than the group of clauses
inserted in the Lords.
There was a difference of
opinion between the Government’s lawyers and Network Rail.
Network Rail felt that the current legislation did not specify clearly
enough the duty of local authorities to help it make level crossings
safe. Equally, it felt that when deciding what measures to put in
place, there was a legal dispute about what constituted rail equipment
and road equipment. The Government’s view was that the law was
clear and that there were responsibilities on local authorities as well
as Network Rail. However, when we discussed the legislation with
Network Rail, we realised that it could be drafted more clearly so that
everyone understands their responsibilities. Hence, new clause 30 makes
it clear who is responsible for safety at level crossings and who is
required to work with Network Rail to devise and provide new measures
for making level crossings safer.
In some cases, those measures
will include rumble strips to remind drivers how fast they are going as
they approach a level crossing. In others, the measures might be as
simple as improved signage on the
approach or the provision of CCTV for better enforcement at a level
crossing. Whatever measures are necessary must be provided to make
level crossings safe, and everybody responsible for providing that
equipment must realise that they have a duty to work together to devise
and put in place safe arrangements. In response to my hon. Friend
the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), I am pleased to say that in case
there was any doubt about whether the new arrangements would fall on
the council tax payer, Network Rail has agreed to pay for any
improvements identified as a result of the new clause. However, it will
still be the responsibility of local authorities to help implement the
improvements and to work with Network Rail to design them and make
level crossings much safer.
Mr.
Kidney: From new clause 30, I see that the Secretary of
State may make an order under the Level Crossings Act 1983. I am always
annoyed with myself for not doing my research in sufficient depth, but
will my hon. Friend assure us that CCTV cameras or safety cameras fall
within the definition of “protective equipment” under the
1983 Act?
Dr.
Ladyman: Not being the lawyer that my hon. Friend is, I am
always slow to give such assurances. It is my intention that such
equipment should fall within the 1983 Act. If it does not, and for some
reason CCTV cannot be provided because of the way in which our new
clause is drafted, I shall seek to deal with that at the remaining
stages. My understanding is that new clause 30, together with amendment
No. 111, will allow CCTV enforcement systems to be provided at level
crossings in exactly the way he seeks.
Mr.
Kidney: When my hon. Friend was explaining new clause 30,
he said that the Secretary of State would be able to order anything
that he thought necessary to make level crossings safer. Things other
than safety cameras might not be covered by the 1983 Act as they should
be. Will he extend his research to ensure that we are fireproof on this
matter?
Dr.
Ladyman: I am certainly happy to do that. My understanding
is that one of the difficulties that we got into was that the
legislation called for rail equipment to be provided and therefore
there was a problem defining exactly what “rail
equipment” was. Equipment specifically to do with the road might
not be covered by the term “rail equipment”. Our
proposals now make it clear that rail equipment in this regard means
equipment necessary to make the railway safe. Therefore, such things
will fall within the legislation’s remit, and I hope the
Committee agrees on that. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that
I shall double check that before we reach the remaining stages, because
it is our intention that all parties that have a responsibility to make
the railway safe use their powers to do so and co-operate in ensuring
that appropriate designs are agreed so that we can make
progress. I just
reiterate that none of us in the Committee is in any disagreement about
the need to make level crossings safe or about the heinous nature of
offences where people try to drive across such crossings. New
clause 30 and amendment No. 111 will be an effective way of dealing with
the problem, along with the assurances I gave earlier about
enforcement, on which we will make progress as rapidly as possible. I
cannot speak for Network Rail, but my understanding is that it is
content with what we propose. Given that, I hope that the Committee
will subsequently support the Government proposals and agree to clause
53 not standing part of the Bill. Stephen
Hammond: As I understand it from the Minister’s
explanation, new clause 30 tidies up and makes more specific the
responsibilities in clause 53. To that extent, I suspect that the
proposal is largely welcome. I hope that he will cast some light on
amendment No. 111. Why do we need to repeal the words “barriers
or other”? What is the intention of the amendment?
The other problem with new
clause 30 is that while it introduces a number of preventive measures,
it does not achieve what we were aiming to do in terms of examining the
failure to stop at traffic lights. The Minister gave assurances about
consultation, saying that it would be tackled by his subsequent
amendments. I am unsure whether anything in new clause 30 does anything
to tackle the problem that we tried to
highlight.
Dr.
Ladyman: As far as the latter point is concerned, my
reference to stricter enforcement and to increased penalties does not
relate directly to new clause 30, but to powers elsewhere in the Bill
where we have already agreed that we can increase penalties if
appropriate and that we can increase the number of endorseable points
that someone can get on their licence if they commit a particular
offence. One of the assurances sought by the Conservatives was that
there should be a thorough consultation about graduated penalties
before we debated the matter properly in Committee and before the House
took a position on it. That is why there will have to be a consultation
process and further debate in the House. I do not believe, however,
that that will unnecessarily delay increasing the penalties in a way
that the hon. Member for Wimbledon might fear.
Based on the experience of the
hon. Member for North Shropshire, it is not so much a question of
whether the penalties are right at the moment, but that they are not
being imposed at all because people are not being caught jumping
traffic lights at level crossings. Those involved in the 73 incidents
that he mentioned have not been penalised at all. We can get to grips
with that situation straight away while discussing the increase in the
seriousness of the penalties that can be incurred when someone is
caught. If I judge
the mood of the Committee correctly, and if that mood is reflected by
the mood of the House when the consultation is over, I suspect we will
have no difficulty agreeing more severe penalties for those who commit
offences at level crossings. The penalties in respect of dangerous
driving and the definitions of dangerous and careless driving are
already on the
statute book, and the police can already catch people for such offences
and prosecute
them. New clause 30
deals with a different aspect, which is to clarify who is responsible
for making level crossings safe. Network Rail was concerned about the
identification of improvements needed at particular level crossings.
Such improvements had to be implemented by the highway authority, which
was usually the local council, and the highway authority was not
prepared to engage with Network Rail in discussing design improvements
and the provision of equipment, either because it thought it would cost
money or because it did not see it as a priority for its road system.
Network Rail was left in the frustrating position of having identified
a problem that could be dealt with by some sort of engineering solution
or the provision of safety equipment, while being unable to get the
highway authority, which was legally the body that had to provide that
equipment, to take the necessary action.
The new clause will determine
that local authorities have such a duty to engage with Network Rail and
that they have the duty to provide equipment when it has been
identified as the appropriate equipment necessary to make conditions
safe. Network Rail has said that it will pay for the process so local
authorities do not need to be concerned about getting involved. It will
clearly not be a burden on the council tax payer.
We are also making the
definition of equipment clearer. It is not just going to refer to
equipment specific to the railway; it can be equipment specific to the
process of making the railway safer. Such equipment might otherwise be
better defined as road equipment. I am advised that the term
“barriers” is to be removed as part of the process of
making it clearer that equipment that can be provided will not just
come from a prescriptive list of equipment appropriate to the railway.
Instead, there will be a much wider definition including equipment more
akin to that used to control traffic movement on the road. That will
make the legislation clearer from the point of view of the local
authorities and Network Rail, which will have to work together on the
redesign of some level crossings following the implementation of the
Bill. I hope that
that is the reassurance that the hon. Member for Wimbledon seeks and
that he will support the Government’s
position. Question
put and
negatived. Clause
53 disagreed
to.
Clause
54Stopping
up and diversion of
crossings Motion
made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
9.
Division
No.
13]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 54 disagreed
to.
Clause
55Stopping
up of roads crossing
railways Motion
made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
8.
Division
No.
14] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 55 disagreed
to.
| 
