Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 50:
"DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALLY AFFECTING TRAFFIC OVER LEVEL CROSSINGS
29 Nov 2005 : Column 139
The Secretary of State shall make provision by a development order under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) to secure that, in any case where a proposed development is likely to result in a material increase in the volume, or a material change in the character, of traffic, or may require changes to the level crossing's protective arrangements, using a highway which is part of a highway network which includes a level crossing over a railway situated within 15 miles of the proposed development, the local planning authority shall be required to consult the Secretary of State, the rail safety authority and operator of the network which includes or consists of the railway in question before granting planning permission for the development."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments in this group are those affecting the railway. The amendments address two problems, the first of which is level crossings. Level crossing are now the most likely cause of a serious railway accident, much money having been spent on such measures as removing broken rails, TPWS to prevent trains colliding, and the elimination of slam-doors.
Level crossings in this country are mostly protected by barriers with or without lights. We have seen films taken in the past few weeks which show alarming pictures of vehicles driving around level crossings, pushing barriers up and being missed by trains by inches and micro-seconds. The first point of the amendments is that Network Rail shall be a statutory consultee when developments affecting traffic over a level crossing are likely to take place.
Amendment No. 51 provides for increased penalties if people deliberately weave around or abuse level crossings. Amendment No. 52 applies to careless or inconsiderate driving, whether it is over a level crossing or on a bridge over a road. We give powers to traffic authorities to provide protective equipment at level crossings and in advance of bridges. There are powers to "stop up" level crossings where safety would be enhanced by so doing. We have tried to say, "Yes, a right of way exists over that crossing. But if a bridge is provided nearby, the sacrificing of the right to go over that level crossing should be weighed against the possibility that a train may be derailed at the level crossing, which may involve great loss of life".
I am well aware that when the Minister in another place spoke to us he said that in his opinion some of these amendments are not necessary. It is a very late stage to say that. I ask noble Lords to agree these amendments knowing that the Government have plenty of opportunity in another place to substitute better amendments which might be devised in the mean time. I do not say that these are the best possible amendments to deal with the problems of abuse of level crossings and collisions with railway bridgesthat is, bridge bashing. We know that bridge bashing costs lots of minutes in delay. We know that it has the potential to cause an extremely serious accident. We know that there are accidents at level crossings every day. We are just waiting for the really bad one to hit the headlines, after which newspapers will be screaming as to why something had not been done. That is the sort of scenario I want to avoid. Let us get ahead of the game and not say the day after an accident, "Of course, expenditure on saving a life shall have no limit". That is rather a silly phrase because it obviously does.
29 Nov 2005 : Column 140
I urge the Minister to accept the amendments as the best that we can do to address a very serious problem. If he persists in saying that for some reason or another they are not the best amendments, he should take them away. The Bill will go to another place. There will be plenty of opportunity for them to be considered properly. It was suggested that these issues were suddenly sprung on the Government and we were asked why we did not go to Ministers earlier. For example, the accident at Upton Nervet level crossing in Berkshire was well known to everyone. For days, there were headlines in the newspapers.
I urge the Government to take the proposals away and think about them. I do not expect them to come back to us at Third Reading; time is far too short. But while the Bill progresses through both Houses there will be an opportunity to do a workmanlike job and bring forward modern legislation to protect bridges over railways and level crossings that will save liveswhich is what this Bill is aboutand giving highway authorities a responsibility to consider the welfare of passengers on the railway. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my name is added to the amendment. I support it, as I have at previous stages. I am grateful to my noble friend for arranging a meeting last night with Stephen Ladyman, the Minister responsible for this legislation in the other place. But as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has said, we need to put this issue on the record. I understand that representatives from Network Rail met with the Secretary of State well before the election. I also understand that similar amendments were tabled to the first road safety Bill introduced in another place before the election, so the proposals have been around for a long time.
The other development since we considered this Bill in Committee is that Network Rail has indicated that it is happy to share with local authorities the costs of any works proposed to protect against bridge bashing and to improve safety at level crossings. I see no reason why Network Rail should pay for everything. In his response my noble friend on the Front Bench may argue that costs will be put on local authorities, but I would argue that the Government are in effect responsible both for the majority of local government finance and that of the railways. I see it as a question of balancing between the pots. Moreover, most accidents of this kind are caused by the road sector rather than the railway sector, and here I declare an interest as chairman of the Railfreight Group. It is only equitable that the costs should at least be shared; indeed, I might go further because Network Rail has been very generous.
I want to mention one issue in relation to Amendment No. 54, which I am not sure was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in speaking to the group. Amendment No. 54 concerns the:
"Power to impose requirements on traffic authorities as regards to protective equipment at level crossings".
My noble friend argued in Committee that the Level Crossings Act 1983 permits obligations to be put on highways or traffic authorities, but Network Rail is contesting that. The purpose of this amendment, therefore, is to require local authorities, rather than simply allow them, to have regard to the need to reduce the risk of bridge bashing when exercising their functions. That is an important point.
I have a copy of a letter from the Health and Safety Executive to Network Rail dated 23 June which expresses support for these amendments in principle:
"We continue to support fully the objectives of Network Rail's amendments to the Road Safety Bill in respect of level crossings and bridge bashes".
Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, observed, let us not forget that these amendments will save lives. Over the past 12 months there have been about 40 deaths, including suicides, at level crossings. Network Rail estimates that at least half of those lives could have been saved. Some 40 per cent of all train accident risks are caused by level crossings, and last year saw some 1,800 reported acts of misuse at level crossings. If those statistics do not make us sit up and think, the short video referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, which many noble Lords watched last week, rather puts the cap on the argument. I am keen on these amendments and I fully support them. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some words of assurance that he too welcomes them.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Berkeley. We on these Benches support the amendments. I, too, believe that this part of the Bill can save lives. I know that there are some problemsas most noble Lords will know, I also am involved in a local authoritybut I am sure that a partnership between the railways and local authorities can overcome them.
I am disappointed that, after various meetings and various discussions, the Government have not been able to move further than they have in accepting the spirit of the amendments. The wording of the amendments might not be perfect but the initiatives behind them should be supported. I support what noble Lords have already said.
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |