Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to my noble friend for having done the arithmetic before I have made a contribution to the debate. He calls in aid the Health and Safety Executive with regard to level crossings, and it has identified the dangers here. However, let me assure the House that the Government are not unaware of the dangers and why we need to improve issues with regard to level crossings. The disastrous accident which happened last year at Ufton Nervet concentrated minds as accidents of that nature do. However, the Health and Safety Executive does not think that we need amendments to the legislation. It thinks that we have the necessary powers. What we need to do is to work upon what we have got more effectively than in the past.
I am all too well aware of the fact that Network Rail has communicated its very proper anxieties about the question of level crossings and accidents in this country and the problems attendant upon level crossings. It communicated that to many noble Lords, who have taken its representations very seriously, as indeed do the Government. That is why we have been in extensive talks with Network Railto see how we can improve the situation. I will address those particular points in a moment. But before I do so, perhaps I may do the House a service by responding first to Amendments Nos. 55 and 56.
Although we had an extensive discussion about level crossings in Committee, we did not get on to the issues of road stopping and damage to bridges because time was short and noble Lords were extremely co-operative in withdrawing amendments. Therefore I am minded that I have some obligation to respond to those amendments in this debate. I shall address myself to the main issue as well, but I want to discuss and put the Government's position on those amendments, because this is the first time that I have been able to identify the Government's view on these matters.
Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 would enable a local authority by order to stop-up a road when it appears expedient in the interests of safety to members of the public using it or likely to use it. The order would be confirmed by the Secretary of State. Of course, I am mindful of safety issues, but the amendments would go too far in the wrong direction, because of the implications for access and movement, especially in rural areas where road users could be faced with extensive detours and there might be a need for additional new signing of routes because of action taken under these amendments.
We start with the premise that a road exists because it is needed and the public have the right of passage over it. Rights of way are often ancient and removing them could have serious economic and social effects, particularly in rural areas. I should not think there is a noble Lord in this House who is not jealous over aspects of rights of way, but I remember that many
29 Nov 2005 : Column 146
noble Lords actually supported legislation on rights to roam, which also indicated how concerned we are about freedom of movement. Of course, it is the case that that freedom of movement historically preceded the railway. We all recognise that, right from the very origins of the railway, it was necessary for the safety of the railway to ensure that there were restrictions on such movementsbut we must approach the question of blocking roads with some care.
Closing a crossing could split a village or prevent people accessing work or services, so such decisions are not to be taken lightly or on narrow grounds. If a danger is caused by a crossing on a railway, a first line of action should be to remove or minimise the danger with appropriate crossing works being undertaken, rather than removing the right of passage for the general public. Costs of such works might also be expected to be somewhat less than any alternative highway works. However, the Government have not approached this debate on the basis of costs. The issue arises of relative costs for the railway and local authorities, but we are approaching these matters on the basis of what is necessary for road safety, rather than cutting corners with regard to costs. I have never advanced such an argument, either on the Floor of the House or in private discussions, when the issue has revolved around the question of costs. So it is a bit of a red herring, although I do not underestimate the significance of costs in the long run. But our approach to the amendments is not predicated on the assumption that one solution is less costly than another.
So we have worries on the question of roads closure. In any case, a power exists under Section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 to make an order to stop-up a highway if a highway is considered as "unnecessary" and where traffic can be diverted to make it nearer or more convenient to the public. I believe that that test should stay in place when we are considering how we use powers to stop highways. In the event of an urgent case for stopping up because of danger to the public, a highway authority could call on its powers under Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to prohibit temporarily the use of the highway, while it was bringing about such works as mentioned above by way of the permanent resolution of the matter.
So we have powers to safeguard the railways in this respect. We do not need additional powers. We need more effective action, and it is to that that I am coming in a moment. But I wanted to predicate the debate with comments on Amendments Nos. 55 and 56, which we have not discussed, and to make it clear why we cannot accept them.
On the more general debate, we are of course well aware of the dangers to the railway represented by problems with level crossings and what happens when things go wrong with bridges. However, it is our contention that local authorities do not need legislation to make the approaches to level crossings safer. They can do it now. We need to improve the mechanism of consultation between Network Rail and local authorities and ensure that this issue is more prominent in the consideration of both parties.
29 Nov 2005 : Column 147
Network Rail has made it clear how seriously it regards this issue with the activity we have outlined that has given rise to this debate. I have no doubt that it will be a feature of parliamentary consideration for some time to come. During consideration of these amendments I was able to organise a meeting, and I am glad that noble Lords reckoned it valuable enough to bring to the attention of the Minister in another place how importantly this issue was regarded on all sides of the House. He has had a discussion with Network Rail to address himself to exactly these concerns against the background of his first proposition, which was, in effect, "We are considering legislation before the Upper House at the present time, and we do not consider that this is an issue that needs a legislative solution".
I congratulate all noble Lords who have been active on this matter, nearly all of whom have spoken in the House this afternoon and in Committee, and have sustained their concern in meetings outside this Chamber. The outcome of these meetings is that I can say that the Government have agreed to continue working with Network Rail to identify the issues of concern and ways to resolve them. We have noted that, in one area, current legislation is not adequate. It is silent in respect of which organisations railway crossing orders may be applied to. We intend to address ourselves to that legislative deficiencya point I do not think has entirely come out in the amendments. No one amendment addresses itself precisely to that.
I could spend endless amounts of time pointing out defects with regard to the amendments I am now discussing, but I think that that would weary the House, and in any case noble Lords have presented their arguments in terms of principle, rather than suggesting that their amendments are the clear and obvious solution to all our problems. We recognise, however, that there is a deficiency with regard to legislation, and we are prepared to address that. We will therefore take away and consider Amendment No. 54, and we will review the legislation. If it appears to be appropriate, I intend to table a government amendment on Third Reading to address these concerns.
I am not in a position to accept the amendments in their entirety, but there is no doubt that, in proposing these amendments, noble Lords have made an excellent case about a real concern on safety. I congratulate each of the main contributors to this debate, in particular those who have tabled these amendments. We intend to act. We have identified the area where there is legislative failure. It is clear from this debate and from all our concerns in discussions with Network Rail that the process of consultation and actionnot lawneeds to be improved. I believe that this House has made a substantial contribution to improvement in these terms. I hope that noble Lords
29 Nov 2005 : Column 148
will recognise that the Government have therefore been responsive, and that the noble Lord will therefore feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He rather hit the nail on the head right at the end when he said that what we want is some action, rather than to spend hours debating issues such as how many fairies can dance on a pin. We are not experts at drawing up law, but we have put our reasons forward quite clearly.
Long before the Minister mentioned it, I wrote, "What we need is action". So far as concerns Amendments Nos. 55 and 56, we believe that the powers to stop up crossings need to be enhanced a little to take account of the safety of rail passengers. It is all very well to talk about someone having to make a longer journey, but that has to be balanced against the number of people whose lives are put at risk by not introducing such a measure.
I hear what the Minister says. It is right that this House should put down a marker now and that the Secretary of State, or whoever moves the relevant measure in the other place, should take account of the strong views which have been expressed here tonight. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 50) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 175; Not-Contents, 146.
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |