Road Safety Bill (HL) Report Stage: Support for amendment no. 50
Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
"DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALLY AFFECTING TRAFFIC OVER LEVEL CROSSINGS"
Lord Faulkner of Worcester:
My Lords, I also rise to support these amendments, which have a remarkable degree of support in every single part of the House. I do not think that there has been a word spoken from any of the Benches with which I disagree. One must take very seriously the warning from the Health and Safety Executive, which says that level crossings,
"hold the greatest potential for catastrophic risk on the railways".
It is where the worst accident is likely to happen, and it will happen because we are not properly controlling the use of road vehicles across level crossings.
We have far too many level crossings that are unmanned and unpatrolled and producing the risk that gives rise to the sort of terrible accident such as took place last year at Ufton Nervet. This was the accident in which a motorist, apparently determined to commit suicide, drove his car onto the crossing, waited there for several minutes and, despite the efforts of an off-duty British Transport policeman to persuade him to move, remained in place and got hit by a high-speed train that derailed, killing the driver and five passengers. That particular crossing is very lightly used, and is one which would undoubtedly be closed by Network Rail if this set of amendments were to be passed. There are many others that come into the same category.
I hope very much that my noble friend will respond to the mood of this debate and give us some reason to believe that the Government will act on the issue of railway level crossings at a later stage of the Bill, and that it will not be necessary for the House to divide on it. But I think that he realises that if the House does divide, the Government will not be able to win a vote on it.
© Lords Hansard 29 November 2005
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
"DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALLY AFFECTING TRAFFIC OVER LEVEL CROSSINGS"
Lord Faulkner of Worcester:
My Lords, I also rise to support these amendments, which have a remarkable degree of support in every single part of the House. I do not think that there has been a word spoken from any of the Benches with which I disagree. One must take very seriously the warning from the Health and Safety Executive, which says that level crossings,
"hold the greatest potential for catastrophic risk on the railways".
It is where the worst accident is likely to happen, and it will happen because we are not properly controlling the use of road vehicles across level crossings.
We have far too many level crossings that are unmanned and unpatrolled and producing the risk that gives rise to the sort of terrible accident such as took place last year at Ufton Nervet. This was the accident in which a motorist, apparently determined to commit suicide, drove his car onto the crossing, waited there for several minutes and, despite the efforts of an off-duty British Transport policeman to persuade him to move, remained in place and got hit by a high-speed train that derailed, killing the driver and five passengers. That particular crossing is very lightly used, and is one which would undoubtedly be closed by Network Rail if this set of amendments were to be passed. There are many others that come into the same category.
I hope very much that my noble friend will respond to the mood of this debate and give us some reason to believe that the Government will act on the issue of railway level crossings at a later stage of the Bill, and that it will not be necessary for the House to divide on it. But I think that he realises that if the House does divide, the Government will not be able to win a vote on it.
© Lords Hansard 29 November 2005