Clause 49
Road Safety Bill [Lords]
5:30 pm

Development potentially affecting traffic over level crossings

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond (Shadow Minister, Transport; Wimbledon, Conservative)

This is an entirely sensible clause, and we wish to commend it to the Committee. I am sure that the Minister will rise to commend it as well. It is perfectly sensible that network operators and the rail safety authority be consulted, particularly with regard to railway crossings, before the start of major developments such as distribution depots, which would result in an extreme or material increase in the volume of traffic or a change in its nature. The clause is entirely sensible and appropriate, and I commend it to the Committee.

Stephen Ladyman (Minister of State, Department for Transport; South Thanet, Labour)

I rise to indicate that clause 49 is not needed in the Bill and should not stand part, and that I shall offer the same advice about clauses 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55. This group of clauses deals with issues around level crossings, most of which will be covered by the Government’s new clause, which I shall propose when we come to clause 53, if you allow me to do so, Sir Nicholas.

The issue in this clause is indicative of much that is in the group of clauses, which was inserted in the Lords, in that it is covered by existing legislation. The powers and the responsibilities already exist. There is already a requirement for appropriate consultation to take place when developments are proposed near a level crossing. Clause 49 is therefore unnecessary; indeed, all the clauses to which I am referring are unnecessary if the Committee is prepared to consider Government new clause 30 in their place.