My hon. Friend makes a good point. Some good could come of that, because there is a lack of interface which we need to address. Introducing legislation is not necessarily the way   forward, because it is often ignored, but doing something such as that would make considerable sense.

New Clause 10 would raise the penalty in question to up to 6 months' imprisonment and a level 5 fine of £5,000, compared to a level 3 fine of about £1,000. It would also allow an alternative endorsement of six points rather than three. I appreciate the seriousness of the offence, and I understand why people want to underline that seriousness by ensuring that there is a heavier fine and possible imprisonment. However, there are difficulties with picking out the offence for special treatment. Many other offences—for example, ignoring a pedestrian crossing sign—could also lead to dire consequences. Going through a red light at a busy junction could create absolute mayhem. We must consider the issue in the context of other criminal penalties. I do not support the new clause.

New clauses 11 and 12 deal with bridges. An existing offence covers the failure to comply with a mandatory height limit that is placed in advance on a low bridge. The penalty is a level 3 fine of a maximum of £1,000, or a discretionary disqualification and three penalty points. I note that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has included the phrase

''without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration'' in the offence. However, it would be odd to attach a custodial penalty to such careless driving, when one does not apply elsewhere, at least not currently.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the frequency of bridge strikes. The Department is aware of that problem. There are some 2,000 bridge strikes a year by over-height vehicles on Network Rail bridges alone, and even more if one includes other bridges. The Department must consider that seriously. We have done some research; it is worrying that, despite the fact that drivers are encouraged to carry advisory documents and, since 1997, have been required to measure the load and height of their loaded vehicle for every trip and carry the figures in their cab, that does not appear to be working as well as it should. Sometimes it is because the load may not have been accurately measured, or because each journey is not sufficiently regulated and the height is not measured for each trip. There are clearly many factors affecting the load. In normal circumstances, that may make no difference at all, but when it is a matter of a few centimetres of clearance, it could mean the difference between good luck and disaster. The Department will continue to look at that: a committee is monitoring it and working with the industry to ensure that we consider the situation. A recent survey, completed but not yet published, demonstrates that much work must be done in that field.

The only other issue that I ought to mention relates to advance barriers. Section 92 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides a power

''to place obstructions . . . to prohibit the passage of vehicles'' where such prohibitions have been imposed by the traffic regulation order. Many vulnerable bridges are already equipped with integral collision protection beams, which are designed to reduce the impact of any collision. We would not support the construction of height barriers over highways in advance of low bridges, because they could themselves cause significant damage and could be a hazard. However, we accept that much work must be done on bridge strikes, and a departmental committee is working on it. I am sure that, because of today's debate, we shall consider the matter even more closely.