The hon. Gentleman pre-empts me because I have the exact same letter. Network Rail sent all members of the Committee comments on the proposals. The HSE would like some amendments, not because of the technical quality of the proposals, but because of how it wants them to work. If, by some miracle of legislation, the Committee were to accept the new clauses, Another place would have to tidy them up, as it tends to do from time to time.

The principles revolve around two matters. First, level crossings are safe when used properly. However, the new clauses suggest several changes that could enhance their safety. We always think of accidents at rail crossing as being entirely a rail matter, but they are not. They are very often a road matter, and most certainly an interface matter. It is appropriate that some duties be placed on traffic authorities. Secondly, some of the proposals also deal with what are known in the trade as ''bridge bashes''. There are significant problems for the railway system when most vehicles strike railway bridges because, each time a bridge is struck, a hazard is created and passengers are delayed, as trains have to be slowed or halted until engineers have checked the safety of the bridge.

New Clause 8 would give the power to impose requirements on traffic authorities regarding   protective equipment at level crossings. The critical point is made in subsection (2), which introduces ''relevant traffic authority'', instead of the local authority and Network Rail, and that is repeated throughout the new clause, putting a duty on traffic authorities to become involved.

New clause 10 would increase the penalties to a term not exceeding six months or a fine at level 5 for failure to comply with traffic lights at level crossings. I particularly support that because, during the summer recess, I spent some time with the British Transport police at one of the level crossings in Dingwall in the highlands and observed at first hand the operation of the camera. It was frightening to discover that the assessment made prior to the camera being installed was, if I recall correctly—although I may have got the numbers slightly wrong—an estimated 70 incidents of cars crossing on red throughout the highland area. Following the introduction of cameras, that number has been revised to something like 700. The problem is that people know there are around 23 seconds between the light changing and the train coming, and locals who know that tend to take more risks when crossing. There is a need for greater enforcement.

New clause 11 would increase the penalties for inconsiderate careless driving that causes damage to a railway bridge. New clause 12 would introduce measures to promote road safety at rail, and other, bridges.

The new clauses, while long and a little complex, are straightforward in principle. I am realistic. I am aware that the Government will not welcome them with open arms, but I hope that they would at least consider what they contain, together with the suggested changes put forward by the Health and Safety Executive, which is broadly content with the new clauses. Perhaps the Government will consider adopting some or all of them at a later stage.

The last in the group is Amendment No. 40, with which I need not detain the Committee for long. It just so happened that, when I sought to table an amendment on another matter, the Clerks pointed out to me that the long title of the Bill did not include the words ''road safety''. I could not, therefore, table that amendment. So I now hope to amend the long title to include:

''and for related purposes concerning road safety''.

Funnily enough, the new clauses relating to the rail network would need that stipulation. No doubt the Minister can say why the Road Safety Bill's long title does not contain its short title.