I applaud and support the motive of the hon. Gentleman in tabling the new clauses, but I am afraid, as in the previous debate, he has not convinced me that it is necessary to put his proposals on the face of the Bill or to make the changes in the way he has suggested.

It is worth repeating that safety on our railways is among the highest in the world. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged as much when he said that, when there is an interface between road and rail, more often than not it is a road accident that involves a railway vehicle, and not the other way around. We need to ensure that   motorists are constantly reminded of the danger of crossing a rail track when warning lights are flashing, and most authorities are alert to the need for action with road markings and signage. My local authority certainly is. At most, if not all, level crossings with a traffic light system, there are cameras as well. The authorities, quite rightly, regularly prosecute motorists who skip through the lights and over a junction.

I am not sure that what the hon. Gentleman seeks to do is either necessary or the correct way forward. He seeks to increase penalties for failing to comply with traffic lights at level crossings. I am unsure why he wants to elevate the offence of disobeying a traffic signal at a level crossing above that of disobeying any other traffic signal. To me, those are serious offences. If someone is injured as a result of a driver skipping a light at a level crossing, why should he be dealt with more severely than he would be if he injured the same person when they happened to be driving home in a car rather than being on a train? I do not support new Clause 10.

With new clause 11, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman again failed to take me with him. There are many other cases where one could perhaps argue that the penalty should be increased if a motorist falls below the duty of care and the standards of driving that we expect. What about a motorist who hit a listed building, or the wall of a dwelling when it was occupied, or the side of a courthouse when a court case was in progress? I do not see the logic of singling out particular circumstances as he has done.

Turning to new clause 12, I can tell the Committee of a fairly recent case in East Yorkshire where two HGVs—both, on the face of it, travelling too fast—collided at the top of a road bridge going over a railway near the town of Howden. Luckily, no trains were involved in the incident. However, the authorities felt so concerned that the two vehicles had crashed at the top of that narrow, steeply inclined bridge that they immediately placed concrete blocks on either side of the carriageway and reduced the traffic to a single flow, controlled by temporary traffic lights. I accordingly made representations to the Government that it was a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. It was causing massive delays in summer for people seeking to take their holiday in Bridlington. That is the main route into Bridlington—I encourage anyone wishing to holiday in the UK to do so in that marvellous seaside resort.

That action was clearly causing unnecessary delays, and I am grateful to the Government for listening to representations; those were made by the local authority, not just by myself. The Government have decided to remove the risk of heavy commercial or other vehicles from colliding, as mentioned in new clause 12, by providing the money to widen the bridge. The carriageway is now safe for two heavy goods vehicles to cross the bridge, without the risk of them colliding being as great as it was.

Although I applaud the sentiment behind these new clauses, I am not convinced that they are necessary or desirable.