Rosemary
McKenna: May I make it clear that I was not particularly
attacking existing service stations? There should be alternatives where
those with families can go without experiencing the pressure young
children put on them to use the facilities and go to the various food
outlets. There should be an alternative place where people with young
families—or anyone else—can go to picnic without feeling
pressurised into purchasing
something.
Mr.
Paterson: That was a most helpful point and I entirely
agree with the hon. Lady. I am proposing outdoor picnic areas on the
sites. She might like to know that the Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions 2002 exclude the ability to have adverts for picnic
areas in motorway service stations, which seems a complete anomaly.
That would be a much cheaper solution, because private money is
involved, and a much safer one, because such areas will be properly
patrolled and looked after. On that basis, my party is
not prepared to support clause 48, which we think is well intentioned
but
wrong.
Dr.
Ladyman: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern
that the type of picnic areas in question, which are modelled on the
French aires, may not be suitable everywhere. Clearly, if not managed
correctly, they would be a problem. However, this is an enabling power.
It does not require us to open such sites up or put them all over the
place. It is simply a power that will allow us to create picnic areas
where we think them an appropriate way to provide an opportunity for
motorists to have a break.
I remind the hon. Gentleman
that motorway service stations are privately operated, but that
motorway service operators do not necessarily want to build very
expensive service stations everywhere. Might it not be possible that
there are parts of the motorway network that currently do not have
service stations? People often have to drive too far along those parts
of the network because of the long distance between service stations,
and where operators are not interested in investing in service
stations, such a picnic area might be a cheaper way of providing people
with the opportunity to take a break. It is intended that they will
have 24-hour CCTV and basic facilities such as toilets and washrooms,
which will be regularly cleaned and inspected, and there will a minimum
level of security in these areas.
Is it possible that people
might be able to use these picnic areas for nefarious purposes? Yes, I
expect that that will be possible in certain circumstances. We need to
design such areas accordingly, with that in mind, but I do not see what
harm we can do by giving ourselves the power to create them where we
think they will benefit road safety. I suspect that that process will
be fairly limited; I would not have thought that very many of these
facilities will be constructed at public expense, but I think that,
where appropriate, they could be a good place for families to
stop. I note the hon.
Gentleman’s idea about picnic areas associated with motorway
service stations. I think that some motorway service stations already
have them: I seem to recollect having a cup of coffee and a sandwich at
a table outside a service station at various times during the summer
months when I did not want to sit among the crowds inside.
I am already discussing the
signage for motorway service stations with motorway service operators,
and if it is necessary for us to think of some way of indicating that a
picnic area is available at a service station, I am by all means
prepared to consider such an idea. I am open-minded about that, as long
as the signs do not distract drivers and have a negative impact on road
safety. 5.30
pm However, as far
as the clause is concerned, I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman
would be fundamentally opposed to our creating such areas where they
seem to be practical. I hope that he has not allowed himself to be
nobbled by motorway service operators, who might view them as
competition and therefore might have suggested to him that they should
be stifled at birth. I am sure that that is not the
motivation for his amendment, and I am equally sure that he will
withdraw the
amendment. The
Chairman: Order. We are not debating an amendment. We are
debating clause stand
part.
Dr.
Ladyman: I am grateful to you, Sir Nicholas, for reminding
me of that. Opposition Front Benchers have been moving slowly on
several fronts today, and this is one of them. Clearly, it is my view
that the clause should stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Paterson: I am not entirely convinced by the
Minister’s reply, but perhaps I can do a deal with him. If he
will agree that he will seriously consider amending the Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 2002 to allow picnic area symbols to
be put on service signs 2919.1, we will not oppose the
clause.
Dr.
Ladyman: It will probably stun the hon. Gentleman to learn
that I do not keep traffic sign regulations in my head, and the
particular traffic sign to which he refers is not springing to the
front of my mind. Therefore, I am not prepared to give him a specific
assurance about that sign, but I can assure him that I am open-minded
about issues around signage for motorway service stations. I am already
discussing such matters with the industry and my officials, and if we
can add value by making it clear that a picnic area is available at a
service station, I am prepared to consider it as long as it can be done
in a way that will not have a negative impact on road safety by
distracting
drivers.
Mr.
Paterson: I am sure that you are aware, Sir Nicholas, that
sign 2919.1 is the sign that indicates a motorway service area
ahead—it is very simple. At present, it is not legal to announce
that it includes a picnic area, but if the Minister is seriously
prepared to consider that and amend the regulation, we will not oppose
the
clause.
Dr.
Ladyman: I will look at the sign, and I will have an open
mind when I do
so. Question put
and agreed to.
Clause 48 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
49Development
potentially affecting traffic over level
crossings Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond: 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.
Dr.
Ladyman: 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.
The
Chairman: Do you wish to comment on the matter that the
Minister has raised, Mr.
Hammond?
Stephen
Hammond: Not particularly, Sir Nicholas, other than to say
that I
disagree. Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
9.
Division
No.
8] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 49 disagreed
to.
Clause
50Increase
of penalties for failure to comply with traffic lights at level
crossings
Stephen
Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 54, line
31, leave out ‘six' and insert
‘twelve'.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 75, in page 54, line 32, leave out from
‘shall' to end of line 33 and insert
‘be disqualified for not less than
twelve months.'. No.
76, in clause 51, page 54, line 41, leave out from ‘conviction'
to ‘to' in line
42.
Stephen
Hammond: This clause relates to the most important and
necessary road safety development. Anyone who is seriously interested
in road safety will not and cannot oppose the clause. Anyone who has
taken a briefing from Network Rail will have seen that the incidence of
this offence on the railway network is increasing. It poses a threat to
other drivers on the roads and to train drivers and passengers. What
concerns us about the clause is that the scale of the punishment does
not meet the seriousness of the
crime. I invite any
member of the Committee who has not done so to ask Network Rail to
provide them—it will be happy to do so—with the DVD
briefing that deals with the problems caused by motorists not obeying
traffic signals at level crossings. It is the most scary and disturbing
DVD that people could watch. There is the driver who decides that he
will play chicken with the oncoming train and there is the driver who
plays chicken with the barrier descending. There is the driver who goes
around the line of traffic and the half-barrier and across the
track—the train passes less than three seconds later. There is
the driver who goes around the line of traffic on to the railway line,
sees an oncoming train and reverses into the front car in the line of
traffic. This is a serious offence, committed with intent. It is not a
careless act, and it is time for us to recognise
that. If the
Government are serious about catching hardened criminals and continual
offenders and those people who act with the intent to endanger the
lives of others on our roads, it is time to increase the penalties.
Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 would give magistrates considerably more
flexibility. Six months is not sufficient, 12 months would be more
appropriate. This offence is as dangerous to public safety as
drink-driving is, and, therefore, it requires the same period of
disqualification. Amendment
No. 76 is slightly different in intent and effect, and I suspect that
given what the Minister intends to do with clause 51, we will reach
some agreement. If a person causes malicious damage to a bridge, it is
an offence. However, if someone causes damage to a bridge by skidding
on black ice, which might be considered to be driving without due care
and attention, it does not seem right that that person should be
subject to imprisonment. It is worth combining amendment No. 76 with
amendments Nos. 74 and 75 because it highlights the seriousness of the
offences listed in clause 50, and it is the intention of amendments
Nos. 74 and 75 to increase the penalties for these most serious of
offences. Paul
Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): In our earlier sittings, we
discussed reckless and careless driving. The crux of the Bill is road
safety, and the clauses we are debating today concern an
area—cars coming into contact with railway lines—that has
not had much attention in the past. If a train were carrying several
hundred people, it would be extremely difficult for it to stop quickly,
and, therefore, railway signals on roads are there for a purpose. There
have been several well-documented examples of drivers ignoring those
signals and causing
accidents. In one sense, an accident to themselves could be considered
their own fault, but more importantly, as we acknowledged when we
discussed reckless and careless driving, they are potentially putting
several hundred people at risk. That is as serious as some of the
offences we discussed earlier, such as driving without insurance or a
licence. It is
important, as the hon. Gentleman said, that we treat this with the same
degree of seriousness as drink-driving. In many respects, it is more
serious. Potentially, more people are at risk, and that is why it is
important that amendment No. 74 be made. It sends a clear message,
particularly as we expand and build in a greater number of areas. There
will be more traffic travelling over the crossings, and people must
know that a severe penalty will be administered if they attempt to jump
a crossing
light.
| 
