---

Road Safety Bill [Lords]

I am most grateful to the Minister. His intervention will have put many minds at rest. I have one more question about this part of the Bill. Where a vehicle has been seized but the owner produces documents and pays any dues, the explanatory notes say:"““If the vehicle has already been disposed of, the regulations may provide for a sum to be paid to the vehicle’s owner provided the claim is made within a prescribed period.””" That sounds reasonable. Presumably, the sum to be paid will actually be a proper recompense for the seizure and crushing of the vehicle and not a paltry amount that reflects only 10 or 20 per cent. of the vehicle’s value. I am assuming from the wording that there is good will behind the provision, and that the Minister intends the regulation to recompense the owner properly. He is nodding, so I am obliged to him for that assurance. Clause 45 refers to the range of particulars to be included in the vehicle’s register. We all understand why it is desirable to include mileage, to stop clocking—the unlawful practice, mainly but not exclusively, of some second-hand car dealers, who realise that if they wind back the odometer they can vastly increase the vehicle’s value on the second-hand market. I welcome that aspect of the provisions, but I hope that they will not be used for an identity card-like collation of personal information. I hope that we do not reach the point where, for example, the vehicle keeper has to give his passport number or date of birth. I realise that the form already includes a space for the date of birth, but the information is voluntary, not compulsory. If the Minister intends to broaden the provisions to make vehicle keepers give far more personal information, I hope that he will tell the House so on Second Reading, rather than let that intention emerge in Committee. I intervened earlier to ask the Secretary of State about clause 50, which I consider very important. I am pleased that Ministers are thinking about ways of addressing this problem, although they may not feel that clause 50 is the answer. The clause provides for a specific offence when a motorist deliberately seeks to drive across a railway level crossing when warning signs are flashing to indicate that he should not do so. It provides for a period of imprisonment, a fine and up to six points on the licence. I rather agree with my colleagues on the Front Bench. I hope that whatever the formulation to which we return, Ministers will consider whether it might be more appropriate to provide for a compulsory period of disqualification. I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell that the period should be 12 months, as it is for drink-driving, but it could certainly be argued that even in the most marginal cases a motorist should be deprived of his licence—if only for a month or two—so that the dangerous circumstances that he has created can be brought home to him. When I was in Leicester the other day visiting friends, I happened to pick up a copy of the excellent local paper, the Leicester Mercury. On page 8, a report headed ““Drivers risk death in level-crossing dashes”” said:"““Nearly 30 motorists risked their lives last year by dashing across level crossings in front of oncoming trains.""British Transport Police say 27 drivers in the county had ignored flashing lights and descending barriers.""Seven of the offences were so bad they were classed as near-misses by rail bosses.””" That is what was happening in just one county. The problem is still with us. None of us wants to see a repeat of the horrific accidents that have occurred in the recent past, and I hope that when the Secretary of State crystallises his thoughts he will bear in mind what has been said here today. I am disappointed that the Bill does not deal with a number of other issues, which I hope we shall have time to debate during the remainder of its passage. One is the question of flexible speed limits, which are in force on the M25 to improve road safety and traffic flow. I think that they have largely been a success, and that there is an overwhelming case for trialling them on other roads, not necessarily just in a downward direction. I know that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) is a little agitated at the thought of 80 mph speed limits on motorways, although that is the speed in France and, where a speed limit operates, in Germany; but I think we should consider trialling flexible speed limits on motorways where, on a clear day with light traffic flows, overhead signs could indicate that motorists were allowed to travel at 80 mph.