---

Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4. I shall deal with those amendments first, together with Amendment No. 27. The purpose of the deposit scheme, inserted into the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 by Clause 11 of the Bill, is to put on an equal footing with enforcement against others enforcement against those who are currently able, in practice, to avoid the penalty for failing to comply with British road traffic law. At present, when summonses are issued to non-UK resident drivers for road traffic offences, offenders seldom return to face the court and they therefore avoid the fine in practice. Likewise, non-resident drivers issued with fixed penalty notices are likely to leave the jurisdiction before payment is due. New Section 90D of the Road Traffic Offenders Act provides for the possibility that a driver on whom a financial penalty deposit is imposed may be unable or unwilling to pay the deposit. In such circumstances, the enforcement officer may prohibit the driving of the relevant vehicle on the road. These amendments would strengthen that sanction of prohibition, not only under Section 90D but also under existing powers of prohibition, by giving enforcement agencies the powers physically to immobilise the vehicle. Immobilisation would enforce the requirements of the prohibition notice by preventing the driver from driving off, despite the prohibition notice, until payment of the deposit had been received, the fine had been paid or the prohibition had otherwise come to an end. Amendment No. 25 is a standard provision relating to extent. It deals with the geographical extent of the provisions concerning immobilisation in Clause 11 and the associated schedule and validation of level crossing orders made by the HSE. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)